Questions About Views in Buddhism I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [ditthi].

In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?

1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view?

2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?

3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a view are misguided.

This is a long answer (below), so here is a summary up front:

"In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?"

I think it means to get attached to a view, maybe to rejoice in or to delight in a view, like attaching to a sense-object -- especially a wrong view, such as "delight in being" (bhavaratā).
"Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?"

If 62 of them are listed I doubt that's an exhaustive list -- after all, why not 63 then? There's no end to the number of ways of being wrong (or of views to attach to)!

I suppose that "right view" is defined more narrowly (4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, dispassion, etc.), and that attaching to or holding to views (doctrines) other than that and thus is 'wrong'.

Conversely though, there is "right seeing" or "seeing things as they are", which includes seeing their cause[s] and their cessation.

So a "view" is a diṭṭhi, defined here as follows:

  diṭṭhi: view, speculative opinion, belief, credo, dogma, doctrine. Generally designates a wrong view. Sammādiṭṭhi is the first constituent of the ariya aṭṭh·aṅgika magga, and consists in considering the four ariya·saccas. When the prefix sammā· is absent, the word diṭṭhi generally designates a wrong view. The Buddha exhaustively expounds the 62 wrong views in the Brahmajāla Sutta. Diṭṭhis are one of the seven anusayas. See also sammādiṭṭhi.

In MN 72 for example you can see that the word diṭṭhi can be given all kinds of qualifiers:

  Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views.

  Sassato loko’ti kho, vaccha, diṭṭhigatametaṃ diṭṭhigahanaṃ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkaṃ diṭṭhivipphanditaṃ diṭṭhisaṃyojanaṃ

The dictionary gives diṭṭhisaṃyojana as "the fetter of empty speculation", by the way.

After that sentence in MN 72 the Buddha says,

  Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.
  Imaṃ kho ahaṃ, vaccha, ādīnavaṃ sampassamāno evaṃ imāni sabbaso diṭṭhigatāni anupagato”ti.

  But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?
  “Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?

  The Realized One has done away with convictions.
  Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.

I wanted to know what diṭṭhigata (used there) means exactly. Because the dictionary defines it as ...

  a (false) view, a theory.
  a belief; wrong view.

... but I found it odd, it didn't make sense to me, that Vacchagotta would ask the Buddha, "what wrong views do you hold?" -- so I figured that diṭṭhigata would mean something slightly different than explicitly or literally "wrong".

As Andrei commented,

  Well, ditthi means view and gata means something like "settled in", so why wouldn't ditthigata mean a position or conviction?

I think that "settled in" is so -- see also for example gata used in Tathagata (usually translated as "gone" or "gone to") ... or for example sugata, and gata generally.

So, I guess, maybe diṭṭhigata means something like, "gone to a view", or "dwelling in a view" ... or "holding a view" (which is the subject of the question in the OP), perhaps conversely "being held by a view" (if you use non-anatta terminology), perhaps "stuck on a view", perhaps a "stuck view", maybe "an abiding view" or "a view of abiding", or something like that.

There's a whole sutta actually, itivuttaka 49 is titled the Diṭṭhigatasutta. That title is translated in English as "Held by Views". Read the whole sutta, it's not long:

  This was said by the Lord…

  “Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and
  human beings hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.

  “And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

  “How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

  “How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see? Herein a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practises the course for turning away, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, bhikkhus, do those with vision see.”

  Having seen what has come to be
  As having come to be,
  Passing beyond what has come to be,
  They are released in accordance with truth
  By exhausting the craving for being.

  When a bhikkhu has fully understood
  That which has come to be as such,
  Free from craving to be this or that,
  By the extinction of what has come to be
  He comes no more to renewal of being.

  This too is the meaning of what was said by the Lord, so I heard.

I note five things from this sutta:

The first two groups of devas and human beings are maybe (in my vernacular) "fooling around with" views ... i.e. they're "rejoicing" or "delighting" in views.

Perhaps that's analogous to what people do with sensuality -- i.e. they attach to it.

So maybe that is literally what's meant by "holding" a view -- i.e. people hold a view in the same way that people attach to sense-objects.

I like (or have attached to) this metaphor (quoting from What is attachment as per Buddhism?):

  To distinguish craving from clinging, Buddhaghosa uses the following metaphor:

    "Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping his objective.... [T]hey are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding."

In this sutta, the views which they hold are views of something being still or static:

In the first case, it's a view of "being" -- as if "being" were something constant, or eternal, or even non-empty in the Mahayana sense.
In the second case, it's a view of annihilation-after-death.

What you're supposed to do instead ...

  How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see?
  Kathañca, bhikkhave, cakkhumanto passanti? -- (the dictionary says that passati is the same as one of the meanings of dassati)

... is to see the coming-to-be and the cessation.

And that (i.e. seeing coming-to-be and cessation) is the same as what the Buddha says in MN 72, immediately after he denies having Diṭṭhigata:

  Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”

  “But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?”
  “Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?

  “The Realized One has done away with convictions.
  “Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.

  For the Realized One has seen:
  Diṭṭhañhetaṃ, vaccha, tathāgatena: (note the use of Diṭṭhi again but here not implying wrong -- nor stuck/held/fixed)

  ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
  Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling.
  Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception.
  Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices.
  Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’

  That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceivings, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”

  “But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”

  “‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

  “Well then, are they not reborn?”

  “‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

  [etc.]

If you're worried about diṭṭhi being used to refer to both right views and wrong views, I think in summary the Buddha isn't stuck on any particular fixed view, but instead rightly-sees the arising, being, and ceasing of all the aggregates.
And, it's for the same kinds of purpose in MN 72 as in Iti 49: i.e. for turning away, dispassion, cessation.

There's another sutta (I forget which one) which says that something "in the stream" will reach the ocean (a metaphor for nibbana), unless it sinks or gets stuck on something along the way. Maybe that (being stuck) is another sense of "held", and why the Buddha warns against it -- i.e. given that he wants to teach "only suffering and cessation", speculative views and conceits and so on are an obstacle to cessation.
When the sutta said "delight in being" (bhavaratā bhavasammuditā) I took that as a reference to self-view (e.g. "I am"), but also as a reference to attaching to things, after not (truly) seeing the three characteristics (and so e.g. "this thing is not impermanent, this thing is desirable, and this thing is mine").

