How/Why to be moral without believing God or any supernatural entity? Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally Bankrupt? Being devotee I'm automatically moral & lovingly but When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings. How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God? What are the ways to become independent because I want to be moral without being devotee or dependency on the God?

Fire

In Buddhism, fire is used to describe the destructive & harmful mental defilements of greed/lust, hatred/anger & delusion/ignorance, such as in the Fire Sermon.

Being believer or dependent on God so far in my life, I'm clueless how exactly can I become independent without turning morally
Bankrupt?

Yes. Buddhism explains immoral (harmful) mental tendencies occur due to ignorance, not-knowing or cluelessness, as follows:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an
unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In
one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve,
wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of
wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong
effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong
mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
Avijja Sutta

The rationale here about needing God is similar to a violent dog that needs to be kept behind a fence or in a cage; or a evil person that must be isolated from society in a prison.
In Buddhism, it is taught people have an evil disposition due to nature. We can observe the tendency to merciless violence in animals. People have obviously evolved from animals (rather than were created by & in the image of a god).
Buddhism teaches the minds of people can dwell in different mental states called:
(i) human (moral);
(ii) godly (powerful);
(iii) animal (immoral);
(iv) hungry ghost (addicted); and
(v) hell (suffering).
People who are immoral in nature & behaviour dwell within a mind in the animal world & eventually end up in hell (suffering).

When I start believing in experience I become somewhat immoral, without any good feelings.

Genesis 6.5 of the Bible states:

the Lord saw how wicked everyone on earth was and how evil their thoughts were all the time, he was sorry that he had ever made them
and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret

This seems to show following the Abrahamic god creates an evil nature. In other words, the immoral feelings are due to how your religion created you, as explained in Genesis 6 of the Bible.
The history of the world seems to show people who believe in a supernatural entity like God are more evil than those that don't. For example, Christians have been at war among themselves & with others for hundreds of years & have destroyed many indigenous cultures with their imperialism. Even today, the American prison system contains more theists than atheists. I would suggest this is because God-believers want to exercise violent power over others; following the example of God as depicted in various scriptures that show God excising violent absolute power. Even the evil of atheist dictatorial Communism was created by Jews, with a violent dictatorial yet classless ideology similar to Judaism. Thus theistic religions have a tendency to attract evil people who lust for power and who want to act on this earth towards the humans as though they are gods.
Unfortunately, the good human people of this earth have to endure these wanna-be gods, like we must do, such as endure the evil politicians who today run the USA and are God-believers, both Christian & Zionist; who finance & arm Saudi terrorists that murder people while screaming: "Allah U Akbar" or "God is Great".

How & Why to be moral without believing in supernatural entity like God?

In Buddhism, morality equates with harmlessness. Morality is not a commandment or doctrine but, instead, harmlessness. To understand morality, one must comprehend harmlessness. If harmlessness is not comprehended, it is difficult to maintain morality.
Buddhism explains when you are moral, you no longer harm yourself. Being moral is a method to love yourself & benefit yourself.
If you examine with reason & intelligence the behaviours Buddhism considers to be immoral, such as killing, stealing, promiscuous sex, lying, drug taking, gambling, etc, you will find people who engage in these actions bring suffering & problems to their own lives (and, of course, suffering to the lives of others).
For example, men go to war, return with PTSD & even commit suicide. People who steal, end up in prison or lose their jobs. People addicted to promiscuous sex end up with broken relationships & mental disorders. People who lie are not trusted (even though they make money as evil politicians or business leaders). People who take drugs destroy their lives with bad health. People who gamble & borrow money greedily end up ruined.
Therefore, in Buddhism, we reflect or think deeply about the harmful consequences of immoral behaviour.
In addition, in Buddhism, another method to become moral is to develop 'empathy', namely, 'putting oneself in the place of another'. For example:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.

When the fool commits evil deeds, he does not realize (their evil nature). The witless man is tormented by his own deeds, like one burnt
by fire.

Dandavagga: Violence

What are the ways to become independent?

To become independent, the Buddhist scriptures (SN 56.120) explain an 'animal' mind must realise the Four Noble Truths & practise the Noble Eightfold Path to become 'human'.
The full development of moral empathy is explained in the Veludvareyya Sutta, as follows:

"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to
oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."
"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The
Blessed One said this:
"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?
Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who
wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am
averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not
wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if
someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable
to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes
to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse
to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from
the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the
destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to
commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I
were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit
theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either.
What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from
taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified
in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with
the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the
other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is
displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon
another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected
thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to
abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence
from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in
three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would
not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the
welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and
agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to
me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict
upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having
reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others
to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from
false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three
respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that
would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide
another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech,
exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise
of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his
is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be
pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with
harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other
either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and
disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is
displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself
abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh
speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus
this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.
"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:
'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter,
that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to
address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not
be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and
disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too.
How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to
me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter,
exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of
abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is
purified in three respects."

The ultimate aim of Buddhism is to discard both moral and immoral.


The fear of committing to a monastic lifestyle I have a persistent fear of going without food that prevents me from giving monasticism a full shot.

Some background: I suffered for approximately 4 years with something called cyclic vomiting syndrome. This is an affliction characterized by recurrent, prolonged attacks of severe nausea, vomiting, and prostration with no apparent cause. During this time I repeatedly lost and regained 100s of pounds at a time. Losing weight, while something I needed to do, was not fun. My longest single attack lasted a full 7 days during which time I was unable to keep any food down whatsoever, much less get any sleep. Retching on a completely empty stomach 45+ times an hour is a hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. So, food is important to me. At the same time I realize that too much is not good in a myriad of ways.

So, where are all the Buddhist monasteries at which I'd be afforded the opportunity to practice self compassion as opposed to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through a whole lot of discomfort in order to satisfy my ego and other's expectations of what constitutes a good, chaste and worthwhile existence? That doesn't seem mentally or physically healthy or conducive to showing loving kindness and compassion to others. I'm a firm believer that in order to be able to show compassion for others, I need to show it to myself. I'm mainly thinking about food here. Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? At least until my stomach had shrunk to such a degree that hunger pains were perhaps more a nuisance than anything else?

I think I understand the reluctance on the part of many monastics to allow things like eating after noon, etc. It so happens also, that I suspect that their concern is misplaced. It seems to me that there aren't many things in life that don't consist of shades of grey. It also seems that Buddhist monastics in general tend to lose sight of the nuance making up many of these things.

So, is there a tradition I should be focusing on? A teacher? (Ajahn Brahm is a favorite btw.) Am I way off base with my concerns? If so, how should I go about rectifying my inconsistent views? If not, then what?

By practicing monastic life, if you mean becoming a monk, it's a no go with your current condition. But if you just want to practice meditation, staying at a monastery, you still have to give up Marijuana and Nicotine. No serious monastery would allow you to smoke while you stay there.

Some monasteries allow lay practitioners to take just 5 precepts and have food in the evening as well. But usually you have to bring your own food for evening meals.

I would suggest for you to do an online meditation course and to get advice on how to give up your addictions while consulting a doctor to treat your ailments without Marijuana and Nicotine.

One has to make an informed choice. Becoming a monk does not guarantee peace or nirvana. It is just that its a faster mechanism for people who have urgency to attain bliss. You do not have it otherwise you would not be asking this question. You are not scared because of your medical condition but leaving shore to sail towards unknown. Its just an excuse. Having said that i can assure you that many people enjoy jhanic bliss who are not monks. I can tell you from my experience that chances of bliss are higher if you are not a monk. Monks keep on striving but a worldly person just give up. That giving up creates a far greater bliss which monks attain. When you reeling under scorching sun a shade gives you far greater relief than a person who is resting under the shade. I am not critical here. Just trying to balance it in favor of non-monks.


Did I get into a Jhana state? I was meditating. I was using classical music as my object of meditation.

