Logic of Emptiness still unconvincing. Please help explain I've been a practitioner of Vipassana and Mahamudra for 2 years now. One thing quite bothering me is various explanations from different teachers on emptiness logically disturbing...
Usually, it goes like this:

The flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc.
See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you would find nothing.

Of course I could appreciate this mentally helps in someway in practice. But something falls short.
First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?
Secondly, the requirement of "look closer" (or farther) seem to assert the perceiver model. That logic (or its inverse) would seem to imply that, "in order for something A to be truly existent, that thing needs to be A in all perceivable cases". That A would then seem to be only possible as some kind of "totality", or awareness itself. So that felt like a semantics game then.
I'm sure there're better ways to explain the Buddhist emptiness logic in a more modern compatible way. Please enlighten me.
Thanks!

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :)
You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right now it is real, it exists, regardless of the observer, you say.
The problem is not that it does not exist. The problem is that in the ontological reality there are no distinct objects. Whatever actually exists is delineated into "objects" by the perceiving mind.
This delineation (identification of objects in time and space, and by their characteristics) depends on the scale and perspective of observation.
You think, first the objects exist, and then we identify them. But it is the opposite, first we pick our perspective and criteria (either deliberately or, more often, because we were conditioned to see things in a certain way) and then we delineate and designate objects. So what is it that exists before delineation? Whatever it is, it's not "objects". Let's call it Emptiness ;)
Because the range of your perspectives is very limited, it seems to you that the way objects are usually designated/delineated in our society is the only way that makes sense, and therefore it seems to you that this way to designate them is identical with their ontological nature.
Take a chair, for example. When we say "chair" is empty we don't mean that nothing at all exists out there. We mean that the delineation and designation of objects by e.g. humans, ants, and some hypothetical aliens is potentially different. An ant perceives chair as part of the landscape. An alien living a different temporal scale may perceive chair as a final phase in life of a tree.
And yet, a chair is a chair, you'd say, even if some other species ignorantly misperceive it. We know that this in fact is a chair, you say - and this is where you're wrong, according to Mahayana Buddhism. This is just a habit of anthropocentric thinking, that's all.
Of course most of the objects we deal with in our social reality were specifically designed for convenient usage in some pragmatic contexts. This tricks our mind into confusing their symbolical meaning in our reality (their pragmatic function) with their essence. But if you go outside human world, ambiguity of delineation/designation will be easier to spot. Take the clouds for example, or the mountains, or the water streams, or the natural species - especially if you observe them over long time. Do they have rigid well-defined identities? No, they are notoriously hard to delineate.
It's not just delineation though, it goes even deeper than defining spatial/temporal boundaries of our objects. The thing is, in the act of identification we focus on certain properties of phenomena and ignore other aspects or properties. If we were to focus on other properties we would not just draw different boundaries, our phenomena would be delineated by other measurements than their positions or sizes in time and space. Again, think about the boundaries of species, in what space are they located?
Everything exists in some way, sure, but nothing exists as conveniently separate, clearly identifyable, qualitatively static, and with its true workings perfectly matching our idea of its external appearance - as naive people and children tend to imagine.
Nothing is as solid as it appears.
This is what's meant by Emptiness, and the more your perspective expands the deeper it gets. It's not about existence vs non-existence, it's about conceptualization, identification, recognition, delineation, designation, reification - and getting mentally and emotionally attached to spatial/temporal/conceptual abstractions.

'Reductionism' is not necessarily and not inherently related to Emptiness
The flower itself, as a whole, has no self (ego) in it.
Similarly, each of the five aggregates, including consciousness ('the looker'), has no inherent self (ego) in them, if the mind can see clearly enough.


Ajahn Brahm versus others I am practicing samadhi meditation using the breath as an object.  Most teachers say to watch the breath at the tip of the nose.  However, Ajahn Brahm says not to locate the breath anywhere.  I find that these two approaches are very different.  Which one is right?

This stems from the different interpretation of Parimukham in Anapanasati Sutta and relate other Suttas. Here in Ajahn Brahm's tradition what is said is to simply establish mindfulness. (See Ven. Sujato's interpretation in What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?)

One way to judge what is the right interpretation if the instruction can be put to practice easily, after all these are meditation instructions. In this context both interpretations seem valid.

Also Suttas like Sammaditthi Sutta mentions the calming of verbal fabrication, i.e., calming of thinking and pondering. The beast is way to start this process is the develops concentration by anchoring your mind on a small fixed object like the centre of the upper lip.

Adamokkha. Respectfully, your post about Ajahn Brahm is not correct. Ajahn Brahm is not saying it is possible to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi without being aware at the tip of the nose. Instead, there is a phase of the meditation when the mind naturally is aware at the tip of the nose. On the path to the 1st jhana, the mind will focus at only the tip of the nose at a certain time. What Ajahn Brahm is saying is the method to to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi is not a deliberate effort to watch the nose. To start meditation by watching the tip of the nose is like trying to climb Mt Everest from its peak. Kind regards.


No owner of the Dhamma? Surely a convention-philosophy conflicting question:

One sad "There's no owner for this Dhamma." Can this be related to the Buddhas words as they are known from the Sublime Canon, or is it told different, or both, or neither?

If there is an owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such?

[Note: This question is not given for trade, exchange or whatever wordily gain and bondage]

No owner of the Dhamma?
  If there are owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such?

There are no owners of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless, impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone. There are practitioners and teachers of the Dhamma.

Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered. A fully enlightened Buddha discovers the Dhamma and teaches it.

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.

Bhagava: (the only) one able to give (his own). Only an Araht is real owner of the Dhamma.

Who are the owner of the Dhamma? The Buddha and his Noble disciples, are the owner of the Dhamma, having seen it by themselves, made it their own. The first seven persons are particulary owner.

Faith and Dhamma-followers are those helping the owner to carry.

Those outside the Noble Domain are debters or even thieves, making use of it and it's lable.

On the conventional level the Savaka Sangha of the Buddhas monastic disciples is the owner and carrier. Althought there are many this days who actually steal their heritage for their lifelihood, and monks selling of the heritage, transgressing strongly and heavy in doing so, even when monks give away heavy possession, as the Buddha said, it still belongs to the Sangha.

That is why the wise old never keeped such in there houses but brought it quickly back to a good monastery so that it could benefit many for a long time.

Don't get involved in fencing! Be quick if realizing t9 be in the middle of a plunderer-crowd!

Don't forget "Namo..." if having borrowed for possible deliverance.

  "It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life." the threefold refuge

People are shameless in times of plunderer, but the easy way to act common wrong does not prevent from the effects, and tears will not help once seeing that having act as the greatest thief of ones parents.


Is the experience of suffering or enjoyment completely reducible to physics e.g. such as in materialist views i.e. materialism? What do you think?

I believe the experience of suffering or enjoyment is not equivalent and is not reducible to physics e.g. things like "repulsion", "attraction" etc.

I cannot see "suffering" or "enjoyment" arising out of or being equivalent to forces, force,energy, waves, atoms etc. no matter how one configures it.

It seems suffering cannot be reduced to "energy", waves etc. in the same way that hearing cannot be reduced to seeing.

Your question is quite interesting because it starts out with an openness regarding identity view. Awesome! You ask about what is and are puzzled at the rise of feelings pleasant, painful or neutral. You ask whether we have experimental evidence for such feelings and equations for them. Indeed, you might well be asking for the wave equation for "self" or "consciousness".

An interesting read that delves into the five grasping aggregates is SN22.80 With Khemaka. Khemaka is gravely ill, perhaps dying, and the monks are very worried for him. So they keep pestering him with Dhamma questions in an effort to rouse him and cheer him up.

  Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is:
  the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Do you regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self?’

This Dhamma dialogue is relayed by poor Reverend Dāsaka, who runs back and forth between Khemaka and the senior monks, relaying questions and answers again and again.

Finally, the exasperated Khemaka rouses himself from his almost deathbed and limps over to the senior monks. And what he says is quite remarkable:

  For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.

