Reference request: Can a king rule justly without killing? I recall reading a sutta in which the Buddha rises from meditation and says that while he was meditating, it occurred to him: Is it possible for a king to rule righteously without killing? If anyone knows the text I am talking about, it would be much appreciated.

What you are referring to comes from the Discourses of the Sutta Pitaka, and can be found within the book The Connected Discourses of The Buddha; A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikku Bodhi, Vol. 1, pg 209.

"On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Kosalans in a small forest hut in the Himalayan region.  Then when the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: 'Is it possible to exercise rulership righteously: without killing and without instigating others to kill, without confiscating and without instigating others to confiscate, without sorrowing and without causing sorrow?' "

--SN 4.20

Try to read the "Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta" - D26. It is the  Discourse on the Lion-roar of the Wheel-turner.

The Supreme Buddha once explained... sometimes a person is born to the world with 32 bodily characteristics that a Buddha has. That person is known as a Sakviti Raja (a universal monarch). Even though the universal ruler also has the great 32 bodily characteristics, he could be a Prutakjana (one who has not come into Dhamma) person who has the propensity to be born in low-level worlds. Once he became the universal monarch, he rules the world or the Chakkavatti Rājjyaya (ChakkavattiKingdom) with great moral qualities. As a result of this, he gained great merits and will be reborn in heaven. However, if he is still in the Prutakjana state, he can get a birth in one of the four low-level worlds at the end of his lifetime in heaven. On the other hand, a noble disciple of Tathāgata (the Supreme Buddha) even with many difficulties in his life as a human will overcome the Prutakjana state. This results in his rebirth in same divine worlds as the Universal King was born. Thus, he overcomes the birth in these low-level worlds after his lifetime as that poor person. This example clearly shows us how the possibility of a normal being to be born in Hell, Animal, Preta, or Asura worlds.


How can we know that we experience sensations as a series of discrete sensations? I'm currently reading the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" by Daniel Ingram, and he insists over and over that the continuity of sensations is an illusion, and that sensations actually come to us in a sort of flickering.  I've done some meditation and have started to feel what he is talking about.  But if we can detect the gaps in between the sensations, isn't the detection of the gaps itself a sensation?  How do we know that the experience of flickering isn't the illusion, and that the reality is a continuous stream of sensations?

There is obviously not a continuous stream of sensations otherwise the mind could remember every sensation, similar to how every frame in reel of movie film can be viewed. In other words, the sensation experienced one second ago has disappeared, forever. To believe there is a continuous stream of sensation is to only observe arising & to not observe passing/disappearance. Its like a person given a box of delicious chocolates that hungrily can only see the next chocolate to be eaten, never realising each chocolate is disappearing & soon there will be no chocolates left, which eventually brings despair when the chocolates (similar to life) run out

Regardless, what Daniel is writing about, such as observing 40 sensations per second, is not found in the reported teachings of the Buddha, although it may possibly be found in later philosophy called Abhidhamma. To me, what Daniel is writing about is unimportant for clear insight, because objects must be very discrete to experience abrupt disappearance (rather than a blur of oscillating sensations the mind becomes infatuated with; like becoming infatuated with the oscillations or vibrations of a girl dancing on a cliff; rather than watching the girl fall off the cliff, to her death).

The Buddhist scriptures refer to observing the coming-to-be & then disappearance of a single in-breath, then an out-breath (MN 118) then, on a more advanced level, the arising, persisting & disappearing of a feeling, perception or thought (AN 4.41). This is more than enough for the purpose of vipassana. For example, merely observing a single breath, until it disappears; then observing the next breath, until it disappears, is enough to get started on seeing the true nature of life phenomena.

  We are typically quite sloppy about what are physical sensations and what are mental sensations (memories, mental images, and mental
  impressions of other sensations). These two kinds of sensations
  actually oscillate back and forth, a back and forth interplay, one
  arising and passing and then the other arising and passing, in a
  somewhat quick but quite penetrable fashion. Being clear about exactly
  when the physical sensations are there will begin to clarify their
  slippery counterpart that helps create the illusion of continuity or
  solidity: flickering mental impressions.

  If you can perceive one sensation per second, try for two. If you can perceive two unique sensations per second, try to perceive four. Keep
  increasing your perceptual threshold in this way until the illusion of
  continuity that binds you on the wheel of suffering shatters. In
  short, when doing insight practices, constantly work to perceive
  sensations arise and pass as quickly and accurately as you possibly
  can

  How fast are things vibrating? How many sensations arise and
  vanish each second? This is exactly what you are trying to experience,
  but some very general guidelines can provide faith that it can be done
  and perhaps point the way as well. Begin by assuming that we are talking
  about one to ten times per second in the beginning. This is not actually
  that fast. Try tapping five to ten times per second on a table or
  something. It might take two hands, but it's manageable, isn't it? You
  could obviously experience that, couldn't you? That's the spirit!
  There are faster and slower vibrations that may show up, some very
  fast (maybe up to forty times per second) and some very slow (that are
  actually made up of faster vibrations), but let's just say that one to ten
  times per second can sometimes be a useful guideline in the beginning.

  Page 20

  Since I just used this dangerous phrase “the mind,” I should quickly mention that it cannot be found. I’m certainly not talking about the
  brain, which we have never experienced, as the standard for insight
  practices is what we can directly experience. As an old Zen monk once
  said to us in his extremely thick Japanese accent, “Some people say
  there is mind. I say there is no mind, but never mind. Heh, heh,
  heh!”

You have to do this by stages while practicing Satipathana.
Just practice breath meditation first.
Then practice some walking meditation.
It is gradual training.


Do beings without conscious experiences have buddha nature A philosophical zombie is defined as follows,

Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures used to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike those in films or witchraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness.
Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism is true. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the ‘other minds’ problem.

Using this definition, would a being which is "not conscious" have Buddha-nature?
I ask because I want to know if the Buddha is dead and inanimate matter, and inanimate matter has Buddha nature, that means that the Buddha senses what inanimate matter does?
Moreover, I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is "like" a cognition.

This question may seem speculative, but I think it actually has a basis in Buddhism. There is a class of beings called nonpercipient beings that don't have any consciousness at all. However, they are basically just a body that doesn't do anything, not a zombie per se.

Such a being would have Buddha nature because by the Tathagatagarbha Sutras teach that all beings have Buddha nature.

Zombies?? They are one kind of lives In our religion, we call them ghosts. We frighten them but they don't want us to frighten. They want us to donate something for them. Because their positions are lower than us. In our religion, the last time in our lives is very important for us because when we feel the evil things we know it that we are going to reach the evil where such as hell, lives of the animals. So that is the important time for us. Moreover we can also reach the zombies lives. When we have any donations, we can't change the other lives. So we can also call them interval lives between changing from one to another due to the last time. Therefore I want to tell you the zombies also exit. That is my thought.


Have Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara? I read on the internet:

  Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara. So there is no need for
  accumulation of memory.

Have Arahants really eliminated all Sankhara?

Please answer with Pali sutta references.

SN 22.85 says Arahants have "sankhara":

  “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”

  “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

  “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

MN 43 says a living individual has ayu-sankhara (vitality/life force):

  But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are
  different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of
  perception and feeling can emerge from it.

  Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā
  saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṃ paññāyatī”ti.

  When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled.
  But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and
  their faculties are very clear.

  Yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā
  niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
  cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā
  avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.

MN 26 describes Nibbana as the "calming (samatho) of all sankhara" rather than "destruction of all sankhara":

  It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of
  all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of
  craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.

  Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho
  sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.

Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.046.than.html


Identification with Negative States I have noticed a certain phenomenon.

When I am in a positive mood, I don't identify with the mood. I don't cling to it, I am aware of its impermanence.

When a negative mood occurs -- as anger, or despair -- I completely and absolutely identify with it. I am this state, I believe it. I do not recognize its impermanence: I think about this mood as if it won't end.

