All things exists in the past present and future , Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question.

So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis.

It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala)."

Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it?

Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers.

Thank you

As I understand, Sarvastivada explains that all things exist in continuity. Nothing comes from nowhere and disappears into nothing, but everything transforms. Therefore the past contains seeds or elements that become things found in the future. In this sense, everything exists at all times, just not in the same form. None of the forms are permanent, but everything that existed in the past, exists in the future, just not in the same way.

The original teaching of the Buddha said that the notions of existence and nonexistence are two extreme simplifications, and that the truth is in the middle. Things develop into other things, come together, and fall apart.

Using the word existence is not a good idea, especially with all the philosophers who misuse it.

The buddha says that puthujjanas take some of the conditioned things as the self, as not conditionned, as not empty, whereas the proper view to have about the conditioned things is that the conditioned things are just conditioned and nothing more.
The whole point of a conditioned things is that it is born when the condition for its birth is met, and it dies when the condition for its death is met.

The buddha says that there are ''acquisitions'', so it is perfectly fine to say ''acquisitions exist'', especially for puthujjanas. The buddha never said that conditioned things do not exist for a puthujjana, nor that acquisitions do not exist for a puthujjana. The big mistake that puthujjanas do is that they view those acquisitions as self.

The the buddha claims that it is bad that conditioned things are born, so it is bad that they exist, and it is good that conditioned things die. and to get the death of conditioned things, you have to trigger the condition for their death. When all those stuff die, there is no acquisition and he calls that the perfect enlightenment and there is nothings else to do about those acquisitions (because they are all dead).


How should somebody who has developed samadhi verify that rebirth occurs after death? I am trying to understand how somebody following the dhamma is supposed to verify what the Buddha said about rebirth. In the past I've been told that once somebody has developed samadhi/calmed the mind to a great extent then they will be able to see that rebirth occurs after death.

Usually samadhi helps along the path by making it easier to observe thing and see the world as it is. It's clear how this helps to see anatta/anicca/dukkha, but I do not understand how samadhi helps with seeing anything related to rebirth. I don't know what anyone would begin to observe to see rebirth.

This question has a very similar title to my previous question but it is not a duplicate. In the previous question I had one idea on how someone could verify rebirth occurs after death but the answers said that my idea was incorrect. This new question is asking for other ideas on how someone can verify rebirth through experience.

Go into a very deep samadhi. Very deep.

When in that very deep samadhi, make a subtle mental formation arise. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the mental formation, awareness comes to be. That very same awareness is consciousness. Within it is the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

Let the mental formation cease by going back to deep samadhi.

Notice how with the ceasing of the mental formation, awareness goes away. That very same going away of the awareness is death. Within it is the absence of the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

The way to get additional insight about this is to go into a very deep samadhi and arise a VERY pleasant mental formation. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the VERY pleasant mental formation, awareness comes to be. Within it is the attachment/craving for that pleasant mental formation. As long as craving/attachment is present, the mental formation is there and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. That very same pleasure is "being alive".

Now, don't let the VERY pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it to maintain it. Crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will cease by itself. When it ceases, as long as there is craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation, the feeling is unpleasant and awareness is present. That very same unpleasant feeling is "fear of death". The cessation of that very same unpleasant feeling is "death".

Now, don't let the craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it! Really crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will arise by itself. When it arises, as long as there is craving/attachment, there is also the pleasant mental formation and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. This very same pleasure is "being alive".

The wisdom you'll gain by experiencing the above is that awareness consists of many little formations arising and ceasing with high frequency, thus making it seem that consciousness is steady and pleasant. In individuals who don't practice the dhamma, there are so many of these formations, that even if you shut off all your body senses (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind), they would still be arising and ceasing. These formations can be dependent on your body or independent of the body. Impossible is to know exactly. They can come from deep within you. It's like a spider web that has no ends. It's these formations that condition other formations until the center of the web is created: your physical body.

With the death of the body awareness ceases similar to going into a deep samadhi, and craving/attachment "fear of death" is present ... this very same craving/attachment responds/reacts to the many little formations, thus creating new formations and rises the awareness because of the many new formations until a new body is created.

This must be experienced. It's the only way to verify that rebirth occurs after death.

Once you get the above insight, it's simple to follow a logical conclusion:

By wishing/acting/deciding/doing we're doing activities that create formations.

By activities we create subtle senses and come into existence. Then, because of our further activities, we create the senses of our body (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) and we're born.

By gaining knowledge we are changing our current activities and creating new activites.

When we're changing our current activities and creating new ones, we're also changing our first activities that we acted upon that propelled us into this existence.

With the dead of the body our activities on the surface (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) are destroyed. And what remains? The primary activities that are changed.

Because these primary activities are changed, after death we will come into a new existence that will be changed too.

Thus, there is no death. There is just the changing of awareness from one existence to the other due to activities. This process is constantly happening ... even now in this very same moment. It will happen as long as craving/attachment is present.

Then, the logical way to continue the path towards the ultimate would be: When craving/attachment stops, all activities stop and suffering stops. Thus, the next step is to stop craving/attachment.

It is very important to distinguish between full samadhi and upacara-samadhi (sometimes called neighbourhood samadhi, which is true but also misleading). Upacara-samadhi leads to insight or knowledge because it allows one to form concepts that place the object of awareness into a frame of reference or understanding. This cannot happen in full samadhi because of the one-pointedness of mind removes any context in which the object can be understood. It is for this reason that (in the Vissudhimagga, for example) upacara-samadhi is more important than full samadhi in Buddhist literature. You encounter reincarnation when you happen to recall a previous lifetime. A more formal practice is to remember previous events backwards in time. When you do this, you do not get involved in individual recollections1. With practice, the sequence of recollections becomes something like watching a flat stone skip over water. Eventually, the stone makes an additional skip into your previous life. This may be just the feelings you had before death. You may have to catch several skips before you get perspective on your previous life.

1 By "you do not get involved in individual recollection", I mean that When dealing with unwholesome sankhara in upacara-samadhi (vipassana), it is important to recall the formation of sankhara, one must trace backwards in time its development until you reach the memory of the experience that caused a maladaptive decision (karma). This gives you a chance to revise that decision based upon more recent experience. In this way, unwholesome sankhara can be undone. In this context, an individual recollection is generally not helpful.

In order to understand an individual recollection, it must be placed in a context. The recollections that arise from upacara-samadhi are from another dimension of reality that is difficult to understand. In order to understand karma, for example, you must recall a sequence of events backwards in time that are linked together in a special way. Another problem is that the unconscious is far more intelligent than the conscious mind, making it difficult to understand. Generally, an individual recollection requires a sophisticated explanation.

When saying "another dimension", I am talking about the realm of "mind-forms" that I write about in my book, The Path of Love. This the vast system of chakras and nadis that form the mind-base and the psychic body. My experience of this dimension resulted from my exploration of the Theravadin Abhidharma. Mind-forms are perceived by means of the siddhi called anima, which unfortunately is very rare. All intelligent consciousness is based upon the citta-vithi described in the Abhidharma. Stephen Phillips referred to anima as micro-psi perception. Through the micro-psi perception of atoms, quantum physics will be transformed into a deterministic theory. These studies are far beyond the work needed to achieve Enlightenment. They are the science of the remote future. I mention it only in order to answer the (implied) questions in the comments below.


What is the relation between Nirvana and Parinirvana? The Buddha attained Nirvana at the age of 35. He lived 45 years more after which his Parinirvana occurred. Is it not somewhat contradictory? If Nirvana means the end of rebirth and rebirth means the evolution of consciousness, did the Buddha possess no consciousness during the last 45 years of his life?