I know some don't approve of that but it's REALLY relaxing, especially while meditating. Anyway, as I was meditating the music became... so much more clear. I really can't explain it. It's like I had cheap headphones and all of sudden they switched to top brand headphones. That's how clear it became. Then my breath became very shallow almost as if it was disappearing.

Now I have anxiety attacks, such as I had during my previous attempt at meditation. And that makes my breath feel shallow. But this was different I felt it slowly disappearing. And this very unusual feeling overcame me. My whole body was blissful. I never had that experience before.

So was that a Jhana state?

I wouldn't worry about what it is or isn't and dont listen to what other people have to say about it either as everyone will have varying opinions and really they cannot know what you experience. You will end up feeling confused. The main thing to remember is that it was just a pleasant experience and like all experiences it arose and then passed. It's like a small reward for making progress. Try not to think about it or recreate it as it may hinder your progress. It does not need a label.
If you go into meditation expecting, hoping or craving to have the same experience again or for another pleasant experience you are missing the point so don't fall into that trap. However, when you do have a pleasant experience, enjoy it for what it is then let it go.

What you experience called the wrong concentration. It does not lead to liberation and it is short lived.


What is the truth that you deny? I have heard that there is a Tibetan word that roughly translates to "The truth that we deny" and sounded close to the English word "gotcha."

I however cannot locate this word or a source of it. Can anyone provide a source?

It is possible that it translates to either "The truth that I deny" or "The truth that you deny."
I am not sure if "we" was the right pronoun.
I think it might have been used in debates within the monasteries.

The word, as spelled in english, is "gak-cha," and it refers to the object whose existence we deny.

The idea is that things, including our selves, do not exist "out there, independently," or "from their own side."  Such a thing, according to Mahayana buddhism, could never exist.  When we catch our mind falling prey to relating to some thing (including our "self") as if it really existed independently from our perceiving mind, then we have located the "gak-cha."

There's a transcription of a talk by Lama Yeshe that goes into some depth:
Lama Yeshe Archive

"The truth that we deny"

According to Buddhist concepts "All are in illusion".(pali:Avijja)-"Fault view".
That is "I' or "My Self" or "Mine" like concepts.
So your Word 'gotcha' may relate those ideas.

Another area may be
 The "Word is" is another concept.(The matter exists)
Based on permenent( opposite- Annichcha), good(op- Dukka), Arthma(op -anathma).

Better Try with similar words.

hay it may be Avidyā (Sanskrit; Pāli: avijjā; Tibetan phonetic: ma rigpa)


During Anapana, why does the breathing become slower and slower as we progress? I've been practicing mindfulness of breath (Anapanasati) lately and noticed this phenomena. During the initial few minutes, the breathing is generally short, but as the mind starts concentrating and gets still, the breathing becomes slower and slower. In fact, some times, I feel like one in/outer breath is taking like minutes. What actually causes this phenomena?

At least two things cause this phenomena: (1) the mind not desiring & not thinking, which results in the restless energy of desire & thinking not making the breathing restless & agitated; and (2) what Buddhism calls the 'Nirvana element' ('nirodha dhatu'), i.e., what science calls 'homeostasis', which, like the force of 'gravity', moves the breath towards the equilibrium or peace/stillness of Nirvana.

Whenever the mind is free from craving, clinging & desiring, the mind & the breath will enter into the 'stream' to Nirvana. It is the same as when a drug addict enters into 'cold turkey'. Natural forces purge the body of the drug addict of its toxins. Similarly, the 'cold turkey' of meditation dissolves the agitations of conditioned mental formations stored in the mind, body & breath, making the breath more calm & pure.

Breathing is connected to your three centers - mind, body and heart. Watching breathing slows down breathing a bit which slows down thoughts/emotions. As a result your senses cool down. Your mind, body, and heart are in perfect balance which further slows down your breathing. This virtuous cycle results in stopping of breath which culminates in nirbana. You are no longer connected to your mind, body and heart. You have gone beyond your senses.


What is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness? Context: I'm considered a skeptic of rebirth in my tradition which is the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm asking this question to help me understand what other traditions think. In my tradition it is believed that rebirth is a semi-obscure phenomena the truth of which can be fully known through reasoning alone. I have a hard time understanding how and do not find any line of reasoning I've heard to be particularly convincing.

The strongest reasoning I've seen others in my tradition give for rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures. Therefore, each instance must have been proceeded by a previous instance as its substantial cause leading to an infinite regress/progress back/forward in time.

Here is an excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's book - Kindness, Clarity and Insight - where he briefly summarizes this reasoning:

  "... the nature of
  the mind is mere luminosity and knowing. Mind is something that has
  the capacity of appearing in the aspect of whatsoever object through
  the force of the object’s casting its aspect to it and is an entity of
  mere clarity and cognition, with a nature of experience. It
  disintegrates moment by moment. However, among its many
  causes—classified into substantial cause and cooperative conditions—it
  must, as an entity of conscious experience, have as its substantial
  cause an immediately preceding cause which is a former moment of consciousness. It is not
  possible for an entity with the character of luminosity and knowing to
  be produced from external material elements as its substantial cause.
  Similarly, an internal mind cannot act as the substantial cause of
  external elements. Since each moment of consciousness requires a
  former moment of consciousness as its substantial cause, there is no
  way but to posit that the basic continuum of mind is beginningless.
  Some specific types of minds [such as desire for an automobile] have a
  beginning and end, whereas other types [such as the ignorance
  conceiving inherent existence] have, in terms of their continuum, no
  beginning but an end. However, neither a beginning nor an end can be
  posited to the mind of luminosity and knowing. Therefore, although
  mind disintegrates moment by moment, its continuum is beginningless."

I believe this reasoning is basically equivalent to Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness. To be clear, I think it is a hard problem for scientific reductionists who believe that consciousness can be reduced to physical matter and energy arranged in a specific way.

On the other hand, it is also equivalent in a different formulation to another famously hard problem: Descarte's famous mind/body problem which assumes the dichotomy of mind/body above and then asks if these are of such fundamentally different natures, then how do they interact? It would seem that positing any mechanism of interaction would betray the original assumption: that they are so fundamentally different that one could never give rise to the other... that they could never touch if you will.

Which leads to the question: what is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness?

Mind
Matter
Both
Neither
Pineal gland did it!

Would prefer answers with reasoning to help me understand.

In his commentary to Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation, His Holiness the Dalaï-Lama lists 5 types of causes:

  All those phenomena that  are produced at some times but not others
  depend on causes and conditions, and they are of various types. Causes
  are of different types, such as (1) substantial cause, (2) direct
  cause, (3) indirect cause, (4) cause of equal state, (5) concomitant
  cause, and so forth.

He gives a definition of substantial cause:

  [A substantial cause is] A cause that primarily produces its result as its
  substantial continuity; e.g., production of a sprout from a seed.

In 'Kindness, clarity and insight', HHDL says:

  It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its
  substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment
  of consciousness, a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot
  be posited.

In addition, in 'Consciousness at the Crossroards', HHDL gives an interesting line of reasoning establishing that matter (form) is not the substantial cause of awareness:

  Specifically, the awareness must have a substantial cause. Now if the
  substantial cause of awareness is matter, then why is it that some
  things have no consciousness, and other things, such as animals, have
  consciousness?

In Pali and Sanskrit, 'substantial cause' is Upādāna. Regardless of contexts where it refers to specifics, literally it translates fuel. The Tibetan for substantial cause is nyer len.

In 'Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets, by Daniel Cozort and Craig Preston, Jamyang Shayba says:

  Because of being a mind, it is established that [another mind]
  precedes it.

And Losang Gönchok comments:

  The subject, a knower [i.e., a mind] just after conception, is
  preceded by a mind that is its substantial cause because of being a
  knower. The subject, the final mind of death of a common being, is
  able to generate the mind that is its impelled object because of being
  a knower having desire, such as a prior main consciousness.