Seemingly, negative moods make me unaware of non-self and impermanence, based on what I said.

My questions are:

(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?

(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?

Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way.

Thank you.

There is a good analysis of this, with regards to negative states of mind, in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta (MN 138).

Concerning the external scattering and diffusion of consciousness:

  "How is consciousness said to be scattered & diffused? There is the
  case where a form is seen with the eye, and consciousness follows the
  drift of (lit.: 'flows after') the theme of the form, is tied to the
  attraction of the theme of the form, is chained to the attraction of
  the theme of the form, is fettered & joined to the attraction of the
  theme of the form: Consciousness is said to be externally scattered &
  diffused.

And the same applies to the other senses.

This describes how external sensual inputs can trigger a chain reaction resulting in the consciousness becoming consumed and following the drift of the theme. But why does this happen?

  "And how is agitation caused by clinging/sustenance? There is the case
  where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
  noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
  no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. His form changes
  & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of form, his
  consciousness alters in accordance with the change in form. With the
  agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in
  form and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities,
  his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness,
  he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

And the same applies to the other aggregates.

For example, deep within you, you take the form to be your self. If you get a minor injury like a splinter in your foot, this would trigger despair and agony in you, because you take your foot (which is essentially part of the form) to be your self.

Another example is, you may take the mental fabrication of your ethnicity, to be your self. You may strongly associate yourself with your ethnicity. So, when someone insults you with a racial slur, it goes in through your ears, and triggers anger and rage in you, because you take your ethnicity (which is essentially a mental fabrication, specifically a mental concept) to be your self.

So that makes complete sense. Agitation is caused by clinging/ sustenance.

Now if you become angry as in the second case, as I'm sure you have previously experienced multiple times in your life, did you assault or kill someone? I guess not. Somewhere along the way, you came to your senses and gained control of yourself. You just need to ponder this chain reaction and how you gained control of yourself.

The method to control yourself here, is by practising heedfulness (or appamada), to watch your mind carefully. Please see this answer for details.

I'm trying to convince you here that you have managed to control your anger before in your life, so you surely can do it again. And the same applies to other negative states of mind.

There are details regarding the use of heedfulness (appamada) in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205) as follows:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

  (and the same applies to the other senses)

  "Suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedless. A
  corn-eating ox, invading the corn to eat it, would intoxicate itself
  as much as it liked. In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, not exercising restraint with regard to the six media of
  sensual contact, intoxicates himself with the five strings of
  sensuality as much as he likes.

  "Now suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedful. The
  corn-eating ox would invade the corn to eat it, but then the watchman
  would grab it firmly by the muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the
  muzzle, he would pin it down by the forehead. Having pinned it down by
  the forehead, he would give it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having
  given it a sound thrashing with a stick, he would let it go.

  "A second time... A third time, the corn-eating ox would invade the
  corn to eat it, but then the watchman would grab it firmly by the
  muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the muzzle, he would pin it down
  by the forehead. Having pinned it down by the forehead, he would give
  it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having given it a sound thrashing
  with a stick, he would let it go.

  "As a result, the corn-eating ox — regardless of whether it went to
  the village or to the wilds, was standing still or lying down —
  wouldn't invade the corn again, because it would recall the earlier
  taste it got of the stick.

  "In the same way, when a monk's mind is held back, thoroughly held
  back, from the six media of sensory contact, his mind settles
  inwardly, grows steady, unified, & concentrated.

Disconnecting the chain reaction above by watching your thoughts heedfully is one solution, but the other, is to gain compassion out of empathetic understanding or empathetic insight. Why did someone insult you? It's because he did not have control of his mind, because he is deluded. This way, you can grow compassion towards other people and tolerate their shortcomings. However, this method is only applicable when there are other people or other sentient beings involved. You cannot grow compassion towards a splinter.

The Pali suttas say unwholesome states are caused by ignorance (rather than by a person or self). You can reflect as follows: "this anger & despair are produced by ignorance".

  The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."

  Avijja Sutta: Ignorance


Does Paritta/Sutta really have magical power? Many people believed certain Paritta/Sutta have certain magical power, for example Bojjhanga Sutta for curing illness and Om Mani Padme Hum having a great (even greatest) magical power among other Mantra (i refer Mantra to Mahayana tradition and Paritta to Theravada tradition).

What do you think about this?

Does the Buddha has spoken by Himself - that His follower can re-chant his words (Sutta/Mantra) to gain specific magical power? If He has, please kindly tell me what Sutta is it,

Note : Please dont be offensed, i love listening to Sutta, but im curious about this one.

In AN 4.67, the Buddha allowed the monks to use the paritta to protect themselves from harm. Notice Ven. Thanissaro's note:

  "This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use (another charm, also allowed to the monks, is contained in DN 32). Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good will with which they are said. It thus differs from charms taught in later forms of Buddhism, where the words themselves are said to contain power."

First please don't use the word magic, magic is a word associated with fiction or not real, the word is already programed in your mind as a impossible act that humans do not posses.

The flesh and this dimension have rules and boundaries.The mind that sees its true self as only the spirit can manifest the powers of the spirit into this realm.These forces are only to be used for good and to help others and not to benefit the self.

If a collective conscious of enlightened minds all are sharing the same thought and intention at once these powers are manifested rapidly into this realm.
So to make sure everyone is sharing the same intension,chanting in sequence is a way of focusing energy but not necessary to manifest our true unlimited powers.

We all are one but must come back together and reunite, love one another because you love yourself.


On Vipassana: Focus on feeling sensations VS Focus on describing sensations through words I have noticed that there are perhaps two main different approaches to experiences/sensations in vipassana.

One of them (e.g. Mahasi Sayadaw) describes experiences/sensations through words:

Mahasi Sayadaw, Kenneth Folk, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu: pick a word that describes the experience accurately

The other (e.g. Goenka) asks to focus entirely on the experience/sensations:

Goenka: Feel the sensation. Not visualize, not name it, but feel it.

At the retreats of Goenka, in one evening talk, he explicitly says that there is a misunderstanding. That is, the Buddha meant not to name experiences/sensations but to feel them.

So the questions are:

how relevant is this difference?
Is there any relevant consequence/effect/repercusion on our progress if we decide, say, to describe with words rather than focusing on the experience, or the otherway around?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Texts are all over the place about this.

For instance, one school of thought criticizes our tendency to conceptualize our experience, at the expense of actually experiencing the thing -- and says this is us sleep-walking through life (the dream is the conceptual template we overlay on experience).  For instance, I encounter a tree, think "this is a tree" and never actually see the thing before me.  This would seem to imply that labeling during mindfulness is a repetition of this mistake.

Another school of thought sees the labeling as a way to step outside of the experience, to not get sucked into it.

So who is right?

It depends.

The issue here is not getting pulled in by attachment and habitual reactions.  While these are a function of conceptualization, they are a function of a specific type of conceptualization.

For instance, if someone does something I dislike, and I conceptualize this person as a "jerk", I likely have a strong reaction to this, and am falling into the same attachment (aversions) that have caused me so much pain.

On the other hand, if I experience a reaction of aversion towards the way this person treated me, but start labeling the components my experience as Skhandas, then I'm effectively deconstructing the experience and undermining attachment in the process.

On the other other hand, if I watch the experience as it is, then I can be with the sensations without the problematic concepts.

So really, there is no right or wrong answer; the key is whether your technique takes you out of the conceptual trap that keeps you attached to the phenomena or reinforces it.  In this case, it's about fighting fire with fire (concepts with concepts) or fire with water (concepts with bare sensations).

The upshot is that you don't have the luxury of treating anyone as an authority, but have to see how you respond, and decide on the most effective method.

The feeling of sensations can only make us know their arising and passing away. How anicca will develop?