What the Buddha experienced at 35 was called sa-upādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana with remainder. What he experienced at 80 was called anupādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana without remainder:

“dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo. katame dve? saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu, anupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu.
There are these two, monks, elements of nibbāna. What two? The element of nibbāna with remainder and the element of nibbāna without remainder.
-- Iti. 44

The difference is that after the former, there is still sequences of physical and mental formations that continue as a consequence of the birth of the being and have to work themselves out, which they do at the latter, signifying an end to all such physical and mental formations.
The actual experience of nirvana during the former (which can last from a few moments up to seven days) and the latter (which, due to there being no remaining sequence of formations and no craving to create new ones, is permanent) is the same.

We all are combination of the body, the mind and the self.
Total liberation from the death and the rebirth is attained when the self manifests as supreme happiness, the mind manifests as light of knowlidge, and the body manifests as a positive namkarma. This is moksha.
Nirvana is attained when the body self destructs itself into pure matter after a predetermined life span. If transformation of the human mind into light of knowledge is called nirvana, then self destruction of the body or the sense mind would be called parinirvana. There is lot of similarity between jainism and buddhism.


What is the proper etiquette when greeting/meeting a Venerable? Am completely new to the practice. What is the custom/proper etiquette when meeting a Venerable, in this instance for the first time but still applies overall? Further, is one to bow to the Buddha first and then greet? Please be as detailed and specific as possible. Example, If one is to bow, how and how many times, when, etc.

You bow one time when you meet the monk and you bow one time when you depart. You bow to the Buddha statue when you offer flowers, incense sticks, oil lamps etc. or when you chant some verse in front of the statue.

Is this really mandatory? I haven't met a "venerable" until now. These days one has to be very careful, because there are monks who teach wrong things. Also sticking to useless rites is Silabbatupadana. If you bow down that's fine - I wouldn't. I associate bowing down with submissiveness, but that's just me. If it helps the mind, it helps. Just be cautious of idiolizating the monk and also question everything as stated in the Kalama Sutta.


Reference request for "our Buddha nature chooses not to be enlightened"? I seem to remember that Mahayana Buddhism said somewhere something along the lines of, "Our Buddha nature (or the Buddha) chooses not to be enlightened".

I am not sure if I am remembering this correctly. Does anyone know the teaching to which I am referring, and would someone be so kind as to clear this up, perhaps with some sort of quote, for me?

When a sight comes before the eyes, a sound to the ears or a smell to the nose, there is no choosing involved here in terms of seeing, hearing or smelling. The seeing, hearing & smelling occur automatically, without choosing.

Similarly, when the mind is actually getting enlightened by experiencing the truth, it is not involved in choosing.

The mind may choose to establish itself in the path, that is, choose to develop concentration. However, the path is only the path & not the destination.

Developing & establishing concentration is similar to removing dust from the eyes, wax from the ears or mucus from the nose.

When the concentration is complete, i.e., when the mind is lucidly clear, the enlightenment occurs without any choosing.

Timtak Ignorance is the root of all suffering!
That being said.First let me ask you:Do you know what meditation is?
Answer from your personal experience not by googling it.Meditation is not calming down your,and reducing your stress levels.That is a camouflage!


Is it complete shut down of perception and detachment of physical world? As we know people who stay in coma or unconsciousness "experience" timeless,space-less, absolute emptiness and total detachment from physical world. Even though I used the word "experience" will not suitable to describe the situation in coma or unconsciousness state. It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana"

what happen when person die during the coma or unconsciousness state?
Is this similar to Nirvana? (as total detachment of world.)

It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana"

Actually that's far from Nirvana. If that was the case any sleeping newborn baby would've been in Nirvana without the need for any Dhamma cultivation. A person in a coma might seem to be at peace and without happiness or sorrow, but hidden in those deep layers of his consciousness are still the seeds of defilements, of greed, hatred, and ignorance. As long as these "fuels" are still there and have not been eradicated, the Samsara cycle still goes on for him. In constrast, a person who has attained Nibbana has perfect awareness, but due to the total elimination of all the "fuels", s/he's able to be 100% at peace while being 100% conscious.

When in Coma it is not unconditioned, because it has being in coma as condition. Nibbana is not detachment from the world because is not detachment of something from something.

If one is similar to the other in the aspect of detaching from the world, i dont think it can be rightfully be said to be so but maybe in some context.

Nibbana is when suffering or anything that has the quality of suffering, impermanence, uncontrollability and stress does not gain footing.

Gelañña Sutta:
"...
"Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other sustenance — it goes out unnourished; in the same way, when sensing a feeling limited to the body, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' He discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'"

In case of a coma that state is brought about by putting a person in coma. One could seemingly say the same about Nibbana as being brought about by doing the 8FNP but that is a fallacy because 8FNP is to cessation of [suffering], not the Arising of something.

Also when someone is in coma, i assume, his faculties will be dull, whilst someone who has entered the cessation will have exceptionally clear faculties.


Text request--Abhidhamma I am looking for a legal, online version of the Abhidhamma in English. Can anyone point me towards some good online sources, especially for the major books of the Abhidhamma?

The "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" is an excellent translation of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha with extensive explanation / charts by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It can be legally downloaded from:

CMA

There are scanned copies of some of the Abhidhamma Pitaka available at:

Dhammasangani Pali English

Vibhanga Pali English

The Pali versions appear to be legal, the legality of the English versions is questionable.

My strong advice to you is to start with the CMA. Only once you have truly mastered this text should you even consider looking at the original Abhidhamma Pitaka texts.

The Abhidhamma in Practice

From Preface of this book,
This book is not a synopsis of the Abhidhamma which, in itself, comprises seven volumes of the Pali Canon. Here, some aspects of the Abhidhamma have been related to practice. If this little book helps the reader to appreciate that the teachings of the Enlightened One are never mere theories but always stand to reason and can be verified in the crucible of his or her experience, then its purpose will have been served....


Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate Would like to hear what people here think about subconsciousness and autosuggestion

Is using autosuggestion to make myself do sitting meditation a good idea ? If so how to do it  ?

Because I have a very bad procrastination problem and I tried many solutions to it without success but heard of autosuggestion and wondered if it can help me doing the meditation sessions daily.

Autosuggestion engages the subconscious mind, and or a hypnotic state where one can induce self-oriented behaviors. This is not in keeping with calm abiding meditation, or insight meditation. One needs to stay awake and mindful in order to direct the meditation. In calm abiding the goal is to empty the mind of conceptual thoughts or at least push them aside so as not to dwell on them. One can use a focal point such as a picture of a deity, or the breath. However, when using an aid do not allow yourself to become hypnotized...keep mindful. This clear mind meditation will eventually lead to insight meditation, where one can meditate solely on matters related to dharma, without being interrupted by what needs to go on your grocery list!! Your success will come with practice. Your procrastination is an obstacle to be overcome, and that too is a beneficial practice.

Presumption is that subconcious mind is not allowing you to sit in meditation. That is true to some extent. All repressions due to cultivated civilized behavior enters subconcious mind. But auto suggestion will not take it out. It is trick to fool the mind. I suggest you go for oriental detox first. there is a threshold below which you just cant meditate. You should hit the threshold first. you will feel calm and composed after detox. Thoughts and negative emotions will subside. That is a good start point.


Is it possible to recognize a person who has achieved Arhatship? As per the Wikipedia article "Arhat":

  In Theravada Buddhism, an Arhat [...] is a "perfected person" who has attained nirvana.

And I saw somewhere that one is not allowed to say one is an Arhat. So my question is: how do you identify a person/monk who has achieved Arhatship?

The Buddha gave some specific advice about this. In the Canki Sutta (MN 95):

  How is truth discovered? Here a bhikkhu lives near some village or town. Then a householder or his son goes to him in order to test him in three kinds of ideas, in ideas provocative of greed, of hate, and of delusion, wondering, "Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.nymo.html

In the Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47) he even provides means of testing a Buddha:

  Bhikkhus, by the bhikkhu who could examine the thought processes of another the Thus Gone One should be examined on two things. On things cognisable by eye consciousness and ear consciousness. Are defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*1) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*2) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. The pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*3) are evident in the Thus Gone One.

  http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=81

Finally, in the Thana Sutta (AN 4.192):

  "It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html

There's a story Mahasi Sayadaw told about how when asked by his attendant whether he was enlightened, an arahant himself said, "It's difficult to know whether one is enlightened. Even a monk attending on an arahant wouldn't know it." Or something like that; it was an oblique means of telling his student that he was enlightened. Can't find the story, sorry.