With respect to the ancillary topic (rebirth) it says:

  Because of movement [to activities immediately after birth] and memory
  [of former lives] also, [the existence of former lives is
  established]. Moreover, since a calf who has just been born seeks the
  milk of the teat and since with respect to animals, etc., the mind
  moves to activities of eating grass and engaging in desire without
  being taught, one can understand that this is done due to the
  conditioning of previous lifetimes. Also, memories of former lifetimes
  exist, and matter cannot act as a substantial cause to produce
  consciousness.

The Pali suttas often mention 'consciousness' because consciousness is one of the five aggregates clung to as 'self'. It is the absolute Law of Dhamma that such clinging will always bring suffering, as described in the following sutta, which uses the metaphor of a 'thief' for clinging:

  And how is the nutriment of consciousness to be regarded? Suppose
  that, having arrested a thief, a criminal, they were to show him to
  the king: 'This is a thief, a criminal for you, your majesty. Impose
  on him whatever punishment you like.' So the king would say, 'Go, men,
  and shoot him in the morning with a hundred spears.' So they would
  shoot him in the morning with a hundred spears. Then the king would
  say at noon, 'Men, how is that man?' 'Still alive, your majesty.' So
  the king would say, 'Go, men, and shoot him at noon with a hundred
  spears.' So they would shoot him at noon with a hundred spears. Then
  the king would say in the evening, 'Men, how is that man?' 'Still
  alive, your majesty.' So the king would say, 'Go, men, and shoot him
  in the evening with a hundred spears.' So they would shoot him in the
  evening with a hundred spears. Now what do you think, monks: Would
  that man, being shot with three hundred spears a day, experience pain
  & distress from that cause?

  Even if he were to be shot with only one spear, lord, he would
  experience pain & distress from that cause, to say nothing of three
  hundred spears.

  In the same way, I tell you, monks, is the nutriment of consciousness
  to be regarded. When the nutriment of consciousness is comprehended,
  name & form are comprehended. When mind & body are comprehended, I
  tell you, there is nothing further for a disciple of the noble ones to
  do.

  SN 12.63

Thus, when the Buddha taught about the arising (samudhaya) of consciousness, he only taught how consciousness arises when internal defilements (asava) & thoughts (sankhara) that lead to suffering condition (paccaya) consciousness to arise, as follows:

  With the arising of formations (sankhara) there is the arising of consciousness.
  With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of
  consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is
  just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right
  concentration.

  MN 9

Thus, it terms of actually causality (hetu), all the Buddha taught was the manifestation or knowing (paññāpanāyā) of consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind & body (nama-rupa), as follows:

  Nāmarūpaṃ hetu, nāmarūpaṃ paccayo viññāṇakkhandhassa
  paññāpanāyā.

  Nama-and-rupa is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the
  consciousness aggregate.

  SN 22.82

The above quote from SN 22.82 refutes the non-Buddhist idea below because the physical body (rupa) is said to be one of the causes (hetu) of consciousness:

  The strongest reasoning I've seen other... give for literal
  rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial
  cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because
  brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures.

The Buddha used the term 'nama-rupa' ('mind-body') has a compound thus did not quibble about whether mentality has an exclusive mental origin, as follows:

  Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are
  called mentality. The four great elements and the material form
  derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality.
  So this mentality and this materiality are what is called
  mentality-materiality.

  MN 9

What the Buddha primarily taught about consciousness is consciousness arises dependent upon physical & mental sense organs and physical & metal sense objects as its condition, as follows:

  Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises....

  Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises.

  MN 18

Therefore, the Buddha never taught the idea: "that brain/matter cannot be a substantial cause of consciousness because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures".


What are great forty? What are great forty?
What are the great forty according to following Sutta.
I can identify 30.

Noble tenfold path with mundane and supermundane account for 20

Wrong tenfold path account for another 10.

What is the remaining 10?

=============

“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? In one of right view, right intention comes into being; in one of right intention, right speech comes into being; in one of right speech, right action comes into being; in one of right action, right livelihood comes into being; in one of right livelihood, right effort comes into being; in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being; in one of right concentration, right knowledge comes into being; in one of right knowledge, right deliverance comes into being. Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors.

https://suttacentral.net/mn117/en/bodhi

In one of (R.1.1) right view, wrong view (W.1.1) is abolished and the many evil unwholesome states (W.1.2) that originate with wrong view as condition are also abolished, and the (R.1.2) many wholesome states that originate with right view as condition come to fulfilment by development .... In one of (R.10.1) right deliverance, wrong deliverance (W.10.1) is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states (W.10.2) that originate with wrong deliverance as condition are also abolished, and the (R.10.2) many wholesome states that originate with right deliverance as condition come to fulfilment by development.

  Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the
  wholesome and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome.

10 right factors + 10 wholesome states originating from 10 right factors + 10 wrong factors + 10 unwholesome states originating from 10 wrong factors = 40

I read MN 117 as follows:

10 wholesome factors by developing (good) and abandoning (bad) = 20 wholesome
10 unwholesome factors by developing (bad) and abandoning (good) = 20 unwholesome

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=22062&p=485161&hilit=forty#p485161


How to practice Metta without a Benefactor? I find it very difficult to practice metta because i can't find anyone who has been a benefactor.I don't know a lot of people.Most people i know i find it very difficult to send metta to as a benefactor as their either very dear to me or downright hostile.Can i just imagine a benefactor i never had .Or use a dead person, as my auntie was very kind to me but she's deceased now.

How can i practice metta without a benefactor? How can i find a benefactor to practice metta to?

You don't need a benefactor to practice that type of metta; you just need someone who is dear to you;  it just shouldn't be someone you could potentially desire sexually, or whom you are partial towards, like your children.

The stages, according to the Visuddhimagga are as follows:

cultivate metta towards yourself (useless, but a good example)
cultivate metta towards someone you hold dear
cultivate metta towards a neutral party
cultivate metta towards someone you dislike (optional, only for those who have such a person)

Having someone dear to you seems important, as there is no advice given for what to do if such a person does not exist. Ostensibly, you could skip that step and try to immediately cultivate metta towards a neutral party, but the dear one is useful for returning to when difficulty arises with the other objects.

Alternatively, you could try cultivating metta in order of proximity; may I be happy, may all beings in this room be happy, this building, this city, this country, this world, the universe. Also, by direction; may all beings to the East be happy, etc. Or finally, by class: may all women be happy, men, animals, angels, etc.

Mahasi Sayadaw has a detailed exposition of the four brahmaviharas that is both practical and informative:

http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Brahmavihara%20Dhamma.htm

As he says,

  "Mettā can also be developed towards any other person deserving of affection and respect, if not towards your teacher, grand-parents, mother, father and so on."

Why it is difficult to spread metta? Because our mind is not ready to do it. Correct metta meditation is not difficult. According to Buddhist teaching, spreading metta to oneself is never taught taught in 'Sutta' or 'Abhidhamma Pitaka'. Because one can't reach measureless state with metta by spreading  metta to oneself. Measureless states are the doors to nibbana as Load buddha has Taught us.

Before spreading metta, one must have good qualities, as mentioned in 'karaneeya metta sutta'. Good qualities such as Upright, Exceedingly upright, obedient, gentle and humble, controlled in the senses, prudent, courteous, not hanker after associating with families are meditated and determined before spreading metta. It is a bit complicated at the beginning and later it would become a great platform and make a comfortable position for a meditater to start spreading metta easily. Guided meditation is described in this link -  How to meditate metta dhamma talk.


Mindfulness when on the train, underground and bus Many of us spend at least a couple of hours per day on public transport like bus, train or underground (for me it is around 2.5 hours).

How could we use that time to develop right mindfulness?