If all things are impermanent, then how can Buddhism make absolute assertions? I had someone ask me this afternoon:

  If Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, then how can it
  make absolute assertions such as there are 5 aggregates or there
  are 4 noble truths?

Since I am very new to all of this I had to honestly answer, "I don't know". I would appreciate any insights on this question.

You friend has indulged into what is called the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent which means that there is no static nature to the things or static nature of the basic elements that everything is made up of.

So it means that the 5 aggregates are in a state of constant flux it's changing every moment, and not that it is ceasing to exist.

Now,

Buddhism can make an assertion that there are 5 aggregates because the assertion is 'about' the 5 aggregates. Furthermore, it can tell that there are four noble truths because 'four noble truths is the nature of the process, not the process itself'.

It's something like saying, 'if uncertainity principle is right we should be uncretain about the uncertainty principle'. It is a logically fallacious statement.

So, you should have replied to your friend saying,

  If the second law of thermodynamics is true, how would you like your Beer?

A story you might like;

  Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the
  other,

  “The flag is moving.” The other replied, “The wind is moving.”

  The Zen master overheard this. He said, “Not the flag, not the wind;
  the mind is moving.”

  From there comes KungFu Panda he says, "most probably, it's your mouth
  that is moving."

Also, a story for any such further conversation you might have, from a discourse on Dhammapada the way of the Buddha.

  There were two temples in Japan, both enemies to each other, as
  temples have always been down the ages. The priests were so
  antagonistic that they had stopped even looking at each other. If they
  came across each other on the road, they would not look at each other.
  If they came across each other on the road they stopped talking; for
  centuries those two temples and their priests had not talked.

  But both the priests had two small boys - to serve them, just for
  running errands. Both the priests were afraid that boys, after all,
  will be boys, and they might start becoming friends to each other.

  The one priest said to his boy, "Remember, the other temple is our
  enemy. Never talk to the boy of the other temple! They are dangerous
  people - avoid them as one avoids a disease, as one avoids the plague.
  Avoid them!" The boy was always interested, because he used to get
  tired of listening to great sermons - he could not understand them.

  Strange scriptures were read, he could not understand the language.
  Great, ultimate problems were discussed. There was nobody to play
  with, nobody even to talk with.

  And when he was told, "Don't talk to the boy of the other temple,"
  great temptation arose in him. That's how temptation arises.

  That day he could not avoid talking to the other boy. When he saw him
  on the road he asked him, "Where are you going?"

  The other boy was a little philosophical; listening to great
  philosophy he had become philosophical. He said, "Going? There is
  nobody who comes and goes! It is happening - wherever the wind takes
  me...." He had heard the master say many times that that's how a
  buddha lives, like a dead leaf: wherever the wind takes it, it goes.
  So the boy said, "I am not! There is no doer. So how can I go? What
  nonsense are you talking? I am a dead leaf. Wherever the wind takes
  me...."

  The other boy was struck dumb. He could not even answer. He could not
  find anything to say. He was really embarrassed, ashamed, and felt
  also, "My master was right not to talk with these people - these are
  dangerous people! What kind of talk is this? I had asked a simple
  question: 'Where are you going?' In fact I already knew where he was
  going, because we were both going to purchase vegetables in the
  market. A simple answer would have done."

  He went back, told his master, "I am sorry, excuse me. You HAD
  prohibited me, I didn't listen to you. In fact, because of your
  prohibition I was tempted. This is the first time I have talked to
  those dangerous people. I just asked a simple question. 'Where are you
  going?' and he started saying strange things: 'There is no going, no
  coming. Who comes? Who goes? I am utter emptiness,' he was saying,
  'just a dead leaf in the wind.

  And wherever the wind takes me....'" The master said, "I told you
  before! Now, tomorrow stand in the same place and when he comes ask
  him again, 'Where are you going?' And when he says these things, you
  simply say, 'That's true. Yes, you are a dead leaf, so am I. But when
  the wind is not blowing, where are you going? Then where can you go?'
  Just say that, and that will embarrass him - and he has to be
  embarrassed, he has to be defeated. We have been constantly
  quarreling, and those people have not been able to defeat us in any
  debate.

  So tomorrow it has to be done!"

  Early the boy got up, prepared his answer, repeated it many times
  before he went. Then he stood in the place where the boy used to cross
  the road, repeated again and again, prepared himself, and then he saw
  the boy coming. He said, "Okay, now!"

  The boy came. He asked, "Where are you going?" And he was hoping that
  now the opportunity would come....

  But the boy said, "Wherever the legs will take me...." No mention of
  wind! No talk of nothingness! No question of the nondoer! Now what to
  do? His whole ready-made answer looked absurd. Now to talk about the
  wind would be irrelevant.

  Again crestfallen, now REALLY ashamed that he was simply stupid: "And
  this boy certainly knows some strange things - now he says, 'Wherever
  the legs take me....'" He went back to the master. The master said, "I
  have told you NOT to talk with those people - they are dangerous! This
  is our centuries-long experience. But now something has to be done. So
  tomorrow you ask again, 'Where are you going?' and when he says,
  'Wherever my legs take me,' tell him, 'If you had no legs, then...?'
  He has to be silenced one way or other!"

  So the next day he asked again, "Where are you going?" and waited.

  And the boy said, "I am going to the market to fetch vegetables."

Live Unpredictable, Live Prepared.

Simply reply to that friend of yours with a similar question: if all things are impermanent, then how can you know for sure if s/he has 5 physical sense organs and 4 limbs?


Is playing computer games an unwholesome activity? Recently I've slipped back into playing computers games. This morning I had a moment of clarity and realised that for me it is not a good activity and I've uninstalled them and I feel a lot better.

But generally from a Buddhist perspective is playing computer games an unwholesome activity? If so what aspects of it make it so. Or could one be a committed practitioner and still do a bit of gaming on the side. I appreciate we have discussed the impacts on violent games on Karma before but I would like to know if computer games of any description are unwholesome.

(Note - I'm not looking for my own computer game playing habit to be legitimatised so I can start it again. I'm satisfied that for me it is something best avoided. I am just wondering if it is something that Buddhists generally should avoid and if any modern teachers have discussed the issue).

There are different degrees of unwholesome activity. The term akusala (lit. unskillful, unwholesome) is a broad term that in addition to referring to 'bad' deeds (e.g. killing, stealing, adultery etc...) can refer to any kind of action that doesn't lead to the highest happiness. In this broader sense, all types of sensual indulgence such as food, sex, entertainment, wanting good clothes, etc... are akusala.

By teaching that sensuality is akusala the Buddha wasn't teaching that everyone must abstain from them or else they are being bad Buddhists, but rather that they don't lead towards Nirvana, and that renouncing them is superior, and that in the end when one becomes Enlightened, one will give up the desire for them. That doesn't mean that as practicing Buddhists we cannot enjoy sensual pleasures within moderation, but giving them up is in the long run a much better way of finding happiness.

While we playing games we are prisoners of that and limited opportunity to escape from it. Life has same bondage. The unwholesome or wholesome is depends not on the activity itself, but which type of habit it generate.


Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves? Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves?
At least in everyday senses of suffering.
Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples).
But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples).
Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Frustration and suffering arise from unskillful intentions. That's bad kamma.

DN33:1.11.154: There are deeds that are dark with dark result.

Harmony and happiness arise from skillful intentions. That's good kamma.

DN33:1.11.155: There are deeds that are bright with bright result.

More commonly, the two are mixed and muddied.

DN33:1.11.156: There
are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.

However, the truly skillful do not accumulate kamma. They let go of kamma instead of piling it up.

DN33:1.11.157: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.

Looking for the limit of faults is chasing the conditioned, the impermanent and the unsatisfactory.
Instead, look for the limitless in love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity.

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only
really hurting ourselves?