I think that "self-view" isn't the only 'wrong' view -- i.e. seeing the three characteristics of "things" is also 'right' (see also a a separate answer about 'emptiness', and AN 10.3 below).

I looked for other places where Diṭṭhigata is used.

Another place the word Diṭṭhigata is used in the last verse of Snp 4.8 which I think says that wanting to win arguments is a vain conceit.

That's inline with other suttas which say that conceit is a cause of arguments.
On the subject of "conceit" and "views" I recommend the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for example:

  A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self.

I assume that's similar to an addiction or an ex-addiction; e.g. the thought might occur and reoccur, to a former addict, "I want X (where 'X' is e.g. alcohol or whatever the object of addiction/attachment is)", and you then have to decide "No, that's a bad idea! I really don't want that." I guess conceit or egoism might be an addictive pleasure, or something, that people have to wean themselves from over time.
SN 41.3 is, again, speculative views about the afterlife. Ditto AN 10.3. A lot of the "held views" seem to be on that kind of topic.

Maybe debating such views was a custom then, e.g. among a "holy men" i.e. the wanderers or seekers in that society.
AN 10.3 also defines right view, as "what's created is impermanent, what's impermanent is dukkha, what's dukkha is when seen with right wisdom not mine, not me, and not myself".

That's a bit unusual in that, as I said earlier, instead of mentioning the three characteristics explicitly as it does in AN 10.3, other suttas tend to contrast Diṭṭhigata with seeing the creation (cause), being, and cessation of the five aggregates.
AN 7.54 also uses diṭṭhigata (translated here as "misconception"), to describe the various famously "undeclared points" or "unanswered questions" (e.g. "does a Tathagata exist after death?" etc.).

It also says that, it is due to Diṭṭhinirodhā (i.e. due to the "cessation of views") that "an educated noble disciple has no doubts" -- where "doubts" (vicikicchā) is one of the canonical fetters (see also e.g. the second half of this answer).

AN 7.54 appears to be the only sutta to mention Diṭṭhinirodhā, FYI -- and that's in the context of things that are avyākata ("not designated" -- if you want to research further you might want to check the usage of avyākata and of its antonym, byākata).

Given that the definition at the top of this answer says that diṭṭhi is one of the seven types of anusaya, you might also want to read this answer which helps to define anusaya.

You may or may not also find this helpful: Buddhaghosa on seeing things as they are (2)

One thing it says is ...

  Having a diṭṭhi is not the problem, being diṭṭhigata is.

... and then goes on to talk about seeing things as they are, yathābhūtadassana.

It ends with what I think of as a pun on the word "conclusion" (i.e. two separate meanings of "conclusion"):

One meaning of "conclusion" is "a theory", for example, "I made these observations and 'concluded' that such-and-such a generalisation is true".
Another meaning of "conclusion" is "cessation", "ending".

I think, I suppose, that in the suttas the Buddha is trying to point towards the latter (cessation), and not the former (sustaining generalisations, holding views, conceited arguments, etc.).

First, You have plenty of mistaken views listed here.
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm

A view is a bunch of claims about ''the world'' or like puthujjanas  love to put it, about ''reality''.

It is normal for puthujjanas to cling to their papanca and intellectualize what they experience, especially what they call the meditative experience, some of them to the point of creating dhammas, teachings, doctrines, philosophies, views, systems, perspectives, ways of life, logics, rationales. Then they claim that their views are better than other views created by other puthujjanas, and that only the really smart and really righteous people like them can understand their views (which are, at this point, no longer  views, but truths)....
In fact, puthujjanas cling so much their intellectualization of what they experience that it is easier to upset a male puthujjana by mocking his views than by giving him a bad experience through the usual 5 senses. This is how insane is the relation of puthujjana with views...

All those intellectuals and other rationalists continue to crave and to cling to their papanca way to much, like puthujjanas who cannot resist to interpret what is a view  in terms of logic through (more or less) formal logic, with their vocabulary of ''postulate'', ''theories'',  ''proposition'' and ''truth values''.This is the view adopted by humanist scholars long ago and that westerners crave so much.

They fail to see that The buddha does not postulate anything, that the dhamma has nothing to do with logic. Anything that the buddha says is a conclusion to his endeavor and it certainly not ''a theory'', nor a ''postulate'', nor ''an hypothesis that has to be verified''.

Overall, behind this question about views and ''destroying all views'' that those puthujjanas have created is as usual whether or not the path is conditioned, or fabricated. Since the path is indeed fabricated,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
 they just see an opportunity to claim that there are different  paths leading to nibbana.
A few puthujjanas even claim that there are thousands of paths to nibanna, or even worse that each person has a different path from another person, because they claim and think that people are all different (because people like and dislike different things through the 6 senses and those puthujjanas  fail to understand what is beyond the 6 senses so they remain on this level of existence and base a path on sensual likes and dislikes)....
The  path is indeed conditioned and is the method to stop being a puthujjana with the tools that a puthujjana has: sankharas, cetanas, talks, karma, rebirth, vedana, rupa, livelihood, views, and what not.

Of course, At the end of the day, there is not one sammā-vācā  for one puthujjana and another sammā-vācā  for another puthujjana , there is not one sammā-ājīva  for one puthujjana and another sammā-ājīva  for another puthujjana, there is not one sammā-samādhi for on puthujjana and another sammā-samādhi for another puthujjana, there is not one sammā-sankappa  for one puthujjana and another sammā-sankappa  for another puthujjana.
The path is the same for all puthujjanas: sila is the same for all, samadhi is the same for all and prajna is the same for all....

Since you care about views, care about the sakkaya-ditthi and the samma-ditthi, instead of wasting the few energy that you have on embarrassing intellectual views even worse than sakkaya-ditthi.  Spending your day doing sati sampajanna and yoniso manasikara is the opposite of relying on vitaka+vicara+papanca and rewriting the dhamma to determine what leads to nibanna or not and what must be done to see the dependent origination.