The point is, it is difficult to tell whether someone else is enlightened. It is much easier to tell whether someone is unenlightened, because if they get angry, greedy or deluded, you can be sure they are not enlightened.

The person who became Arhat, he doesn't have Three poisons
He also removed Kleshas so his existence no longer valid cos there is no "I"


Is there any truth in the legend about the birth of Siddhartha? This Life of the Buddha (also mentioned among Wikipedia's Miracles of Gautama Buddha) says,

According to the legends about this birth, the baby began to walk seven steps forward and at each step a lotus flower appeared on the ground. Then, at the seventh stride, he stopped and with a noble voice shouted:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

However I feel like the legend is far-fetched from the truth. Any comments or alternative views are very welcome.

It depends what you mean by truth. If you mean did this actually occur then I would agree it does seem far fetched. However if you understand it as a myth then it will have truth. I think sometimes we understand myths as been basically being synonymous with fiction. However myths have a deeper truth that is relevant to the culture or society that it comes from. Authors such as Joseph Campbell go further and say that myths have a truth that cuts across cultures and societies - a comparative mythology.

The story above could be understood as a variant of the hero story which typically have miraculous or supernatural beginnings. The story of Christ could be understood in the same way (though obviously not everyone would be happy with this interpretation). This kind of comparative mythology can be seen in other places in the Buddha's life story. His enlightenment experience can be seen as occurring on the world navel (axis mundi) as well as more prosaically under the Bodhi tree.

Joeseph Campbells book, The Hero with a 1000 Faces, is a good place to start if you are interested in these ideas.

Could all the myths of the Buddha story, was actually some symbolises of the Buddha? For eg, there were lotus lotus flower blooming from the ground when baby prince siddhattha walked oon the 7 steps, symbolised the purity of the Buddha. The Brahma and devas holding the baby prince siddhattha, symbolised the noble of the Prince Siddhattha(later the Buddha) or symbolised the Prince Siddhattha(later the Buddha)  was respected by the nobles. The words "I‘m the cheif of the world…" spoken by the baby siddhatha symbolised the noble and mighty of his future. I‘m not sure whether am my prediction correct or wrong. I think all this myths that don‘t seem possible in realistic life, might only be the symbols and metaphor that describes the Buddha.

In some story, Prince Siddhartha was born under the right arm of his mother,Queen Maya.This does not seems right to logically and is hard to believe. But if you have understand some of the cultures of India; this will be easier to understand. In India, there are cultures of 4 classes in the society. The highest class is the Brahmins ( families of Brahmin priests), 2nd class is Kshatriyas (families of royals and warriors), 3rd class is Vaishyas (families of skilled traders, merchants), and lowest class is Shudras (unskilled workers). It is pass down by the lineage of the family; that means the descendants from a lowest class family will always be in the lowest class in his whole lifetime, the descendants from the higher class family will always be in the higher class, regardless of his acquired efforts he have made.The lineages are pass down through generations, that means if the grandfather is a lower class people, his children, his grandchildren will also considered to be a lower class people in their lifetime. The higher classes will get more respect from others; where the lowest class will hardly get respect from others, especially it is hard to get respect from the highest classes. They believed that their religion the Brahma god created everythings,so in their cultures, to symbolize their classes; the highest class of Brahmins was say to be born from the mouth of Brahma God, 2nd class of the royals and warriors was say to be born under the arm of the Brahma God, the 3rd class of skillful people or merchants etc. was say to be born from the belly of Brahma god(this ones not too sure), the lowest class of servants was say to be born from the knees of Brahma god. Thus, in some stories saying that the Prince Siddhattha was born through the arm of Queen Maya , I think this was just to symbolise that he was from the 2nd class of the royals family; where in India traditional cultures, they symbolise the classes just as the 2nd class of royals and warriors was born through the arm if Brahma god. Therefore, I think this was just a symbolisation of the Buddha. Not really a baby was delivered from the arm of the Queen in realistic life.

Maybe in the olden days, people liked to describe things through symbolises and metaphor, instead of telling things in a straight forwards manner. Thus, all the myths of the Buddha, might be some symbolises and metaphors that represented the Buddha‘s life, his background, his thoughts and his teachings.


Origin of the concept of «Oneness» in (Zen-) Buddhism I know that Zen-Buddhism knows a form of practise to achieve full harmony between the individual, his/her action and the animate or inanimate environment, often translated as «Oneness».

Does anybody know the roots of this practise?

Does it go back to Gautama Buddha or to an other known Buddhist teacher?

(Background: Around the year 800 CE (1300-1400 BE), Sufi Islam, and, shortly later, Christian and Jewish Mysticism have developed a concept of «Oneness» to reach by Dikr or meditation, meaning to reach a full compliance with the God; God meaning the Whole that is in relation to us. This concept does not have direct roots in either the Quran or the Bible. Although it might have been an independent parallel to Buddhism, I rather suppose that this concept is inspired by the Buddhist religion, above all because at the same time, even the concept of rebirth has been taken over by Jewish Kabbala and Alewite Islam although it is incompatible with traditional concepts of the three religions (which, in contrast to the aforementioned Sufi/Mystic practises have not entered into the main stream of either religion). It is part of the question whether we Muslim could or should recognise Gautama Buddha or possibly a Buddhist after him as a Prophet or as a valuable source of wisdom of Islam; I will have to discuss this question in Islam rather than here.)

Oneness of the Universe was the original thesis of the (Kuru-Pancala) Vedic Religion (Brahmanism, as opposed to the later religion, the multi-deity Hinduism) - centuries before Buddhism appeared on scene. But it was never fully understood and the actual practitioners were rather corrupted, showing all kinds of real-life behaviors that went contrary to their own ideal.
Buddha had effectively cleaned it up and re-interpreted from the perspective of his own experience-centric framework.
Basically, Buddha said, the All of our lives can be summarized to our sensory and mental experience. Since experience is All,  having painful and conflicted experience is the essence of suffering while having peaceful and harmonious experience is the essence of happiness.
The highest happiness or bliss, is Nirvana, the complete cessation of all limits, divisions, and conflicts that would have induced suffering. This cessation of limits includes (among other things) complete and utter cessation of any and all I-making or self-identification. So once the individual mind stops identifying anything as "self", not even the universe, the true realization of that which the concept of oneness meant to represent is achieved.
Note how this is different from the Vedic experience of All Universe as Self. In Buddha's own words, that could be liked to a dog claiming freedom from the pole it was tied to, while still running around that pole a leash-length away.
In Buddhism the authenticity of the attainment is verified in practice as absence of any longing, grasping, attachment, identification, juxtaposing, and reification. Any kind of conflicted unsatisfied mind betrays still having some limits. The liberated mind has no limits, no position, no identity, no fixed form. It is beyond even the concept of oneness and off to the Unbounded - which is what the notion of oneness meant to mean anyway. This emphasis on direct experience and personal behavior that must be in line with the transcendental realization is the trademark of the Buddha's method.
The essence of this teaching was carried along the trade routes from the original birthplace of Buddhism to Kashmir and from there to China, where it grew into Ch'an Buddhism, and then to Japan where it got known as Zen. The essential practice of Zen is direct non-verbal transmission of the first-hand experience of this formlessness and limitlessness, beyond scripture and conceptual interpretation.
Part of Chan's inspiration for making the emphasis on harmony with the natural environment comes from the ancient Chinese tradition of Taoism which teaches a similar end-state but without tying it to the social, ethical, and psychological implications the way Buddha did.
Coming back to the original Buddha's teaching, the suttas often describe Buddhist path as progression of steps taking the student from confusion to the experience of oneness and beyond. For example in MN137:

"There is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity; and there is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness.
"And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
"And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness.
"By depending & relying on equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, abandon & transcend equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
"By depending & relying on non-fashioning, abandon & transcend the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness. Such is its abandoning, such its transcending."

