Understanding Rūparāgo and Arūparāgo In the Theravada tradition, the fetters model makes reference to rūparāgo and arūparāgo found in the higher fetters.
I've never been a jhana follower, but I can clearly recognise that the rupa jhanas and the arupa ayatanas move into me from time to time and sometimes in sequence, one after the other. From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms. I found this to be a suitable motivational incentive to move away from desire for worldly form but soon saw the drawbacks of having too much emphasis on rupa jhanas and rupa ayatanas. As such, I developed an indifference about their perceived feeling-tones, but I was still able to utilize the benefits they bring concerning insight and wisdom. My main practice is satipattana.
There is an interpretation I came to naturally understand using the aggregates model alongside my here-and-now experience, that one craves either the perception of form or the perception formless both through objectification of mental ideas born from the study of dhamma and the motion of practice. One could use the term spiritual materialism as an umbrella term. I find this practice helpful but too tricky to compile into words. To summarise, it's just a granular way of watching the rise and fall of the aggregates.
My question is, what other interpretations can be given to rūparāgo and arūparāgo from within Theravada traditions and also other Buddhist traditions?

From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms.

Jhana is not considered "sensual", including when craved for.

Rūparāgo and arūparāgo

The above appears to be lust for the blissful and equanimous feelings of rupa jhana and formless spheres, such as rapture, happiness, equanimity, spaciousness, etc, such as described in AN 9.36:

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first
absorption.... If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with
the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously,
because of their passion (dhammarāgena) and love
(dhammanandiyā) for that meditation. They are extinguished there,
and are not liable to return from that world.

Apart from the above, I do not know of any other sutta explanations.
For a personal opinion, Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

The next defilement, the sixth of the fetters, is desire for the bliss
associated with the various stages of concentration on forms (rupa -
raga). The first three grades of Aryian are still not capable of
giving up attachment to the bliss and tranquillity obtainable by
concentrating deeply on forms, but they will succeed in doing so when
they move up to the last stage, that of the Arahant. The fully
concentrated state has a captivating flavor, which can be described as
a foretaste of Nirvana. Though it differs from real Nirvana, it has
more or less the same flavor. While one is fully concentrated, the
defilements are dormant; but they have not evaporated away entirely,
and will reappear as soon as concentration is lost. As long as they
are dormant, however, the mind is empty, clear, free, and knows the
flavor of real Nirvana. Consequently this state can also become a
cause of attachment.
The seventh subtle defilement is desire for the bliss associated with
full concentration on objects other than forms (arupa - raga). It
resembles the sixth fetter, but is one degree more subtle and
attenuated. Concentration on an object such as space or emptiness
yields a tranquillity and quiescence more profound than concentration
on a form, with the result that one becomes attached to that state. No
Arahant could ever become fascinated by any state of pleasant feeling
whatsoever, regardless of where it originated, because an Arahant is
automatically aware of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
nonselfhood of every state of feeling. Other hermits and mystics
practicing concentration in the forest do not perceive the hidden
danger in these blissful states and so become fascinated by and
attached to the flavor of them just as immature people become attached
to the flavor of sensual objects. For this reason the Buddha used the
same word "desire" for both cases. If you think this subject over and
really come to understand it, you will be full of admiration and
respect for these individuals called Aryians.


Do we "deserve" our bad fortune? If I recall correctly, the term karma is used to explain the concept of dependent origination and how one thing leads to another, consequently creating every event that happens in our lives. It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result.

However, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, can karma explain the causes of these events and why seemingly innocent people suffer because of it? Furthermore, if we accept the notion that karma is behind everything in our lives, is that equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it?

Much appreciated.

In the Sivaka Sutta (quoted below), the Buddha stated that some events that happen to us are a result of karma. But other things are caused by other causes including bile disorders, phlegm disorders, wind disorders, change of climate, careless behaviour, assault etc. The belief that all that happens to you is due to past karma is contradictory to Buddhism.

Elsewhere in the suttas, we find the Jain belief that in order to become liberated, one has to do penance to "burn" accumulated bad karma. This is contradictory to Buddhism.

Another belief that is contradictory to Buddhism is that karma is a system of universal justice, whose purpose is to mete out punishment on the wicked and reward the good.

In Buddhism, karma is the expression of our volition. Basically, by the expression of our thoughts, words and deeds, we try to fulfill our craving towards sensual things (of the six senses including the intellect), and to fulfill our craving towards becoming something. This is our response to greed.

However, if we do not receive what we crave after, or if what we are enjoying is suddenly taken from us, we may become angry or unhappy. In this case, we may express our thoughts, words and deeds as a reaction to our aversion.

In general, how we think, talk and act, would somehow influence our future. It's not hard to see how that works. If we act virtuously, the world responds to us positively and vice versa. It's not like if I donate exactly 10 dollars, in future, somebody will give me exactly 10 dollars in return (or the equivalent future value). Rather, it's like if I am a kind person who likes to help people, this will attract other kind and helpful people to trust me and help me too. And similarly for bad karma.

If you intentionally knock your head on the wall, you will feel pain. That's karma too.

If a change in climate causes you to catch a cold, that's not karma. That's just caused by a change in climate.

The result of karma and the result of other causes, based on the Sivaka Sutta, seem to be quite "natural" and in accordance with our experience of the world.

Of course, the "supernatural" aspect of the result of karma is rebirth. But we should not care too much about how we were born into our present life. That's not skillful or useful. What is skillful or useful is to use our volition to minimize suffering and increase happiness in future.

Also, it's useful to think of rebirth not as the rebirth of a person, but rather, as the continuation of suffering that can be ended only by Nibbana, and not by physical death.

As written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "To Suffer Is an Active Verb":

  This is one of the reasons why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go
  back into the past and ask, “What did I do to deserve an illness, a
  mental state, a situation in life?” He said that if you tried to trace
  all those things back, you’d go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t
  trace back and find a beginning point for the ignorance that underlies
  suffering. But you can see what you’re doing to sustain it now.

The Sivaka Sutta:

  Moḷiyasīvaka:
  “Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a
  doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it
  be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is
  caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say
  about this?”

  Buddha:
  “Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders:
  that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can
  know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now
  when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as
  this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or
  painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what
  was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and
  they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I
  say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.

  “Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
  originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
  three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
  … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
  feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
  oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
  those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
  ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
  the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot
  what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this
  is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

It's foremost good to replace "we" and "our" with "I" and "mine" since it is hard enough to look after yourself.

You, one who might be interested, may like to read "Wisdom over Justice" and "Justice vs. Skillfulness" to get a good understanding about the distinction of "causes have effects" and ideas of "deserving something" (punishment). Its also good to get a good understanding about what kamma (action) act-ually "is".

Much growing by exploring with good mind ahead.

(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that keeps you bond in this wheel of it but as a tiny door out.)


Is Being a Bartender Considered Right Livelihood Selling animal for its meat is considered a wrong livelihood. Made intoxicants and sell them is also a wrong livelihood.  If people are working on a non-vegetarian food counter, I believe that is not a wrong livelihood. With the same understanding, if someone is working on the wine counter, the duties are serving customers who ask for wine, beer, filling shelves, that is also considered not a wrong livelihood.

But is being a bartender considered a wrong livelihood or not?

Vaṇijjā sutta discusses Right Livelihood in for levity which include: business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

If you sell meat or drinks for a living this is not right livelihood. I think is suffices if you are part of the establishment and need not be the proprietor / owner / shareholder. So if you work in a meat shop or bar or liquor store then this is not right livelihood.

If you are working is a big supermarket which sells among anything meat and drinks and you work in a generic counter not dedicated for the sale of meats or drinks then this might be OK. I.e., if you are part of a large store out of which a small part of business is meats, drinks and poisons unless you are involved is specifically to procure and sell these items it might be OK. As management or owner or shareholder of such business might be OK if this is a minor line of business and you are not involved in the planning and management of such activities.

Kandaraka Sutta, Apannaka Sutta mentions that those who torment themselves, those who torment others, those who torment both, and those who torment neither themselves nor others, out of which the last is the most conducive. Similarly one's job or business should be ideally organised around the same principles.