I too am on public transport for a reasonable part of the day. When I look around at my fellow passengers it's always notable to me how many are not present. The majority of people are on phones, checking social media, listening to music, flicking through a newspaper, doing anything but being present. It is rare to see people just sat there. This isn't to judge these people - commuting is tough particularly on some routes and people do what they feel they must do.

But it's not just other people. I do it - listening to music, checking the phone etc... Recently I've challenged myself just to let go of these crutches to my commute. I don't listen to music etc.. etc.. I just sit there. I try to take notice. I wait and see what crazy thought pops into my head and try to spot where it came from. I try to be aware of my fellow commuters. I sometime play a game with myself where I wait and see how long it takes before I get bored. I never get bored. I get restless, frustrated but not bored.

Right now this is a good practice for me. My life is busy but I just add to it. There are moments in the day when I can take in a bit less information - commuting is one of them. Guarding the sense doors is an important (and difficult) practice for me. I truly believe that it's improved my mental state and is having a positive effect on my meditation practice. It's all conditions and if I spend my commute pumping extra information into my mind it's not surprising that at the end of the day I feel like I've poisoned my mind.

This answer is just my personal experience but I hope it's of some interest to you. Good luck with the practice on your commute.

It can be difficult to focus on what is going on around you on public transportation. I prefer to engage in focused activity that is more enjoyable to engage in, such as listening to a podcast or music. Noise cancelling headphones help. I am still engaged in the present moment. But I choose which present reality I am focused on.


Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life I feel like this is a naive question, but I'm wondering what  is the difference between experiencing discomfort and distress in meditation versus in daily life outside of meditation. Do the same states generate different results in each case, depending on the co-arising factors?

EDIT: For example, suffering in daily life might undergo rumination and even being acted upon. In meditation, perhaps the same suffering will be diminished by the arising qualities from meditation, like equanimity or compassion. Is this the case?

Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly.

If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana.

  Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg

Meditation is training ground for your mindfulness its a way for you to clear your mind and deal with the suffering step by step ,So when you go to the real life you can implement.Real life of course is much harder to deal with but you can make it easier by being mindful through meditation.


How do handle termite/white ant Buddhism most basic perception is avoid killing.
Assume the house is filled by termite and killing is unavoidable, assume house is too badly affected and without killing need the house to be left unoccupant for months and repair is very expensive.
This is question is meant for normal lay Buddhist and not monk.
How is Buddhism handle in this case ?
There was a Mahayana Buddhist Scholar answered is to recite Mantra to the ants that been killed as much as possible n hope ants can incarnate to a better place.

Life wants to promote life. That too a very special life . A life which is free of diseases and dirt. A life which is holy. But if your house is infested with termites then probably you have karmic problems.
For example , there was a locust attack in Saudi Arabia, Africa , Pakistan , India etc ..millions of hectares of crop  got eaten by those insects. Why do you think that happened ? It was our karma in some ways.
Life would generally not interfere in your holy pursuit but if it happens then it means you may have become impure in some ways.
So what should be done? As a layperson you will obviously kill those insects for survival and if you are serious about Dhamma then you will commit to 8 fold path and never intentionally kill any insect.

Exchange of self and other... will open the dhamma door of the Tri-ratna as your teacher.
Termite: What? Ima greedy lil pig eating here... This one thing and this one thing only... pooping my breathing as I go along filling in the wood behind me.
How is it not the samadhi you should be practicing? "Human".
Go ahead and kill it but imagine the self you cling to there instead; So it can attain your precious human form and practice with it just as it was previously doing, without the eating of wood and poop for breath of course.
That's a practice of a bodhisatta people don't even speak about; instead known to preach "ethics" as if life itself is a moral dilemma all of it's own as it arises and passes into being and not being.
Countless corpses at my feet; how dare anyone call it anything dishonorable as sand... it knows it was a mountain on the furthest shore; I just don't have the tongue for it even though, it could be mistaken for vanilla ice cream.


Why are there are only one Buddha per universe? Why there are only one Buddha per universe?

And why there are not more or less at any time?

The teaching attributed to the Buddha of 'there can only be one self-enlightened Buddha in a world-system (lokadhātuyā)' is found in the Bahudhātuka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, which states:

  He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones (arahanto), Fully Self-Enlightened Ones (sammāsambuddhā), could arise
  contemporaneously in one (ekissā) world-system (lokadhātuyā) ― there is no such possibility.’

  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Self-Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’

  Bahudhātuka Sutta

The Milindapañha, which is a later-day commentary (c. 100BC), provides a detailed explanation:

  This world system, O king, is a one-Buddha-supporting world; that is, it can bear the virtue of only a single Tathāgata. If a second
  Tathāgata were to arise the world could not bear him, it would shake
  and tremble, it would bend, this way and that, it would disperse,
  scatter into pieces, dissolve, be utterly destroyed. just as a boat, O
  king, might be able to carry one passenger across. Then, when one man
  had got on board, it would be well trimmed and able to bear his
  weight. But if a second man were to come like to the first in age and
  caste and strength and size and stoutness of body and build of frame,
  and he too should get on board the boat—would that boat be able, O
  king, to carry them both?

  Or suppose, O king, that a man had eaten as much food as he wanted, even so that he had filled himself with nourishment up to the
  throat, and he—thus satiated, regaled, filled with good cheer, with no
  room left for more, drowsy and stiff as a stick one cannot bend—were
  again to eat as much food as he had eaten before—would such a man, O
  king, then be at ease?’

  Suppose, O king, there were two carts quite filled with precious things up to the top, and people were to take the things from the one
  cart and pile them up on the other, would that one be able to carry
  the weight of both?’

  If, O king, two Buddhas were to arise together, then would disputes
  arise between their followers, and at the words: “Your Buddha, our
  Buddha,” they would divide off into two parties—just as would the
  followers of two rival powerful ministers of state. This is the other reason, O king, why two Buddhas could not appear at the same
  time.

  The passage (of Scripture) that the Buddha is the chief would become false, and the passage that the Buddha takes precedence of all would
  become false, and the passage that the Buddha is the best of all would
  become false. And so all those passages where the Buddha is said to be
  the most excellent, the most exalted, the highest of all, the peerless
  one, without an equal, the matchless one, who hath neither counterpart
  nor rival—all would be proved false. Accept this reason too as in
  truth a reason why two Buddhas cannot arise at once.

  Of other things also, whatever is mighty in the world is singular. The broad earth is great, O king, and it is only one. The ocean is
  mighty, and it is only one. Sineru, the king of the mountains, is
  great; and it is only one. Space is mighty, and it is only one. Sakka
  (the king of the gods) is great, and he is only one. Mara (the Evil
  One, Death) is great, and he is only one. Mahā-Brahmā is mighty, and
  he is only one. 51 A Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, is great,
  and he is alone in the world. Wherever any one of these spring up,
  then there is no room for a second. And therefore, O king, is it that
  only one Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, can appear at one time
  in the world.’

  Mil 5.5 11; Mil 235

Because of focus. It is easier to rely on one buddha 24 hours a day 7 days a week.


Sexual thoughts coming with full pace to silent mind I'm being very mindful and aware nowadays.  My mind is now very much quite and I am able to watch handful of thoughts in day to day life.  The problem is at a particular instant of quite mind, sexual thoughts come with full vigour.  Don't know why.

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Thoughts arise and disappear on their own. If you are plagued by any particular thought, consider that relishing is the root of suffering. Find that delight, look at it and simply understand that "this is not mine, this is not who I am, this is not my self." This simple declaration will loosen your grip on the thoughts and they will disappear. Thoughts and feelings persist because there is relishing. Disavow the relishing and the thoughts and feelings pass like clouds in the sky. Be mindful of your breath as you do this. The breath is very much a part of your life. The thoughts simply come and go.

The essence of Buddhism is understanding that we can't control our body, our mind and things happening around us. But people tends to involve those things and thus, our emotion attached to those things and start karma cycle.