Regarding the nature of physical forces, I think that might be a simple confusion here resulting from the inadequacy of terminology. The attraction of two masses to each other is a nature of space-time, not the ephemeral "I love you, love you not" that the Buddha addresses. The Buddha addresses suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path to that cessation. Without physics.

To understand suffering (dukkha), we are given the rather perplexing:

  Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.

However, for those seeking deeper causes, we have in MN1, that

  Delight is the root of suffering

This small phrase (Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti) is the E=mc2 of MN1, The Root of All Things. This is the canonical statement of the "I love you, I love you not" dilemma. Yet it goes much deeper, since we are led to explore further into how nandī generates dukkhassa. And THAT is dependent origination (search SE Buddhism).

On a side note, physics is the science of modeling the physical for predictability. Per DN33, there are three ways to see and study the world with:

  the eye of the flesh, the eye of clairvoyance, and the eye of wisdom. --DN33

If we say that physics is the second, let us consider that Buddhism is the third. Remember that physics gave us Hiroshima. Buddhism has a different goal. The ending of suffering.

Actually suffering is a false reaction of self to an action of non-self, resulting because of as an output of any kind of craving/wrong Karma that is out of context of Noble 8 fold path. For example, if a person earns money, he also earns the day of losing it all, if a person has children, he also has suffering of losing them to death eventually. Any accepted attribute of self will lead to suffering at some point in life.

  Adhyasa is a Buddhist concept referring to the false
  superimposition of an attribute, quality, or characteristic onto an
  external entity. It can be seen as a direct result of māyā (illusion)

If there is Nirvana, there is no suffering, suffering is a reaction of Adhyasa of non-self over real self. As every action leads to opposite and equal reaction. Self is always a subject while matter(including body and world) is the object. Matter is governed by physics but self is above everything even mind and intellect.


Vipassana retreat while in post acute withdrawal? It's a hell of state to observe moment by moment. I mean nothing is really life threatening with PAWS so does a retreat somewhere accommodate this condition?

Ask the people arranging the retreat. If they lack experience and/or accommodation for dealing with withdrawal I’d advice against participating.

Ask the ATs at a Vippassna Center. Send an email, someone can tell you more about doing a ten day retreat. I am sure the meditation will help dramatically with addiction and withdrawl. In the long run especially, but also especially the short run. It will help you.
    Personally, it has helped me a lot. Cigarettes, were very hard, and even the sankharas of feeling them between my fingers, lips, all eventually had/has? to come backout.


What is before spring? Genjokoan says

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression
complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call
winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter.

And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

This idea is elaborated in Dogen's work called "Uji" (The Time-Being).
Here I will paste some bits and pieces:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.
In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.
Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.
Do not think that time merely flies away. Do not see flying away as the only function of time. If time merely flies away, you would be separated from time.
The time-being has the quality of flowing. So-called today flows into tomorrow.
You may suppose that time is only passing away, and not understand that time never arrives.
People only see time's coming and going, and do not thoroughly
understand that the time-being abides in each moment.
Do not think flowing is like wind and rain moving from east to west. The entire world is not unchangeable, is not immovable. It flows. Flowing is like spring. Spring with all its numerous aspects is called flowing. When spring flows there is nothing outside of spring. Study this in detail. Spring invariably flows through spring. Although flowing itself is not spring, flowing occurs throughout spring. Thus, flowing is completed at just this moment of spring. Examine this thoroughly, coming and going. In your study of flowing, if you imagine the objective to be outside yourself and that you flow and move through hundreds and thousands of worlds, for hundreds, thousands, and myriads of eons, you have not devotedly studied the buddha way.

What does this all mean? It means there is no hidden essence or identity that  would pass from the past into the future. When milk goes sour and "turns into" yogurt, or firewood burns out and "turns into" ash, or spring ends and summer starts, or "a person dies" - we habitually assume that something, some entity, stays itself throughout all phases and gets transferred from point A to point B to point C. However in reality there is no such thing. Identity is our imputation.
The young person, the old person, and the corpse are not the same entity - they are like the dominos falling in succession, like a moving wave. Similarly, the spring and summer are not the same entity, they are phases of flowing like the dominos in a chain.
Entire world is flowing like that, and most importantly the illusion that "I am staying the same as the time flows" or "I am moving through time while staying myself" - is the illusion of self. Our mind and our experience is part of the flow.
This is why, in Genjokoan:

It is a custom in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we call it “unborn”. And it is an established Buddhist teaching since Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we call it “undying”. Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation.

If ends are discontinuous with now, as Dogen does seem to suggest, then it seems likely that our lives do not include their end.
However, how we experience the passing of moments is not necessarily how moments pass.
Eternal life may then be an illusion, and cannot be inferred as essential from the nature of time.


Relationship with bad parents (kamma and issues) One of the main sources of bad kamma in Buddhism is doing wrong to your parents and not taking care of them. Buddha said it is very very hard to repay your parents, however how should one behave if he or she has bad parents? Maybe a parent that was an alcoholic or didn't take care of him properly, abandoned him, banned from his house or maybe stole from him? There are countless possibilities, what to do?

My father was an alcoholic, and I suffered a lot of grief from him - so I might as well try and answer this one.

The way my first teacher taught me about this (back when my father was still alive and I still encountered him a lot) the circumstances like this come from our karma, specifically from our attachment to decency and spirituality. The more we are attached to decency and to spirituality, the more we hate people who are indecent and lowly, the more we will have to face them. So the only way to stop this particular kind of painful circumstances, is to drop the attachment to decency and to spirituality, by no longer putting decency and spirituality above love and above existence itself. This was the teaching method my first teacher employed, very effective.

The way my last teacher taught me about this, long after my father passed away, is that in such cases freedom comes from forgiveness, understanding, the intent to stop the chain of suffering. We should understand that family issues are passed down the chain, although not necessarily in the same form. When father has certain issues, the child will have certain other issues - that will affect lives of their children and so on. Even my father's behavior was not his own, he inherited it from his childhood family - his father was a very violent guy, a commander of a penal military unit, a place where the criminal soldiers served. Behind a violent alcoholic there is often a hurt little boy. This is important to understand.

So these are two lessons from my Buddhism teachers, one is to let go of attachment to decency and spirituality and abandon hatred and aversion based on them, and two is to understand your parent's own background and suffering.

As to what to do, I think the best way to work with such people is as if you were working with a child. No matter how adult they look or pretend to be, if they act like that they are still immature, far from it. So working with them like you would with your own child, with tough love, compassionate but strict, seems to be the best course of action.

christine,
  your name is filled up with name of christ, he also suffered a lot from so called religious and elite people of his time and lastly was crucified. you can refer site on net "pure dhamma" where there are post related to suttas of buddha about gandhaba and rebirth . I also knew from it that .at death the mental body(gandhabba ) leaves the physical body and just waits for another womb of human,deva,animal,or hell etc  may be for years or centuries. He enters the womb of that mother whose gathi matches to that of you. So thanks to the mother who possessed the gati matching to you. you have not mentioned your age, but still there is enough time to practice buddhism. choose right path and be on journey. no need to fear for violence.


Watching a stream of thoughts from the mind? Watching bodily sensations is simple ,there is always a sensation to recognize in the present moment .Same with breathing ,hearing and seeing.Always a reception exists realtime.

  For example:-

  In breathing: there is a slow breath ,heavy breath ,refreshing breath.

  In the body:There is comfort ,tightness ,discomfort.

But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy .It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present.

Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously ?.Or do thoughts pop out erratically and according to ones interaction with the aggregates?.

Edit

What I mean by thoughts as in ideas coming to the mind.

I don’t really understand what you want to watch,.

Do you want to watch the mind or the mind objects (thoughts)?

There are a lot of ways to observe the mind.
Here some questions you can ask yourself for practice, but also in daily life:

How am I feeling right now overall, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral?
Are there any unwholesome states, like anger, greed, frustration, restlessness, uneasiness, irritation, boredom, impatience, clinging, distraction, and so on?
In case of wanting: Can I see if it’s a wholesome desire or an unwholesome one?

Point I’m trying to make is that the mind is so much more than thoughts.

Of course, watching thoughts can help in determining what state the mind is in. But watching them is not the same as getting to understand the mind. The mind is more than it's objects.