Also Ama,gandha Sutta discusses that it is not meat you should abstain from but from evil action.

So in conclusion bartending, being in the wine counter, being part of a butcher or meat shop, or being in the meat counter, is not right livelihood, but eating meat is not an issue.

I do not think there is anything which Buddha called right livelihood. These are interpretation of people. If you are a Bar tender clearly you do not have much choice in your life. There is nothing wrong if you are not acting out of desire. Desire is the key thing which differentiates right from wrong. If that job gives you hell lot of money and power, which helps in fulfilling your desire for a sports car, big mansion etc etc then clearly something is not right. A job ideally should be an expression of your talent/self. If you unfortunately not in a position then there is nothing wrong in it. 95% of humans are working for sake of money to survive. It is just a role you are performing to make a living. You are like an actor who is performing a role. There is no bad kamma associated with a role. An actor performing a role of Hitler will not become as bad as Hitler. Hungry and wretched people can not afford religion.


What is taught about Buddha nature in Theravada Buddhism? Reference: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm

The very last row talks about Buddha Nature. According to this page, Buddha Nature is not taught in Theravada Buddhism, and to my understanding, Buddha Nature is the potential for a being to become Enlightened. Is there any reason why the potential to become Enlightened isn't taught? It seems - to me - to be common sense that anyone can find their way to become Enlightened. After all, the Buddha is an example of what all beings could become.

Is my understanding of Buddha Nature wrong or is there more to this than I'm seeing regarding how Theravada Buddhism incorporates this in their teachings?

Consider this: Theravada posits Nirvana as a remote goal, while Mahayana posits Buddha-Nature as self-existing state of affairs. This is the key.

The reason Gautama Buddha declared Nirvana, is because he was modeling the Path after his own quest. Because he achieved his Enlightenment after having gone through numerous trainings and realizing Three Marks of Existence, Twelve Nidanas and Four Noble Truths, he saw that all students must go through similar experiences in order to achieve the same Liberation. Indeed, for someone without basic discipline, critical thinking skills, and capacity for self-reflection, attaining Buddha-Eye is outright impossible.

By the time of Mahayana though, because Buddhism became very popular and the essence of Teaching was somewhat lost in the noise of speculative philosophy and esoteric speculation, many new students would become obsessed with the idea of Nirvana, and instead of training the skilfull qualities of mind required for Enlightenment, would engage in fruitless search of Transcendental Realization. Out of compassion for future seekers, Bodhisattvas established the notion of Buddha Nature, openly declaring that Enlightenment is not something remote you have to attain, but rather one's innate nature to be recovered.

So Buddha-Nature is basically Nirvana or Enlightenment, except now you know you already have it, and only need to open your eyes, instead of running around the world seeking it. That said, you still have to work on dropping all attachments, deconstructing the ego, and becoming the master of your mind/emotions before you can take legal ownership of your rightful possession :)

As a Theravadan ive made the mistake of thinking Buddha Nature is just "everyone's ability to become awakened".  There is apparently more to it then that but im in no way qualified to explain that as I have much to learn about it myself.

As for Theravada it is true as far as I have seen in my years of study and practice that "buddha nature" is not taught.  However the Buddha says many times in the suttas that everyone has the ability to become awakened bases on their own effort and practice in this very life,  so in that sense everyone has a "buddha nature".

Also it may be important to note the differences between arahants and buddhas between the traditions.  In Theravada the only difference between a buddha and an arahant is that a buddha finds the path on their own when it has been lost,  there is no difference between a buddha and an arahant in terms of wisdom/ability etc in Theravada,  not so in Mahayana.


What is the role of karma in the wheel of becoming? I can't seem to find resources that tell me the role of karma within the wheel itself rather than the nature of karma. Any suggestions?

On traditional bhava-chakra images, the center of the wheel shows pig, snake, and peacock - these are the three intoxicants of Want, Hate, and Confusion (really, Reification). In the next outer layer from the center are shown human figures: half of them going up and half falling down. This is karma, good and bad. Then the next outer layer shows the six realms. And the outermost layer shows 12 Nidanas.

The relationship between layers is, the inner layers serve as causes or engines for the outer layers. So the three intoxicants, mixed like paints in various proportions, give rise to various karma classified generally in the two types, and then the fruits of karma arise as experience of one of the realms. That's from the perspective of a sentient being looking from the inside out.

From the perspective of Buddha, looking at the wheel from the outside in, the whole thing is manifestation of the spontaneous individuation (bhava) aka pratitya-samutpada, represented by 12 Nidanas.

So the role of karma within the wheel itself is to create experience of one of the six realms. Meaning, the world that you experience at any given moment is a projection of your mental/emotional state, which in its turn comes from your karma and the intoxicants. So if you make effort to not act under influence of the three intoxicants, then over time your reality will change.

AN 6.63 states: "kamma is intention". In the Dependent Origination, intention (cetana) is first mentioned at nama-rupa (4th condition).

It is one of the greatest errors & corruptions to regard "sankhara" (2nd condition) as "kamma" because sankhara (in SN 12.2) is defined (per MN 44) as the in & out breathing (kaya sankhara); initial & discursive thought (vaci sankhara); and perception & feeling (citta sankhara). Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains this very well in the meditative examples in his book The Shape of Suffering.

Suttas, such as SN 14.12, show clearly that intention & kamma do not occur at sankhara (2nd condition), where sankhara is distracting thoughts & perceptions produced by ignorance (where ignorance, the 1st condition, includes the sensuality element or asava), as follows:

  Bhikshus, dependent on the sensuality element [ignorance], perception of sensuality arises [sankhara];  dependent on perception of sensuality, sensual
  intention [nama-rupa] arises; dependent on sensual intention, sensual desire
  arises [craving]; dependent on sensual desire, sensual passion arises; dependent
  on sensual passion , sensual quest [attachment] arises; engaged in the quest of
  sensuality, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself [becoming] wrongly in
  these three ways—with the body, with speech and with the mind. SN
  14.12

Note: the 'asava' ('outflows') are included within ignorance in MN 9.

Therefore, mental kamma or mental intention 1st comes into play at 'nama-rupa' (mind-body; 4th condition), namely, when ignorance takes control of the mind-body & the mind-body inclines (namati) towards pursing the ignorant urges & formations produced by ignorance & sankhara. About 'nama-rupa', SN 12.2 states:

  Feeling, perception, volition (intention), 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.
  SN 12.2; MN 9

For example, you are quietly meditating then a sensual urge suddenly spontaneously erupts. The sensual urge/energy is from ignorance (1st condition) & the distracting sensual thoughts & perceptions are sankhara (2nd condition). At this cross-roads, the mind & body (nama-rupa), if mindful, can choose/intend to ignore or calm the sensual urge & thoughts or, otherwise, if unmindful, can intend (4th condition) to follow the sensual urge & thoughts. This is the first occurrence of intention in the dependent origination, namely, at the 4th condition.

Then kamma (mental, verbal & bodily) becomes mature at "becoming" (bhava), as explained in AN 3.76. Note how there must be craving for kamma to fully occur.

  Lord, this word, 'becoming, becoming' — to what extent is there becoming?

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

  No, lord.

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

In conclusion, meditation is required to comprehend dependent origination for oneself (rather than believe in unverified ideas of scholars). It is important to discern in meditation that the distracting thoughts & urges that spontaneously arise are not volitional or not intentional. Given these spontaneous urges (avicca; asava) & spontaneous thoughts & perceptions (sankhara) are not volitional, they cannot be "kamma" because kamma is intentional action (per AN 6.63).


Is there a time difference between death and re-birth? What is the Theravada position to following question?
Is there a time difference between death and re-birth?

Some further reading:
Are my future parents already here?
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961&hilit

In abhidhamma, when death consciousness vanished, then rebirth consciousness arise, immediately.

I would answer 'yes', even though 'death' ('marana') for the puthujjana is generally very quickly followed by another 'rebirth' ('jati').