For example, when we eat a food, at the same time in our mind happening Greed(on our favorite food), Anger (Bad taste, Don't like), etc. And based on those emotional attachment, we taking out the actions which will become karma and reincarnation cycle.

In Accent of Buddhism is eating also a part of life and that is out of our control and so get rid from attached mind such as Greed and Anger, etc., to stop reincarnation cycle.

So, it is natural that you have those kind of mind such as sexual thoughts. And try to understand as it as just a thought and watch as it is until it lose again, as everything as happening in this universe.


Don't Arahats know Buddha? While reading Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and Four Practices, I found Bodhidharma telling Arhats ain't enlightened.

  Among Shakyamuni's ten greatest disciples, Ananda was
  foremost in learning. But he didn't know the Buddha. All he did
  was study and memorize. Arhats don't know the Buddha. All
  they know are so many practices for realization, and they become
  trapped by cause and effect. Such is a mortal's karma: no escape
  from birth and death. By doing the opposite of what he intended,
  such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be
  wrong. The sutras say, "Since icchantikas45 are incapable of belief,
  killing them would be blameless, whereas people who believe reach
  the state of buddhahood."

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?

Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?
I don't know about Bodhidharma or Zen, specifically, but I think that is inline with what you can read in or about some other "Mahayana" doctrines  e.g. Wikipedia -- Arhat:

Arhat is defined in Theravada Buddhism as one who has gained insight into the true nature of existence and has achieved nirvana. Other Buddhist traditions have used the term for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.
The understanding of the concept has changed over the centuries, and varies between different schools of Buddhism and different regions. A range of views on the attainment of arhats existed in the early Buddhist schools. The Sarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, and Caitika schools all regarded arhats as imperfect in their attainments compared to buddhas.
Mahayana Buddhist teachings urge followers to take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. The arhats, or at least the senior arhats, came to be widely regarded[by whom?] as "moving beyond the state of personal freedom to join the Bodhisattva enterprise in their own way".

See also e.g. Śrāvaka -- Mahāyāna view:

In Mahayana Buddhism, śrāvakas or arhats are sometimes contrasted negatively with bodhisattvas.
In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvakayāna. These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation. Those in the Pratyekabuddhayāna are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment. Finally, those in the Mahāyāna "Great Vehicle" are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.

Arhats don't know the Buddha. All they know are so many practices for realization, and they become trapped by cause and effect.

Don't forget it was Bodhidharma's Zen school which also taught that all famous PaiChang's fox story, a cautionary tale about the danger of horrific regression for those who thought they're already at the top of their game.

  Note that Killing them won't be wrong is just a figure of speech. It isn't meant to be taken in literal sense.

Well, since so many things in those Zen texts are figures of speech, maybe Bodhidharma's highlighted message was also just a figure of speech. Afterall, when in doubt, try to err on the safe side and heed the Buddha's advice in DN 16 about the Four Great Referalls.


Is it useful to practice intoxicated? I am aware that drinking is against the fifth precept, but there are certain occasions where I can enjoy a few drinks (few times a month). I read a lot that it is not recommended to meditate purposely on any drug - but what if I did take a few drinks, should I still meditate (e.g. Vipassana) or should I skip it?

I would skip it, allow me to explain why.

Just a little bit of context:
Your question touches on a very important point about meditation currently many people see meditation as a simple tool for relaxation, some mix meditation with music, some use it for healthy benefits only, stress reduction etc... there is nothing wrong with that, however in Buddhism meditation is seen as something very different from that, much more powerful.

Meditation is something sacred, special, divine, that is why we prostate, that is why we are thankful for the opportunity to meditate, it is something that we should pay respect to, Buddha attained enlightenment meditating.

In a Nutshell, as a way of showing respect for the meditation process you should never do it after drinking, keep it as something pure, something special in your mind and in your routine.

PS: This is my approach, I understand people from other traditions may think differently

yes, but you will find that it has a limit to that and you will eventually drop that and go sober. But i encourage to try with drugs, it opens new perspectives!

try by error baby!


Latent tendencies, memories of this life and brain damage, dementia This question is from the Theravada perspective only.

How are memories of this life stored and recalled? Is it stored in the physical brain?
There is the concept of latent tendencies (anusaya). Conceit is one of them. How are the latent tendencies of this life stored? Is it stored in the physical brain?
Does the bhavanga-citta of the Abhidhamma include some kind of storage function or not? If yes, what does it store?
If someone suffers from brain damage or dementia, they can lose their memories and/or have their personality altered (possibly including some change in latent tendencies). How does this work within the Theravada framework for moment to moment birth and death? The answer to this question may depend on the earlier questions.

The question seems to misconstrue the idea of "momentariness".

"Momentariness" does not mean everything exists for a "moment". "Momentariness" is merely the recognition that consciousness & thought arises for a moment (but other things do not necessarily exist for a moment).

SN 12.61 may help, here:

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

That SN 12.61 says the physical body can be seem to last for a long time supports the view in the question that tendencies & memories are stored in the brain. Personally, I don't see the point of speculating about scriptures in the situation where both science & personal experience tell us where latent tendencies & memories are stored. You know as an observable fact that brain injury impairs memory therefore what is the point of denying this reality and seeking to explain it in an alternate speculative unknowable way?

In MN 64, the Buddha said the underlying tendencies exist within the new born child, even though these underlying tendencies are yet to arise into the child's conscious mind. The Buddha said nothing about "past lives" here. The underlying tendencies are natural elements (dhatu). They have no relationship to past lives. Men & women are born with sexual organs and sexual apparatus (such as a womb). When their bodies mature, these sexual tendencies start to produce chemicals and hormones which result in the salient arising of sexual lust in the young man and young woman. We can see through mere observation that the growth in the mental defilement of lust is related to the growth & maturity of the physical body.


Is it ethical to kill plant life while gardening? I live in Denmark and here we have gotten an amazing concept called "City Gardens". Its basically a 3 x 3 meter garden in the middle of the city granting city dwellers acces to grow their own vegetables, flowers etc.

Yesterday i got one of these gardens (see picture below). I thought about cleaning it up and plant some new stuff in it but then i saw that there were many small plants and flowers growing in it already.

I do know that the first precept is not broken since it covers life that has a breath and a consciousness. But i was wondering if im breaking any other buddhist ethics or precepts by interfering with that plant life already living there?

Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Lanka

The Buddha reportedly ate a meal of pork at least once in his life. So one pig had to lose its life. The Buddha ate rice pudding so some cow had to eat the grass to produce milk and some weeds must have lost their life to have grown the rice.

It seems that no matter what we do in life some harm is done. Maybe do less harm would be more sensible. The Buddha advocated the middle way between hedonism and asceticism. The Tibetan Buddhists eat meat. So what are we to do?

Do no harm against life for selfish ends. Do no harm against our neighbor to gain advantage. Dedicate your work to all beings.

In your case you could donate some of the crop to food pantries servicing the homeless or needy.

In another sense there is only consciousness. When we weed the garden in meditation we make room for a new consciousness. When we plant seeds in the garden or consciousness, we are planting the divine seed of awakening.

Being paralyzed by fear of doing harm is not the middle way as I see it.

Perhaps the saying should be Clear your intentions of doing harm. Have an intention of giving life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

  Right intention[edit] Right intention (samyak-saṃkalpa / sammā
  sankappa) can also be known as "right thought", "right resolve",
  "right conception", "right aspiration" or "the exertion of our own
  will to change". In this factor, the practitioner should constantly
  aspire to rid themselves of whatever qualities they know to be wrong
  and immoral. Correct understanding of right view will help the
  practitioner to discern the differences between right intention and
  wrong intention. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained
  thus:[19][19][21][31][32]

  And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom
  from ill will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.

  It means the renunciation of the worldly things and an accordant
  greater commitment to the spiritual path; good will; and a commitment
  to non-violence, or harmlessness, towards other living beings.