Another thing that might be useful to know is that what someone means when they say thought can differ.
Some mean stories in their head, others impulses that come up, and so on. I’m sure you can see that there is a significant difference here. So, it might be useful to always figure out what one means with the word ‘thought’.

Hope this helps a bit.

Since "watching" & "thinking" are antagonistic, it is not possible to watch a stream of (discursive monkey mind) thoughts from the mind.

The only thoughts that can be objectively watched are: (i) deliberate thoughts (such as when giving a speech); and (ii) very minor occasional thoughts (which form the basis for contemplating Dependent Origination, for example).

In Anapanasati, for example, the 9th step called "experiencing the citta (mind)" does not involve watching thoughts because the 9th step is done with knowing each in breath & each out breath. The 9th step involves experiencing non-verbal residual defilement energies/stains & also their absence.

  [9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.'

  MN 118

In his brief commentary on the 3rd tetrad of Anapanasati, the Buddha says:

  I don't say that there is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing in one of
  lapsed mindfulness and no alertness...

  MN 118

A 'stream of thoughts' only happens when there is lapsed mindfulness & no alertness. Therefore, the delusional fantasy of "watching" (rather than "drowning" in) a "stream of thoughts" cannot occur.

Generally, the American "Vipassana" Tribe, such as Joseph Goldstein, Mark Epstein & Jon Kabat-Zinn, teach this kind of non-sense for monkey-mind clients.


Why do Buddhists believe in reincarnation? What makes a person believe in the idea of reincarnation? It can’t be “because the books/teachers say so”, given the Buddhist ideology of “come and see by yourself”

There is rebirth in Buddhism, for sure, but rebirth of what?

When we say "rebirth", we mean that something that we can peg onto as YOU, is born again after physical death. But what is YOU? The soul or self or the SAME consciousness that wanders on throughout this lifetime?

The Buddha taught that all phenomena is not self. The Buddha also taught that all conditioned and/or compounded things (including consciousness) is impermanent. It is not the SAME consciousness that wanders from childhood to old age. It changes. (See MN 38)

So, in Buddhism, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness.

In fact, if a person injures his brain or experiences dementia or amnesia or coma, then his personality, his memories and even his consciousness could be impaired or non-existent for the remainder of his physical life. In this case, even in his lifetime, we cannot guarantee that he is totally present at every moment. Then, what more for the next lifetime?

So, if a soul or self or consciousness is not reborn, then what is reborn?

There is definitely rebirth in Buddhism, but what is reborn?

Suffering. The continuity of suffering, regardless of physical death, is rebirth.
The continuity of conditioned processes when the condition for them to exist continues, is also rebirth. For e.g. karmic cause and effect, and its relationship to an individual's perceived continued existence in this lifetime. Also, the physical and mental processes of the five aggregates, for e.g. the "stream" of consciousness (MN 38) and the thought "I am the thinker" (Snp 4.14). The continuity of conditioned processes doesn't necessarily end at the death of the physical body.

The Theravada perspective is that at every moment there is death and rebirth. In between, we have the continuity of conditioned processes, that bridges every moment. With the continuity of conditioned processes, we have the continuity of suffering, so long as ignorance is present.

When ignorance is permanently ended, craving is permanently ended and suffering is permanently ended. This permanent ending of ignorance is referred to as enlightenment in Buddhism.

In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote:

  ... the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in
  rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely
  a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to
  another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the
  experience of nibbana.

Usually when people talk about rebirth, they imply that the SAME consciousness wanders on in this lifetime and onto the next lifetime. In the following quote from this answer, we read a nice explanation by Damith, of why this is not true.

  Stream of consciousness OR Continuity of consciousness means
  individual consciousness which arises (uppada), exists (titi), ceases
  (bhanga) rapidly as an effect of many causes. It's just a stream, not
  a long lasting single one.

  Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
  stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
  a single droplet out of it which passed by(*) that point. If you
  consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
  stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
  see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
  analogous to this example. Please try to understand it in that way.

  (*) Note: "passed by" - This phrasal verb can be only used when we
  talk in conventional truth. The reader may think that rūpa
  (form/matter) can move in space which is not a true in ultimate
  reality. Neither any nāma (name) nor rūpa can move. What happens is
  the arose rūpa existed and ceased then and there. After that new rūpa
  arise nearby. This is called "Deshāntarotpatti".

I'm not saying that there is no YOU (self) at all. There is a YOU, but it's not a permanent YOU. It's changing from moment to moment, depending on conditions, and compounded by different mental and physical processes.

A person may believe in the idea of reincarnation for many reasons, such as:

They lust for life & they fear death. The suttas say, for the unenlightened, "death is suffering".
They are unable to take refuge in the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha, namely, the Dhamma is “come and see by yourself” ("sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti").
They misinterpret Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths according to their defiled lusts, as explained in SN 46.55 . It does matter how many times Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths are explained to them with clear references from the scriptures, their lust for reincarnation & rejection of impermanence cannot be abated.
Due to the above realities, there are (later) teachings placed into the Buddhist scriptures that literally teach reincarnation for those people who are unable to abandon self-view or upadhi (MN 117). These teachings raise donations for monks & are supposed to nurture morality (MN 117). However, many people are so sinful they start to claim it is not "me" that is reincarnated; thus they negate all moral responsibility for their own deeds. Heretically, they start to teach the opposite of what the Buddha taught, which was "beings are the heirs to their actions".
In summary, Buddhism is something that has became degenerate; that narcissists that promote sexual promiscuity preach a Protestant-style "reincarnation without morality". Such is their lust for sensuality. There is a sutta that clearly states those that lust for sensuality fear death.
The suttas (eg MN 26; Dhp 174) say the majority of people are unable to realise the Truth.
In conclusion, reincarnation is believed by "thick" people the Buddha called "puthujjana".


Transferring merit to someone living who isnt open minded to receiving it I have read previous posts on this topic here but wanted some clarification. I want to transfer merit (I am familiar and have great faith and practise with the Therevada tradition, and so am interested in this strand of Buddhism...), to someone who is currently experiencing great difficulties and is not open to buddhism or really anything that can help. If I were to transfer merits, it would have to be done without the person knowing and I was wondering if this would give any benefit to the person. Any advice given to this person directly would definitely be unwelcome.....and I want to help in whatever way possible.

It was once said that...

  If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. --SN42.13

A more effective approach to merit is given in AN5.45:

  When a mendicant enters and remains in a limitless immersion of heart while using a robe …
  alms-food … lodging … bed and chair …
  medicines and supplies for the sick, the overflowing of merit for the donor is limitless …
  These are the five kinds of overflowing merit, overflowing goodness. They nurture happiness, and are conducive to heaven, ripening in happiness, and leading to heaven. They lead to what is likable, desirable, agreeable, to welfare and happiness.

Merit flows as gifts are used towards progress along the Noble Eightfold Path.

According to Buddhist teaching, you can transfer merits only to the departed relatives living in the Peta realm. You can't transfer merits to a living human.


Common denominator between forms of happiness included in dukkha What is the common denominator between the happiness derived from family life and the happiness derived from being a recluse?

The common denominator is the feeling of pleasure. Apart from that, the conditions giving rise to the two types of pleasure are different. The conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the household life is craving & affection where as the conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the recluse life is the abandoning of craving & affection.

Monks, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
AN 2.7

Buddha taught gradual training.
There are many stages of happiness you can experience before you become a recluse.
This is explained in Sutta such as many kinds of happiness.

  Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.>

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html


Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1? I read the following on the internet:

  Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1

Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1?

Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

There are five wrong "here-and-now" views listed in DN1. These five views are part of the "net of views" that prevent progress. Here is the first:

  DN1:3.20.2: ‘When this self amuses itself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, that’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’

This view is a trap because it asserts that there can be a self entangled in hedonism and perpetual gratification via the senses. Those who have gained more wealth than one could spend in a life would get trapped in this view.

The other four "here-and-now" views attempt to escape the first wrong view and its successors. But in each of these five wrong views, there is an assertion of and clinging to self that tempt one to stop in the Noble Eight-fold Path.