For example, your unexpectedly wife divorces you. You die from the self-identity (sakkaya ditthi) of a 'husband' and are soon after reborn, in hell (suffering), with self-identity as a 'divorcee' or 'alone'.

This new birth (jati) takes some time, even if it is only the time of one or two thoughts.

You learn: "My wife has left me", which takes about 3 seconds to think. Then you think: "I am now alone", which takes two seconds to think. Therefore, rebirth takes around 2 to 5 seconds, or more, depending on the complexity.

For example, some people remain in denial for a long time when there is loss so rebirth may take a longer time for them, as explained in the Piyajatika Sutta:

  Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little
  son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little
  child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"

  The Blessed One said to him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in
  your faculties."

  That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is
  dear, come springing from one who is dear.


Meaning of 'kalapas' What did the Buddha really meant with 'kalapas' (those ultra small particles of existence, that arise and pass away at an incredible speed)?

Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)?

Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

kalāpa in the sense you are thinking is used in the commentaries. The word is generally used in the suttas to mean "bundle", as in yavakalāpa - bundle of grass, or dhanukalāpa - sheaf of arrows. I can't pinpoint the first usage of the word to mean "smallest particle  of matter", but the Visuddhimagga uses it in this way:

  “But since neither of these is a fact, you should therefore give up conjecturing
  the difference to be in the supporting primary elements. Just as the natures of visible
  objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the
  primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other
  cause of their difference exists.”

  -- Vism XIV.45 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The Pali here is ekakalāpe - "in a single group". The meaning is that each instance of matter is made up of a single group of characteristics.

The abhidhammattha-sangaha also uses the term:

  Ekuppādā ekanirodhā ekanissayā sahavuttino ekavīsati rūpakalāpā
  nāma.

  There are twenty-one material groups inasmuch as they arise together, cease together, have a common basis, and occur together.

  (Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation is:

  Material phenomena do not occur  singly,  but  in  combinations or
  groups known as rūpakalāpas, of which twenty-one are enumerated. Just
  as all the cetasikas possess four characteristics (see II, §1), so too do
  the material phenomena  in a group. All  the material phenomena in  a
  group arise together and cease  together.  They  have  a common base, namely, the conascent great essentials, which are the proximate cause
  for the derivative phenomena as well as for each other. And they all occur
  together from their arising to their cessation.

  (From A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pp. 252-3)

Nyanatiloka gives the following explanation of rūpa-kalāpa in his Manual of Buddhist Terms:

  'corporeal group', material unit, designates a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most primitive group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure eightfold unit' or 'octad' (suddhatthakakalāpa), to wit: the 4 elements (the solid, fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojā).

  In Vis.M., and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalāpa, 'the octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'.

  The simplest form of living matter is the '9-fold vitality unit' or 'life-ennead' (jīvita-navaka-kalāpa), formed by adding 'vitality' to the octad.

  Seven decades, or units of ten (dasaka-kalāpa), are formed by adding to the 9-fold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: heart (physical seat of mind), sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. -

  See Vis.M. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS), p. 164, 250; Atthasālini Tr., II, 413f.

Finally, Mahasi Sayadaw talks about rūpa-kalāpa in the context of rebirth as a human in his discourse on Paticca-Samuppada:

  With the arising of rebirth consciousness there occur simultaneously three kammajā-rūpakalāpas or thirty rūpas. These are rūpas that have their origin in kamma, viz., ten kāyarūpas, ten bhava-rūpas and ten vatthu rūpas. The nine rūpas, to wit, the solid, fluid, heat, motion, colour, smell, taste, nutriment and life together with the kāyapasāda (body-essence) rūpa form the ten kāyarūpas; bhava-rūpa and the solid, etc form the group of ten Bhavūpas. Bhavārūpa means two germinal rūpas, one for manhood and the other for womanhood.

  ...

  This embryonic rūpa has the size of a little drop of butter-oil scum on a fine woollen thread. It is so small that it is invisible to the naked eye. It does not exist by itself. We should assume that it arises from the fusion of the semen (sukka) and blood (sanita) of the parents. If we reject this view, it will be hard to explain the child's resemblance to his parents in physical appearance. It is also said in the suttas that the physical body is the product of the four primary elements and the parent's semen. Moreover, the piṭaka specifies three conditions necessary for conception, viz., the parent's intercourse, the menstrual discharge of the mother and the presence of something qualified to become an embryo. Thus it is clear that according to the scriptures, the embryonic kalāla has its origin in the fusion of parent's semen and blood.

  ...

  According to Western biologists, it is the fusion of the mother's ovum and the father's spermatozoa that gradually develops and becomes a child. The original embryo is so small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. The findings of these scientists fairly agree with what the Buddhist books say about conception. Without the help of microscope or other instruments but purely by means of his intellect the Buddha knew how life begins with three kalāpas or thirty rūpas as kalāpa on the basis of parents' semen and blood. This was the Buddha's teaching 2500 years ago and it was only during the last 300 years that Western scientists discovered the facts about conception after long investigation with microscopes. Their discoveries bear testimony to the Buddha's infinite intelligence. However, they are as yet unable to reveal the genesis of thirty rūpas probably because the extremely subtle kammajarūpas defy microscopic investigation.

UPDATE (to reflect your new questions):

Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)?

The theory of the kalāpa has no direct connection with the theory of suññatā; it simply describes the composition of individual groups of matter. Indirectly, though, since suññatā is very much connected with anattā (being devoid or "empty" of self), the fact that rūpa is made up of individual states that arise and cease without remainder is indeed an important part of the realization of this truth. E.g.:

  Having thus discerned by knowledge of contemplation of reflection that
  “All formations are void” (see S III 167), he again discerns voidness in the double logical relation thus: “This is void of self or of what belongs to self” (M II 263; Paṭis II 36).

  When he has thus seen that there is neither a self nor any other [thing or
  being] occupying the position of a self's property, he again discerns voidness in the quadruple logical relation as set forth in this passage: “I am not anywhere anyone’s owning, nor is there anywhere my owning in anyone (nāhaṃ kvacani kassaci kiñcanat’ asmiṃ na ca mama kvacani kismiñci kiñcanat’ atthi)” (M II 263).

  -- Vism XXI.53 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

kalāpa, or more properly rūpa-kalāpa, are physical, so no they are only a source for certain other phenomena. "source" is a problematic term anyway, since the causal nature of reality is far more complex than simply A => B.

Kalapas are sub atomic particles. Gautama the Buddha when sitting at the age of 35 under a bodi tree, sat in the ultimate adithaana meditation. He sharpened his awareness to the extent that he tore apart and experienced an atom and its particles. What he also experienced is the impermanence of these particles as in they were arriving and passing away. He also experienced these as vibrations or wavelets. This revealed the impermanence of matter or the universal law of the atomic universe.

These can be reconciled with science as the disappearance of particles during a phenomenon called tunnelling where a particle disappears and appears somewhere else.

96% of the universe is non atomic. Also called dark energy or dark matter. 99.99% of the remaining 4% of the atomic universe contains interparticle space. The space between say elections and nucleus. And space between proton and neutrons as they move around. Thus the rest is particles and sub particles or quarks. These are also impermanent. They disappear when not observed or not interacting with other particles.

THUS THE UNIVERSE IS MADE UP OF...,,NOTHING.

The last bit is being considered as scientific fact apparently.

Watch here https://youtu.be/WMhJgdpj1d0


Why is Vipassana centred around the breath, when it's meant to be a state of observing sensations? I can't seem to reconcile the two ideas that Vipassana meditation involves both concentrating completely on the breath while at the same time observing bodily sensations. Aren't these two mutually exclusive? How can one concentrate on the breath while being open to new sensations?

When you watch your breath, seeing the quality or character of each in-breath and out-breath allows you to really see your feelings (not sensations, that's a bad translation). Breath is the best pointer at your emotional state.

Mindfulness of breathing is primarily for the removal of distracting thoughts;

He should develop perception of unattractiveness so as to abandon lust. He should develop good will so as to abandon ill will. He should develop mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking.