A simple answer would be no,

2 things to remember, the modern science is categorizing plants as living creatures. (not that Buddha rejected)

1) it's the "karma" and your intention in your mind does the "karma". unless you are not intentionally hurting any living thing( assume plants are not living things) it is okay. as per your saying, your intention was clean it up and make it more grown

2) it may affect, if you are cutting whole set of trees in a huge jungle, coz,
that would result in, destroying living places for animals, might kill small creatures in the process, and eventually you are helping to pollute the air, by removing it's cleaning agent, which will kill humans. will break first precept

i think now you can decide on your own


Who was the Buddha's teacher? When Asita muni had told to King Shuddhodhana that

  " If he
  becomes a householder, he will become a universal monarch.
  But if he goes forth from the home to a homeless life, he will become a fully enlightened Buddha."

Asita was sure that the child would not remain a householder.
So when Asita was known all that, may we suppose him Buddha's teacher and if wasn't then who was Buddha's teacher.

Between Gayā and the Place of Enlightenment the Ājīvaka Upaka saw me
on the road and said: ‘Friend, your faculties are clear, the colour of
your skin is pure and bright. Under whom have you gone forth, friend?
Who is your teacher? Whose Dhamma do you profess? I replied to the Ājīvaka Upaka in stanzas:
I am one who has transcended all, a knower of all, Unsullied among all
things, renouncing all, By craving’s ceasing freed. Having known this
all For myself, to whom should I point as teacher?
I have no teacher, and one like me Exists nowhere in all the world With all its gods, because I have No person for my counterpart.
I am the Accomplished One in the world, I am the Teacher Supreme. I
alone am a Fully Enlightened One Whose fires are quenched and
extinguished.
I go now to the city of Kāsi To set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In
a world that has become blind I go to beat the drum of the Deathless. - Ariyapariyesana Sutta

Having seen that there is no being in all the worlds who can be his counterpart let alone be his teacher, the Buddha appointed the Dhamma he realized as his teacher.

Māra, the demon king, Māra, the afflicted being. Māra was the Buddha's greatest teacher.


What is panna? Is it permanent? Because panna (wisdom) is the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta, it leads to the cessation of ignorance, greed and aversion and therefore to Nirvana. Now Nirvana or the state of being enlightened is permanent, so panna must be too, mustn't it? The cessation of ignorance alone is not enough, because it could rise again, couldn't it? I mean it already happened one time...
So to hinder ignorance from rising again, panna must be permanent. This is how I always understood it. I always thought of it as an aspect of Nirvana, and therefore not a part of the impermanent (?) skandhas.
Now I read a text which says that panna is a sankhara. Aren't sankharas as the 4th skandha impermanent and cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
So what is panna?
Thank you.

Light is movement of photons which vibrate within a certain frequency range and travel at the speed of light. If there there is no one present with eyes to sense light, is there still light? I would say yes.
Nibbana is a permanent phenomena (dhamma) which is like light. Even if there are no enlightened ones to experience it, it is still there.
From MN 49 with corrected translation from this answer:

That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.

Also Ud 8.1-4.
But wisdom (panna) is different. It depends on the mind. If the mind ceases, then wisdom ceases. When the Buddha passed away, his wisdom ceased, but his teachings (Dhamma) which arose out of his wisdom, continue to exist through the suttas and the noble sangha.
So are the teachings (Dhamma) permanent or unconditioned? I would say no. If the suttas and the noble sangha disappear after many centuries or millennia (i.e. the end of the current Buddha sasana), then the teachings also disappear.
Some have asked if physical space is permanent or unconditioned. From Einstein's theory of general relativity, we know that physical space-time is conditioned.
So, in every case, we can see that only one phenomena is permanent and unconditioned and that is Nibbana. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free of defilements and fetters. It is not a mental idea or state of mind or state of consciousness.

The panna of an arahant is permanent during the arahants lifetime, per MN 12, which says:

Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

But because the mind of an arahant ceases when life ends, obviously, panna does not last forever. Therefore, ultimately, panna is impermanent.
Nibbana is an unconditioned independent element of nature that permanently exists forever. The suttas says regardless of how many Arahants abide in the Nibbana element, the amount of the Nibbana element never ceases, changes or fluctuates (AN 8.19).
But panna is a conditioned mental element that is impermanent. For example, when there is no arising of Buddhas, there is no real panna in the world. There are times when panna does not exist; such as when Dhammadhatu is suspended from BSE.


Mahayana and Non-dualism Would it be true to say that cultivation of a non-dualistic view is more important in Mahayana Buddhism than Hinayana?

The two traditions are different in that Mahayana uses a transformation process, that is, we try to "be" a bodhisattva which means incorporating their virtues and their mind. So we try to have a non-dualistic view. We don't get it in the beginning so we continue to refine our views. Question what do we do with hate and craving in Mahayana?

In the Theravada (which is similar to, but, is not hinayana) tradition it is a development process which means we deal with greed, hate and delusion until we eventually automatically come to posses a non-dualistic view.

Some people find transformation easier, rewarding and enjoyable, while others find development easier, rewarding and enjoyable.

Which do you prefer tea or coffee to quench your thirst?

nb similary with Vajrayana.

Non duality is to be realized rather than "cultivated".

Non duality and emptiness are the same.


Should/Would the Noble Sangha let go of the Dhamma? Supposed that respect, veneration and any kind of wisdom has gone missing; and that the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes; and the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders. In that case, should the Noble Sangha, the Savaka Sangha, let go of their heritage, like one with Sila would give up a book that has become a target of white ants?

It's a serious question.

While the Buddha did not allow his monks to give up Sangha heritage, generally he allowed it in case thieves and robbers would destroy things and harm in cases the monks would hold on it.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?

Spoken in numbers, there are about 99% of laypeople (incl. those in robes) who are engaged in depriving the Dhamma from the Sangha, making a livelihood from it; and somewhat 1% who dedicate their sacrifices toward the gems, and respect the recluses.

I doubt that any at large had understood the meaning of "making the Dhamma your own", yet, with total confusion, running after it out of context.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

Although "Dhamma" is in the title, the text of the question seems to be asking instead about the Discipline:

If the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes, should the Noble Sangha let go of their heritage? ...
Would the Buddha allow monks to give up Sangha heritage in that case?

I read The Broken Buddha so it's not completely new to me to hear of someone saying something like, "the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders".

I wouldn't want to say that, and I couldn't say it about anyone (because I don't know them), but I suppose that what's written in the book has some truth in it, even if only that it's as-witnessed.

Similarly I read a little of the "austere Forest Tradition" -- specifically as contrasted with the living and so on in towns.

I don't have a specific answer for you -- I think there are several:

You might want to find a monastery which you approve of -- a bikkhu, a group of bikkhus, who you approve of. People's biographies, monks and nuns too, often include their visiting and studying in several places, studying under several teachers.
It's common to disrobe -- not that I'm recommending that, but perhaps that's what you meant by "give up Sangha heritage". Perhaps some people who do that give up parts of the the Discipline, but not the Dhamma.
Perhaps consider being less critical of others -- I assume you are critical of others, "You shouldn't practice/live that way", "You don't have a proper teacher", "Your motives aren't proper", etc. To pick an example almost at random, there's this Wikipedia article about Ajahn Sumedho -- which describes him as "engaging and witty communication style", and pictures him and the monk who he's talking with laughing together. Then again the biography of Ajahn Chah says, "He sometimes initiated long and seemingly pointless work projects, in order to frustrate their attachment to tranquility" -- possibly you have some attachment to the way things ought to be, how other people ought to behave.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?

How popular is "that popular", what "householder movements"? Perhaps what you're talking about is an "observation bias" i.e. if you observe householder movements then that's what you see; and if you e.g. read the internet less then you wouldn't see them so much -- but I don't know what you're talking about. You see different things than I do, and perhaps you see them differently -- the all.

There are articles in the Appendix which say e.g. (in 1931) that ...