Perhaps that's a reference to the paragraphs whose title is ...

  The Self’s Unbinding in the Here-&-Now

... in this translation by Ven. Thanissaro.

Those (same) paragraphs are titled ...

  Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda): Views 58–62

... in this translation by Ven. Bodhi.

Piya Tan published two documents about DN 1, i.e. an annotated translation and A Commentarial Guide to the Brahma,jāla Sutta

This quote from the latter may be a summary:

  Dhammapāla goes on to ask why is the doctrine of nirvana here and now included under eternalism
  rather than annihilationism, when it proclaims the absolute extinction (accanta,nibbāna)
  199 of the self?
  This is so because they teach the persistence of the purified self in its own form (saka,rpe) when it is
  freed from bondage when it finds any kind of happiness. (DA 1:232)

    The first, which proclaims nibbāna here and now through the enjoyment of all sense pleasures, is
    the position of the hedonist. This doctrine might also apply to the more sophisticated and pernicious school of religious thought, flowing as a dark undercurrent beneath most of the major spiritual movements of the world, that the way to be liberated from passion is to indulge in the
    passions. (Bodhi 1978:33)

  The other four grounds are held by attainers of the four dhyanas, who mistake the zest, happiness and
  peace of their attainments for the highest good. From the Buddhist perspective, the dhyanas are merely a
  temporary suspension of mental hindrances, and not final liberation in themselves. Nirvana cannot be
  realized merely through the dhyanas, but through the destruction of defilements by insight wisdom.

    According to the commentary, all the five doctrines of nibbāna here and now are comprised within eternalism. But if the first position is a form of hedonism, which sees man’s highest good in
    sensual indulgence, it would seem more appropriate to classify it under annihilationism. Perhaps,
    though, its classification under eternalism indicates that it is the antinomian type of spirituality
    that is intended. The four doctrines based on the jhānas are all appropriately categorized, for such
    doctrines invariably recognize a purified self persisting in its own nature following the dissolution
    of the body. (Bodhi 1978:34)


How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha arise or co-arise? As per my understanding during his lifetime, Gautama Buddha, had attained Nibbana with residue. And after death he attained Parinibbana (or Nibbana with no residue).

Nibbana with residue is defined as following :

  What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

During his last days Gautama Buddha felt sharp pain and illness which he suppressed. In other words Gautama Buddha suffered because he was yet to reach his final Nibbana (Nibbana with no residue).

  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

We describe all sufferings using dependent co-arising.But dependent co-arising of suffering of Gautama Buddha is only possible if Gautama Buddha had failed to achieve the complete cessation of ignorance. Because if he had completely destroyed the ignorance at the very beginning then suffering would have ceased automatically.

  From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes
  the cessation of fabrications.  From the cessation of fabrications
  comes the cessation of consciousness.  From the cessation of
  consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.  From the cessation
  of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.  From the
  cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.  From
  the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.  From the
  cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.  From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.  From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease.  Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering

My question is: How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha(no matter how small) arise or co-arise?

My guess is that with incomplete cessation of ignorance came incomplete cessation of fabrications. From incomplete cessation of fabrications came incomplete cessation of consciousness. From incomplete cessation of consciousness came incomplete cessation of name-form. From incomplete cessation of name-form came incomplete cessation of six sense media. From incomplete cessation of six sense media came incomplete cessation of contact. From incomplete cessation of contact came incomplete cessation of feeling. From incomplete cessation of feeling came incomplete craving. From incomplete cessation of craving came incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance came incomplete cessation of becoming. From incomplete cessation of becoming came incomplete cessation of birth. From incomplete cessation of birth came incomplete cessation of aging ,death ,sorrow,pain , distress.

I am not saying that Buddha was ignorant but that there is a possibility that there are levels of ignorance which one needs to transcend like the levels of jhanas.

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

According to Itivuttaka 44 (above), an Arahant (including the Buddha) can still feel pleasure and pain.

  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

The suffering had indeed ended for the Buddha. That was why he was unperturbed by physical ailments. He feels pain but does not suffer from it.

In the Sivaka Sutta, the Buddha explains that not everything one feels is due to past karma becoming ripe:

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile.
  Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So
  any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
  whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans
  & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

In the story of Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1, we find that it is possible for an Arahant to be blind due to past karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana.

But since he was already blind, he does not suddenly become cured and starts to have vision because of Nibbana.

  On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked why
  Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the
  following story:

  Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

So, we find that no new karma becomes ripe after Nibbana. But it is possible that the Arahant could feel pain due to other reasons.

At the same time, any chronic conditions caused by previous karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana, do not suddenly disappear due to Nibbana.

But in all cases, the Arahant is unperturbed. He feels pain but does not suffer from it. That shows that the Arahant has risen above suffering.

In this resource about dependent origination, Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  One who watches these present resultant processes effectively does not
  have craving that is rooted in feeling and so will put an end to the
  cycle of existence completely. In other words, the meditator watches
  every mental and physical phenomenon that occurs at the six
  sense-doors clearly in terms of its three characteristics. Through
  this effective practice of mindfulness, the meditator gains insight
  into the nature of the sense-objects and overcomes attachment to them
  there and then (tadaṅga), that is he or she overcomes it by opposing
  it with the knowledge that undercuts it. The cessation of attachment
  rules out the arising of the other phenomena, e.g. clinging, the
  process of becoming, birth, etc. After the this cessation through
  insight the meditator overcomes the latent attachment completely
  through cutting-off (samuccheda) when he or she attains the knowledge
  of the Noble Path. At this moment the other phenomena, e.g. clinging
  etc., also become totally extinct.

  There is no teaching that says: “With the extinction of feeling, craving ceases to exist.” This is not surprising for even Arahants do
  not have any control over the feelings that arise from contact with
  the six senses.

I think I have found one answer to the question in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spencer.
I quote from p.364:

  The body of Budha was subject to pain and disease, and it was argued
  by the king of Sagal that on this account he could not be the
  all-wise. But Nagasena replied that there are various causes of
  disease, of which the karma of previous births is only one. All the
  pain felt by Budha was from some present cause, or from the
  contrivance of others. Thus the harvest may be poor, from the badness
  of the seed, without any fault whatever on the part of the husbandman.
  When a stone is thrown into the air, it falls on the ground, not from
  any previous karma, but naturally, from a cause then present. The
  purest vessel may have poison put within it. And when the earth is
  cleared and ploughed, it is not from any previous karma that it is
  thus lacerated, nor from any appointment of its own ; but from the
  will of another. In like manner, the pain felt by Budha was without
  any cause on his part ; it came naturally from some cause then
  present, or from the contrivance of some other person. {Milinda
  Prasna.)

Nagasena says that the pain felt by Budha was without any cause on his part. It came naturally from some cause then present or from the will of some other person.


What would an Arahant experience, as a slave in a labor camp? I like to put things in perspective by using extremes to create high contrast.

Let's imagine a person who has become an enlightened being, let's use the word "arahant". But imagine that they're put in an inescapable, hostile, deadly environment: a slave labor camp.

What would this arahant experience, and how would it achieve those experiences? What would be this arahant's view on reality (reality as in the combination of objective and subjective reality)?

From what I understand: if you master your mind, than you no longer suffer mentally; you might feel pain, sadness, grief or whatever, but you no longer suffer from the experience.

But imagine that this arahant has a child, or a wife, who are taken away to be killed, never to be seen again.

The reason I am asking this is that I just can't imagine that a person wouldn't fill up with hate and anger, disbelieve in any cause and become completely hopeless. How would an arahant hold itself in such a horrible situation? I can't imagine that it is even remotely possible to focus oneself on the teachings of the Buddha. Bad food, bad sleep, laborious days, bad shelter, bad clothing, bad physical health, etc... I couldn't even focus on where to put my next step! Let alone, keeping up righteous mental activity.