Observing the breath is just for the initial calming down and focusing. When stilled it becomes less relevant as there are other things to be mindful of.
It is a satipatthana practice because the breaths are bodily fabrications, they are felt, are sensations and have to do with the body. Therefore one is then mindful of the body, is mindful of feelings and is mindful of the perceptions.
Vipassana is a very loose and trendy term.


As a Buddhist with a Muslim family, community, and background... how do you integrate/cope? Coming from an Islamic background and having a community/Sangha that is loyal to the religion of Islam, how do you harmoniously integrate yourself and your Buddhist study and practice with the community you were born in including within a mosque?

I'm 26 and I considered myself becoming Buddhist when I was 14. I come from a very loyal Islamic family and I totally think that Islam is a beneficial religion... containing within it the simplest and easiest spiritual practices of all Abrahamic religions because it has a meditation+yoga-like prayer system, calling all practitioners to Practice with single-mindedness towards a singular God every day five times a day (namaj).

I made a lot of mistakes over the years in expressing these ideas with simultaneous conviction and non-defensiveness that is my power now.

Islam is a very strict religion on the the level of the 1st two trainings:

morality: unconditionally forbids all intoxication and has many other moral codes
concentration: routine concentration practice of prayer, using mantra method combined with yoga

Thus, even though I am Buddhist I don't run away from Islam. I fully embrace it and espouse the half-muslims to actually practice it because it has many health benefits.
I go to mosque when I can and when I am required to with my family and community and I integrate Buddhist science of spiritual practice to practice with single-minded mindfulness and not the ignorant desire-filled prayer most people probably do.

Buddhism is a religion that is fully integrated within my Islamic community and if I speak about Buddhism I speak about it without ever mentioning the word Buddhism or Buddha. I merely reference the practices such as yoga and meditation and pranayama which are nondenominational and conducive to the actual reason for namaj (improve concentration and oneness with Allah--a concentration object).

Thus, when I speak about Islamic practices, I find myself always integrating the nondenominational, spiritual principles of Buddhism within the structure of Islam.

Islam is a great religion and can be fully subsumed into the spiritual science of Buddhism. Practice the Buddhist virtue of modesty and let no one know of your attainments and your vigorous concentration practice.

Mentally discard silly Islamic/religious that you know by Buddhadharma are only created to help people stay doubt-free and cultivating practice concept and enjoy spiritual practice with your community!

Use the phrases and phrases you learned from within Islam. Display complete devotion to Islam and spiritual science in general. Islam isn't that complicated at all... it is easy to blend in and be spiritual, continue to use the Buddhadharma but always appear Muslim by practicing Right Speech within your community.

If Buddhism is regarded as 'psychology' rather than as 'religion', there will be no competition/conflict between the two.

Of course, if this attitude is adopted, generally the 'belief' aspects of cultural Buddhism (such as Buddha statues, reincarnation, etc) must ideally be dropped.

If the ancient Greeks did not introduce alien Buddha statues into Buddhism & if the ambitious Buddhist rulers & clergy did not taint their scriptures with Brahmanistic ideas (for the purpose of religious conversion), Buddhism may have lasted longer in central Asia due to not being falsely regarded as a form of idolatry.


What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity? The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ.

Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation?

I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present.

For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking.

Many thanks.

  "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
  untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
  of action 2 & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
  Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
  household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
  sensations, & ideas.)

  "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
  their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
  it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
  stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
  is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
  smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

  "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on
  multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity
  with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas:
  this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming
  from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.

  "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on
  singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of
  nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent
  on singleness.

It's good to get aware of issues of different kind of equanimity not only because most modern, especially lay teacher, even whole "schools" actually teach the dangerous "household-equanimity". The differernt is btw. actually drawn out in the notes and also in the translators intoduction of the sutta:

A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.

A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

Ordinary equanimity is based on gross ignorance/moha.
The two illustrations here might also provide for an understanding:
Ignoring the truth & Bhaṅgañāņa and bhayañāņa.
Some "provoking" questions for an understanding in this regard may be also found here: Freed of Fivefold Fear.
Typical outwardly indicators for people dwelling in household-equanimity is total lack in basics like gratitude, goodness, generosity and virtue. Once such states a reached, people are merely hopless lost which is one reason the Buddha often nearly "fighted" against teachers leading in such directions while other teachings, even if not much of benefit have been merely tolerated as current wishes for certain destinies of others.
The immense danger of giving rise to firm household-equanimity is also the reason why in Bodhisatta-vehicles the teaching of emptiness of immature people is a grave fault and breach of the root vows, knowing that they are walking on a tiny edge and althought propably even understood as encouragement to act wrong.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

There is nothing difference between equanimity, but the difference appear in householder and renunciation.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

For your example: the 3rd and 6th case react the same action. But one by unwholesome mind, another by wholesome mind. That's the difference.

However, because of the very difference between the mind factors of them. If the householder equanimity person doesn't try to fake, lie. He react by  most of these mind factors: lobha, dosa, moha, diṭṭhi, māna, issa, macchariya, uddhacca, kukucca, vicikicchā,ahiri, anottappa, thīna, middha.

However, the wholesome action can react like that, too, such as the householder equanimity fall to sleep by thīna and middha. But the renunciation equanimity fall to sleep by sati-sampajañña. The householder equanimity may show or not their sleepy action. But the renunciation equanimity must not. However, the renunciation equanimity may have the tired-action which is physical, but it may looks like the physical action by thīna and middha as well.

So, don't judge a book by its cover.

Gehasita feeling (householder feeling; gehasita=with lobha) means the feeling going together with attaching the 12 āyatana, and 6 contacts (18 manopavicāra). The feeling and attaching are called taṇhā (samudayasacca;caving) and 18 manopavicāra are called 18/60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa in MN Mūlapaṇṇāsaka,
 mahāsatipaṭṭthānasutta.

Nekkhammasita feeling (renunciation equanimity; nekkhamma=without lobha) means the feeling going without attaching the 12 āyatana, and 6 contacts (18 manopavicāra). The feeling and non-attaching are called nekkhamma-sammāsaṅkappa (right thought in maggasacca) which appear in nirodha-sacca of MN Mūlapaṇṇāsaka, mahāsatipaṭṭthānasutta. as attachment cessation from 18/60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa.

  (the kehasita = taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha-samudaya ariyasacca? It is this
  taṇhā leading to rebirth, connected with desire and enjoyment, finding
  delight here or there, that is to say: kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and
  vibhava-taṇhā.

  ...

  (6 inner-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The eye ... ear ... nose ... tongue ... Kāya ... Mana in the world is
  pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when
  settling, it settles.

  (rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda; 6 inner-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda's objects; outer-āyatana)

  Visible forms ... Sounds... Smells ... Tastes ... Bodily phenomena ...
  Dhammas in the world are pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

  (6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The eye-viññāṇa ... ear-viññāṇa .. tongue-viññāṇa ... Kāya-viññāṇa ...
  Mana-viññāṇa in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

  (phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The eye-samphassa ... ear-samphassa ... nose-samphassa ...
  tongue-samphassa ... Kāya-samphassa ... Mana-samphassa in the world is
  pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when
  settling, it settles.

  (vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The vedanā born of eye-samphassa... vedanā born of ear-samphassa ...
  vedanā born of nose-samphassa ... vedanā born of tongue-samphassa ...
  vedanā born of kāya-samphassa ... vedanā born of mana-samphassa in the
  world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises,
  there when settling, it settles.

  (nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The saññā of visible forms ... saññā of sounds ...saññā of odors ...
  saññā of tastes ...saññā of bodily phenomena ... saññā of Dhammas in
  the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising,
  arises, there when settling, it settles.