  Already prominent laymen in Burma, Siam, Ceylon, and elsewhere, view with misgivings the present state of affairs and know that sooner or later some alterations will have to be made. Nearly everyone sees signs of decay in the Order, that Order that has continued for 2500 years, but today there are new conditions and forces in the world and unless something radical is done this decay will increase until either the Sangha dies out, or becomes a dead letter, the refuge of the ignorant and unworthy.

It isn't only monks of Western origin who say this. Anyway you might want to read The Broken Buddha assuming you haven't already. I think it talks about issues (i.e. problems within Sangha) which you question here, and quote various people who suggest solutions, and maybe you can find in it some people or organisations who you might concur with.

I don't know that I can answer this question, though, since I don't know what you mean by "householder movements".

I suppose that everyone (householders too) must practice on their own (as "islands"), AND that the Sangha is, has been, will be important.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many?

I don't know that it's possible to prevent people from doing what's harmful -- if you knew how to, perhaps you could help drug addicts? -- and if you can't prevent them then I don't see how it's a question of "letting them".

If someone only sees you as getting into arguments, and scolding people, etc., I suppose that's not effective.

Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

I think the theory is that it isn't one OR the other (i.e. compassion OR equanimity) -- instead it's both (i.e. "and") -- or rather, all four (mudita and metta too).

Also you practice one whenever you can't practice another -- or perhaps one is an antidote to an excess of the other.

It is not wise to fight decay & death. It is not wise to crave for what is not achievable. The Noble Dhamma says:

  Enough friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! For has not the Blessed
  One declared that with all that is dear and beloved there must be
  change, separation and severance? Of that which is born, come into
  being, compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not
  come to dissolution!'?"

  DN 16

But it is difficult for undeveloped minds, full of self & lust for life instinct, undeveloped in emptiness (sunnata), to have such necessary wisdom. The Buddha his noble disciples have: "Disenchantment towards all of the world". It is very easy to type this saying of the Buddha but it is much more difficult to realise & embody it.

There is no rest in simply reflecting: "Beings are heirs of their kamma..."; because the very notion of "beings" is "self-view" and thus bondage to suffering. MN 117 says quite plainly that the doctrine of "kamma" is "defiled"; leading to "acquisitions"; and only siding in unliberated "merit". SN 12.51 says the Noble Disciple destroys "meritorious formations" via non-clinging.

The suttas clearly say the view of "beings" is the view of Mara or Satan. Mara is the Wicked One; the Evil One; the Destroyer of enlightenment. To quote:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.

  SN 5.10

The Buddha did not teach Mahayana Compassion for all beings. The Buddha taught liberation from the world. Today, in the year of 2019, the world no longer has mainstream morality. Today, a bhikkhu, even an Arahant, is powerless to help the world. Talk of compassion is pointless. It is not wise to fight decay & death. It is not wise to crave for what is not achievable. The Noble Dhamma says:

  Enough friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! For has not the Blessed
  One declared that with all that is dear and beloved there must be
  change, separation and severance? Of that which is born, come into
  being, compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not
  come to dissolution!'?"

  DN 16

Soon, the Totalitarian Asura will terrorise the world; like they are terrorizing many nations today. The only bhikkhus that will survive are those who do not offend the Asura, such as the LGBT promoters at Sutta Central. The bhikkhus teaching real Dhamma will end up like Jesus - crucified. The Buddha praised his Noble Bhikkhus who praised meeting an assassin.

  These Sunaparanta people.. but if they take your life with a sharp
  knife…?

  I will think, ‘There are disciples of the Blessed One who—horrified,
  humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life—have sought for an
  assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.’
  That’s what I will think….

  Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit.

  MN 145


Happiness vs. Euphoria from a Buddhist's point of view Most of people these days will define Happiness as euphoria: A big party with friends, dancing, singing all night (sometimes drinking). From a Buddhist's perspective this is not even close to the true happiness, so how would Buddhism classify this kind of Euphoria? Something good, neutral or bad? Is it an addiction? Ignorance?

Euphoria may result in happiness but this is temporary. Reason being is you have not absolute to maintain the world to your liking. Every good movie or party eventually does come to an end. The base of this happiness is creating temporary pleasant sensation. In the case of a movie it is looking at the story line and playing the concept of the story. In the case of food it is taste from the tongue. All these sensations arise to pass away. Also when the stimulus is not there it does not arise any more.

The best way to have lasting happiness if in different to the arising and passing away of sensations and achieving an unconditioned state where you do not need an external stimulus to create pleasantness.

Interesting question! I like it!

I feel it is not ignorance, quite the opposite in fact. If anything, you experience life more so -- your sensations and emotions are almost 10 fold compared to what they would be usually, except you are slightly better at not being overcome by them. For example, neuroscientists recently discovered a hormone released by our brains that gets stronger and stronger the more we meditate. In turn, this hormone opens up our pathways of being able to empathise more with other sentient beings, or watching a film, or listening to music, or general life experience. From my own experience, I find that when I am practising and also spending a lot of time with my teacher, I am so excited about life that I can't sleep. As my friend calls it, 'joy induced insomnia'. I wouldn't say it means everything is positive and great and happy, because like anyone's life, there is always an element of suffering or sadness. It just means I am able to deal with those things better, and it also means that my senses are heightened and I am able to tune in or pick up these subtle things much quicker and almost feel them myself, quite deeply. Sometimes sadness sits with me after a meditation and I'm not sure why, and by karmic coincidence, something will happen and it all falls into place and I totally understand it. That in itself, is what stems the happiness. When you realise that everything is connected and that there is so much more to explore with this. Especially when you begin to see and meet others who are somehow going through something very similar. That then boosts your happiness!

I'd say it's nothing like an epic party, it's more a whole never-ending burst of love. That keeps coming. And awe in absolutely everything.


Why is a sotāpanna defined as unable to take another teacher and unable to commit matricide? Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing six wrong actions:

  Murdering one's own mother.
  Murdering one's own father.
  Murdering an arahant.
  Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
  Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
  Taking another teacher.

Question:

Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed?
Is it suggested hereby that creating a schism in the monastic community is as grave an action as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person?
Does it also mean that taking another teacher is like wounding one's teacher, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?

A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).

From the Vera Sutta:

  "And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?

  "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:

  The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.

It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.

Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."

What is "Entering the Stream"

Quoting from the Saṃyutta Nikāya

  holding masses, ( matter, feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness).

  “Monks, when the noble disciple knows the arising, fading, satisfaction, danger, and the escape from these five holding masses as
  they really are,it is said he has entered the Stream of the
  Teaching, would not fall from it, would directly aim extinction.”

What are the "Rewards"

Quoting from the Anisansa Sutta: Rewards

  One is certain of the true Dhamma.
   One is not subject to falling back.
   There is no suffering over what has had a limit placed on it.
   One is endowed with uncommon knowledge.
   One rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated phenomena.

What are the "Impossibles" that "Stream enterer" cannot do.

What are the signs (or proofs) that one has entered the stream?
Quoting from the Aṅguttara Nikāya

  Impossible

  The view about a self, (Identical View),
  doubts,(About Teacher, Doctrine and Community),
  grasping to the idea of breaking the rules and greed (Accept another teaching),
  hate and delusion (Karma) which lead to hellish results.

  – Third on impossibilities

    It is impossible that one come to right view should. deprive the
    life of mother, father, of a noble one, with a defiled mind cause the
    blood of the Thus Gone One to spill, split the Community of bhikkhus,
    or appoint another, as teacher.

  What is the reason?

  The one come to right view, has thoroughly seen the
  reason that pleasantness and unpleasantness arises on account of some
  reason.

The reason why a stream-winner cannot commit matricide etc. is because there is no such stress with him that capable enough to matricide etc.