If the mind has right samadhi (which includes hyper sensitiveness), the mind can realize all bad kamma (be it mental, verbal or physical) is hurting oneself; because the mind can directly feel the bad vibrations of its nasty intentions.
However, for those without right samadhi, such as the common puthujjana (worldling), they must see how bad kamma hurts others.

But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g.
frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are
just examples).

The Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka (at SN 37.30) taught a woman that lacks beautiful visual appearance & wealth will still be accepted by others if she has ethical behaviour (morality). If we have faith in the Buddha of the Sutta Pitaka, we will be confident the most important thing is our ethical behaviour. For example, the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka taught a woman, despite her genetic physical appearance, will look ugly & deformed when she is angry.

Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a
trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn,
and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a
giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments,
beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore,
she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains,
honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds
grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and returns (āgacchati) to such a
state, wherever she comes forth (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of
very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little
wealth and little influence.
AN 4.197

AN 4.197 clearly shows how angry people hurt themselves.


Is there a "good" consciousness? I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana? Is there a consciousness of nirvana? Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

I would call that the "good" consciousness, like the good guy in the movies. i.e. salvific.

I wondered if there was a consciousness that underwent nirvana?

According to the Theravada abhidhamma, yes, it is called a lokuttara-citta, and it is beautiful (sobhana).

  Is there a consciousness of nirvana?

This wording is a bit more difficult to answer. Since nirvana entails unbinding of consciousness, it is hard to describe it as being conscious of anything. Still, technically the mind is said to take nirvana as an object; it is probably better phrased as "object of focus", as in "the mind is focussed on/in unbinding", rather than "the mind is conscious of nirvana" - the latter is a bit of an oxymoron, I think.

  Is there a consciousness that creates either of these consciousnesses?

"creates" is a bit problematic. lokuttara minds are said to be unconditioned, yet there is clearly a process that leads to them, and that process clearly involves certain specific minds - namely, the mind that realizes the first and second noble truths.  There is a consciousness that is necessary for the attainment of nirvana; I don't think this exactly means that said consciousness "creates" the nirvana consciousness. It is all very technical. In practice, nirvana is the unbinding, so any talk of creation and arising is very much out of place.

Consciousness is like a cup which is holding water. Without consciousness you will not exist. Buddhism talks about four elements and some relgions three elements, and some five as the basic building block of various objects of Nature including humans. Consciousness is the holding structure for these elements. But if you see it objectively it is just a container which is holding you including mind, various sensory organs etc etc. Can you label a container good or bad? You have trillions of cells organized inside your body. What the is organizing principle here?

Nirvana is a realization that consciousness is not the final thing. Infact it is not a thing. Nirvana does not break consciousness otherwise you will die. It is just that consciousness will not manifest again as a body. Upon death it will be merged with the whole or Sunya or nothingness. Your desire gives a shape to your consciousness. For example if you desire to be a scientist in this birth and it is not fulfilled, consciousness will give it a shape in next birth. You might have PhD parents in your next birth.

Nirvana is a direct experience of something beyond consciousness. Call it superconsciousness or Sunya. From that point on more desire and hence no more movement of consciousness.

It is the most difficult concept intellectually to grasp.


How does stream entry occur? When a person becomes a stream enterer/Sotapanna, I understand they no longer have the first 3 fetters of belief in a self, doubts about the Buddha, his teachings or the noble sangha, or attachments to rites and rituals. But what's not clear to me is the mechanics of it. Does a person have a glimpse of Nibbana in a moment of true mindfulness and the three fetters drop away? Or does a person work at eradicating the first 3 fetters and if successful have a taste of Nibbana? Or can it happen either way?

Stream-entry is very simple, there is nothing supernatural about it. Stream-entry is when the practitioner has fully understood the vision behind Buddha's teaching, has fully assembled the puzzle, and now has no doubts about what Buddha meant when he said certain things or why he said them. Having a clear vision of what Buddha was referring to includes clearly seeing the reality behind Three Marks of Existence and the actual mechanism behind the Four Noble Truths.

Because most of us are so dominated by our preconceptions about the world, and about Buddha-Dharma, stream-entry is difficult or virtually impossible to attain from mere theoretical study of sutras, or from one super-successful meditation session, when one gets a "glimpse of Nirvana". Instead, stream-entry requires an effort consistently applied over a long period of time, targeted at putting Sat-Dharma to practice in day-to-day life.

The reason it's called "stream"-entry, is not because one enters some magical stream, but because one finally sets foot on the unquestionably right road towards Nirvana, having really understood the whole thing.

As I understand, what he subsequently called stream-entry (attaining a clear understanding of Three Marks of Existence and Four Noble Truths -- and therefore cutting all doubts) was attained by Buddha at time of his Bodhi, but because he had already liberated his mind from most of the other asavas by then, he effectively achieved full Nirvana at once. But in case of Buddha's students (and ourselves), because we do have the advantage of teaching available to us, we can assemble the puzzle while still having residual mental/emotional obscurations. Hence the need to have a separate name for this stage, distinct from "bodhi".

As for how exactly stream-entry occurs. It occurs through exhausting samsara. In order to exhaust samsara you must exhaust ego. In order to exhaust ego you must explore all corners where Enlightenment might hide, until you know you couldn't have possibly missed it. Then it finds you :)

I experienced what I would call stream entry without knowing anything about Buddhism other than a typical, ignorant, western perspective.

I was meditating and in my minds eye I saw a radiant white pearl with smaller discolored pearls floating around it (in many ways like a solar system). As I began to investigate the discolored pearls, I realized they were my wants and desires. I realized, "these are not me"; they began to fall away until all that was left was the white pearl. In that moment I realized that the "white pearl" is within us all.

Next I experienced a feeling of death overwhelming me. I knew I was dying; it was the most fear filled experience I have ever had. Then I felt reborn. In that moment I was only a body and a stream of consciousness. After that, all that was left was a feeling of love.

I can not say from experience but I believe that the same insight could come from persistent determination to remove the three fetters.

To clarify, this can be seen as reverting the 12 link chain, experiencing cessation and then being reborn


Why is 'attention' ('manasikara') included within 'nama-rupa'? In respect to Dependent Origination, the Pali suttas state:

  Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro - idaṃ vuccatāvuso nāmaṃ. Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ. Idaṃ
  vuccatāvuso rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ idañca rūpaṃ - idaṃ vuccatāvuso
  nāmarūpaṃ.

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

Alternate translation:

  Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention: This is called name. The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great
  elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called
  name-&-form.

Why do we think 'attention' ('manasikara') is included within 'nama-rupa'?

Note: I personally do not have a definite answer to this question, apart from personal speculation therefore I have asked the question for people to think about & answer.

There is this hierarchy in the teaching. One such is in the Nama…..  of the  rupa (material phenomena) & nama (mental phenomena).  Nama is broken down into Vedana (feeling) , Sañña (perception),  cetanā (mental activities),  Passa (contact) , and manasikāra (mental advertence). Buddha placed Passa & Manasikaara to the end for a reason. For the three things: feeling, perception and volition (vedana, sañña, and cetana) to be born contact must be there. Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

Vedanā, saññā, cetanā multiple series of mental events are rapidly arising and passing away from moment to moment. Only if contact happens -  Passa paccaya vedanā, saññā, cetanā….  with vedanā as condition, Tanhā arises.  Passa (Pāli) is a Buddhist term meaning "contact" or "touching”.  Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

In the case of an arahant the manasikāra is in accordance with the Dhamma. They live in the timeless present. For an Arahant in reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. For him it is only “Passa”, whereas for you and me, it is ‘sampassa’ (san+passa).

“San’ is basically the term for “good and bad things we acquire”. When we are thinking about an experience in the past or worrying about a future event, it all happens in the present moment. They are all activity of nāma-rūpa happening only in the present. From this ‘sampassa’ (san+passa) comes Ayonisomanasikāra.