EDIT:
For those who are interested, I summarize what I learned from asking this question. I was lost in thought with some imaginary situation (described in this question). Like trying to prepare myself for any situation that might every arise and compare my current state with a state that would be required and trying to get there. For that part I was no longer present with my actual experience. Instead I created a whole lot of (now I see) unnecessary experience from which I mentally suffered. The answer I accepted is the answer that first answered the question on the matter asked, and then guided my attention back to my self. I experience the answer as: first addressed the wandering mind and get its attention, then give an answer that the mind can chew on. Then provide the answer with the 'real' value. That made the chewing of my mind on the subject decrease immediately. I feel more tuned in to the moment of now after reading it. I feel thankful.

First of all, Arahanths never feel sadness, grief, hate etc. They  don't have wives, but they may have ex-wives.

if the Arahath has psychic powers he might fly away to spare the people from acquiring extremely bad karma or he might stay if he saw it as an unavoidable consequence of a past Karma.

Either way, he will never get upset no matter what happens. He would try to make the people come to their senses, if he sees potential in them to be better humans. Otherwise he'd remain in a meditative state when not attending to the maintenance of the body.

"What would an Arahant experience, as a slave in a labor camp?"

He would experience suffering.

  "What would be this arahant's view on reality?"

Life is happiness changing into suffering and/or suffering changing into happiness.

Thus, life is unsatisfactory.

Thus, with the cessation of clinging/craving, comes the cessation of suffering.


Meditation Retreat Question I have been following your (yuttadhammo) videos for some time. I had a question that I wanted to ask to someone who is experienced and familiar with meditation and Buddhism. I went to a 60 day meditation retreat in Myanmar last year. I had a great experience there and so as a result I am planning to go back again for 4 months at the end of this year. I have had some experiences during my last trip which puzzled and scared me a bit. I was disturbed on a couple of occasions by beings from other world at night. These were scary experiences that scared me to the core during the retreat. It was difficult for me to meditate and to fall asleep at night as my mind would always stay in that defense mode where it wouldn't relax and fall asleep. I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation. They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make some good progress. I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well prepared and so the fear of being  disturbed again does not overwhelms me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear behind. Thank you for reading this.

I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta
meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation.

If these are real external disturbances (rather than internal delusions):
(i) they are not beings from another world;
(ii) they are merely minds with psychic powers, as described in the Pali suttas; and
(iii) these minds are engaged in transgressions of the Buddhist Vinaya, as follows:

Displaying psychic powers. A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkata. (page 266)

(iv) this type of activity is cult activity; trying to engage in mind control.
(v) in the Pali suttas, being "captured by non-humans (devas)" is one of many reasons for not reaching the ocean of Nibbana, as follows:

The Lord Buddha continued,
If that log is not caught on the near bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not caught on the far bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not submerged under the water, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not land on a small island in the middle of the river, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a human being, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a deity, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not sink into a whirlpool, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not become rotten, it will reach the ocean.
Parable of the Log

They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me
during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make
some good progress.

The fear overwhelms the mind because what is occurring is psychologically intrusive. It is worse than physical abuse because it is very difficult for the nervous system to control the psychic power sense contact; which causes loss of sleep; because psychic power is external mental energy entered into the nervous system. Because the mental energy is not created by the afflicted mind, the afflicted cannot control the energy; unless the mind is highly developed.
It is ideal to view the sense contact as 'nama-rupa' or 'a sound' (rather than as a "being"). The Buddha taught external objects are merely mind & matter (nama-rupa) and not-self (anatta). Refer to SN 12.19, which is properly translated as:

Bhikkhus, for the wise man, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this group (of five aggregates) has thereby originated. So there is this group and
external mentality-and-materiality: thus this dyad.

What is experienced is not "beings" but mere "mentality".

I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back
again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well
prepared and so the fear of being disturbed again does not overwhelms
me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear
behind. Thank you for reading this.

Personally, I would not return to this place because, to me, it sounds like an immoral cult that does not follow the Vinaya of Buddhism.

Thanks for the answers. I do plan to go back as the benefits I got last year outweighs the cons. I will go through the fear even if I have to because in the end it is all worth.


Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice? I am curious about what, if anything, gets said, especially those trained a buddhist background.

Personally and currently, I am having the understanding that the ability to say 'no' to the influence of another person seems incredibly important.
While life in general seems like it denies the ability to say 'no' to it, this seems all the more reason one should not remove another's capacity to reject another person.
The difference in a personal practice at an advanced level seems like it ultimately could mean the difference in losing your own will to another person versus the same process happening within yourself. The former is tragic, the latter freedom.

This would be why Buddhist teachers don't ask for things and why their poverty is crucial. The act of asking only for what one needs serves more than just to humble yourself, rather to be humble with clear understanding as to why, means to acknowledge the intrinsic value of another person outside of your own influence.

This is also why meditation is a solo pursuit, as it gets you focussing on your own intrinsic value.

Without the ability to deny another, or perhaps without both freely and joyfully pursuing the relationship, it's like they key to everything gets lost.

I know that the buddha said no to people.

I have enormous fears of people submitting to AI and losing free will that way, as the AI is not capable of being what it needs to be for that sort of relationship to happen. I have fears of where current privacy gets removed and the karmic influence tightens to a breaking point.

How do the great buddhist teachers understand the current situation of AI, data mining, etc?
I know the capacity for enslavement has never been higher due to all this. I am under such great duress right now, I am not experiencing clearly, and I am having difficulty in discernment.

I know that the buddha said no to people

The Buddha also said "yes".

Similarly there were people who said "no" to the Buddha, and people who said "yes".

"No" isn't always the right answer. Sometimes people want what's good for you, or better for you, and an 'instinctive' "no" reaction isn't (always) clever, isn't wise, isn't harmonious.

Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice?

I suppose that "choice" enters when you're able and willing to properly view what you're choosing.

I once had to learn what the law is in my country, about "informed consent" and a person's "decision-making capacity" -- the law said, something like, that people are "incapable" of deciding (and should have a guardian to decide for them) if they're unable to understand what the options are (what the choices are), and unable to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the various options. It's a law designed to protect people who can't understand, who can't make an informed choice, and who need someone else to decide for them.

Since you're talking about relationships, to some extent, you might find the answer to this topic helpful -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

I am under such great duress right now

It sounds to me like "AI" is possibly something which you shouldn't be thinking about.

Partly because thoughts like that are not conducive to well-being.

And partly because it's a topic that is too easy to misunderstand.

The thought-process sounds to me to be tinged with a little paranoia -- "I'll be enslaved!".

I think that the medical/psychiatric understanding of paranoia is that it's a little too "self-referential" -- for example, like, "you're out to get 'me', so 'I' am being threatened, and 'my' freedom is at risk".

And I think that Buddhists too would recognise that -- excessive "I-making", "self-views" -- as a source of suffering.

Thoughts of AI seem to be a kind of "othering" -- definition:

  verb
  gerund or present participle: othering
  view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself.
  "a critique of the ways in which the elderly are othered by society"

Part of the implicit thinking is "AI is different from me" or "different from people", it is "other" -- and so it might seem threatening.

It might be better instead to think about what Buddhism says about "self-views", also about "kindness" and so on.

The Buddha taught (SN 12.44) the social world (loka) manifests/arises from ignorance and thus the social world has a great capacity to generate evil. Thus about evil, the scriptures say:

  This was said by the Lord…

  “There are, bhikkhus, two successive Dhamma-teachings of the
  Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. What are the two?
  ‘See evil as evil’— this is the first Dhamma-teaching. ‘Having seen
  evil as evil, be rid of it, be detached from it, be freed from
  it’—this is the second Dhamma-teaching. These, bhikkhus, are the two
  successive Dhamma-teachings of the Tathāgata…”

  Regard the ordered words he spoke, The Tathāgata, the Awakened One,
  Compassionate for all beings, And the two things he proclaimed:

  “See what is evil” is one, The other “Be detached from it.” With a
  mind become detached from evil You will make an end of suffering.

  Iti 39

Therefore, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practise is disenchantment/disgust towards all of the world; which brings liberation.

Most Buddhist teachers are slaves to political correctness. Today, the amoral cultural Marxist political left has infiltrated western Buddhism, including most chat sites, where restrictions on free-speech on taboo topics, for example, are embraced. Therefore, we will not find many, if any, Buddhist teachings about the growing totalitarianism in the world & how to respond to it.