Also, there is a famous sutta https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/mn64 about a baby and views. The buddha claims that a baby has no identity view, ''Yet the underlying tendency to identity view lies within him''. Somebody who has the lower fetter that is the sakkaya ditthi is really somebody who

  abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and he does
  not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity
  view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is
  uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter.

and somebody who does not have this fetter is somebody who

  understands as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity
  view, and identity view together with the underlying tendency to it is
  abandoned in him.

SO again the only view you care about and reject is sakkyaditthi and the only view that you should care about and embrace is samma-ditthi


Significance of touching forheads in Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu)? I have visited a local group of Karma Kagyu practitioners once, hearing a Dharma talk and participating in the mantra, rituals, and meditation.

At this occasion, the members of the Sangha greeted one another by touching foreheads with each other. I didn't ask why at the time, and haven't been able to find a description of that tradition online. Could someone shed some light on this custom?

My main teachers have a lineage coming from both Nyingma and Kagyü, so their explanations might differ slightly from 'pure' Karma Kagyü teachings, but I was told that touching foreheads is a gesture of very endearing closeness. Good old friends might touch their foreheads as a recognition of their proximity. Similarly, teachers feeling a strong bond with some students will touch their foreheads with them when the students thank them for a teaching received.

I was also told that it would be very impolite to 'demand' that a particular teacher touches their forehead with us, to somehow publicly recognize a closeness that doesn't truly exist.

Specially gentle, kind, and compassionate teachers will often never discriminate among students — they will always insist to touch their foreheads after a teaching is giving. HH the Dalai Lama also often does that to complete strangers (with some eyebrow-raising from his entourage!). The point here is that a Bodhisattva truly never discriminates among sentient beings — he or she will feel close to everybody!

There is something about touching foreheads that goes beyond a gesture. If any of you have had a baby or partner touch foreheads with you rubbing them together... The sensation during and after is as if some sort of magnetism ha been created. It is very I intimate. It feels like instant comfortable meditation.


Question about Vijnana and the correct view of Nama and Rupa So I understood Vinana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of, and I think that is why in dependent origination it is said Vijnana conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vijnana.

In other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be consciousness.

Based on this, it is clear that consciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object), not an entity that can "cognize" itself. Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness, because it says consciousness is conscious of consciousness.

How is that possible when consciousness only can be aware of an object, and not itself (because it is an activity, and not an entity as Vedanta says)?

Also, please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism. This is the Vedanta view that I have read about. Can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa?

The mind can only become aware of the mind in a subsequent moment. We get angry, and then know so. In moment 1, vinyana arises along with anger and delusion, aware only of the story. In moment 2, for a mindfulness practitioner, the vinyana arises with mindfulness and samadhi, abandoning the anger, unbonded to thought.
In the infinite consciousness jhana there is only vinyana in its  unbonded state (bare and separate awareness). In the next moment, it is aware of itself from the previous moment. In the next moment it is aware if itself again. It is infinite it the moment to moment unended reflection, not the sense of its size.  Hope that helps!  Oh and yes there are tiny spaces of nothing between angry and mindful of it, but those are very hard to see. Once you can, you are well into vipassana, seeing there is no continuity or prevailing consciouness (anatta).

So I understood Vinjana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of

Correct. That is why there is no such thing as the 'rebirth consciousness' taught by later Buddhist commentators.

  I think that Is why in dependent origination it is said Vinjana
  conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vinjana

Correct.

  in other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be conciousness.

Correct.

  Therefore it is clear that conciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object) not an entity so it cannot "cognize" itself.

Incorrect. As consciousness arises with sense objects, it also cognizes itself. For example, when the eye sees a sight, the mind knows it is conscious of that seeing.

Simply open your eyes, close your eyes, open your eyes, close your eyes. Continue this opening & closing of your eyes until you (the mind) understand the mind is conscious of the eye consciousness operating via the eye. It is not rocket science.

  Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness it
  says consciousness is conscious of consciousness how is that possible
  when consciousness only can be aware of an object not itself because
  it is an activity not an entity as Vedanta says.

There are other mental factors operating in the jhana about infinite consciousness, which is why consciousness can cognize consciousness. It is these other mental factors, particularly perception, that allow consciousness to exist. The infinite consciousness jhana is described as follows:

  Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, zeal, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.

  Anupada Sutta

  Also please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism this is the Vedanta view that I have read about , can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa.

The correct Buddhist meaning of 'nama-rupa' is 'mind-body' or 'mentality-materially', as defined in the suttas as "feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, the form comprised of earth, wind, fire & water", as follows:

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

  Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View

When samadhi is developed and when the mind is free from thoughts & naming activity; the mind can cognise how subtle underlying defilement tendencies & urges affect the mind-body and will know nama-rupa is not the name-form of Brahmanism, Hinduism & Vedanta; which is:

  Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed; it refers to the conditioned reality. In the Upanishads this term is used to indicate the self-willed manifestation of Brahman under visible and nameable aspects, to the said manifestation into the fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world owing to maya, the unreal adjunct. According to Hindu scriptures the world in each age emanates from Brahman mirrored upon maya.

  The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of the differentiation of the undifferentiated.

  Namarupa-vyakarana From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Pali suttas, there are suttas (such as SN 7.6, DN 11 & MN 49) spoken to Brahmins in the language of Brahmanism, which include the term 'nama-rupa' as meaning 'name-form' or 'naming-form'. The puthujjana scholars and their puthujjana followers rely on these suttas to promote their alien ideas about 'name-form'. These puthujjana write post after post on Buddhist forums about a zombie state called 'consciousness without feature' (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) mistakenly believed to be Nibbana.