  (kamma-bhava-paṭiccasamuppāda; saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda)

  The intention [related to] visible forms ... intention [related to]
  sounds ... intention [related to] odors ... intention [related to]
  tastes ... intention [related to] bodily phenomena ... intention
  [related to] dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there
  taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

  (kehasita taṇhā)

  The taṇhā for visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it
  settles. The taṇhā for sounds .. odors ... tastes ... bodily phenomena
  ... dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

  [Mana = vitakka in saḷāyatana-vibhaṇgasutta because of upavicāra (vicāra often appear with vitakka), sammā-saṅkappa(right vitakka), and
  miccha-saṅkappa (wrong vitakka). So, the context force us to translate
  mana(of mana-upavicāra) as vitakka in saḷāyatana-vibhaṇgasutta]

  (kehasita vitakka; kehasita mano)

  The vitakka of visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it
  settles. The vitakka of sounds in the world is pleasant and agreeable,
  there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
  The vitakka of odors in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there
  taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The
  vitakka of tastes in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā,
  when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The vitakka of
  bodily phenomena in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā,
  when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The vitakka of
  dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

  (kehasita upavicāra)

  The vicāra of visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable,
  there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
  The vicāra of sounds ... odors ... tastes ... bodily phenomena ...
  dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. This is called,
  bhikkhus, the dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca.

  (See nirodhasacca-niddesa in the same way for nekkhammasita)

  (Below word "saṅkappa" ofthen use "vitakka" instead in variant sutta, so this is nekkhammasita-vitakka)

  And what, bhikkhus, are sammāsaṅkappas? Those, bhikkhus, which are saṅkappas of nekkhamma, saṅkappas of abyāpāda, saṅkappas of avihiṃsā, those are called, bhikkhus, sammāsaṅkappas.

This is not good enough explanation for abhidhammist, abhidhamma has more detail than I told above, but I think it is enough for you.


Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot.
But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing.
I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness.
The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.
I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?
If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.

You don't think so ?

Yours sincerely.

If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "Who is making it rain? Who is making the sun rise from the east? Who is making the fruits fall to the ground?".

To take an example, if you impartially analyse the experience of seeing, you wouldn't be asking the question "who is seeing?". You would ask something like "what are the different aspects of seeing?". That question does not add anything assumed/fabricated/artificial to the test environment. Then you will notice a physical aspect and a mental aspect to the experience that took place. Physical aspect is the light, eye and the mental aspect is the awareness of it. Upon further investigation, you will notice that these experiences do not just happen magically. You will notice that they arise due to causes. You will notice that the awareness aspect of the experience is also something that arises due to causes and that it is impersonal.

Likewise, if you want to know reality, throw all of  the assumptions out of the window and take each experience as it is. If you do not hypothesize or fabricate, the truth will reveal itself.

You are thinking clearly. If there were no Atman (the consciousness principle), which is not a spatial being at all, no signals coming in through ANY of the sense organs would ever result in any perception at all. Light would fall on the eyes, but there would be no seeing. Sounds would enter the ear, but there would be no hearing. Sugar could be placed on your tongue, but nothing would be tasted. Someone could pinch you, but nothing would be felt. Fumes could enter the nose, but nothing would be smelled. It is because of the Atman aspect of matter that matter, in the form of organisms, could ever be sentient at all. No amount of totally unconscious matter could ever be arranged into an organism and then consciousness arises out of this dumb, dead stuff. It is only because consciousness (which has both a passive mode and active mode) pulsates and masquerades as matter itself (and may well start out relatively dumb, but not completely and utterly insentient), that your eyes see, ears hear, etc. This consciousness is ultimately unbound and free. Lastly, to any of you Buddhist critics (with the exception of many, but not all Dzogchen and Zen folks) who like to speak of grasping at a self, please take note of the following, which is a statement by Greg Goode, which I once read on some forgotten web forum, "The Self can't do grasping."

Furthermore, I would like to suggest that without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time. With each passing moment, you would feel like a different person, but I trust that is not how you feel. I also reccomend looking into Pratyabhijna philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism.


How would one recognise if a Buddhist group is a cult? How would one recognise if a sangha or Buddhist group is a cult or has cult type tendencies. Are there well established things to look out for? Are there cult type behaviours or patterns that would be particularly linked with Buddhism or are all cults broadly similar irrespective of their religious inspiration?

We have tried to answer questions about cults before here and here however these questions have been closed down as too opinion based. However I'm hoping by broadening the scope and moving it away from any one group it may help to keep this more objective. Also I would imagine that there are scholarly studies in this area so I'm hoping that this will also assist in objectivity.

As a side note I'm aware that the term cult is a controversial and emotionally weighted term. It's difficult to get a good definition but I found one here that seems reasonable

  A group or movement is theologically a cult if it identifies itself as
  belonging to a mainstream, recognized religion — and yet rejects or
  otherwise violates one or more of the central, essential teachings of
  that religion.

however I welcome any other definitions too.

Some answers from the suttas (emphasis mine):

  Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: 'In a certain dwelling place live many elders, very learned, who have learned the traditions, who are bearers of the Teaching, bearers of the Discipline, bearers of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from those elders, directly I learned it: "This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation."' Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

  If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by those elders,' and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by those elders.' This, monks, is the third Great Referral you should bear in mind.

  -- Mahāparinibbāna sutta, DN 16

and:

  [...] "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

  "That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. [...]

  "These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

  -- SN 16.13

Zopa Rinpoche wants to stop eathquaks with his mind. Gomdes Lamas go arround making ceromonies to make retreat guests in wealthy countries like Denmark Rich.

Ar the same time People WHO have been through horrible Abuse and seek hope in the compasionate Ways of Buddha, are made out to be crazy disgusting inhumans, at the same time the frase keeps ringing " we are all the same".

If you see major distatefull contradictions in a Group. Then find another place.
The original forms of buddhism Doesnt haven't  gone so wrong


Husband has sexual activity with other woman with the consent of wife There is a true story where a couple just got married. Soon after marriage, the wife is diagnosed with certain illness by the doctor. To make it short, because of the illness, the wife is not allowed to have sexual intercourse. The wife, however, tells the husband if needed he can have sexual intercourse with other woman to meet his biological need.

In this particular case, if the husband has sexual intercourse with other woman, does he break the 3rd precept? Any source provided to back up the answer would be great.

It does not break the third precept if the husband has the wife's willful(not forced) consent. It's somewhat similar to kings having more than one queen.

Having said that, there is no such thing as a "biological need" regarding sexual pleasures. Water is a biological need, air is a biological need, food is a biological need as you cannot survive without them. You do not need sex to live.

I marked this question down because it is Dhammically illogical and appears to attempt to justify sexual promiscuity with Dhammic principles. If a man had moral Dhammic commitment to stay with his injured wife then why would the same moral man have uncommitted sex with another woman (unless the woman was a prostitute)? The question makes no sense at all. I think the only way to phrase this question properly is: "Husband has sexual activity with a prostitute with the consent of wife". There is one explicit sutta that literally condemns having sex with prostitutes (although I can't remember it).

For those with a superstitious bent about karma & rebirth, it is obviously due to the man's past karma he has this wife & thus his duty is to look after her faithfully. Possibly in a past life, the man was a sexual abuser of women, such as a pimp or pornography producer, therefore in this life he must look after this woman or otherwise have rebirth in the most severe hell. My guess it is the man's last chance at a 'human birth' before the earth opens up & swallows him into hell of fire.


No aim. No perspective. Begin of 30y. Scared about political-decisions. Paranoid. What should I do? Please make sure you read the whole text before giving me an answer.
I'm very serious about this and search a very good advise, something I didn't think before.