Thus Manasikāra simply means ‘attention’. This in essence is the ability to be aware of the activity of the senses and the origin of mental phenomena, as it happens. The activity of the six senses. (1) Eye and forms (objects), (2) ear and sounds, (3) nose and odours, (4) tongue and tastes, (5) body and tactile objects, (6) mind and mental phenomena (mind objects). This happens both in you and me, as well as in Arahants.

In Arahants there is cetanā. In you and me it is san+ cetanā.  There is a distinction between sankhara and abhisankhara. Sankhara involves everything that we do to live in “this world”; these include breathing, walking, eating, etc. Even an Arahant has to be engaged in sankhara until Parinibbana or death. The prefix “abhi” means “stronger” or “coarse”. Sankhara become abhisankhara by engaging in the “wheeling process”. The sansaric process or the rebirth process is fueled by abhisankhara.

Is it true?

The uninformed run-a-mill-person, touched by form (sound, smell, tast, bodily sensation, idea - here of seeing a fault) on the eye (ear, nose, tongue, body, intelect), pays it wrong attention. Having payed wrong attantion, not having considered it wisely, taking attention as real, lasting, statisfaction, it as "mine", grasps after it, take hold on it, and make it to a matter. So after becoming, mind and matter come to birth.

If a little wisely, one would see, what ever comes to birth, what ever one takes on attention in the mind-matter sphere, all this is subject to decay.

But the uninformed run-a-mill-person, caught in pride and conceit, is incapable for proper attention, incapable to understand mind eg. feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention.

My person tells you, it would be better if he would take form as lasting, satisfacting, for his own, self. Why? Because he could see it's decay.

And how does a disciple of the Noble One considers, acts and pay attention?

Touched by form... touched by attention on the intellect, he gives not unwise ("selfinvolved") attention, considering "this is suffering, this is the cause the origin of suffering, this is the cessation suffering, this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering", giving proper attention in "this has come into being", gives proper attention, does not take grasphold of it. Not taking on it, it does not become matter for mind, nama-rupa does not come into be and stress and suffering is end, released.


Why does the third noble truth not include the ten fetters? The Four Noble Truths are defined in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta as:

  "The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is
  suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
  suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation
  from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is
  suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are
  suffering.

  "The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is
  this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied
  by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now
  there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and
  craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).

  "The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the
  complete cessation of that very craving, giving it up, relinquishing
  it, liberating oneself from it, and detaching oneself from it.

  "The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering is
  this: It is the Noble Eightfold Path, and nothing else, namely: right
  understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

From this, it is widely assumed that to end suffering, we must end craving and that's it.

However, according to SN45.179 and SN45.180, it is not just craving that must be ended, but also the ten fetters, through the Noble Eightfold Path.

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five lower fetters. What five? Identity
  view, doubt, the distorted grasp of rules and vows, sensual desire,
  ill will. These are the five lower fetters. This Noble Eightfold Path
  is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five lower fetters,
  for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for
  their abandoning.”

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

So, why is craving singled out in the third noble truth, rather than including all of the ten fetters?

Craving cannot be eliminated at will. You need to do something to eliminate it. That is what the fourth noble truth is about. In other words, one needs to cultivate wisdom to eliminate craving. Elimination/weakening of fetters are the mileposts of developing wisdom.

The third noble truth explains the nature of the cessation of suffering, which is the cessation of craving. When craving is absent, the mind is cool & peaceful (Nibbana) because craving is hot & agitated.

Each fetter, except ignorance, if not a form of craving, is a form of attachment & thus has craving has its preceding condition. Dependent Origination explains the preceding condition of attachment is craving. Therefore, naturally, ending craving will end of each fetter (except ignorance).

As for ignorance, as explained at the end of SN 22.59, the sole purpose of ending ignorance is to end craving, i.e., manifest dispassion, as follows:

  Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards
  perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards
  consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
  Through dispassion his mind is liberated.

  SN 22.59

It follows Nibbana is the destruction of craving. There is actually no other way to describe it.

  Dhp 154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.

Above, the house-builder is 'craving' & the house built is 'ego-existence' ('jati'). Yet the view of the questioner is probably 'backwards', i.e., the questioner probably believes ego produces craving rather than craving produces ego. If this is true, the questioner should urgently refer to SN 12.12:

  Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'

  SN 12.12

These confusions arise when there is belief in reincarnation, such as believing 'bhava' & 'jati' are reincarnation. When this reincarnation belief is held, there is the belief a 'self' reincarnates and a 'self' produces craving. But in the true teachings, 'bhava' & 'jati' are mere 'self-views', which are products of craving; and which is why each fetter (except ignorance) has craving as its preceding condition. Thus by ending craving, each fetter is ended; which includes ending ignorance because, when the mind sees with clear wisdom that having no craving is peaceful, ignorance also ends in respect to what real Nibbana is.

But in Buddhism today, especially in Mahayana but also in Theravada, there are all kinds of erroneous wrong views that 'non-thinking' or 'non-conceptuality' is Nibbana. This shows when the end of craving is not seen clearly, ignorance remains. Thus the end of craving also ends ignorance.


Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as

  "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore,
  the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the
  stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated
  (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the
  auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the
  amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted,
  dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter,
  the asylum, the refuge, the destination."

Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying

  "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
  nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
  base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,
  nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
  world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
  no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says

  "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be
  named is not the eternal Name."

while chapter 7 says,

  "The Tao is
  infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can
  never die."

And chapter 14 says,

  "Look, and it can't be seen. Listen,
  and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't
  bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the
  realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an
  image, subtle, beyond all conception.  Approach it and there is no
  beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you
  can be it ..."

The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2,

  "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.",  "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging."

And in 12.3,

  "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.

From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent.

My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?

Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

The Hindus had developed Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind) up to the the 8th Jhana, and also had a strong moral basis, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced Wisdom and Insight to the practice. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.

So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on the Buddhist path also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.

Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in Hinduism.

May be the goals of Buddhism, Hinduism , and Taoism are similar or same.
 But as per Gautam Buddha, only vipassana is the only way, which he has followed to reach the ultimate Nirvana( which Buddha discovered in the quest to know the truth). It was not his goal to reach nirvana. Vipassana doesn't speak of setting goals and meditate .
 Buddha has considered any other practices, which is right , will lead to nirvana .


pranayama unsettles my meditation practice I sit for a daily meditation, it will be deep most days. I have been advised to add pranayama(alternate nostril) to my practice and when i add that to my routine. It disturbs my sleep and as well my deepness in meditation. Does anyone undergo this ? Any suggestions to overcome this.

Yoga does have both physiological and psychological benefits, when practised lightly and not as an ascetic practice, however, it is not tied to the Buddhist goal of Nirvana. The Buddha also practice certain forms of it and gave up as it was not linked to the goal of Nirvana which The Buddha was searching. At certain extremities, this is counterproductive, for physical well being, psychology and meditation.

As you have said, some forms can be unsettling and not conducive to meditation. This is especially true for mindfulness.

E.g. following is a paragraph which highlights extreme forms of Khecarī mudrā / kriya leads to unsettling which is not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Clenched teeth, tongue pressed against the palate

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me,
  ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back,
  and crush the mind with mind.’

  So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held back,
  crushed the mind with mind. While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits.

  It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain,
  subdue, and attack him;

  even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held
  back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits.

  But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm,

  because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similarly, extreme Prāṇāyāma and Bandha also leads to unsettling experiences not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Breathingless meditation

  (1) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise the breathingless meditation.’