In other words, the Buddha repurposed naive oneness of Brahmins as a stepping stone to "emptiness" - the true state of shapelessness and limitlessness which is the end of suffering.
Just like the Buddhist social ethics of non-violence, truthfulness, non-intoxication etc. lead away from the objective causes of suffering, Buddhist practice of oneness (Brahmaviharas, Formless Jhanas) leads away from the subjective causes of suffering, and all this is culminated by the teaching and practice of transcending the limits of conceptual mind - Emptiness - which removes the very ground the suffering stood on.

Gautama Buddha did not teach "oneness" ("ekatta") as the goal of his teachings or path. The sutta MN 1 clearly distinguishes between "oneness" ("ekatta") and the Buddha's goal of Nibbana.
Similarly, the sutta MN 121 rejects the various delusions of "oneness" ("ekatta") born of various samadhi states as being the supreme emptiness (sunnata) or Nibbana.
"Oneness" is found in Taoism, which would have probably influenced Chinese Buddhism, which is the source of Zen. For example:

Primal Virtue is deep and far. It leads all things back toward the
great oneness.
Tao Te Ching 65

The Way is perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess.
Because of grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it. Do not pursue
conditioned existence; Do not abide in acceptance of emptiness. In
oneness and equality, Confusion vanishes of itself. Stop activity and
return to stillness, And that stillness will be even more active.
Merely stagnating in duality, How can you recognize oneness?
The Hsin Hsin Ming Verses on the Faith Mind by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an
Third Zen Patriarch [606AD]

"Oneness" or "Advaita" is also found in Hinduism, which would have influenced the Mahayana.

As for Christian, Jewish Kabbala, Alewite and Sufi Mysticism, these are the practices and doctrines of heretics.
Jewish Kabbala probably has its roots in the Old Testament, particularity in the later teachings such as the nihilistic Ecclesiastes, which appears to normalize evil, such as in Chapter 3.
Sufism was probably Buddhism in disguise, since Buddhism did appear to continue to exist in Persia & Afghanistan for around 300 to 500 years after the rise of Islam; until the Turks & then the Mongols took control of Islam in Persia.
Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the 1960s ordered a fatwa issued to declare Alawite as legitimate Islam because, previously, it was generally not considered to be true Islam. Since the Alawite believe in the Trinity and other aspects of Christianity, they are obviously heretics.
In summary, "Oneness" is evil Satanism because it negates 'good' & 'evil'. 'Oneness' is 'nihilism'.  Gautama Buddha would never teach such evil & madness.
For example, when Muslims experience a terrible misfortune done by the evil violence of others, they declare: "It is the will of Allah". The Buddha utterly opposed this type of thinking in AN 3.61.

Also, Buddhists have often rejected monotheism, including in the Theravada scriptures (somewhere). This rejection is based on the logical argument that if there is one god, this god creates both good & evil. If this one god creates evil, it, itself, must be evil.


Knowledge as a bad thing In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you.

I have attempted to examine the Pali in this verse. The key word appears to be 'ñattaṃ', which is said to mean 'intellectual faculty' rather than good knowledge (Ñāṇa).

  Ñatta
  (nt.) [nomen agentis from jānāti] the intellectual faculty,
  intelligence .

Therefore, this foolishness would not only apply to religion (such as religious people that seek worldly fame & material benefits from religion) but also to the worldly intellect in general (such as scientists, politicians & criminals that use their intellectual faculty to create harmful & destructive things & schemes).

Wisdom, in the context of Dhamma, is the knowledge of how things change, rise and fall. This insight will in the course of one’s practice, lead to the extinction of sorrow and unhappiness. In the Dhammapada you will find little nuggets of wisdom that you can wrap up and take home.  The thing is, if you take what was said, out of its context, it may not convey the proper meaning.  If you read the  Story of Satthikutapeta – the story behind this utterance… ( To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. ) you will better understand what Buddha meant by it.

The Story of Satthikutapeta
While residing at the Veluvana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (72) of this book with reference to a peta-ghost named Satthikutapeta.
The Chief Disciple Maha Moggallana saw this enormous peta-ghost while going on an alms-round with Thera Lakkhana. In this connection, the Buddha explained that Satthikutapeta, in one of his previous existences, was very skilful in throwing stones at things. One day, he asked permissions from his teacher to try out his skill. His teacher told him not to hit a cow, or a human being as he would have to pay compensation to the owner or to the relative, but to find a target which was ownerless or guardianless.
On seeing the paccekabuddha, the idiots lacking in intelligence, thought the paccekabuddha, having no relative or guardian, would be an ideal target. So he threw a stone at the paccekabuddha who was on an alms-round. The stone entered from one ear and came out of the other. The paccekabuddha expired when he reached the monastery. The stone-thrower was killed by the disciples of the paccekabuddha and he was reborn in Avici Niraya. Afterwards, he was reborn as a peta-ghost and had since been serving the remaining term of the evil consequences (kamma) of his evil deed. As apeta-ghost his enormous head was being continuously hit with red-hot hammers.
In conclusion, the Buddha said, "To a fool, his skill or knowledge is of no use; it can only harm him."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 72: The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head).


What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy? Many Buddhist texts and teachings make a distinction between absolute and relative truth. Please explain the difference and give some examples.

In Theravada, as the Wikipedia article states, there are types of truth: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca).

These two types of truth are not exactly the same as relative and absolute truths. Rather than focusing on the universality or specificity of the scope of the truth, they focus on the intrinsicness of the truth - i.e., whether an object agrees with a truth by its inherent nature, or whether it is simply said to agree with it by external convention.

An example of conventional, extrinsic truth is in a fist. When you close your hand, a fist appears, almost by magic. When you open your hand again, the fist disappears. There was never anything intrinsic about the object that made the fist appear; only convention and recognition gave rise to the truth or falsehood of the arising of a fist.

An example of ultimate, intrinsic truth is in the pain felt when a fist connects at high velocity with a face. The fist and the face are only conventional descriptions of the reality, but the pain is intrinsic to the experience and thus said to be ultimately real. Also ultimately real are the vision of the fist coming towards the face, the feeling of the hardness of the fist and the softness of the face, and the sound of the fist connecting with the face.

In brief, conventional reality refers to entities, while ultimate reality refers to the building blocks that make up reality (i.e. experience). So, the entities of fists and faces are conventional, but the sights, sounds, and feelings associated with the experience are ultimate reality.

The importance of this doctrine is in establishing a proper paradigm for understanding reality. Because conventional truths are based on mental formations, they cannot aid in an understanding of reality. A permanent, satisfying, controllable convention can be conceived of, but it will never exist in ultimate reality. By delineating that which exists in ultimate reality, one can limit one's observation to those objects that will provide an understanding of how reality works.

For example, focusing on the concept of food as you eat, you will never come to see the nature of reality as arising and ceasing incessantly, because you are focused on something that is constant (but not really existing) - i.e. the food. As a result, you will easily conceive of it as good or bad, me and mine. If you focus on the experience of tasting and feeling as you chew the food, you will notice that you don't actually taste or feel the food always, your mind flitting between tasting, feeling, liking, disliking, thinking, etc., and you will come to understand the nature of reality, which in turn will allow you to let go of your attachments to good an bad experiences as you see that there is nothing truly desirable or undesirable about them.

This is based on the teaching of the Buddha while he was alive.

Relative and absolute truth, I believe, are more a part of the Mahayana claim that the teachings of the Buddha during his life were only meant to be taken in the context of the audience's limited ability to understand higher truths. Such teachings, it is claimed, can therefore be disregarded or at least superseded by later teachings that were kept secret until a time when beings could understand the higher truths they contained.