This year I'll become 30 years and I'm standing in the middle of nothing.
My boss fired me and all in all I feel I quitted more jobs in my life than changing my underpants.
I've no motivation to do something cause I've no aim for something.
When I started to do something (no matter what) I concentrate on it for a few days / weeks / months and than I left it and do something new or nothing, cause everything makes me bored from time to time or stressed me to much.
Then there are times I decided to do something very cool. These are the times I started to do something new for a particular time. But when I'm into it and I don't "throw it away" I think about all the political decisions (internationally) and get paranoid of a world war 3 or something like this. That's the reason why I don't want to do anything, cause I think "When I do something and the worstcase comes over us, there was no need to learn / do it."
I'm very deep in conspiracy theories and work sometimes hours, days, weeks and month to find out "the truth".
That's the reason why I think like I mentioned above.
And that brings me to another fact: I seriously hate this system of life.
I've the opinion we are not on this planet to work and pay taxes. In my point of view, both are waste of time --> Working for money, to make a low life - never become that successful, that I don't have to worry about the most money-cases.
In my opinion we are here to find a higher self.
Now there are 2 possibilities:

I want to stay in a monastery. Become a monk. But I can't cause of my girlfriend.
(But I think her thinking is right as well: "You just want to flee from everything".)
I don't want to build a future with making decisions with/for her when we broke up anyway someday.
(That's just my thinking)

My girlfriend is telling me, I should concentrate more on myself than on her.
I should do more what I want, not what she want or what is "best" for a common future. (Yes, she really loves me - no sarcasm here)

I've a handful of friends more or less but nothing I can work with for my personal life. It's not cause of them, it's cause of me, cause I don't like to talk about the most things.

And I've less than a handful of leisure activities.
I had no plan in the past and I don't have one right now.
In my carreer I developed a photography-eye so my references in photography are remarkable.
But I hate to stress myself out to search for some work for it (freelance) and I don't like to work with people at all (commercial studios who work for quantity, not quality).
The second thing I can do very well is solving computer problems of all kinds. Even when I've to search in the www for solutions I can solve every problem since I'm a child. Hardware & Software. No matter which kind of operating system. Just doing it like I never did anything before.
My actually situation is: I've safed a little money to survive for the next 1 - 2 month.
I could search for another job, but the possibility I really hate it is very high and will quit anyway.
And I feel myself is to old to do something totally different and become SO good in it, that I become very successful with it.
So what should I do generally?
I feel like "I just want to quit life and try something else." (if you understand what I mean)
Cause everything I do is making me bored.
Everything I aim on is not SO special (in my mind), that I would spend my life for it. (For example: Become a programmer: Oh no, it's not THAT cool ... and on and on)

I think I see your karmic situation very clearly. You have a very strong predisposition to become a serious Buddhist. As they say these days, "you are a natural".

At the same time, you're kinda late in your cycle being in your 30s. If you start now you may not finish by the end of this life -- and in a next life, while major karmic and mental dispositions carry on, the conceptual knowledge and practices have to be restarted from scratch.

My advice to you is to not go to monastery at this age, and instead do a 100% watertight saint-type practice in your daily life. I believe this is your only chance. Then by the time you're ~50 you'll hopefully make the breakthrough and still have enough time and energy left to take care of future lives.

The gist of the practice is, you have to be perfect. I'm not joking (you wish I would). Obviously, life is an optimization game against many mutually competing variables but in every daily situation there is always the point of best balance. Which means, for next decade or so, you have to remove yourself from the equation and focus on achieving the best objective outcome in every situation regardless of your personal feelings. That's all there is to it: remove yourself from the equation, be impeccable, optimize every single situation as perfectly as you can.

This obviously includes your sense of self-worth (connected with praise and reward). Part of removing yourself out of the equation includes dropping all worry about how you look in the eyes of others. Your sense of the right must not depend on praise and blame of others. When you act like a de-facto saint (externally AND internally -- including not having negative thoughts about others or self-praising thoughts), then you know you are 100% right so you don't need to depend on others' opinions anyway.

Does this make sense? It's a very simple practice conceptually, the only difficulty is to be sincere with yourself - in order to make it watertight. From what you told us I see that this should work very well for you, if you have the guts to follow it through.

"I just want to quit life and try something else."

this gave me a good laugh, really, but that's impossible because outside of life there's... normally another life

i don't know how long you've been feeling this way, but since you mention your age i'll take a risk to guess that it could be an age specific crisis, which for some comes about at around 29 years of age, when all aspects of a person's astrological map has come a full circle

so maybe as a first measure it would make sense to check with a competent astrologist, just to find out where you stand right now


Should one call oneself a Buddhist? When people ask me about my religion, it always gets me thinking as how I should announce to another person that I practice Buddhism, should tell that I am:

A Buddhist
Follower of the Buddha
Practicing Buddhism

Or an alternative to these?

The way I was taught Buddhism: identifying oneself with anything is a fetter. Self-identification is a form of clinging, and as such it inherently leads to conflict between "this" and "that", hence suffering.

Ego is a box made of stuff we identify with. Ego is not just being selfish, it is what makes us tremendously vulnerable.

Externally, avoid defining yourself, except jokingly or if required by circumstances. Internally, have no idea who you really are.

Do not identify yourself as Theravada, Mahayana, Democrat, Republican, Russian, Ukrainian, Man, Woman, Buddhist, Programmer, Human, or Spontaneously
Self-Existing
Luminous
Unity
of Emptiness
and Form.

  Thus, to all dharmas not getting stuck, not getting caught into traps of abstractions (aniketacari), not clinging -- he attains Awakening of the Lucky Ones.

Why not simply say you are devoted to non-attachment? Which, to my humble understanding, is the crux of "Buddhist" thinking. Why must we feel so compelled to answer these crude and absurd questions in the first place? Why is it anyone's business?


Why intake of intoxicating substances is not included in 10 unwholesome actions? Following are the 3 unrighteous bodily conducts out of 10 unwholesome actions described in suttas such as Saleyyaka Sutta.

Killing living beings
Stealing
Sexual misconduct

I would like to know the reason why the intake of intoxicants, liquor and drugs is not listed as one of unwholesome actions.

In a way, the 10 unwholesome actions already take into account the intaking of intoxicants in the sense that intoxicant is a condition for the manifestation of any one of those 10 unwholesome actions. When one is drunk, it could serve as the condition that leads to killing, stealing, raping, etc.. OR it could just cause him to throw up and then pass out. In other words the 10 unwholesome actions are listed because they're all manifested explicit actions while taking intoxicants is a to-be-manifested action..

Everybody is intoxicated. Some people to food, some to sex, some to power, some to alcohol. Buddha never said anything about sex, food, alcohol or other intoxicants. Sexual conduct is only defined for monks. Buddha never said anything about householders. Meditation alone is the cure for intoxication of any kind. Please remember Buddha's path is path of intelligence. Any intelligent person will see an intoxicant as bondage and will set himself free of it. There is no need for any Sutta.


Is there a Tantrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) training related to "burning" past bad karma? I heard (only heard) a couple of times somewhere that there is a training in Tantrayana that can purify you, by deleting or burning your own past bad karma.

Unfortunately, I don't know the name of this training -- but I lived in Indonesia and sometimes a Tantrayana monk came and offered something like this (again, if I remember correctly)

Is there some kind of training like this?

In the Theravada pali cannon:
In this Devadaha Sutta , the Buddha refutes the theories of the Jains — here called the Niganthas — and heaps ridicule on the idea of trying to burn kamma by asceticism. First he notes that none of the Niganthas have ever come to the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way;

"Going to Niganthas who teach in this way, I have asked them, 'Is it true, friend Niganthas, that you teach in this way, that you have this view: "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted"?'
"Having been asked this by me, the Niganthas admitted it, 'Yes.'
"So I said to them, 'But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?' (*basically, have you seen your own past lives?)
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?'
"'No, friend.'
"'But do you know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now?'
"'No, friend.'
"'So, friends, it seems that you don't know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist... you don't know what is the abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now. That being the case, it is not proper for you to assert that, "Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism, and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action. With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering & stress will be exhausted."

Purification of karma is the same as purifying the mind. The mind holds all of the negative karma. When one attains nirvana, one has exhausted their negative karma. They become immune to the material reaction. So mantra, meditation, tantra, all of these have that aim. To purify the mind. It happens at many levels, conscious and unconscious. You can think of all the practices of meditation and yoga "burning karma." It sounds magical because of the burning word, but really it just is referring to ways you can rapidly purify and still the mind. This can be a very difficult process if it is made to be done expediently. For example, if you have done some black magic on someone in a past life you may have to experience some of the reaction. The purification process usually relies on the energy of a deity or a guru to assist in this process, to make it as manageable as possible. But one cannot think of this as any ordinary thing, one may have millions of years of karma to deal with. Most Buddhist practices are designed to deal with the negative karma. Ending bad thoughts, habits, through the puja, mantra, meditation...don't think of it as something extra special. Ending all your negative karma, ending all karma, is the goal.