  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose.
  While I did so, there was a loud sound of winds coming out from my ear-holes, just like the loud
  sound of winds from a smith’s bellows.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  ARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (1)

  While I did so, violent winds cut through my head, just as if a strong man were splitting my
  head open with a sharp sword.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (2) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (2)

  While I did so, there were violent pains in my head, just as if a strong man [244] were tightening a strong leather strap around my head as a headband.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (3) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE BUTCHER

  While I did so, violent winds carved up my belly,
  just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  were to carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (4) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE TWO MEN

  While I did so, there was a violent burning in my body, just as if two men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of burning coal.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. Now, Aggivessana, when the devas saw me, some said: ‘The recluse Gotama is dead!’
  Other devas said: ‘The recluse Gotama is not dead but dying!’
  Still others said: ‘The recluse Gotama is neither dead nor dying: he is an arhat;
  such is how arhats
  dwell!’

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similar accounts are found in: (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, Bodhi Rāja,kumāra Sutta, etc. where pitfalls of these practices are discussed.

Yoga practices are fabricating practices creating new Saṅkhāra while the Buddhist practice avoids creating new Saṅkhāra, hence different in the final results.

Why are you practicing pranayama? Sounds like if it's disturbing your sleep, you're practicing it too intensely. Like any kind of physical exercise, it's all about how you do it. If you do it gentle and smooth, it should't disturb your sleep. Any kind of physical exercise done too intensely, you can injure yourself, raise your adrenaline, etc, and disturb your sleep pattern.


If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago today, 21July2015, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? I want to assume that the kindness and generosity perhaps trumped the ignorance about samsara, resulting in a new individual array of aggregates and store consciousness inclined toward learning about Buddhism and Nibana. I wonder this basis Theravada approach to rebirth.

I think it's difficult to talk about rebirth as if it were a sure thing: for example because kamma comes from a being's previous life, but it also comes from the life before that, etc.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" is said to be unconjecturable.

Actually being able to directly see others' karmic destinations is one of the miraculous powers attributed to the Buddha:

  Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.

To be born as a human, you need to keep to the five precepts well. To be born to a Buddhist family, you need to dedicate your good deeds towards attaining Nibbana. If your friend died 20 years ago, he could be 20 human years old now, wherever he is born, unless he died again.


Providing a prayer for others As someone that is actively seeking to be a Buddhist, how does one show emotional support for others in time of need?

Christians offer to pray for them if someone or some person is going through a difficult situation.
For example, during 9/11 often leaders would pray for people and their nation who are going through loss.

Is there something in Buddhism that is similar? Is there something similar that Buddhists can offer to show that they are offering emotional or spiritual support.

Your question is on how to show that one is offering help or support. But I'm assuming that what you really meant is how to actually help or support and not just show that one is helping or supporting.

Since Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of a God or Supreme Being to whom one can pray, prayer in the sense practised in other religions may not be applicable in Buddhism. This therefore, eliminates the need for any rites, rituals, ceremonies or prayer to any particular entity for the well being of others.

But, one can help or support others by practising Metta meditation. The effectiveness of Metta meditation depends on both the level of purity of your mind and that of the receiver. Therefore, practise of Vipassana meditation to purify one's mind may be considered to be a pre-requisite for effective Metta meditation. Metta meditation is essentially about sharing the good vibrations and energy that one generates by purifying one's own mind with others for their well being.

Wikipedia has an overview of Mettā:

  The cultivation of benevolence (mettā bhāvanā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating benevolence towards themselves, then one's loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, this practice is associated with tonglen (cf.), whereby one breathes out ("sends") happiness and breathes in ("receives") suffering. Tibetan Buddhists also practice contemplation of the Brahmavihāras, also called the four immeasurables, which is sometimes called 'compassion meditation'.

Many Westerners wish to remove the spiritual aspects of Buddhism. That is inconsistent with the practices common in Asia. Having spent time in both Hong Kong and Thailand I have participated in ceremonies that were highly aspirational. In the Tibetan tradition truly emptying the mind has the potential to achieve something that differs from Metta, something powerful.


Are there different types of craving? According to Buddhist tradition are there different types of craving? It occurs to me that the following could all be described using the English word craving

Being thirsty (for water)
Really wanting a new car
Wistfully missing a loved one when they are temporarily absent from
your life

However they do feel like they are very different things. So are there categorisations of craving within Buddhist philosophy and if so how would my examples fit into those categories.

I'm interested in answers from any tradition but I suspect that there might be some kind of list of craving within something like the Abidharma

EDIT

These are great answers so far but I wonder does anyone have anything to add on a more experiential basis perhaps referencing meditation practice.

Indeed, there are four levels of craving.

Craving for one's life - Highest level
Craving for one's organs
Craving for loved ones
Craving for external objects - Lowest level

Chathurarya Sathya (Four Noble truths) by Rerukane Chandawimala Thero

Craving for life arises as perceiving the five aggregates as self and this is the highest level of craving. As an example, during a natural disaster someone would first try to save his own life at any cost, then the lives of his loved ones and finally when everyone is safe, he would try to save his possessions.
From the given example, satisfying thirst may fall under first type, wanting a car falls under fourth and missing a loved one falls under the third level.
Note- The author of the book hasn't referred to any text in Pali canon whether this is  a categorization of Buddha or if it appears in Abhidhamma.

No, there are not different types of craving, there are only different things for which one might crave, whether bodily or other in form, or conditional, events, etc. The fact of persisting in the desire for a thing, of clinging, is the dynamo by which anguish (dukkha) is generated and its interruption (as if extinguishing a candle flame; nirvana) is the simple, basic, aim of Buddhism.


I had strange things showing up while meditating So... i turned 15 a few months ago and i discovered some youtube channels that spoke about spiritual ilumination and other stuff,i watched a lot finding myself relating to almost everything there and decided i should try because why not. One day i went to my bed and first i took 5 minutes of controled deep breathes and then closed my eyes and cleared my mind,at that moment i seen "something" from my back like my field of view got bigger. I had my eyes closed but i would still see the things behind me and my room,and all that with my ryes closed. I got scared as this was my very first time experiencing something like this so i opened my eyes. I tryed again after half and hour but i was not calm enough so i went to sleep. The very next day in the morning i went to my desk and had deep breathes again. 5 seconds in and 5 out. Then closed my eyes. After like 1 minute i got really calm but then i started seeing a red thing in front of me. Was looking like a tomato but not perfectly rounded and then my eyes started moving involuntary and then turned down. My 2 questions are : is all i went trough these 2 days good or bad? And why do my eyes move involuntary and turn down.
Thanks.

Your question is about immersion, so let's address that first:

AN4.41:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these four ways of developing immersion further. What four?
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements.

Your question can then be understood as asking whether there is bliss, knowledge and vision, mindfulness and awareness and the ending of defilements. If not, then this is not right immersion.
Studying more in the suttas, we read that immersion is preceded by seven other steps. We must therefore ask ourselves if those steps have been followed:

AN6.63:13.1: And what is the cessation of sensual pleasures? When contact ceases, sensual pleasures cease. The practice that leads to the cessation of sensual pleasures is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

And yet even the first step is mysterious. What is right view?

SN45.8:3.1: And what is right view?
Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

These are the four noble truths. Without knowing the four noble truths, we fall into wrong immersion.
Keep studying the suttas. Keep meditating. Find a good teacher. Be a good person.

Buddhism does not teach practising controlled deep breathing for 5 minutes.
Your question is not related to Buddhism.
When deliberate deep breathing is practised, strange things happen.
For example, i recall seeing a video (here) of a superfit 11 times world surfing champion faint & collapse while doing deep breathing.
Buddhist meditation is about making the mind clear (free from greed & craving) so the mind naturally observes natural calm breathing.


What exactly is rebirth? According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates. But these agregagtes should dissolve at death, because according to neurosciences,feeling, perception, thinking and conscience are just functions of the brain, which is destroyed at one's death. So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

"According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates.", maybe according to whom's ever Buddhism and Buddhists, but the Buddha did not told such. More: he repeatedly stressed out that ones own can not be found in the five aggregates.