While the work-in-progress-diverse-ideas monk named Thanissaro Bhikkhu uses the translation 'name-form', his explanation below shows he is really referring to 'mind-body':

  A. As you walk to the door of your parents’ house, thinking about the
  situation (2b—verbal fabrication), you pull up memories of things your uncle
  has done in the past (2c—mental fabrication). This provokes anger, causing
  your breathing to become labored and tight (2a—bodily fabrication). This
  makes you uncomfortable (2c—mental fabrication), and you are aware of
  how uncomfortable you feel (3—consciousness). Hormones are released
  into your bloodstream (4 f through 4i—Form). Without being fully aware that
  you are making a choice, you choose (4c—intention) to focus (4e—
  attention) on the perception (4b) of how trapped you feel in this situation.
  Your consciousness of this idea (5 and 6—mental contact) feels oppressive
  (7—feeling). You want to find a way out (8—craving). At this point, you can
  think of a number of roles you could play in the upcoming dinner (9d and
  10—clinging and becoming): You might refuse to speak with your uncle,
  you might try to be as unobtrusive as possible to get through the dinner
  without incident, or you might be more aggressive and confront your uncle
  about his behavior. You mentally take on one of these roles (11—birth), but
  unless you keep your imaginary role actively in mind, it falls away as soon as
  you think of it (12—aging-&-death). So you keep thinking about it, evaluating
  how your parents will react to it, how you will feel about it, and so on (2b—
  verbal fabrication). Although the stress of step (12) in this case is not great,
  the fact that your role has to be kept in mind and repeatedly evaluated...

  Shape of Suffering

Below, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa provides an example of 'mind-body':

  Again, several hours or days later, this young lady may simply begin to doubt the sincerity of
  her boyfriend. No one has said anything to her, and she hasn't seen anything, but in her own
  mind she begins to doubt [ignorance] whether or not her boyfriend has been going with another woman. She begins to make assumptions [sankhara] and so Dependent Origination begins to operate by way of
  the mind door: a mental object comes into contact with the mind and mind consciousness
  arises. This mind consciousness conditions a new mentality/materiality to arise: what was an
  inert body/mind, not conditioned to experience suffering, is now the mentality/materiality that
  conditions sense bases capable of experiencing suffering to arise. The sense bases condition
  suffering prone contact to arise. Contact conditions feeling conducive to the arising of
  suffering. Then follows restless craving and clinging attachment and the same kind of suffering
  arises again. This is a case of Dependent Origination becoming active in that young lady by
  way of mind consciousness.

Similar to the two examples above, I offer the following example.

Imagine you have an addiction to smoking cigarettes you wish to end however the urge to smoke cigarettes still arises.

The urge that arises is ignorance.
The internal thoughts & images that arise with that urge are sankhara.
The knowing of the urge, thoughts & images is consciousness.
The mind-body that then becomes impacted & agitated by that urge and fights & wrestles to stop that urge is nama-rupa.
But when the mind-body cannot stop the urge, the sense organs then look for cigarettes to smoke.
Finding cigarettes causes contact to arise.
Contact causes excitement about cigarettes to arise.
Contact and excitement causes more craving for cigarettes to arise.
Choosing to smoke the cigarettes is attachment.
Smoking the cigarettes and increasing the addiction is becoming.
Being an addict is birth; that is, birth as an addict.
The suffering that arises when you cannot smoke is aging-death-sorrow-grief-despair-suffering.

Therefore, try to comprehend when the mind-body are made restless & agitated by internal urges, this is the meaning of nama-rupa in Dependent Origination; which is a mind-body affected & poisoned by ignorance (rather than a mind-body free from ignorance).

Obviously, nama-rupa is not 'naming-form' because the naming of forms (such as cigarettes) is already occurring at the 2nd link called 'sankhara', when the mind thinks about & has images of smoking cigarettes.

'Naming-form' is unrelated to suffering. If I name a round object a 'wheel', this does not cause suffering. Therefore, it is unrelated to Buddhism and unrelated to Dependent Origination. 'Naming-form' is Creationism and not Buddhism.


Is it wrong to wish you could die? I'm so over life. I'm nearly 50 and I feel worn down by everything. The struggle to make sense of it, to find purpose and meaning, to make lasting friendships, to feel I belong somewhere, to survive in a capitalist society that puts money first and pits people against one another. The vacuous shallow emptiness of it all. To witness the awful violence and destruction that goes on relentlessly everyday.The heartbreak of it all and my own personal heartbreak of a very long relationship breaking down and changing and feeling unable to move on from it like a drug addiction.The conflicting, confusing feelings of both hating and loving ones parents for the hurt they caused and the lack of remorse they feel. The battle with my own dark side and the twisted comfort of lashing out and causing more chaos and hurt for others because of my own pain.   I just want to go to sleep and never wake up. It feels like a nice option. I've thought about going to Mexico and getting some nambutal, going to a hotel room and ingesting it.

Look. You basically keep asking the same question. So my answer from last time still applies. But I suppose it's very hard to break through this mood, so let me re-emphasize a few things:

You are not alone to feel this way. I feel this way. Buddha felt this way. There is nothing fundamentally "wrong" about your situation. Feeling that everything is empty, is what some people would call a great realization. Hurray, you already have it, congrats. Yes, it feels shitty - they didn't tell you in the books?
The Buddha struggled with friendships too. You did not know? Yes, he did. Read the Mara chapter in Chinese Samyukta Agama. He thought something was wrong with him because of that. Then he came up with the trick to identify such negative thoughts as "Mara" and counter-act them with self-affirmative arguments. This was post-Enlightenment! If Buddha had to do it, guess what? You must learn to self-affirm!
Relationships are addicting. I know, I've been through some. Intimacy generates tons of dopamine or serotonine or whatever. Your brain gets addicted to that. Then you no longer get it. Then you feel like shit. This is THE drug addiction. Guess what, this is the way humans work. Every move, thought, impulse, perception is always accompanied by dopamine changes, plus or minus. So everything always hurts or delights - and then hurts when it ends. This is how life works, for everyone. Pain. So the only way out is to learn to trick the mechanism, by changing your definition of "good" in such a way as to be rewarded all the time. Makes sense? This is what Buddha taught.
Let go of your past karma. Meaning, stop feeling bad about the circumstances of your childhood and your parents, that led you to be what you are. It's not your fault, it's not their fault, it's not anybody's fault. It is just a sequence of causes and results, like the billiard balls. Everyone gets their share of this mess. Even Buddha did (putting aside the legend). His relationship with his father was awful. Father was ashamed of him, said he was a failure. And they  never reconciled all the way until father's death. His mother died, and his maternal aunt who was his stepmother begged him to come back, and when he did not, she shaved her head and became first female Buddhist, just to be with her son. There was lots of drama in Buddha's life.