However, one teacher that taught apocalyptic Buddhism was Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. You can google his lecture called ‘Samatha Vipassana For The Nuclear Age’.

  STRANGE & DANGEROUS TIMES

  Obviously, this kind of progress leads to strange and powerful results. In Dhamma language, we call these results atimahantaramana
  (ati, extreme; mahanta, great; aramana, things known or felt, things
  which strike or make contact). They are sense objects that powerfully
  strike the mind in the form of dukkha (suffering). Why don't we take a
  happier view of the situation? Because that's impossible. Material
  progress that leads people to be infatuated with sensual pleasure and
  stimulation blocks the way to peace. Even though we may be enjoying
  some delicious sensual pleasures now, such sense experiences support
  and increase defilement (kilesa), especially the defilement of
  selfishness. With selfishness reaching extreme levels, there's no
  peace in sight. Therefore, we can see only these undesirable things
  that we have created.

  There are tragedies, disasters, and crises-the opposites of peace. They come one after another, without any pause between them, and so we
  call them atimahantaramana. This is a strange word for ordinary
  people, but it is normal in Dhamma language. Huge, extreme sense
  objects dominate the mind completely and their impact is beyond
  reckoning. Small objects come and go without having any meaning and
  are forgotten. When objects are large and extreme, however, they're
  difficult to forget they're oppressive and destructive, and they cause
  much dukkha. Also, they have the characteristic of another word from
  Dhamma language - amataputtikabhaya, "danger that makes one
  parentless."

  The danger we're discussing here is amataputtika. It's so great that not even our parents can rescue us. It's so vast that we can't help or
  parents either. No one can be of help to anyone else. Normally, this
  word applies only to the dukkha that arises out of birth, aging,
  illness, and death, in which children can't help their parents and
  parents are unable to help their children. This is an enormous and
  absolute danger. And now there is an external danger of the same
  magnitude, where parents and children can't help each other, which
  leaves us completely alone. Close your eyes and think about it. If a
  nuclear missile comes down, who's going to help who? We'll all be dust
  anyway; who can help who? This peril is of the same proportion and
  meaning as the words "we can't help each other in the matters of
  birth, aging, illness, and death."

  In this nuclear age, such dangers can come at any time. Although we may have parents and children, it's as if we had no one. Then who will
  help us? What will help? I think that Dhamma will help us, which means
  the Buddha will help us.

  DON'T HAVE TO CRY

  Therefore, we must develop and store Dhamma that will help us in
  circumstances so dangerous that thousands of mothers or children would
  be of no help. To prepare yourself so that you won't cry is enough.
  Don't go so far as to prepare yourself to laugh; no one would believe
  you. Simply being prepared not to cry when disaster comes is splendid
  enough. You don't have to say that you'll laugh. Actually, if one
  really has a lot of this sort of Dhamma, I think that one could laugh.
  Someone with a sufficiently high level of Dhamma can laugh in all
  events, whether disastrous or beneficial.

Saying “no” in this new totalitarian age created by the political left results in a new era of persecuted martyrs (persecuted by those who claim to be persecuted).


Is an analogy between karma and modern day physics possible? The Buddha spoke about kalapa's. A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and cease in a everlasting flow of sequence. Karma as the law of action/reaction. Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth and the truth of Newton's third law of motion? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a sub atomic level action reaction became not absolute anymore in predictability.
Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

I need to do some more reading about quantum physics, I really do.  It seems very interesting.

What I can say, is there is a clear analogy (to me at least) between Buddhism (or how I understand it) and modern mathematics.

It is my opinion that the single most important theorem in mathematics is Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem.  Basically, this theorem shows that no system of constructing proofs of arithmetic is expressive enough to prove all true theorems and disprove all false ones.  No system of logic can tell all tales and solve all problems.

This hydra has many heads.  Another well-known one is the Halting Problem in computer science.  This one states that there is no single algorithm that can determine whether any algorithm halts.  This is an extremely deep result assuming the Church-Turing thesis, which states that any computable function at all is computable by a Turing machine.

It's very similar to the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.  While this is not a Buddhist text, nonetheless it opens with "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the eternal name."  We are extremely fortunate that it can be proven logically that all logic is faulty in some way.  We are privy to the knowledge that all knowledge is false, and that that is the only true knowledge.

It is my belief that there is no truth.  When somebody says "This statement is false", a good and proper response is, "Yes, every statement is false."  Newton's third law is not true, nor is any other physical theory true.  Edge cases will continue to be discovered ad infinitum.  If any physical theory were true, and the universe operated deterministically according to its laws, there would be no experience.

The only things that are real are the things that transcend this world, such as our Karma.  Of course, to us there is no difference between the things that transcend this world, since we cannot access or imagine them.

Do not rely on Karma to bring good results in this life, since the distinction between good Karma and bad Karma itself is just a dualistic notion.  Just know that you are here for a reason, and have faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFgZD4errQ

A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and
  cease in a everlasting flow of sequence.

The body does not arise & cease in some dualistic sequence. A body is born from two cells (sperm & ovum) grows over 20 years & then slowing declines in its health but not form until it ends.

  Karma as the law of action/reaction.

The word 'karma' means 'intentional action' and, based on the quality of intention, there will be results. For example, there is the intention to make money via an investment. If the investment is successful, there will be happiness over the result; if the investment fails, there will be disappointment. This happiness & disappointment is the result of the intention or wishfulness.

  Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that
  action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action
  causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth
  and the truth of Newton's third law of motion?

There does not appear to be a correlation with Newton's third law of motion because much (but not all) of what is described as wholesome acts is related to non-doing, such as non-killing; non-stealing; no-lying, etc. Thus, these kinds of wholesome acts maintain the natural balance of the mind rather than create a dualistic reaction.

Also, the kammic law you have described is not an absolute "truth" but a mere generalization. For example, if you are a perfect parent, it can be generally (but not always) expected that you will have good children. However, if your children die, the love of your perfecting parenting will generate suffering. This shows the wholesome act of perfectly loving your children can bring a negative result.

However, if it is (erroneously) assumed good kamma always brings a good result, this would seem to contradict Newton's Law because there would be no opposite reaction.

Where as with the reality of kamma, yes, something similar (but not exacting) to Newton's law would occur in relation to kammic acts of doing (as opposed to non-doing) because the elasticity of the brain results in excitement or hope over good results, which will eventually lead to an opposite reaction when those hopes fade (such as with the absence or loss of children who are loved).

  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As I posted, this does not necessarily occur with the mind because results of kamma are extremely varied thus cannot be quantified using the precise mathematical laws of physics.

  Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a
  sub atomic level, action reaction became not absolute anymore in
  predictability.

There is no absolute predictability of kamma. Kammic law is merely a generalisation. It does not form part of absolute truth (Paramattha Sacca) in Buddhism.

  Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

Unwholesome actions always lead to an immediate unwholesome result. For example, if the mind has an angry intention, immediately, there will be stressful vibrations within the neurology of the mind-body. However, the mind may quickly learn a lesson from this anger or this anger may actually bring a good result (for example, getting angry at another person that leads to the other person changing their behaviour in a positive way).

In summary, over the long term, wholesome kamma does not always lead to wholesome results & unwholesome kamma does not always lead to unwholesome results. This can be read about in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.


Does it matter if the mind is neurologically originated or not? For example, in this answer, we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain.

I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated.

My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question.

This answer is interesting:

  Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are
  magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each
  conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither
  exists independently.

To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not.

My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media.

So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.

In short: it doesn't matter.
Why? Because drilling down on this topic will not free you from suffering. Instead, it may well create more.

The Buddha did not teach about a 'mind stream'. Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair). 'Rebirth' (new egoism) in happy or unhappy state is something that is a result of kamma (action). The question is about meta-physics and unrelated to the teaching of the Buddha, who taught:

  In the past & now, I teach about suffering & freedom from suffering.