So, an example of a relative truth would be the teaching of dependent origination and the four noble truths; ultimate truth would be seeing that even those teachings are emptiness, and therefore meaningless. The point is that in order to understand the ultimate truth of emptiness, one must first realize the conventional truths as stepping stones.

I'm sorry if I haven't done the Mahayana view justice, but I don't subscribe to it myself; there is nothing in the original teachings of the Buddha to suggest that they are only relatively true, or that there is anything absolute beyond them. But, I guess I'm biased :)

Absolute truth (pure truth) is free of its opposite which is falsehood. Whereas relative truth is always attached to falsehood like the two sides of a coin. Relative truth is the always a result (an effect) of a cause; where as, absolute truth is never a result (effect) of anything and this is the reason why there is no path to Nirvana! Because defining a path means absolute truth (Nirvana) suddenly becomes the result (effect) of taking that particular path.


Sacca-pabba Is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa is Jāti and Paṭisandhi," right? In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.

Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).

Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.

60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda  (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.

The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti.

So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.

No, this is not a proper statement. jāti refers to conceptual birth of a satta, both in paṭiccasamuppāda and the sacca-pabba:

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi satta-nikāye jāti
The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha.

jāti is the event of being born, it cannot be equated to the five khandha directly.

So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda.

This is correct, of course.

But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jāti.

viññāṇa is a part of the process of jāti, but paṭiccasamuppāda is not always taught in a way relating viññāṇa to jāti.

So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

What commentary is this? paṭisandhi is one important viññāṇa but not the only one being spoke of in paṭiccasamuppāda. I think you are over simplifying things.

OMG! The materialism of the question, which believes the Buddha taught about biology. Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

  People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
  understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
  dense that they are blind to everything but material things.

  No Religion

'Jati' is about the mental production (abhinibbatti) of views/ideas of "beings" ("sattanam") within a category of beings ("sattanikaye").

"Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" means "appearance or manifestation of aggregates". For example, pictured below is the same basic aggregates manifesting in two different ways.

When ignorance sees the 1st manifestation, it produces "a being" called "sweet lovely girl".

When ignorance sees the 2nd manifestation, it produces "a being" called "evil horrible dragon".

"Ayatanānaṃ paṭilābho" is not "salayatana" ("six sense bases"). If it was, the Buddha would have said "salayatana paṭilābho".

There are many suttas that use the word "paṭilābho", both physically but mostly mentally, such as the "acquisition of wisdom".

"Ayatanānaṃ paṭilābho" is the sense spheres acquired by or attached to by the "beings" that are mentally produced in jati.

For example, in the 1st picture below, the girl's sense organs are devoted to the camera (the sense object) because her aggregates are "attention seeking" for fame. When ignorance sees the sense bases of this 1st manifestation, it produces "a being" called "sweet attractive girl".

In the 2nd picture below, the girl's sense spheres are focused & bent on destruction. When ignorance sees the crazed wild sense bases in this girl's 2nd manifestation, it produces "a being" called "crazy girl".

As for "paṭisandhi", the Buddha never taught it. The Buddhist clergy invented "Paṭisandhi Vinnana" -- the Buddha did not teach "Paṭisandhi Vinnana". It does not exist in reality. "Paṭisandhi Vinnana" is for Eternalists who are too scared to contemplate impermanence.


Can I say that this question exists but no questioner is found? Anatta is beautifully described here. The following quote sums up the idea of no self:

  "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no
  doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
  it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found?

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?

If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ?

EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought.

To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book
 Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253):

  A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place :
  but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.

can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?
I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely "saying" it isn't enough to make it arya or wise, useful in practice.
Saying "no questioner is found" reminds me of this Zen story, Nothing Exists -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another.
He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154):

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!

Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.

Follow to your quote, main idea is:

  5 khandha exist, no attā is found.

Question and answer are not 5 khandha. They are just paññatti, that are imagined by consciousnesses. So no question and no answer are found, too.

See: Paññatti in Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha chapter 8


Did Gautama Buddha really want to create a new religion It seems Buddha was born in Indian culture , and was disillusioned with the rampant meaningless rituals and hypocrisy of the prevalent religion , Hence did he preach a new religion?

as Ven Yuttadhammo said this question definitely generates more opinions then answers. I will attempt to show what the Buddha himself talks about the goals of his creation.

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.' [23]

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."

As we can see the concept of a thriving fourfold assembly(Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Lay disciples of both genders) was an important goal of the Buddha's wandering for 40+ years. In this section above Mara is trying to get the Buddha to renounce his final body and exit stage left, years before the Buddha told him he would not do this until the holy life and the fourfold assembly are prosperous and now towards the very end they are.

Now did the Buddha want to create the "ism" that is Buddhism? That is where personal personal debate comes in and goes beyond the scope of this question. Personally I think much of the "ism" today is far from the original teachings and vision of the Buddha, other's may think differently. I personally don't think of my dhamma practice as "buddhism".. I like to use what the Buddha himself called his practice:

the name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was "Dhamma-vinaya" — the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya)

Yes, creating a Sasana is one of the main occupations of a fully awakened Buddha. If he didn't want to introduce a religion to the world which people can follow and attain enlightenment, he wouldn't have preached the Vinaya pitaka.


What distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?
I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness.
However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Here is a short passage from What the Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula that discusses how consciousness is different than perception. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I found the example given helpful to my own understanding of consciousness.

  It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an
  object. It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object. When
  the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises
  which simply is awareness of the presence of a colour: but it does not recognize that
  it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate
  discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term 'visual consciousness' is a
  philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary
  word 'seeing'. Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other forms of
  consciousness.

Awareness is simply consciousness without any engagement. Consciousness when it engages in senses results in mind and emotional activities. Awareness can also be stated as mindfulness but I find this defintion has mind in it therefore confusing. If you are in your natural state i.e. without thoughts and emotions you are aware or conscious.


Why should Mahayana practitioners strive for anything at all? In the Theravada tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness is only about the emptiness of self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). The aggregates and the world definitely exist. These are not empty.
Suffering definitely exists (first noble truth).
The Theravada practitioner has to strive to become free from suffering. Nibbana exists, and is permanent and unchanging.

Whereas, in the Mahayana tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness refers to the emptiness of everything (including Nirvana) - the self, the five aggregates, the world, nature etc.
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering,Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path."
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

So, why should the Mahayana practitioner strive for anything at all, if everything is emptiness (nothing really exists), and there is no suffering at all, and there is no wisdom to be gained, and there is nothing at all to attain?

Well in Mahayana, just like in Theravada, we strive for the end of striving. As @ChrisW said, Heart Sutra is written from the perspective of completion, the end of striving. This is called "taking the result as the path". Meaning, instead of discovering the result step by step, you try the result  on, like a hat, until you internalize it through getting used to it.

Another point of Heart Sutra is to serve as an antidote for attachment and reification of the raft of Dharma. Mahayana's issue with Theravada is that they sometimes get so obsessed with Dharma concepts to the point that Dharma becomes a problem, an obstacle in itself. So by reminding of its inherent emptiness we are hoping to help the student come back to the natural state, so they can experience the groundlessness and positionlessness in which there is no more need for striving.

Now, to just abandon all effort without having mastered the peaceful mind would be fooling oneself. Which is why in real life most Mahayana practitioners have to work on essentially the same practices as Theravada, whether before or after realization of emptiness.

Wouldn't it be nice if one could attain dispassion and unbinding upon hearing that everything is contrived and absolutely pointless? But habitual patterns and karmic inertia are difficult to overcome...

Although certainly in the absolute sense the universe does not care if you're enlightened or still suffer. It remains as lacking any solidity or certainty to rely on as it always were.

Theravadin Buddhism does not refer to sunyata (emptiness). It is best viewed as a psychology of karma and method of overcoming misleading karma (suffering). Mahayana Buddhism strives to overcome self-centeredness. The experience of sunyata is considered to be the only way to thoroughly erase this self-centeredness. Hence the Mahayana practitioner does indeed have a goal. The fact that you raise the question you have asked indicates a very superficial understanding of Mahayana Buddhism. Understanding karma would be a far more profitable pursuit of insight.