As for what is birth:

  "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. MN 141

And as part of the first Noble truth it's somehow pointless to call it "merely convention" since such would hinder one to take actions for a beyond. So for a serious practitioner it's very needed to avoid people who deny coming into being and the Noble Truths, people of grave wrong view.

What makes you the same person who wrote the question and now reading an answer? Desire? Not-knowing?

And without first things first, your practice becomes nothing but that of the many Jains around: a really poor living of real poor hypocriticals.

May you have an auspicious birth here, since it is the prerequisite of liberation.

(Note: not given for stacks, trade and exchange but as a tiny door out of the wheel of rebirth)

According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 aggregates.

The above is not accurate. According to Buddhism, one of the  aggregates (sankhara aggregate) ignorantly assumes one or more of the 5 aggregates is a "self". Refer to SN 22.81.

  But these agregagtes should dissolve at death

In Buddhism, the word "death" means the "death of a self-assumption" or "a being"; such as the "death of mother, father, sister, brother, self". As for the aggregates, they cease when life terminates or ends its time. But this is not called "death". "Death" ("marana") is the idea "a being" or "person" dies; which is the condition for sorrow, grief & suffering. Refer to SN 12.2.

  So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

Nothing. Original Buddhism does not teach the above idea. In the original Pali suttas, there is no word that exactly means "reincarnation" or "rebirth".

As for the quote below (which is poorly translated), it means production of the assumption of various "beings" and "categories of beings". "A being" is merely a "view", "idea" and "state of clinging". Refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10.

  "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. MN 141

In conclusion, the primary Pali word translated as "rebirth" is "upapajjati". "Upapajjati" means to "proceed", "walk" or "continue" in the same manner has a previous thing. This is contrasted with the word "paṭipajjati", which has the same suffix. "Paṭipajjati" means to walk in an opposite direction, such as walking the Path away from suffering and towards Nirvana. "Upapajjati" is to re-live or re-experience a previous experience. For example, if you commit an act of killing, the killing comes back to haunt the mind and the mind suffers from a similar trauma or violence that was previous inflicted when it engaged in killing. Therefore, due to violent killing, for example, a person takes "rebirth" in "hell". They proceed from one violent place (killing) to another violent place ("hell"). This is the meaning of "upapajjati"; which is commonly yet inaccurately translated as "rebirth".


Lost mind while Meditating I'm practising Vipassana meditation and I noticed that most of the time my mind thankfully doesn't wonder about things (past, future, judging).

But I notice that my attention is not really sharp. It's like my mind its in standby not really paying attention to anything in particular. I lost my attention of my breath, sensations, etc.. but not because of wondering.

What's is happening?. Could I get further information about this issue?

That sounds like the hindrance of "sloth-torpor". There are lots of ways to counter this.

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Sloth

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

  Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
  Changing the bodily posture;
  Thinking of the perception of light;
  Staying in the open air;
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

Mindfulness, investigation of reality and energy are factors that will help overcome sloth-torpor.

Also, don't lay down when you are meditating and experiencing sloth-torpor or you will probably fall asleep. If you need to, get up and practice walking meditation . . . or splash water on your face.

We cannot come up with a logical answer to explain this occurrence without conducting a medical exam while this occurs.

But my theory is you are in such a deep meditation trance your heart beat has slowed down to the point your brain is not getting enough oxygen due to low blood circulation.

If you can master this without fainting you would not have to eat or drink for longer periods.


Level of Focus in Anapanasati I've been practising meditation with the breath as an object. While meditating, I am mindful of whatever arises. I feel that such awareness gives insight into the mind.

However, I am wondering whether one should investigate the mind this way, or try and increase focus by narrowing onto the breath. Would narrowing onto the breath provide more benefit?

Hence, I wonder how close to the breath one should be in meditation? Should all thinking be ideally diminished?

Yes, once you have reached sufficient level of concentration you may continue on the breath (samatha) or investigate the mind (vipassana). In my own practice I have a preference for reaching the calmest level possible, so I simply stay with breath, but more quietly, gently, less control, just allowing it to be, no more. At the same time, I don't ignore or suppress things as they arise, i just let them arise, fall, arise, fall. In one door, out the other. It's "kind of" a combination of both Calm and Insight.

Anapana Sati and Satipathana are closely related.
The way I understand your focus (Sati) is to make sure that your attention does not go beyond four frames of reference. It is important to differentiate Samatha and Vipassana practice. Your thoughts (Vitakka and Vicara only. not all thoughts) stop in second Jhana. (Samatha)
Anapanasati Sutta:
 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html


What is the quality and status of the Tripitaka texts at tipitaka.org? I am looking for high quality etexts of the Tripitaka and so far after weeks of search, the best place seems to be tipitaka.org.
However, when looking at the texts, the punctuation and writing style is doesn't seem high quality to me, and I wonder how it compares to the "originals".
For example, look here:

කතමෙ ධම්‌මා කුසලා? යස්‌මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්‌තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්‌ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්‌තියා විවිච්‌චෙව කාමෙහි…පෙ.… පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්‌පජ්‌ජ විහරති දුක්‌ඛපටිපදං දන්‌ධාභිඤ්‌ඤං ඡන්‌දාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… වීරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… චිත්‌තාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්‌මිං සමයෙ ඵස්‌සො හොති…පෙ.… අවික්‌ඛෙපො හොති…පෙ.… ඉමෙ ධම්‌මා කුසලා.

There are ellipses … everywhere, Latin punctuation like the question mark ? and period . everywhere. Some things are centered, some things are in bold, and not being a native reader, I am not sure what the significance of all these "features" are.

Things are aligned in several different ways as in the last image. Again, why so much random bold? And there's quotes ".
I am just collecting these texts for later learning, and want to clean them up. What do I really need out of these texts? Do I need to keep the bold and centering and such (i.e., what information does it contain/encode?), or can I get rid of it? Are these ellipses some sort of signifier that the text is incomplete, or is it a list they are iterating over or something? Basically, can I remove the ellipses too?

OP: There are ellipses … everywhere

This is a Tipitaka writing method called peyyala (p) [පෙය්‍යාල (පෙ)] to omit repetitive phrases or paragraphs in order to prevent Tipitaka becoming unfeasibly lengthier. In peyyala writing method, ellipsis (...) with or without p (පෙ) used to indicate an omitted phrase or passage.
e.g. The following paragraph written with peyyala.
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි...පෙ...පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති...පෙ...අවික්ඛෙපො හොති...පෙ...ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.
If we write the same paragraph without peyyala it would become lengthier like this;
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති.
යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති.
ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.

OP: Latin punctuation like the question mark ? and period . everywhere.

Your first quote is from "Dhammasaṅgaṇī" and it is written in a question and answer pattern. So the latin punctuation question mark (?) has its usual meaning (used at the end of an interrogative sentence). Period (.) is used to indicate the end of a sentence.

OP: Things are aligned in several different ways as in the last image.

I cannot see much importance of the alignment of the sentences.

OP: Again, why so much random bold?

I'm not sure why some of the sentences and words are bold apart from the titles.

OP: And there's quotes ".

Quotes (") are usually used as speaker tags.

OP: What do I really need out of these texts? Do I need to keep the bold and centering and such (i.e., what information does it contain/encode?), or can I get rid of it?

My suggestion is to keep all the formatting except different alignments. (Most importantly the ellipses should be kept). I'm not sure whether the bolds should be kept as they are or not.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong, but not Dhamma.