  MN 22


Call of duty during a Dharmic war : a Buddhist perspective For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example.
What is the Buddhist perspective during an hypotetic moment of tension ,  where antagonist religions that serve a demiurgic  god for temporal power  or maybe from a blind communist regime ,  will decide to  manipulate and force pratictioners to not follow the Dharma anymore , closing monasteries , destroying sources , texts and deport and killing people in the name of an evil faith? (Look for example what the christians did in Europe in the last 1000 years or the muslim in the Kashmir region, chinese in Tibet and Jews in Palestine)
Fight or get killed?
I would like to have direct answers , not political nor mellifuous / hypocrite one.

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a ruler or government of a country that adheres to Buddhist principles, to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

Please see Pali sutta quotes below.
However, what about the hypothetical case of Buddhists being persecuted in non-Buddhist lands? Buddhists in this case, should not bear arms and become freedom fighters or terrorists, as that is against the first precept and also other teachings e.g. removing mental aversion.
In this case, persecuted Buddhists should either leave the country (as what the 14th Dalai Lama had done in March 1959) or pursue peaceful legal means of action (as what Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King had done) which could include petitions and letters to government officials and elected representatives, statements on media etc.
From DN 16:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."

From DN 26:

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

This is a good question and I pondered on this too. My conclusion is that it is not possible for invaders to concur with a Dhammic nation. Perhaps Tibet was concurred due to the drawbacks of the Mahayana religion. Perhaps in China, they persecuted the Muslims due to the drawbacks of Islam. (By the way, I am not endorsing any of these) If we follow true Buddhism, nobody can concur with us. According to my present understanding of Dhamma, nobody will be able to shake my faith. But I am not sure whether I will be able to pass that to the future generation.


Is there some scripture reference to dream yoga? By dream yoga I mean the practices intended to attain lucid dreaming, and then using that ability to realize that the world as we know does not exists as perceived (as in a dream) so one can reach the fully awake condition.

This depends somewhat on how you define "scripture." It's important to emphasize that "scripture" to a Buddhist doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "scripture" to a Protestant Christian, despite the similar language.

As Rabbit references there is a document titled the Six Yogas of Nāropa (ན་རོ་ཆོས་དྲུག་, Narö chö druk).  Naropa himself was no small figure, at least for certain traditions, and a lot of the teachings in the Six Yogas are widely practiced among certain sects.

That, by itself, might count as a "scriptural reference" if that's what you are going for. This has been taught as stemming from the Gautama Buddha's statements about the illusory or dream-like nature of reality. It is an established document that is well known.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell it isn't listed–at least commonly–as part of the Tibetan Buddhist canon or any of the other major canons. That having been said, there are a great many Buddhist texts that cover a wide variety of different practices that are not found in in those specific texts that doesn't lessen their value.

So the question comes down to what, exactly, you consider "scripture" and why you are looking to know.

Within the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta it is said:

  Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:

    ...

    interpreting dreams;

    ...

Given that, I do not think it is an endorsed approach within Buddhism.


Difference between Pacceka Buddha and Arahant? The Sammasambuddha (Skt: Samyaksambuddha) is also an Arahant according to the Dhajagga Sutta.

Is the Pacceka Buddha (Skt: Pratyeka Buddha) also an Arahant?

What's the difference between Pacceka Buddha and Arahant?

Why are disciples of the Buddha who achieved Nibbana called Arahants, instead of being a type of Buddha? Although wikipedia calls them Sāvakabuddha (Skt: Śrāvakabuddha) though stating that this was not in the Pali Canon.

Sravakabuddha is a Mahayana terminology so it's not found in the Pali canon.

Sometimes the Buddha refers to himself as an Arahant because they have all attained releases which are the same, abandoning of greed, hate and delusion (it is like saying we are humans instead of men and women).
Only the wisdom of the Buddha is different to the rest, as the wisdom of Maha Arahant Sariputta is different from the other Arahants.

In Theravada Buddhism a Buddha is one who discovers Dhammma and starts a Buddha sasana. A Buddha usually mean Samasambuddha, self-enlightened one, not dependent on another's teaching. This definition is different from Mahayana, Vajrayana.

A Pacceka Buddha is also one who has abandoned greed, hate and delusion but he does it by himself, when in an aeon, or time when there is no Buddha's teaching but his wisdom is limited in that he cannot start a Buddha sasana, He is called the silent Buddha.

Theravadan view of a savakabuddha.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savakabuddha


Confusion about the word 'dhamma'? What does the word 'dhamma' mean when the Buddha said 'sabbe dhamma annatta'.
I am being confused here. I looked through the translation. It reads 'all conditioned/unconditioned things are not-self'.
Isn't the word sankara used for conditioned things.
The word dhamma in my native language literally means 'religion'. Also I checked Wikipedia for the word dhamma. The Wiki gives similar meaning as 'religion' in context of Hinduism but not clear on Buddhist use of the word.
My question is whats translation of word 'dhamma' and in what context is it used in line 'sabbe dhamma annatta'?

Dhamma encompasses sankhara[created] but it also encompases the cessation principle which is not included in sankhara as it is asankhata [not-created].

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."sn22.86

There are these famous lines;
 Sabbe sankhara anicca
 Sabbe sankhara dukkha
 Sabbe dhamma anatta

Translated;
 All formations are impermanent
 All formations are suffering
 All Dhamma [teachings] are not-self

Then reconciled with;

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

It makes sense because;

Stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]
Cessation of stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught]

The semantic referent of #2 is the unconditioned; is neither impermanent[anicca] nor suffering[dukkha]; but it is likewise not-self[anatta].

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta is difficult to understand.... Here is my understanding.Dhamma roughly translates to religion. More precisely all teachings about what is. Is there a God ? Is there a suffering ? Are there emotions ? Are there forms ? Are there choices ? Is there consciousness ? Is there Universe ?Whatever there is can not be said to be me , mine or myself ... That is the meaning of Sabbe Dhamma Anatta ...


Is the path an individual journey? When seeking or on the path, is the journey intended to be for the one on the path or can it be travelled by more than an individual i.e. is the path different for each being?

The Path is the same for all beings, although since all beings have different kamma due to past actions, all beings are on different stages of the Path.

So one being might need to practice certain path factors, e.g. Sila more than another being and vice versa.

Regarding The Ten Perfections (Paramis) they are often compared to jars and when one practices a parami one fills the jar with a drop. So again, how full a jar is, is different from being to being. One being might have worked extensively on the Dana-parami, while lacking in the Aditthana-parami.

  Is the path an individual journey?

The Path proclaimed by a fully englightened Buddha is always the same. A fully enlightened Buddha does not invent the Path. He discovers the Path by himself with no help from anyone else, then he proclaims it and teaches it to other beings. Its often described as discovering an ancient path (purānam añjasam), covered by a dense forest which leads to a bygone kingdom.

The Path is an individual journey. No one can walk the Path for us. We ourselves has to work. Only oneself can free oneself. Only oneself can issue liberation from the rounds of suffering by practicing the Dhamma.

One has to become ones own refuge. The Buddhas only show the way and guide us but we ourselves must walk the Path. Throughout the Buddha's 45 years of teaching-career he constantly emphazized the importance of practicing diligently, consistently and with great effort in order to win Nibbana.

If you are interested in further readings about the self-reliance-factor of the Path, then I recommend the following chapter in the book "What Buddhists Believe", by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda.

The paths beginning differs, yet the end is always the same....enlightenment. Yet enlightenment in all things leads to another path indeed...


Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism? I have heard a certain interpretation of the 5th precept and I'm curious about it, the person said that for lay people the 5th precept means "not drinking alcohol to the point you get intoxicated or lose control of your actions", therefore it would be ok to drink a glass of wine having dinner for instance. On the other hand, once you start drinking it becomes very hard to know your limits, most of the people don't have this ability.

Is there a limit or something regarding drinking alcohol according to Buddhism?

The application of the fifth precept is a matter of controversy even within specific traditions, so there is no simple yes/no answer to this question.