Most normal persons when get angry they behave without self control. A sothapanna has no wrong view such as "The view about a self, doubts, grasping to the idea of breaking the rules and greed, hate and delusion which lead to hellish results." So there is no reasons to get angry.


Can Stoicism be seen as something close to Buddhism in some aspects? I am asking this question, for I try to follow much of Stoicism, and I can see that there are certain similarities. But there are also many differences. Could some aspects be the same or at least alike?

For example, Stoics assert that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If one is cruel, it is because he is unaware of his own universal reason. If one is unhappy, it is because he "forgot" how his true nature actually operates (these concepts seem to me very similar to the Buddha Nature, which belongs to all living beings, but is often in a latent state).

PS : I am sorry if the tags are wrong, I am new here.

Stoicism can be seen as very similar to Buddhism in that it appeals to an ultimately indefinable reality which, through the denial of ego, awareness of which brings harmony to life.  Also, the stoic acceptance of whatever happens being in accord with nature is like non-attachment.  A Buddhist writer I read recently said that they are in many ways the same other than the Buddhist has greater joy to the extent to which their ego has dissolved.

Stoics permit suicide in a wider range of cases than Buddhists, although the principle that suicide is an option when spiritual practice is no longer possible is the same.

All knowledge is conditioned by the same cause. The closer a teacher is to the cause, the more his teachings are similar to Buddhism.


Understanding Right view From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.

So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?   If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view? Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Right View is actually not "seeing things as they are". "Seeing things as they are" (yathābhūtaṃ passāmī) is a high level of insight that leads to liberation; as follows:

For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no
need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
actually are feels disenchantment.
AN 11.2

Right View is much more basic. Right View is having an understanding of the basics and can be intellectual at first. Right View includes the following:

And what are the roots of what is unskillful? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful. These are termed the roots of what is unskillful.
And what are the roots of what is skillful? Lack of greed is a root of what is skillful, lack of aversion is a root of what is skillful, lack of delusion is a root of what is skillful. These are termed the roots of what is skillful.
The Discourse on Right View.

So, yes, if you have dark angry thoughts is it too late. You have already entered into the territory of wrong view.
However, it is certainly good (actually ideal) that you are noticing then not reacting! You don't want to react because that leads to big trouble & danger.
When it happens in a split second, its OK. When its Anger - Boom; its OK. Just don't act upon it.
The suttas say:

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering
into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.
MN 117

Even the Buddha-To-Be had angry thoughts, as follows; but used reasoning to think about his angry thoughts:

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued
with ill will arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill
will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the
affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
discernment, promotes vexation & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will
had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of
existence.
MN 19

From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

It's after the virtual and concentration meditation. It's good to see things as they are, but it can't develop to be perfect if your virtual and concentration meditation still not be perfect.
See: Sutta. Ma. Mū. Rathavinītasuttaṃ.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.
So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

You told us "right view is seeing things" then you said "I don't need to see it" because you think "I have some pain it is just pain" is the meditation, but actually it is not the meditation. The meditation is when you thinking(seeing) to avoid to think 'I hate this pain, why me' and 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. The problem comes from your unstable basis, virtual and concentration meditation.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?

Yes, everyone should do. But if you can not you should check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late?

Yes, it's too late. It's because you have not concentration meditation, such as Ānāpānasati, to control it.

Have I already entered into the territory of the wrong view?

Angry is not the wrong view. But when your angry increase to be immoral, i.e. hitting the other, that angry comes from the wrong view. Check your virtual and concentration meditation first.

Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Check your virtual and concentration meditation first. Because you never meditate the concentration meditation, you can't control your angry, pariyuṭṭhāna.
For virtual: https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html


The Complex Abhidhamma I have been having trouble analyzing the Abhidhamma.

  Can someone explain all or the main points of the Abhidhamma, but
  simply, just so I can understand it better as I continue my studies?

Thanks!

Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa & Nibbana). There are 121/89 Citta, 52 Cetesika, 28 Rupa. Each Citta contain a combination of Cetesika. Since these lists are long drilling down into the specifics are pretty long, but you can locate more detail resources here: http://www.abhidhamma.com/

Puthujjanas are obsessed with objects and their fantasy that objects have  ''a nature'' (and then that objects have ''a true nature'' hidden from humans) and that when they know this ''hidden nature'' that objects,they will know ''the nature'' of ''reality'', so they try to express what they hear about the dhamma through their cravings for objects and their fantasy that cars, houses, thoughts,  the past, the future, videos, paintings, humans, plants, whatever they see in their life have ''a nature''. Their creation is the various Abhidhammas.

All the people who create schools do this and they base their views on ''the true nature'' of things, phenomena, objects and of course when they move on to humans, they love to talk about the self and they even managed to create the wrong view called Pudgalavada. Even the westerns are infatuated with phenomenology and they claim that this close to the dhamma. This is why people love the Abhidhammas and the speculations on the Abhidhammas and hate the dhamma, since the dhamma does not focuses much on anything that is ''Mara's territory'' ( and instead on the citta iteself, sanna, vedana, like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.006.than.html),  for those people to be pleased by the dhamma and its lack of statements about the usual obsessions on which people will ways speculate :''why there is samsara in the first place'' and what is ''the nature of a things'' and ofc the biggest question for them ''what is the nature of a buddha''.

Since different people always invent different theories, there were plenty of Abhidhammas. Fortunately most of those books have disappeared so you do not have to worry about all the speculations by various people about the nature of ''things''.

For the Abhidhamma by the Mahavihara, ie the theravada today, you can check Bikkhu bodhi courses Abhidhamma Study Retreat'''which he holds each year
https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi/playlists

https://www.youtube.com/user/bauscym/search?query=Abhidhamma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPztefkY778&list=PLIIDc2zUth8RWXXsOAHqB6WiSmZZuQdCx

https://www.baus.org/en/activities/bhikkhu-bodhi/abhidhamma-study-retreat-with-ven-bhikkhu-bodhi-cym-831-932018/


How to explain what Buddhism is? My mother and I come from a non-Buddhist culture/background/society/country/family.

At one point when I had an opportunity to explain to her what Buddhism is, I was doing well (i.e. she was listening and accepting what I was saying) when I was explaining that Buddhism includes a non-fixed identity-view and explaining why a non-fixed identity view is skillful (e.g. because an attitude such as attachment to your job/profession might be unpleasant when you retire, and because people's abilities and health change with age).

But then what I mentioned the first Noble Truth she seemed to object, saying "Sorry you think life is suffering/dissatisfaction, I don't agree: I like life, I think life is good."

So

Do you ever try to explain Buddhism to someone who barely knows the first thing about it, and if so what is your strategy for how to explain it?
Do you explain 'dukkha' using the classic 'death/poverty/illness/old age', and/or is there a better way to explain the first noble Truth?
Are there any alternate way to introduce Buddhism which don't begin with the first Noble Truth?
Might it be better to explain what I think Buddhism might mean to me (why it appeals to me) personally? I fear that might make it less strange to her ("yes I see why you like it") but at the same time less acceptable ("but it isn't for me because I'm not like you").
Should I understand that if that's her reaction it's because she's already doing a lot of things right (e.g. not spending her life feeling angry)?

In a nut shell Buddhism revolves around the 3 trainings:

Living a life of morality so we do no create misery for one self and others
Developing mastery over the mind so we do not react but be proactive so we can be at peace with our selves and other
Developing wisdom of your cognitive process to identify how misery is generated so we can come out of misery

If the person u are trying to reach is not grasping dharma try another way. Explain What buddhism is to you. And then explain what buddhism is not. See if she is even listening. Tell her something that sounds too outrageous to be true but is dharma and see how she reacts lol try to engage her intellect and make her debate for instance tell her that a woman can never be a buddha if she is a feminist lol when she comes back upset and angry tell her that well technically buddha can be a woman but she would have to have been born male lol
If one technique does not work try another. Some gurus have horrible techniques but if they work......the ends justifies the means i suppose..