If, good householder, and who ever joy in such, is interested to help to care about the gift, my person had received, short before Upasaka Goenka left his existance here, for the Sangha of the Eight direction, as it is not really maintained (errors not corrected, not brought right into particular scripts), if he likes to make merits toward the Sangha, he may feel given to do so here. (Note that it isn't a worldly undertaking and dedicated toward liberation)
Tipitaka project
Some scripts had been already placed for further maintaining here.
And you should be clear that usual acting and punder is not only Karmical very destructive but also in regard of common laws, often a violation:
Copyright Vipassana Research Institute, for the source you probably think you can do want you want. And, yes, also approve and encoragement of taking on what is not given is bad Kamma, leading to poorness.
Din't one think because bad habits are common that they are justified, not to speak about long-term effects.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for liberation]


What are the Sutta stating Paramithä requirements to be a stream winner? I have heard, therefore I am yet to discover in Tipitaka, that to achieve certain stream winner stages, one needs to fulfill paramithä. Could you please give me the names of some sutta which I can read further on this (or the Tipitaka vagga / section).

Ten Paramithä
 1. Däna
 2. Sîla
 3. Nekkhamma
 4. Pañña
 5. Viriya
 6. Khanthi
 6. Sacca
 8. Adhitthana
 9. Mettha
10. Upekka

Thanks in advance!

Could you please give me the names of some sutta which I can read further on this

I think that SN 55.2 implies perfection of Sila.

People say that Dana parami is an essential beginning, for example here ...

  Giving (dana) is one of the essential preliminary steps of Buddhist practice.

... but I don't know a sutta where it's named as a characteristic of a stream winner.

I wonder where the talk about practicing paramithä came from. Have you encountered people or books that speak of requiring paramithä to become a stream winner?

There are a couple of talks on Access to Insight.

The Ten Perfections
A Treatise on the Paramis

I didn't find any (after only a brief search) on dharmafarer.org

My theory is that "perfection" isn't a doctrine which is talked about in the suttas.

The "Ten Perfections" for example starts by saying,

  Each path was defined as consisting of perfections (paramī) of character, but there was a question as to what those perfections were and how the paths differed from one another.

So I guess those doctrines (the doctrines about "perfections") were developed after the suttas.

The "Treatise" talks about the sequence in which they should be developed, and how to practice them and so on:

  Here "sequence" means sequence of teaching. This sequence is rooted in the order in which the paaramiis are initially undertaken, which in turn is rooted in the order in which they are investigated.

It finishes with:

  Their fruit is, in brief, the state of perfect Buddhahood.

The introduction says,

  The "requisites of enlightenment" are the paaramiis themselves, the main topic of the treatise. The word paaramii derives from parama, "supreme," and thus suggests the eminence of the qualities which must be fulfilled by a bodhisattva in the long course of his spiritual development.

So far as I know, when Theravada talks about the Four stages of enlightenment (starting with "stream winner") it's more usual to talk about the "fetters" which are overcome, rather than about "perfections".

Paramithä is a determination and not a wish nor a prior set of accomplishment that needs to be fulfilled. A real determination has a firm commitment attached to it. It could be a wish of a kind that is accompanied by a plan to make the wish come true. But this is NOT the kind of a Paramithä that of a Buddha, for which a ‘Buddha-to-be needs to have a firm commitment carried over billions of lives. I have not come across the mention of “Paramita” for disciples been mentioned in the original suttas, but in the commentaries, there may be.


What is fruition in Buddhism? I see it everywhere in my book on jhana. but don't truly understand it's meaning or even find a definition.

Fruition is more related to the 4 stages of sainthood. This is realising of the fruit (Pala) of practice. What his means is you realized the path.

Eradicating all craving and realizing nibbäna


What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism? I am specifically interested in the attitude of Theravadan Buddhism toward homosexuality (if it has one at all.) I don't recall ever seeing any references to homosexuality in the suttas...I do recall seeing some non-normative sexual activity discussed in the Vinaya (or its commentary) but am not as familiar with the Vinaya. If anyone can speak to the Vinaya on this topic that would be helpful.

It seems right to assume that homosexual activity would not be treated any differently than heterosexual activity, but the fact that I do not recall seeing it ever discussed, along with general cultural attitudes expressed (e.g., statements by the Buddha (as I recall) that there is nothing more attractive to a man than a woman and vice versa) makes me wonder if I am missing something.

Also, if anyone has any contextual information about the culture in India at that time that would point to why there would be no discussion of homosexuality--e.g., it was absent--that would be helpful.

I think that the reason you only find references to homosexual activity in the vinaya is BECAUSE the vinaya is the only place where there is a need to be specific regarding sexual acts... Oral sex is still oral sex whether it's performed by a man or a woman, an animal or even yourself.

In the Suttas, the teachings, it doesn't matter if you are attracted to the opposite sex, same sex, etc. it's all about craving,clinging, desire, attachment, and aversion all underpinned by ignorance. These come from the mind and go far deeper then sexual identity and attraction.

As for Homosexuality and the Theravada tradition, buddhanet.net strikes again:

http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm

  As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned.

1st of all Buddhism does not prohibit or have anything against being gay. But Hethorosexuality is unwholsome as it is rooted in desire, though lay people may engage in such activities, within Sila. Homosexuality activity needs to have stronger attraction than is Hethorosexual avtivity, which is more unwholsome. When engaging in any sexsual activity if compaired to a fall, Hetrosexuality say is a 3 foot fall, hence you get hurt in the long run less, Homosexuality is a 6 foot fall, which you you are likely to get more hurt by this in the long run than Hethorosexuality, as weight of attaction is stronger between partners. Incest is more grave like say a 9 foot fall. There will be future society when this also may become accepted, according to the quote below. In each case the attachment is relative. Also historically hetrosexsual people have been less liberal, but current liberal practices have more attachment than in the past so more unwholesome mind moments.
Any form of sexual attraction including being gay is based on desire which is unwholesome and result experiences which are painful in the future. Buddhism deals with correcting you metal tendencies by getting rid of the roots which creates misery. This is done through practicing Vipassana and is a gradual process. Through Vipassana you can transcend any sexual preferences and orientation. To get more insights into this it is best you take a course at: https://www.dhamma.org or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/
See: Saññoga Sutta
Homosexuality is considered a deviant practice. This is rooted in excessive lust.

Now, bhikshus, amongst those humans whose life-span was 500 years, three things were widespread,
that is, abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct.
With the increase of abnormal lust, excessive desire and deviant conduct,
the life-span of beings declined, their beauty declined, too.
For these humans whose life-span and beauty were declining, whose lifespan was 500 years, that of some of their children was 250 years, and some 200 years.

More lust in deviant practices is worse off that non deviant pratice like hetrosexuality, which in some cases in the past may have been less rooted in desire, but both are rooted in unwholesomeness.
See: Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

According to the Dīgha Commentary, here “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) refers to incest, that is,
“lust between mother and mother’s sister and father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such
improper situations” (mata matuccha pituccha matulanī ti adike ayutta-t,thane rago); “neurotic desire”
(visama,lobha) refers to excessive greed by way of consuming things (paribhoga,yuttesu pi thanesu atibalava,lobho,
in other words, excessive materialism and consumerism); and “deviant practices” (miccha,dhamma)
refer to sexuality “between men and men, women with women.” (DA 3:853)

Is is bit unclear as to whether this is a transgression of morality but it is considered less ideal than being straight. Being straight also is based on unwholesome roots of attachment. In any case lack of fidelity and cheating in a sexual relationship would be a moral transgression.
Also Buddhism do not hold any specific attitudes towards anything as such but your choice of action is shaped by the expected results of a action or view which you cling onto. Has iterated before, homosexuality is a result of excessive lust, one should approach these practices more cautiously and perhaps practice meditation to overcome lust. If you die with lust the chancesare that your next birth will be bad.
Though in the time of the Buddha these practices would have been there this would not have been widespread as now due to longevity during the period would have resulted in the amount of lust would have been less. Hence would have not come up much.
If you look at resent history homosexuality this was not wide spread as it is now.
Having said this you should not have prejudice or negative attitude towards homosexuals. This could lead to you creating negative Karma for your self if you follow through with any action.