Buddha struggled with doubts all the time, he just learned to overcome them. You think it was easy when his students committed suicide? He thought, gosh what kind of teacher am I, if my students commit suicide! But then for the sake of other students who were still alive he put on a smile and said: this guy who killed himself has reached Nirvana, but you should practice breathing meditation and teach yourself to feel good, if you ever hope to achieve what I achieved. Makes sense?

Now, please stop beating yourself with negativity, I know it's hard, because I'm just like you - but please learn to be yourself, to assert your right to be in this world, and even to praise yourself. Killing yourself is a cop out. Buddha did not kill himself when he "awakened" to emptiness of it all, did he?

In your case it is wrong.

Why?

Because you would not escape from suffering.

You would be reborn again as a human on Earth, but this Earth would not be the same as this one. There would be many wars, diseases, famine, anger, violence. You would be without shelter, thirsty and hungry. You would be in immense fear. You would cry and be in physical pain. Then a disease would strike you and you would die.

This would happen over and over again. You would hear not even a word about the Dhamma. Meditation would be unknown to you for a very very long time.

After many rebirths in a world permeated with suffering, you would once again be reborn in this same world, same body, same problems, same everyhing ... once again you would need to face the same problems you're facing now. This time, you would not kill yourself. Instead, you would suffer until a disease would kill you.

Then you would be reborn and die again and again and again, faced with the same problems you're facing right now, until you would finally solve the same problems you're facing RIGHT NOW.

So what will you do? Will you take a shorter route or a longer route? It's your decision.


How much should i try while meditating? I have just started meditating and was wondering how much effort should I put  into not getting distracted ?
As I have noticed while practicing there are varying degrees of trying I can use the more I use the more focused I am but I also feel like my mind is working harder and kind of less relaxed .

Should I even be trying at all ?
Because when I am not trying at all mostly the wave of thoughts easily sweep me away from the meditation.

Or is it like finding the balance between trying really hard and not trying ?
If the last one is the case how can I find the balance ?

Buddha compared it to holding a live bird: too hard you would kill it, too light it would fly away.

The following book is a collection of about 30 suttas in which the Buddha talks about Anapanasati:

Buddhawajana
Anapanasati

Meditation is about effortlessness. If you are trying it implies effort which is not meditative. Making changes in your lifestyle like noncompetitiveness has to be part of practise. Just meditation technique alone will not give results. Also try some detox therapies especially herbal which brings about balance and thereby cool down your senses.


How do you identify the 5 factors associated with Jhana? How do you recognise the different factors associated with Jhana and the level of Jhana you are in? (Not necessarily when you are in Jhana.)

More particularly how do recognise the factor of applied thought as such, factor of sustained thought as such, factor of rapture as such, factor of happiness as such and factor of one-pointedness of mind as such. How does the experience and correlate with the named factor such that it can be properly ascertained that this is infact this factor, and that factor has arisen and not something else or miss evaluation?

Applied thought and sustained thought are not the factors that you recognize, they are the factors that you generate. You know when you have them, because you are doing them!

Once you use applied and sustained thought properly, the factors of joy and ease (what you called rapture and happiness -- the translations I don't find precise) will emerge. These are very easy to recognize, because you will feel joyful and at ease! ;)

If you ask for an experience, I have not. But if you ask for a resource, you can found in path of purification, Chapter 4th Pathavīkasiṇaniddesa.


questions about my practice I have been practicing insight meditation daily now for over 6 years. I have learnt the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. I focus on my abdomen rising and falling and notice when my attention goes to something else which seems to be mostly thoughts and then I gently bring it back. When my attention goes to a sensation I watch the sensation for a while until it is no longer holding attention then I bring it back to the breath. After 6 years of doing this I can't say that I have had profound insight into the true nature of reality etc. Most of the time I just feel really bored and doubtful that sitting all this time is actually changing anything. My concentration is only marginally better.  I understand Dukha, Anicca and Anatta but its more from reading about it than sitting.  I sit for an hour in the morning and 45 mins at night.  Im not sure whats going on but just feels something is missing.  I read about and hear people talking about the profound changes they experience and how their lives are filled with peace and joy from practicing so I wonder where Im going wrong?   As far as Metta practice goes I am told that at first it may feel contrived but if you keep going it begins to work but I have to say that after all these years not much has changed on that front either.  It seems that the effort and energy I apply massively out weighs the benefits. So I'm confused about this.

Boddhidharma sat for 9 years.
The last time I was in Japan, I had an oppertunity to sit Zazen in a very old temple. I remember one of the monks talking me through the process of what I should do/expect, etc... Before the sitting commenced.

He gad no idea tgat I'd been sitting fir over a decade, but that's fine. I remember him attempting to discribe what it might be like if I have an "experience" (huge mistake, experience in Zazen can not be reduced to words).

Anyway, when he was done, I just smiled, nodded my head, and told him, I'm not anticipating having any experience. I just intend to sit... Just sit. And that's what I did.

But the fact is, I have had experiance from zazen before, not every time, but it has happened. You have to engage the practice wuth absolutly zero preconceptions, empty your mind, and stay fixed in the moment. Constantly, reducing that moment more and more until it is merely this instant.

When you are in this instant, that means that nothing else exists to you. That moment, that just passed, dies not exist. That moment, which is approaching, does not exist. Nothing exists except this instant. And then... This instant becomes eternity for you. And you are no longer locked in time.

There are no words that can exoress that experience. It dies not resemble any other experience that you can relate to. There is no point in trying to imagine what it might be. If you search for it, you can nit find it, because you have no idea wgat you are searching for.