Is clinging the reason for losing interest towards certain things? We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

No, this is due to the impermanence of things (anicca).

  Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

It's the other way around. Interest in working, studying or new year resolutions are different forms of clinging, or grasping for that matter.

To clarify, the point here is not to be indifferent, but rather to foster equanimity.

This is a good question. When we age our interest changes to different things. When we are young we like toy cars and when we are adults we like real cars. When we get old and not able to move we think about the death and the afterlife. Sexual desire diminish and take sports or consume food. Some times we develop aversion instead of clinging.
Practicing Vipassana meditation and practicing Brahma vihara is the way to keep you still interested in working and studying etc.
There is a hierarchy of how interest keeps on changing. Which is called Ten Mara.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=549952&hilit=


Is meat eating a possibility? I have been vegan (no animal products) for over 5 years but recently have encountered many health issues (unable to digest many plant protein, leaving no viable protein to eat), including some meat in my diet seems to be the only option (I can't tolerate any grains or beans anymore).

I would try to source as ethically as I could, but it does of course, still involve the killing of another.

Is there any way this is acceptable? Or should one sacrifice their health, if necessary?

If you eat vegetables or grains, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.

If you wear clothes made of cotton, it can indirectly cause the death of animals like snails and earthworms, due to clearing of land, ploughing, pesticides, weeding etc.

If you use banknotes made of paper, or buy or use anything made of paper, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, when trees got chopped down for the manufacturing of paper.

If you use any plastics or fuel for your car or banknotes made of polymer, it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to drilling for petroleum and gas.

If you throw rubbish away, it can indirectly cause the death of animals, because some of that trash ends up in the sea or landfills.

If you buy anything metal (including all electronics), it can indirectly cause the death of animals due to mining.

If you drink treated water from the tap, it can indirectly cause the death of small animals from the process of filtration and chlorination.

If you use electricity, it can indirectly cause the death of animals from the process of clearing land for building hydroelectric dams, or the billowing of smoke from a plant that burns hydrocarbons.

When you pay any kind of taxes, even indirectly e.g. through purchasing goods, the money from it may be used by the government to buy weapons and train soldiers for killing humans.

Basically, the Buddha taught that to break the first precept, you must have the intention to kill and then actually kill. This applies to directly causing the deprivation of life. For e.g. hitting a mosquito would be directly killing it.

By buying frozen meat or vegetables from the supermarket, or using paper or banknotes or wearing clothes or drinking treated water or using electricity or using electronics (including the computer or smartphone you are reading this on), you did not have any intention to kill anyone and you did not in fact kill anyone. Therefore, you do not break the first precept this way.

Follow Theravada Buddhism. Then you can successfully work towards enlightenment regardless of your food preference.


Is it possible to be reborn for all eternity? According to Buddhist teachings, is it possible to continue to reborn and suffer for all eternity?

Suppose if a being never attained any merit, never was able to work through its old karma. Would it be possible for that being to never escape suffering?

I have heard some people say:

  No, nobody can be reborn and suffer forever. For an extremely long time, maybe, but not forever.

I mean, forever is really an astounding concept. Even if you take billions of trillions of gazillions of births it's still nothing compared to forever.

If it's not possible to be reborn forever, then it implies that all beings are eventually destined for Enlightenment. Some may have an insanely long way to go, but if they're not gonna be reborn forever, then they have to eventually attain Enlightenment?

Do some beings continue to be reborn and suffer forever, or are all beings destined to attain Enlightenment eventually?

I prefer answers that give sources and all that. But some nice reasoning is also welcome.

Many people are interested in living forever (eg Christians) because such people do not think living is suffering. Instead, they wish to spend forever with their loved ones. That is why they are not queuing up to practise Buddhism.

My impression is Buddhists are similar, in that they wish to believe in reincarnation so they can live more lives. That is why most Buddhists are not practising the path, hardcore, but preaching that Buddhists must believe in reincarnation, rebirth, whatever.

Also, Buddhism does not state making merit ends suffering (SN 12.51) so what is its relevance?

Also, Buddhism does not state all beings are destined for enlightenment (AN 10.95).

Imo, the questions are an extreme & pointless misrepresentation of Buddhism. If the questioner truly believe they were suffering, they would be a monk urgently putting out the suffering, like as if their hair was on fire.

SN 22.99  -  Gaddula Sutta: The Leash

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.099.than.html

Supreme Buddha’s answer to your question in found in the Gaddula Sutta. So it is more or less eternity as He says, “Unimaginable, Bhikkhus, is a beginning to the round of births [and deaths]. For beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, migrating and going the round of births, a starting point is not evident.” Only if you could realize the Dhamma of a Supreme Buddha, you will escape this eternity. But you know what, it is so rare is it to find a Supreme Buddha! Do you have any idea what an aeon (world cycle / kappa) is? It is equivalent to eternity. Only by a simile you will get an idea of it. The Buddha offers a vivid simile to suggest the eon's duration.

Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara. In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:

• Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon.

• Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

In the last 91 Kalpa (Aeons) only 7 Buddha’s have come. At the time of the next Buddha, the average lifespan of a human is going to be eighty thousand years. (In the present day it is around 60 -80 years). What are our chances of being born during that time, when we could never meet any of the past Buddhas and are still in this samsara?


Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder and schizophrenia, to name a few. Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather than unwholesome states of mind? What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

I think that unwholesome states of mind are conditioned and temporary.

It's difficult to generalise (i.e. I was told there are different results/experiences for different people) but if someone has a mental illness they may have seemingly unwholesome states of mind, and this condition might last for decades, for a lifetime -- but/or, a change in medication, a change in their social situation (friends), might condition a thorough "night and day" change in the states of mind even before the end of this life.

Sometimes it may seem that the range of (or the extremes of) experience is wider: i.e. a longer and more acute experience of a hell and/or a heaven (even in this life) than other more "normal" people will experience.

I'm not sure that Buddhism rightly talks about what's "destined" for people, i.e. perhaps it isn't correct to ask about it: because you can't predict the future and it may surprise you; because you should have some faith in the possibility of salvation, of becoming enlightened, of teachers, of refuge, of the three jewels; because there's some scope of agency and good (or bad) intentions, i.e. results are not predestined; and because the ability to see the effects of kamma on specific people is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers (and the fact that he did it sometimes doesn't mean that we should assume that we can).

Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder
and schizophrenia, to name a few.

I suppose mental illness might need to be divided into two types:

Illness with biological origins, such as imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain.

Illness with psychological origins, such as life experiences of emotional trauma.

Examples of psychological origins include people who have been subject to violence & abuse may develop anxiety disorder or people subject to loss of loved ones may experience depression, such as described in MN 87 (which does not refer to any cause, apart from in the here & now). The fact that people can develop anxiety due to violence explains why the Buddha taught about giving the gift of fearlessness (abhayadāna).

The noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys
immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity and affliction.
AN 8.39

What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

I do not recall any mention of biological mental illness in the Pali suttas. Although the term 'mental illness' is generally used in the world, imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain have been said to really forms of physical illness, as follows:

In the time of the Buddha, "mental disease" referred to an illness of view or desire. These days, however, it refers to ordinary mental
ailments that have their base in the body and are mixed up with
physical disease.
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

Buddhism (SN 22.59) teaches every component of the body & mind can be subjected to injury, disease &/or illness (ābādhāya) due to decay, natural imperfection & impermanence. This is why mental illness can occur, either psychologically, biologically or a combination of both.

Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather
than unwholesome states of mind?

'Hell' is an unpleasant state of mind, as explained in the suttas. Therefore, people with mental illness are often already in a lower realm.

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

As for the belief that "rebirth" occurs after the termination of life, similar to visions of schizophrenia, in my opinion, this also arises from "mental illness", as the term was used in the Buddha's time, i.e., illness of view or desire.