Is Enlightment ultimatelly up to you (Karma and Freewill)? According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor.
Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself.

What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment?
Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)?

  "There is no spoon" The Matrix

Enlightenment comes as a natural result of the meditation practise. When you practise meditation with proper effort you'll realize very quickly that this is path of freedom from suffering. So with experience a person realizes the benefits of meditation and that realization can lead the person to get involved with meditation more deeply.

It is "not" possible for a person to not become enlightened If s/he is able to get rid of his physical and mental addictions, learns to practise mindfulness correctly and practises mindfulness and meditation for long periods of time. But modern life's requirements, the person's attachment to wrong ideas/beliefs and the possible mental or physical problems limits a person's conditions to do what is necessary in the path of freedom from suffering. So the chances to have success in the path is not just about freewill or karma. It's about both of them.

You don't need to be a Buddhist or subscribe to any religion or tradition to have benefits from spirituality. Also Buddhism really leads people to become Non-Buddhists If one follows Buddhism correctly. Just like Thich Nhat Hanh said "Buddha is made of non-Buddha elements".

If you want to start to walk in the path, this map can be helpful to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN4a5qvxok

Past life kamma is not something mentioned in the Noble Eightfold Path (the original form is explained in SN 45.8). Also, please refer to MN 117, which make it absolutely clear the "Noble" Path does not include ideas of "my good & bad kamma". If all ideas of "self" cannot eradicated, the Noble Path cannot be attained. AN 6.63 makes it absolutely clear the Noble Path ends kamma. Kamma is not part of the Noble Path. Kamma-vipaka is a doctrine for puthujjana ('ordinary worldlings'), as explained in MN 117.


Did Buddha explain Dependent Origination as an upaya or skillful means? If so, why? Inspired by this answer...

Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means?

If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it?

If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago?

Is it different today?

Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original?

There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better?

If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced?

Thanks!

If so, how approximate is it?

If by "DO" you mean "the 12 nidanas", I found the exposition of that in the suttas barely intelligible -- little more than a dry list of the 12 items, saying that each depends on the previous.

So for that and other reasons I think of those as like chapter titles (without the text), or items on a powerpoint -- i.e. I expect they're the topic or outline of (innumerable) more-or-less detailed dhamma talks.

This site (for one) has many questions about what each nidana is and how it relates to others.

And doctrine about specific nidanas and their near neighbours, is of course important (e.g. the four noble truths).

I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.

If not, in what way is the original better?

I think of "earth" for example as representing "solidity".

Physics analyses that in more detail -- "why and when and how and to what extent is a substance solid?"

IIRC the context in which it's taught in Buddhism is to have some understanding of what form is -- just enough of an understanding to not get enchanted by it.

In my opinion, it is Niyama Dhamma.
I think it is the explanation of Citta Niyama.


Can the body be stuck in a state during practice? So I've been doing vipassana meditation more regularly after my second 10 day regularly. I try to do 1hr to 1.5 hr per sitting and meditate as much as possible during my commute.

I've been feeling many more sensations lately as well as having a deeper feeling for where they reach in my body. I've also had strong emotions regularly coming up and I've had some things that have been happening as well.

I try my absolute best to be equanimous but at times during my meditation my body will automatically tense up And twitch. My main concern is my neck / throat area. Lately when I swallow, I don't feel a bump per say but I feel a spot of tightness which even feels like a ridge that I have to get over when I swallow sometimes. It only happens sometimes.

I've been feeling a ton of tightness in my neck and I've never felt this before since the neck sensations are fairly new. Could it be that something is arising which is causing a shift in the state of my body like increased neck tightness and constriction? Generally after meditation this feeling gets much better so I'm not sure if it's a sort of transitioning state.

I'm not sure. Saw a doctor and they couldn't find anything after feeling my  neck. I don't smoke. I am active and a healthy weight.

Past sankhara and sanna create bizarre experiances when meditation. Don't get alarmed, just look at the sensations and keep meditating.

To rule out any sensations due to medical issue, it is also best to see a doctor when pain or tightness arise. If there is no medical issue then don't fret about it too much and do meditation as usual.

On these experiences and the interpretation & speculation about these experiences. It is normal that one in training would be confused and speculative.

If and when you are training for mindfulness & alertness, by doing Mahasi Satipatthana...

If and when you are thinking about or in accord with the Dhamma...

If done for 1-1.5h either or a combination of these trainings will bear great fruit.

The training of mindfulness will make the noticing of the arising, the persistence & the end of phenomena more habitual. Thinking here can be more or less active and themes of thought more or less restricted depending on prior development. Afterall when there is arising of pleasant feels one can stop thinking and just be focused according to the development.

If one thinks a lot during the training, one will set up an inclination due to giving of attention and thinking rightly leads to understanding the teachings and there is a lot of joy associated with that. Also it straightens views so it is essential.

Therefore one should avoid giving attention to ignorant ideas.

Eventually one will be composed without troublesome ideas and attain various discernment of release and become proficient.

One should definitely ponder the dhamma and think where it is appropriate.

You seem confused so i would advice doing more pondering and developing themes of inconstancy, not-self & stress, can combine all these with mindfulness & alertness training.

Eventually it is not so much about choosing a technique because at some point one might get absorbed when one doesn't expect it much. Like there is a story in the Early Buddhist Texts of a nun going to bed and blowing out a candle or something inb4 attainment.


Noumenon and "mind only" according to wikipedia anyway:

  The noumenon (/ˈnɒuːmɨnɒn/) is a posited object or event that is known
  (if at all) without the use of the senses.

I know that the term is used in Buddhism, at least after its sinification. Often noumenon seems to mean reality itself, the buddha nature.

Avoiding that last gloss, may I ask if the "noumenon" is "mind"?

And whether extinction, be that impermanence, nirvana or final nirvana, is noumenally real?

I think that this might be the result of a translation problem. The concept of a noumenon in western philosophy is very foreign to Buddhism I think. In western philosophy a noumenon is the opposite of a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is experienced, whereas a noumenon is something that is somehow outside of experience all together but somehow exists anyways.

Most forms of Buddhism don't settle well with the idea of any kind of reality having some sort of existence that is independent like that because it falls into the error of essentialism, or at least it appears to.

I think you may be coming across this word in an off translation or something relying on such a translation, because I suspect a translator may be trying to translate the concept of 體用 (tǐ yòng, usually now translated as essence and function) as noumena-phenomena, but I don't think this is a very good comparison at all. Definately the term 體 does not mean noumena, but something more like the nature of something.

Yes, Noumenon is our Tathagata nature, our Buddha Nature, Tao, God, Allah, Brahmin... whatever that thing is that is beyond the dualism of existence and non-existence: the Mind.

Noumenon is the opposite of phenomena, things that are perceivable through the senses or in Buddhist terms are a part of the five skandhas (see Surangama Sutra).

This is why it is so important to become more detached from phenomena because they detract the Buddhist from realizing the only worthy goal of the Noumenon, the Source of all things, the Us that is beyond time and space.

The more one develops a worldly way, the more one is attached to meaning-ful phenomena be it money, sensual pleasure, relationships, and the infinite dualities that trap us to the wheel.

The more one grows in the spiritual path, the more one is able to perceive the foundational unity of all things. The profound truth in Emptiness.
One is unable to be so attached to any particular thing--not with a numbness, but with a crystal clear clarity developed through the understanding of Dharma and most importantly through the transformation of consciousness itself that takes place by success in meditation/awareness/vipassana.

This is the Right Path as espoused by the Eightfold Path and the last question you asked is different question, that would take an entire paper to discuss, but basically yes.