When meditation brought profound changes to my life, this occurred when I was practising for around 8 hours per day continuously for 3 months in a meditation retreat monastery. The profound meditations that built 'momentum' were those where I sat for over 75 minutes, to 2.5 hours, during the after breakfast & after lunch sessions. The momentum would carry into the evening session but the early morning sessions were generally uneventful.

Personally, I have never practised meditation only for one hour each morning & each evening therefore I have not experienced the results this may bring. However, I imagine it would not bring profound results because morning meditation is generally not the best and, while evening meditation is generally the clearest (when not eating after lunch), this is only after long afternoon meditation. In other words, when I have lived a normal life, working in an office during the day, the mind is tired at night, particularly once it develops some samadhi-calmness, it has a tendency towards sloth/sleepiness at night.

I imagine practising only for one hour each morning & each evening would be good for a 'mental health checkup', to observe & manage what unwholesome states the mind has accumulated during the day. However, I doubt profound samadhi could be developed in such a short time.


the Pair of Knowing and Object I am searching for a precise understanding of what Buddhist authors mean by the "pair" of "knowing" and "object". For example

  ...we see that what we call "self" is simply the pairwise progression of knowing and object.

A second example

  In all perception, at each event of noting, there is always this twin
  pair, the object and the mind,  which observes the object. These two
  elements of the object and the knowing mind always arise  in pairs,
  and apart from these 2, there does not exist any other thing in the
  form of a 'person',  an 'observer', an 'experiencer', nor any 'Ego',
  'Subject', or  any 'Self'! No identity is present! Similarly is there
  no 'observed object', or  any 'substance' "out there" independent of
  the mind!

Can this "pair" of "knowing" and "object" be explained precisely? Or is it subject to many interpretations?

What insight is gained from discussion of this pair of knowing and objects?

The "pair" or "dyad" of "knowing" and "object" is found in the Pali scriptures, as follows:

  At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus... there is
  this (internal) 'group' ('kaya': of five aggregates) and external minds-and-bodies: thus this dyad (pair). Dependent on the
  dyad (pair) there is contact.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.19

~~~

  Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?

  Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.'

  Owing to the ear and sounds arises ear-consciousness. The ear is impermanent...

  Owing to the nose and scents arises nose-consciousness. The nose is impermanent...

  Owing to the tongue and savors arises tongue-consciousness...The tongue is impermanent.

  Owing to the body and tangibles arises body-consciousness. The body is impermanent...

  Owing to the mind and ideas arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent...contacted, monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends.
  Contacted, one perceives. Thus these states also are fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'

  SN 35.93

~~

  The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be
  known.

  MN 148

The 1st example in the opening post is incorrect understanding. For example, what is called "self" is not included in the pairwise occurring of knowing and object. The mind can know an object but be empty of 'self' because 'self' is a product of thought/thinking (sankhara) while knowing an object is a product of sense consciousness (awareness: vinnana).

The 2nd example in opening post is correct understanding, in that when the dyad operates, there is no 'self' in its operation. However, the thought of 'self' can arise quickly afterwards (called 'becoming'), as described in the following quote:

  "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'... The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression and sense-impression is
  the condition of feeling.'

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.... And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of
  craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.'... 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of (self) becoming.' Such
  is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

  SN 12.12

However, to assert there are no objects "out there" independent of the mind goes too far. It is an extreme view because to assert there are no objects independent of mind asserts the mind is 'God' or 'Brahma'; that the mind is the 'Creator' of the external world.

The Pali scriptures state, for example, the Laws of Nature exist "out there" regardless of whether they are known by a human mind or not, as follows:

  Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are
  unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly
  awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking
  through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it
  forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain

  Dhamma-niyama Sutta

The insight gained in knowing this pair of knowing and objects is explained in SN 35.93 quoted above, namely: (i) the mind can clearly identify or be aware of them and not create 'self-becoming' & suffering in relation to them; (ii) the mind can see they arise & pass; are impermanent & not-self.

For example, an object of sight comes to be when eye-consciousness functions & an object of sight ceases to be when the eye-consciousness ceases to function. If this is watched, the mind will realise all sense objects are impermanent each time the eye blinks.

You seem to be asking about the relationships among the concepts of "self," "action," and the "object" or situation targeted by that action. (In Buddhism, the perception of an object is an action.) You could say that an agent or self threw (or saw) a ball. Or you could say that a set of beliefs and wishes in the form of an action-plan caused the ball to fly through the air (or caused the perception of the ball). The first is a form of object-causality. The second is a form of event-causality. In event-causality, the agent or self or subject disappears. Confusion arises when a person believes that talk about object-causality implies that, when switching to event-causality, one should become aware of the self as an object of awareness. The real problem arises when, in some kind of meditation, a person imagines an experience of a self and slips into full samadhi and believes he has achieved greatness.


When is 'dependent origination' broken, in meditation? At which stage of enlightenment (or of meditation) will Dependent Origination break?

In my meditation practice, now there are no clinging to the thoughts and no self view. Can notice once it appears.

At this stage, is dependent origination still functioning?

You have to see impermanence, suffering and non-self with direct knowledge. Not by intellectual thinking.  That realization should be all encompassing. In other words, you should attain absolute certainty that all condition realities come under the three characteristics. At this moment the mind should have the concentration level comparable to the first Jhana, even though it is not the first Samatha Jhana. Read more here

in my meditation practice now there Are No clinging to the thoughts and self view .

The self-view is clinging. Thoughts are (usually) clinging. To quote:

  And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of
  self clinging. This is called clinging

  SN 12.2

When the mind has no thoughts, no clinging, no self-view, the Dependent Origination will be stopped. When ignorance ends, the Dependent Origination will be broken.


breathing techniques in buddhism My name is Prakash Karki. I am from Nepal. . I have just read 1 book on buddhisam and that is biography and philosophy of buddha. I became very serious about this spiritual stuff. I have been researching about spirituality for 2 years now. I want to know about the journey. how to be more serious about it and what should I do at first step as a beginner ?

Where to begin and how to start...
For the sake of being concise, you already are on the path because you're kicking brother. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? Your actions, intentions and responses reflect the dynamic of the environment around you (family, work, etc) and so on and so forth.
That's the beginning to the whole 'spiritual stuff'.
Some breathing techniques that I have found useful (not only buddhist):

Tummo (buddhist)
Freediving
Yoga (breathing into the pressure to release the tension)

Cultivate in Harmony

The Buddha did not teaching any breathing technique.
In Buddhism, the mind is made empty of craving. When the mind is empty of craving, the breathing becomes the natural automatic object of consciousness.
Breathing techniques is Hinduism rather than Buddhism.


Does being a lay Buddhist have any advantages over a Monk? That's the question. Is there any advantage in being a lay Buddhist over being a Monk who has gone forth, that is in as far as following the Dhamma-Path to Nirvana is concerned?

There is the case of Ghaṭīkāra, who was asked:

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

Ghaṭīkāra responded:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

And Ghaṭīkāra was a non-returner:

MN81:18.16: And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

Lay Buddhists are still tied to the world, but their practice can still benefit themselves and others. Ghaṭīkāra was the chief attendant of Buddha Kassapa.

MN81:18.1: ‘Great king, there is a market town named Vebhaliṅga,  where there’s a potter named Ghaṭīkāra. He is my chief attendant.

This story made the Buddha smile. Perhaps it might make you smile as well. There is a lot more in that sutta that what is posted here.

Yes, of course. Okay, let's try once again: what is Nirvana? It's a pleasure. Does it differs from some desires (please notice that Buddha's key teaching was about freeding from desire, but you need a desire to freed from desire) like alcohol, cigarettes or sex for people who have had desires? Not really, moreover Buddhist Monks won't have children because the sex is 'desire', but does the conception of Niravana really differ? No, and most of Buddhism's true knowledge came from Sanskrit, how many people speak Sanskrit nowadays? Not many. Buddhism doesn't have holy Monks or a residence similar to The Vatican, so there is no adavantage of Buddhist Monks over Lay Buddhists.


How does the 2nd Noble truth explain the cause of suffering-as-suffering (e.g. resulting from a severe burn)? I would like to ask question regarding the 4 Noble Truths. The second Noble Truth broadly speaking is that suffering is a result of craving, aversion and ignorance. I can see how this can been seen as a cause of suffering-as-change (Viparinama-dukkha), and suffering-as-conditions (Sankhara-dukkha); but can not relate craving, aversion and ignorance to suffering-as-suffering (Dukkha-dukkha). For example how can the cause of suffering resulting from a severe burn be explained by those three factors?

Dukkha-dukkha is just painful feelings accompanied by craving. Painful feelings are simply feelings. In the case of severe burns, one would experience a lot of painful feelings. But it is still just a physical feeling like any other physical feeling. It becomes suffering only when you wish it to go away. That is called Vibhava-tanha. In other words, the craving for a certain experience to go away causes you suffering.

The 2nd noble truth states the arising (samudhaya) of suffering is due to craving that leads to new 'becoming' or 'ego-existence' (bhava). In other words, craving without becoming does not lead to the arising of suffering.

  And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

  SN 56.11

  The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by
  the Blessed One."

  MN 44

The audio lecture 4. Noble Truth of Dukkha's Origin (part 1 | part 2) will provide a proper explanation.

  The Second Noble Truth states that there is an origin of suffering and that the origin of suffering is attachment to the three kinds of
  desire: desire for sense pleasure (kama tanha), desire to become
  (bhava tanha) and desire to get rid of (vibhava tanha). This is the
  statement of the Second Noble Truth, the thesis, the pariyatti. This
  is what you contemplate: the origin of suffering is attachment to
  desire.

  Ajahan Sumedho


How can we make compatible the 'ehipassiko' aspect of the Dhamma with the faith aspects of it? In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html), it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either.
However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma.

How can we conciliate those aspects of the Dhamma?