Schizophrenia is an illness characterized by a group of so-called “positive” symptoms that may include hallucinations (hearing voices,
seeing visions), delusions (fixed false beliefs), and/or a thought
disorder (speech that makes little sense).


Is preparing eggs for a meal considered as sinful in Buddhism? When preparing a meal with eggs, If a person cracks a egg will it be bad karma? Because, It is considered that farm chicken eggs are not fertile or doesn't have chicks growing inside. Therefore will it give bad karma for making eggs?

I think the idea of sinful or not doesn't apply to Buddhism. There are only wholesome/skillful actions and unwholesome/unskillful actions.  Karma = intention.

As long as you are mindful of what you're doing and your intention is to prepare a meal for nourishment, instead of causing harm in any way, cracking an egg during the meal preparation doesn't seem to be a cause for bad karma.

Yes its a Sin. the Buddha said if you like to eat, eat but it is a Sin.

Exa: when Devadaththa, He requested the Buddha to make it compulsory for monks to follow five extra rules:

(i) Dwell all their lives in the forest

(ii) Live only on alms obtained by begging

(iii) Wear robes made from rags collected from the dust heaps and cemeteries

(iv) Live at the foot of trees

(v) Refrain from eating fish or meat throughout their lives.

But Buddha refused these Rules. so as u can see last rule request is Refrain from eating fish or meat throughout their lives Buddha refuse this Rule with Other rules. Buddha said if you like to eat meat or fish its your decision.


Who said 'if you are too busy meditate for two hours'? There is a zen quote that goes something like

  Meditate for an hour every day unless you are too busy. In that case
  meditate for two hours.

I'm not sure about the exact quote - it might be 0.5 hours/1 hour or some other timescale. Does anyone know what the exact quote is and who said it?

Isn't this notion from meditation traditions in general?
James Altucher, in his Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Reinventing Yourself:

What if I don’t have time to sit in silence [for one hour a day]?
Then sit in silence for two hours a day.

which he adapted (with an entrepreneurial slant) from a story about Mahatma Gandhi.

It's all about priorities... you don't have time for meditation because you don't hold that importance for it which is needed. So you surely won't find the time to meditate for an hour a day, you will have to create the window. hope that helps..


Best type of meditation for attention I struggle tremendously with ADHD despite years of exploring traditional and nontraditional treatments. There are certainly many different kinds of meditation one can practice, so I was wondering what kind of meditation works best for creating lasting focus and a higher attention span in the mind.

You might want to try Samatha meditation. This type of meditation would have you fix your attention on a single object of meditation over a period of time. The common object is your in and out breaths. The point of focus is usually the tip of the nose or the upper lips where you could feel the in and out breaths making contact. Since this training requires you to stay with a single object over a long period of time, it could help your mind maintains a higher attention span and lasting focus on a subject. Sutta reference is available here and a detailed analysis is available here. Good luck..

ADHD like any other disease has origin in imbalance of five elements. Meditation is a word derived from medicine but unfortunately it is not the complete cure for a disease. It is part of balancing oneself. You need to detox through diet and lifestyle changes prior to starting meditation. I suggest you take a look at Pancha-karma of Ayurveda or Accupuncture and massage therapy of TCM. If you have resources go to India or China to get the best people. If you want to go for fast relief take veg light diet and deep tissue massage for 15 days (start with light massage) on a continuous basis.

Meditation is of two types - centering, which requires you to concentrate and decentering which requires you to let go of mind. I believe silent witnessing will work best in your case. Just sit or lie with your spine straight and watch. Do not try to control your body, thoughts or emotions. Use music, incense for help.


Should I do what I don't want to do? Namo Buddhaya.

For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income.

My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ?

Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work?
If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?

As my teacher explained, living with the feeling of wrongness is the very essence of samsara.

This constant feeling that you don't like your work, don't want to do it, and are forced to endure it only for survival - is NOT a normal condition. You should not force yourself to live like this year after year after year.

When you have inner conflict, you don't live your life authentically - and because of that non-authentic living you keep creating and maintaining situations that force you to maintain that inner conflict. This works like a vicious circle!

To quit this job in the hope of finding a better job is not an answer. My teacher called that "The Hunting-Dog Mind" (chasing after birds). Simply changing jobs will not help -- as long as you still have inner conflict, your mind will keep recreating pathological situations anywhere you go. Instead, the answer is to remove the inner conflict and learn to live authentic life, to be truly yourself. When you are truly yourself, the actions you choose, your reactions with people, etc. they all create your own path step by step - that may take you to a different job or connect you with entirely different people etc. And because every step of this path is made authentically and without inner conflict, it does not lead to new inner conflict - it leads to maintenance and development of inner peace and strength.

The main exercise to remove inner conflict is meditation. When we meditate we connect with our true nature, beyond attachments, thoughts, and judgements that we picked up during the course of our life. Of course, there is also the foundation of basic sila - five precepts, ten parami and so on - because we can't be authentic and spontaneous until we have eliminated major sources of conflict like the lust for material pleasures, for fame, for success, all kinds of overgeneralizations, identifications, side-taking, and hatred based on that, the defensiveness of the ego and so on. So the function of sila is to remove the gross source of conflict. And then the function of meditation is to remove subtle conflict.

Once we reduced inner conflict enough, we must start practicing authentic living in our daily life. This is a somewhat scary moment - because we should build up enough courage to be true to ourselves even if our new behavior can completely change our life situation. For example, we may end up quitting our family or our job. Or we will stay in our family and/or job, but we will stop tolerating certain things that we always hated, and will openly talk about them with other people (with wisdom and tact, assuming we worked on our sila and meditation). Or we may accept everything as is, because we may realize that our rebellion was only due to attachment to some mental image. Or we accept some things, confront others, and abandon third. In any case, authentic living means being true to ourselves and living without inner conflict.

This authentic living without inner conflict is understood by (some) Zen and Vajrayana schools to be the real essence of Buddhist liberation.

You can consider mendicancy. But, one can also cling to mendicancy. What can I offer that cannot be clung to?


Why is it hard to concentrate on Kusala? When I try to concentrate when studying, I end up with a wandering mind, but when I'm watching a video, I forget all the other things. Why is it hard to focus on things I really need? Is it some kind of practise? This was a lot easier to do for Lord Buddha, Ven. Arahant Moggollana.
Is focusing on Akusala than Kusala in samsara the problem? Do I have to build up practise of focusing to overcome this?

If we were completely separate from the world, completely independent - then the perfect focus on virtue would be easy.
But we are not separate, not isolated. We are connected with people and events around us. We are part of the web of influences.
These influence create context for our existence. Our desires and decisions come from this context. A lot of time we are carried away by these impulses, despite our best intentions.
The easiest thing we can do to overcome this is to choose which influences we expose ourselves to. Move to kusala city, make kusala friends, watch kusala movies etc. Surround yourself with kusala and it will be easier to focus on it.

Sati (mindfulness) should be a gentle, effortless endeavour. If it feels like you have to concentrate to understand sati, then you're heading in the wrong direction.

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with
sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
renunciation. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with non-ill
will, abandoning thinking imbued with ill will, his mind is bent by
that thinking imbued with non-ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing
thinking imbued with harmlessness, abandoning thinking imbued with
harmfulness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
harmlessness.
"Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have
been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows:
While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply
keeps himself mindful of 'those cows.' In the same way, I simply kept
myself mindful of 'those mental qualities.'

Another excerpt from that same sutta that is worth highlighting is...

"Just as in the last month of the Rains, in the autumn season when the
crops are ripening, a cowherd would look after his cows: He would tap
& poke & check & curb them with a stick on this side & that. Why is
that? Because he foresees flogging or imprisonment or a fine or public
censure arising from that [if he let his cows wander into the crops].
In the same way I foresaw in unskillful qualities drawbacks,
degradation, & defilement, and I foresaw in skillful qualities rewards
related to renunciation & promoting cleansing.

In any case, I would suggest you go and delight in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta yourself. There is such a great simile at the end.