Its been said that deep meditationl leads a meditator to another world, what is this another world actually? I have heard that when a meditator does a long meditation, he is able to enter into different world, see and hear that world. What are those? Are they just illusion, imagination or different universe?

What is called world in Buddhism is the six senses. When you meditate you experience finer senses which you can't experience via ear, nose etc. When you meditate you experience finer wholesome mental states.
The logic here is for example you can see only colours from your eye. Even if you become a Deva or Brahama with your eye you only see colours.

Okay. It has been scientifically proven that the brain cannot distinguish between you imagining a situation and you actually being in a situation.

So when you meditate with the aim of being detached from your experiences you'd also detach yourself (your soul) from the ego perspective of being in the situation imagined or real.

So the world you'd be a part of then is the soul world.

Now the term out of body experience would say that you actually leave your body, which is not really the case. You just focus on other input that you can receive, mostly via the third eye and other sensations that directly touch your soul.

Since the soul is eternal, yet the body isn't you'd be able to experience everything that your soul has, is or will be experiencing.

If you follow that and say that the soul was there before the body that means the soul is on the inside and the body is on the "outside". So you'd actually be venturing inside by not being attached to your bodies experiences anymore.

However. As long as you(your body) is alive you will never completely detach, so there are always some signals coming through. You just focus on the other ones more.


Buddhists view on NDE experiences I have recently given some interest to NDE stories.
After reading a hundred of them, it seems pretty credible that people are telling at least some level of truth in their experience. One thing that seems to come back is that they meet their deceased loved ones, they feel a great feeling of peace/love and a huge increase in their consciousness / mental abilities.
Its a bit of "lalaland" and
I have several issues with that :
Most of them seem to imply that death instantly "upgrade" you to a level of well being/ spiritual knowledge / awareness.
They also say that the most important thing in life appears to be their relationship, how they treated others (christian term of "love"). That everything is surrounded in love and blabla it's all fine in the end if your life is hellish since when you die everything is fine. Life on earth as a human would be some kind of a choice, an experience to "expend" your consciousness.
I would tend to disagree with all of these things. I don't see any point to life and the suffering that goes with except getting over it by increasing your understanding and knowledge of the self, in order to get over those problems. I would never chose freely to incarnate to experience pain and suffering. To me life is a problem you have to solve. Sometimes the problem are pretty down to earth, like with medical conditions. People used to die because of tooth decay. Now they don't. How is that improving you as a being?
I tend to have more faith in the buddhists views that beings are stuck in the cycle of existences, and for most of them they experience unpleasant things/realm due to poor mental setups. To me existence is absurd, in the sense that all the pain is something we have to get over and be done with it.
How would experienced buddhists view all these NDE stories? What credit would you give to them and how would you reconcile them with the idea of the cycle of existences?

If we take an Abhidhamma stand point, once the "consciousness" (last thought before experiencing death) is released from this body it doesn't come back this body rather it takes root in a new body. Dependant Origination states it that way.
Therefore all these near death experiences, in my view, aren't exactly near death experiences rather experiences similar to a person waking from a coma. This is my understanding therefore it could be wrong.

Near-Death Experiences are phenomena like all others:

AN9.36:2.4: They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.  They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless:

We acknowledge them and let them go:

AN9.36:2.7: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

And this holds true for all levels of meditation. Perceive without grasping at that perception. Emerge skillfully.

AN9.36:10.1: And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as attainments with perception. But the two dimensions that depend on these— the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and feeling—are properly explained by mendicants who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.”


Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating? From What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?, I get that it is important to ask questions to get out of sufferings. However, when we are getting stuck it is very difficult to realize that we are stuck. With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, detachment, does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation? Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, detachment

I suppose you internalise or become familiar with these concepts, so they (i.e. the concepts, not the descriptions of the concepts) appear (in your mind) as an antidote and/or a diagnosis when that's appropriate.

Analogously a couple of other concepts (from the suttas), perhaps fundamental, is to recognise, "this is (arising of) 'stress' (and/or craving, attachment), and this is 'cessation' (thereof)".

does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation?

I think Buddhism recommends very simple questions.

For example, MN 61 (taught to Rahula when he was young) -- "Is this good or bad?", or more specifically

  This [...] action [...] — would it lead to (is it leading to, did it lead to] self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be [is it, was it] an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?

This is a single, general-occasion or all-purpose question, suitable any time.

Another example of a question like that might be, Is That So? That's like asking, "Ok, so this is a "view", but am I sure it's true -- the only truth?"

There's Buddhist doctrine about "views" -- e.g. right view, wrong view, also cessation of views:

DN 34

  What four things should be given up? Four floods: sensuality, desire for rebirth, views, and ignorance.

(or more specifically "view-flood", possibly "flood of views")
AN 7.51

  Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues

There are suttas (e.g. here) which seem to warn against taking views at all, and/or that "views" are one of the many things that a noble one is liberated from (I haven't found a good reference for this though, this might be an inaccurate paraphrase or out of context).

It warns that there are certain types of question that are inappropriate -- see A thicket of wrong views

I found this topic informative too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- helping to define what "a view" is or isn't.

Buddhism also (in my opinion) associates papanca with conceit, by saying they are both a cause (or are both the cause) of arguments (especially doctrinal or sectarian arguments) -- I suppose it's saying the motive is egocentric i.e., "I am right!", or, "My view is better!", and so on.

Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

I was tempted to say, "That's not quite the answer: a better answer is ...", but I'd better not, isn't that so? :-)

"Trying to get to nirvana" is a dubious (i.e. possibly misleading) proposition -- on the one hand there is Right Effort, but on the other hand that might be the very definition of "craving".

Nyom Ooker and interested,

The idea of coming to Nibbana, at least to the Ariya-path first, if capable to remember and knowing it clearly, is good. And to gain such requires first to address the right person/people: Association with People of Integrity Someone bond and holding on house, like an elephant trapped in a mud hole, how could he help others out?

  "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."... -MN95

and second ask in proper ways, pu the right question or trust that the admirable teacher speaks of what should be followed to give into.

And what are the four wise questions one should ask outwardly or remember, when wise instructed, inwardly to ask? "What if I let go off is for my long term happiness/suffering?" "What if I hold on is for my long term happiness/suffering?"

{Note that this is neither an answer from nor for "Buddhism", not given for exchange, trade or other bond in the world but for upward and liberation only}


What are the Ānāpānasati Kammaṭṭhāna as Taught By Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero I am curious to know how Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero teachers Ānāpānasati. Does he follow the 16 stage instructions or perhaps something similar to the 8 step method1 or combination of both or something different with or without overlap.

NB: In answering this please make this a self contained answer without having to navigate links and audio files.

1
Anapana Sati Meditation on Breathing by Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma

Mainly it is concentrating on one's breath as "l'm inhaling short, I'm exhaling short" or otherwise "I'm inhaling long, I'm exhaling short".

This is what Lord Buddha asks us to do in the beginning. He also says this meditation isn't for everybody. This meditation isn't the only way to understand the Four Noble Truths.

Official Website: http://mahamevnawa.lk/

Meditation Section:
http://mahamevnawa.lk/meditation/

You can find English sessions of Sound Cloud in that website and might find English guides on meditation.

The thero also published a book in sinhalese called É Ama Nivan Suwa Bohoo Dura Nowe (ඒ අමා නිවන් සුව බොහෝ දුර නොවේ - The Nirvana is not that far away) which explains Maha Satipattana Sutta, which contains the above form of breathing. Buddha states also to note that the breath isn't me, mine or my soul (hence the book contains it).

I'm glad you asked Suminda here are some of Mahamewnawa teachings on Vipassana...

This is the only one i could find on Anapanasathi Meditation

Liberation through Breath (Meditation of Breathing)

Our monastery concentrate more on the vipassana Meditation. Here are some of the popular ones.......

Just a body with movement (Meditation of posturest full awarness)

   A bag with an opening at both ends (Meditation of foulness)

   Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)

   Verily my own body, too (Meditation on nine cemetery contemplations)

Asubha – Anapanasathi Meditation