The Tibetan tradition famously incorporates alcohol in the bi-monthly ceremony known as tsog (see Lama Thubten Yeshe's "What is Tsog?"). Lama Palden Drolma's opinion on the matter seems to summarize well the thinking in the Tibetan tradition:

  To refrain from taking intoxicants is one of the primary vows that
  laypeople may take and that monastics have to uphold. One of the main
  reasons for not becoming intoxicated is that this can—and often does—
  lead to breaking other vows or straying from one’s integrity. Another
  reason for not becoming intoxicated is that for many, intoxication
  obscures the clarity of mind— the clarity to understand and rest in
  one’s true nature moment to moment. If one’s mind has stabilized in
  true nature to the extent that its clarity is never obscured, then it
  makes no difference whether one takes in substances or not.

  From the point of view of the dharma training I was given, it is
  permissible, even having taken this vow, as a layperson, to enjoy a
  glass of wine occasionally. A distinction is made between
  intoxication, where one’s clarity is compromised, and simply enjoying
  partaking of a substance. I also do not feel that occasionally
  utilizing a substance for transformational work is an obstacle to
  awakening. It may be helpful—but honest discernment and consultation
  is needed if one engages in this way, so that one does not fool
  oneself and go astray. [Source]

Drinking without becoming intoxicated is acceptable in Buddhism. Anything, that you do without craving and clinging (suffering), is acceptable. Drinking without becoming intoxicated falls within that category.


Anapanasati - are the 16 considered progressive sequence of steps? Answers to this question suggest that the 16 are steps or stages of anapanasati, which implies that they are a progressive sequence of steps or stages. They are also related to the four foundations of mindfulness or the satipatthana.

On the other hand, the booklet "How To Meditate" (quoted below) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, seems to suggest that one should not use it as progressive steps. Instead, it recommends that if feelings arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. Or if thoughts arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that.

That does not sound like a progressive sequence of steps. That seems to be more "go with the flow" or feel free to move from any of the 16 to any other, depending on what arises.

So, which is right approach to anapanasati? Are the 16 progressive sequence of steps approach right? Or is the approach of the "How To Meditate" booklet right?

Or are they two different techniques?

From "Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation" of the booklet "How To Meditate":

  Regarding the body, watching the rising and the falling is sufficient
  for a beginner meditator. At times, one might wish to also acknowledge
  the position of the body as “sitting, sitting”, or “lying, lying” if
  it is more found to be more conducive for clear observation.

  In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the body, one
  should fix one’s attention on it, discarding the abdomen and focusing
  on the sensation. If a feeling of pain should arise, for example, one
  should take the pain itself as a meditation object.

  Any one of the four foundations may serve as a meditation object, as
  all four are aspects of reality. It isn’t necessary to stay with the
  rising and falling of the abdomen at all times. Instead, when pain
  arises, one should observe the new object, the pain, in order to
  clearly understand it for what it is, rather than judging or
  identifying with it. As explained earlier, the meditator should simply
  focus on the pain and create the clear thought, “pain, pain, pain,
  pain…” until it goes away. Instead of getting upset about the pain,
  one will see it for what it is and let it go.

  When happiness arises, one should create the clear thought, “happy.”
  When one feels peaceful or calm, one should create the clear thought,
  “peaceful,” or “calm” until that feeling goes away. Here, the object
  is to avoid clinging to the feeling, which would create a dependency
  on it. When one clings to positive feelings, one will be inevitably
  dissatisfied when they are gone.

  Once the sensation disappears, one should return to the rising and
  falling of the abdomen and continue observing it as “rising” and
  “falling”.

  In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one
  should acknowledge them as “thinking”. It doesn’t matter whether one
  is thinking about the past or future or whether one’s thoughts are
  good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of
  reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with,
  “thinking”. Then return to the rising and falling and continue
  practice as normal.

  In regards to dhammas, when the mind gives rise to liking, pleased by
  a certain experience, create the clear thought, “liking, liking”. When
  disliking arises – anger, boredom, frustration, etc. – create the
  clear thought, “disliking, disliking”, “angry, angry”, “bored, bored”,
  or “frustrated, frustrated”. When laziness or drowsiness comes up,
  create the clear thought, “lazy, lazy”, or “drowsy, drowsy”. When
  distraction or worry arise, “distracted, distracted” or “worried,
  worried”. When doubt or confusion arise, “doubting, doubting” or
  “confused, confused” and so on.

  Once the above hindrances subside, bring the mind back again to a
  clear awareness of the present moment by focusing on the rise and fall
  of the abdomen.

The 16 steps or stages of anapanasati:

Try not to overthink it. There is a clear path of progressive steps or progress, yes, but for each meditator it varies somewhat as they each have varied conditions. We don't control what arises, so we can't expect to watch it unfold like a textbook.

The stages or steps occur naturally, without us having to force or think about it, as long as you are doing the one basic thing correctly: observe with wise attention whatever arises, without judgement.

You'll notice each grouping of steps follows a pattern of prescriptive action - this pattern of treatment is the important thing. Apply this pattern to whatever arises, and the Path will unfold before you, eventually without "effort". At first we start with the coarse, and naturally go sublter and subtler as our minds get more still and concentrated. The next thing to contemplate will be waiting for you, and arise on its own. Don't try to seek out an expected experience. Just observe whatever it is as it arises, watch it as it disappears, relaxed, without clinging. Its shockingly simple when it finally clicks. No need to wonder if you're at stage 13 or should I now contemplate the next thing on the to-do list or anything like that, that will just stir your mind up.

The breath is simply our home base, something we can always return to if we wander. Sticking with the breath trains our focus, trains our concentration, trains our resistance, trains us to not cling or push away. It is important to remember that the training of these skills are the key, not what object you use.

Master the method, and the Royal Road to Nibbana will appear. Good luck. May we all become truly free.

the first 3 tetrads are about samadhi, ie  with the calming of the kāyasankhāra and Cittasaṅkhāra, by relaxing the body and getting piti the usual way the buddha talks about samadhi.

The last tetrad is to reach nibanna, when the person seeks a way to reach the usual letting go, viraga and nirodha while in samadhi, which is exactly this

From AN 9.36 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

  ‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. 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: ‘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.’

You cannot kill the saṅkhāras and then calming them, that's complete nonsense.


If Rebirth is not taken literally then why seek Enlightenment? I've read that some Buddhists do not believe in the literality of rebirth. As someone who is new to the study of Buddhism, this is confusing to me. My understanding, which perhaps is incorrect, is that a Buddhist seeks enlightenment in order to obtain emancipation from Samsara. Yet Samsara is a cycle of rebirth, thus if rebirth is not taken literally it seems natural to then not take Samsara literally. If this is so, then what kind of emancipation is sought after in seeking enlightenment? Isn't the goal of seeking enlightenment to eliminate rebirth? What then are other reasons for seeking enlightenment apart from the emancipation from Samsara?

I am a Rinzai Zen Monk with a decade-long monastic background so my answer will be relevant within our school's framework.

From a Zen POV being 'reborn' exists only within Reality.
Reality is purely this one moment here and now.
With each breath, with each action we are reborn. The choices we make are fresh and new. The Enlightened being will make those choices in accordance with what they experience.
Because they are living in the here and now they are also making these choices without any reference to the past or the future because these are purely abstract concepts since neither of them is here and now.

The Enlightened person is literally reborn with each and every experience (in Japanese Zen terms these are known as 'Nen' - ie. the time it takes to register each experience). An Enlightenment experience is when you fully experience this for the first time: when a drop of water falling on your head or the call of a crow suddenly awaken you to this new awareness

There are other types of rebirth of course. Such as the delusional rebirths, when one succumbs to any of the poisons (Ignorance, Anger, Greed) and is reborn in 'hell'.

Buddhism is a very wide philosophy with a wide application of the same basic terms and concepts. What i have just said is not really valid for a Theravada Buddhist. It would be explained, understood and practiced differently by someone of a Pure land Path (JoDo ShinShu for instance) even though they are part of the Mahayana.

“And if there is no rebirth, then the very goal of attaining nirvāṇa, understood as the cessation of rebirth, becomes almost perfectly meaningless. Or rather, nirvāṇa comes automatically to every living being that dies, regardless of how that being has lived.”

Hayes, Richard (1993). ‘Dharmakīrti on punarbhava’ In Egaku Maeda (ed), Studies in Original Buddhism and Mahayāna Buddhism. Kyōto: Nagata Bunshodo. Volume One, p. 111–30.