What can I do to help avoid laxity while meditating lying down? My upper back muscles are not strong enough yet to support seated meditation, so I use supine/savanana posture sometimes. My mind falls into short dream states, like hypnagogia, very easily in this posture, however.

Any tips for overcoming this laxity while doing supine meditation? I am only doing samatha meditation these days.

The Meditation on Falling to Sleep:

We can be on mindful guard for the arising of the moment we  start to fall asleep. This mindfulness should stop the falling asleep and can give an  initial boost in the meditation faculties like effort and concentration so we  won't fall asleep as much and we can then better practice whatever we want with those improved faculties and wakefulness.

We can know when we are starting to fall asleep by finding and tuning into were  the bodily or mental experiences are that we know always happen right before we start to fall asleep. We then  can easily catch when we will  start to fall asleep.

Samatha meditation is based on mindfulness and the path from calm (samatha) to insight (vipassanā) so it is very important so you must make sure you are relaxed and feeling comfortable when meditating.

There are two important points in meditation -- the body and the mind, so you will need to make sure you body feels good when you meditate.

It is important to keep the body straight so that the subtle channels of the body will be straight, too. If these subtle channels are straight, then the subtle energies within these channels will circulate freely. It is said that the mind is like a horse riding the circulation of the subtle energies of the body. When it is riding this energy freely, it is relaxed and peaceful.

The fivepoint description is usually used to help with this:

The first point is that the body should be straight and upright. It
should be "as straight as an arrow" which means one's back should be
straight and one shouldn't lean forwards, backwards, or to either
side.
The second point is that the throat should be slightly bent downwards
like a hook. There are two subtle channels inside the throat, and if
they are bent slightly forward, the energy will circulate in them
reducing mental agitation in one's meditation.
The third point is that the legs should be crossed in "patterns of
latticework" which means that the legs should be kept in a crossed
position. If one can put them in the full lotus posture, good. If
not, simply cross them in the half lotus posture.
The fourth point is the body should be "gathered together like
chains." After straightening the body, lock it in that position as
with iron shackles. The way to do this is to join the hands, placing
them the width of four fingers below the navel.
The fifth point is to keep one's mind and body reasonably tight
exerting a certain amount of effort so the body and mind are composed
and focused. This is compared to one's tongue when one, for example,
pronounces the Tibetan letters "li" and "ri" which requires a certain
amount of tension in the tongue. In the same way, one should always
maintain a certain amount of effort and alertness in the body and
mind.

The great teacher, Marpa, said that there are many different instructions on meditation posture, but he preferred this fivepoint posture saying that if one could keep the body in this posture, the subtle energy circulating in the body would be ideal and would actually circulate though the central channel of the body.


How to deal with loved ones who don't support you? I am very close to someone in my family. I have supported her through rough times and offered my advice. However, she does not support me for the one thing I want in life. I am working hard to achieve my goal (career related), but she is completely against it. I have to live with her, and interact with her everyday and I feel her negative vibes around me. It really hurts my feelings. How can I deal with this issue and maintain peace in my mind?

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Try to understand her perspective. Why does she not support your choices? What is her intentions? Perhaps she just loves and cares for you and her thinking/rational is how she is trying to care for you. If you can better understand her it will help her to better understand you.

Practice metta (loving kindness) meditation with her as your focus. Perhaps even practice loving-kindness meditation together.

The above answer is partly right. Going into someone else's limited perspective and feeling compassion for them is good but how often can you do this?
There are negative people abound.

A shortcut:
Don't try to understand the other person's perspective too much. The more you try to understand their perspective the more you will believe it!
Stay away from such people or at least when they become like that.

Stay in your mind.
Find reasons for why you WILL succeed. ACT.
See yourself succeeding (in your mind and especially in reality).
IMAGINE IT. ACTUALLY DO IT. ACTUALLY SUCCEED, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Don't care what others think.

Doubt your doubts.
You do not know what they are truly thinking. You never can! Even if you ask them, they may say one thing but in their hearts believe another thing. For example, the person who is jealous of you will tell you that you will fail but is in fact strongly believes in you but cannot ever admit it verbally.
Another example: teenage life these days where a person will make fun of you to try to "make you stronger" or "get you to prove them wrong". They actually love you and want to help but have too much ego. They want to save face so they give you negative attention instead.
The silliness is endless!

STAY IN YOUR OWN HEAD.
Empathize and move on. You are your first friend so own up to your thinking.
Give yourself metta, mudita, karuna, upekkha.
Give the same to others.
But DO NOT LET OTHERS STEP ON YOU psychicly or emotionally otherwise you will never be able to help many people but will be trapped in a cycle of hate and resentment!

Basic tips? (I face the same thing you are facing x3)

keep positive coversation. LEAD the interaction. Call out the person and END the interaction if goes down a negative route. don't fight fire with fire
If after calling them out, they still berate you negatively, then look them right in the eye and tell them that you'd rather only talk to them if necessary until they learn to be more accepting and positive, not break people down etc.
overall, be self-reliant on your own thoughts. You be your own judge. Learn to develop this.


Are there any recollections of past lives in the more grievous realms? While "animal" past lives seem to get a fair amount of attention I can't seem to find any about people recalling being in the hell realm or that of hungry ghosts. Aside from Mahamogallana's recollection of being Mara Dusi in MN50 and being pulled into Avici, I just can't find any past life recollections of hell or ghosts. Only descriptions of each realm as opposed to remembered experience.

Is this just something we don't yet have in English translations, even from people's personal recollections (not just the Pali canon), or is it more of something that just barely exists?

In the story of the commentary to Dhammapada 15, the Buddha recalls somebody's past lives:

  Once, in a village not far away from the Veluvana monastery, there
  lived a very cruel and hard-hearted pork-butcher, by the name of
  Cunda. Cunda was a pork-butcher for over fifty-five years; all this
  time he had not done a single meritorious deed. Before he died, he was
  in such great pain and agony that he was grunting and squealing and
  kept on moving about on his hands and knees like a pig for seven whole
  days. In fact, even before he died, he was suffering as if he were in
  Niraya (hell). On the seventh day, the pork-butcher died and was reborn in
  Avici Niraya (worst hell). Thus, the evil-doer must always suffer for the evil
  deeds done by him; he suffers in this world as well as in the next.

  In this connection, the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

  Verse 15: Here he grieves, hereafter he grieves; the evil-doer grieves
  in both existences. He grieves and he suffers anguish when he sees the
  depravity of his own deeds.

The Earth Store Sutra has such a recollection. There are other texts that I have read but don't remember right now.

edit: here's the link for the Sutra text: http://www.cttbusa.org/ess/earthstore1.htm

Section below:

  “Shortly thereafter, a maidservant in the house bore a son who spoke
  before he was three days old. Lowering his head and weeping, he said
  to Bright Eyes, ‘The karmic conditions we create during our lives and
  deaths result in retributions that we ourselves must undergo. I am
  your mother and have been in darkness for a long time. Since you and I
  parted, I have repeatedly fallen into the great hells. Upon receiving
  the power of your blessings, I have been reborn as a servant’s child
  with a short life span. Thirteen years from now, I will fall into the
  evil paths again. Do you have some way to free me so that I can avoid
  them?’

  “When Bright Eyes heard those words, she knew without a doubt that
  they were her mother’s. Choked with sobs, she said to the servant’s
  child, ‘Since you were my mother, you should know your own past
  offenses. What unwholesome karma did you create that made you fall
  into the Evil Paths?’

  “The maidservant’s son answered, ‘I am undergoing retribution for two
  kinds of karma: killing and slandering. Had I not received the
  blessings you earned to rescue me from difficulty, I would not yet be
  released from that karma.’

  “Bright Eyes asked, ‘What happens in the hells when beings undergo
  retribution for their offenses?

  ’“The maidservant’s son answered, ‘I can’t bear to speak of the ways
  in which beings suffer for their offenses. Even if I were to live for
  a hundred thousand years, I would find it hard to talk about.“