We have teachers and bhikkhus teachings about rebirth, kamma, abhijjas, the nature of Buddhas and arahants, the nature of reality, and so on, but never reaching consensus about those themes. Even within the same schools, the teachings of those topics varies from teacher to teacher.
It seems to me that Buddhism, at least in those topics, becomes a religion as the many others existent.
Are we supposed to follow blindly this part of the Dhamma?

Thanks for your time!

In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html), it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either. However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma.

I don't see any contradiction in the suttas. Sorta like a college math professor telling 5th graders not to conjecture about the working of calculus, differential equations, etc. But once the students have made it thru high school and into college, taking more advanced math and they'll be able to "come and see" and find out for themselves. Similarly, there're many things in the Dhamma that can be verified, some can be verified in the here and now, some would require thorough training with much dedication and effort down the line.

This question is illogical because the term "ehipassiko" means the Dhamma is not blind faith.

In SN 12.2, "birth" is defined as the mental production the self-view of "beings" based on the manifestation of aggregates experienced via the sense bases. "Re-birth" is the re-arising of these self-views. This is the 'ehipassiko' aspect of Dhamma.

For example, words typed on this internet site are "aggregates" manifesting in different ways. When the mind get annoyed at words read and then produces self-views about the writer and reader of these mere words, such as: "You are a nasty person and you annoy me", this is "birth". Two views of "beings" have been "birthed" from mere words written on an internet page.

Ehipassiko, friends. Come & see, the real verifiable truth (of "re-birth") in the here-&-now.

For example, the suttas do not say the Buddha recollected his "past lives". The Pali word here is "nivasa", which means "abode", "dwelling", "settling-place", "adherence" or, literally, "homes". As explained unambiguously in SN 22.79, when the Buddha recollected his "past abodes", he recollected when in the past his mind ignorantly clung to an aggregate as "self".

  At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

  “When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  “This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

  “And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He dismantles form and does not build it up. He dismantles feeling …
  perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not build
  it up.

  SN 22.79

Ehipassiko, friends. Come & see, the real verifiable truth (of "re-birth") in the here-&-now.


Reincarnation and stem cell research How do we apply reincarnation to phenomena such as reproduction by binary fission (amoeba) and creating animals like Dolly the sheep from a single cell? Also, why the population is rising in the animal kingdom including humans, surely, it cannot be other beings from different realms are coming to earth. I am so confused about this although I am a  practicing Buddhist.

How do we apply reincarnation to phenomena such as reproduction by binary fission (amoeba) and creating animals like Dolly the sheep from a single sell?Also, why the population is rising in the animal kingdom including humans, surely, it cannot be other beings from different realms are coming to earth.
I am so confused about this although I am a practising Buddhist.

If you want to become an even more confused Buddhist, then keep pondering this :)
If not, then stop pondering this and go practice.
You might also want to take a look at the Four Imponderables:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

These imponderables the Buddha advices not to contemplate, since they will only agitate and destabilize the mind, making it less suitable for practice.

'Animal birth' is a state of mind, which is why monks are censured for engaging in 'animal talk'. This is why the sutta SN 56.120 says an animal can realise the four noble truths. In other words, the teaching about "reappearance" as an animal in the Pali suttas appears to be a metaphor.

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9


What is the difference between Citta contemplation and Dhamma contemplation in Satipathana? What is Citta?
What is Dhamma?
What is the difference between above two in Satipathana?

These are the two last stages in the 4 foundations of mindfulness:

Citta means "mind". Dhamma refers to the Buddhist teachings.

Cittanupasana is the meditation on the mind: the observation of the arising and setting of thoughts and desires. It is required to understand the impermanent nature of mind, which is wrongfully perceived as a permanent self.

Dhammanupasana is meditation on the Dharma, the Buddhist teachings. Typically a student will be asked to meditate/research one of these topics:

The Five Hindrances
The Four Noble Truths
The Seven Factors of Enlightenment
The Five Aggregates
Canon Literature


Did the Buddha make any reference to Krishna and Gita? As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form ), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy. In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it) seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any difference.

Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

The dates given in Wikipedia's Bhagavad Gita article, for example,

Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.

... and,

The so-called "Hindu Synthesis" emerged during the early Classical period (200 BCE - 300 CE) of Hinduism.[21][7][22] According to Alf Hiltebeitel, a period of consolidation in the development of Hinduism took place between the time of the late Vedic Upanishad (ca. 500 BCE) and the period of the rise of the Guptas (ca. 320–467 CE) which he calls the "Hindu Synthesis", "Brahmanic Synthesis", or "Orthodox Synthesis".[21] It developed in interaction with other religions and peoples:

The emerging self-definitions of Hinduism were forged in the context of continuous interaction with heterodox religions (Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas) throughout this whole period, and with foreign people (Yavanas, or Greeks; Sakas, or Scythians; Pahlavas, or Parthians; and Kusanas, or Kushans) from the third phase on [between the Mauryan empire and the rise of the Guptas].

... and in Wikipedia's Krishna article,

Worship of the deity Krishna, either in the form of deity Krishna or in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopala can be traced to as early as the 4th century BC.

... compared with the dates in the Gautama Buddha article,

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.

... suggest to me it's possible that maybe the Buddha lived a little bit earlier (e.g. 100 years or more) than when Krishna became famous and when the Gita was composed.
If it's true that the Gita was written during a "synthesis" which occurred as a reaction to competition from Buddhism and Jainism and so on, that could explain why there's no commentary from the Buddha (i.e. that he lived slightly before then, and so any commentary would be anachronistic).
There are Buddhist suttas which recount the Buddha's talking with brahmins.
In summary the first sentence of the OP (i.e. "As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy.") might be a slightly incorrect assumption.

I would not use Wikipedia to determine the dates put forward for Hinduism.
Krishna's timeline was actually in 3228 BCE to 3102 BCE whereas Buddha's time period was from 563 BCE to 483 BCE. This means Lord Krishna's time would have been 2539 years before Buddha's time, this means Krishna came earlier. Lord Krishna's philosophy was based on the Vedic teachings. The true vedic period was from 10,000 BCE to 3102BCE. Khali Yug which means Dark Age is the current age we are living in and that started from 3101BCE. During Buddha's time Vedism was very corrupt, there were senseless wars people killing people for dominance over Kingdoms and fighting for status and greed and spirituality was declining, hence the reason for the Buddha.
Krishna philosophy is based on the Atman-Brahman concept or soul-God concept. Krishna describes what is Brahman, which is that Purusha or divine cosmic energy and matter that created the universe, the paramatma or the soul of the universe, it is unseen, unborn and can never die, he also describes the soul, that it is no different from the paramatma, the purusha, the supreme Brahman, then he said he is within everything in this universe, within every soul yet separate, that everything comes from him that he is the metaphysics and physics that created this universe, he also said that all the forms of God is him and then said that his physical body is not God that he is that supreme Brahman.
That said, Krishna said that through your own soul you can attain oneness with that supreme Brahman, similarly even though the Buddha did not use the God-soul concept, he said that to become enlightened one should use oneself as their own salvation. Krishna describe the supreme Brahman as cosmic energy that permeates the universe and when a person attains oneness with that supreme Brahman they are liberated from this world of birth and death whereas Buddha speaks about Nirvana or the highest point of attaining enlightenment where a person is released from the cycle of birth and death and become one with the universe. Krishna told Arjuna that when he has attained enlightenment he will not be deluded anymore whereas Buddha said a person who is enlightened is a person with a strong mind and cannot be influenced by the temptation of this world. Therefore both philosophies are the same even though the concept is different. It also goes to show you that it does not matter whether you believe in God or not, you can attain enlightenment through the right knowledge or practice. Krishna give the knowledge of many ways to attain enlightenment but Buddha taught by practice through mediation on how to attain enlightenment.
See in life every religion will tell you who is God but neither will tell you how to know God and what is exactly God, but to know God is to know ourselves, find our true selves through our soul, our own life, to attain enlightenment and reach nirvana and oneness with that cosmic energy, the supreme Brahman or one with the universe which is the same thing.


Ignoring Someone as Wrongful Speech I am in an odd situation. Someone I know, who was my friend, now seems to have developped feelings towards me. I wish to give her space, but we are in contact electronically and text. She is extremely distraught by this situation. I cannot help but feel angry when she messages me, for various reasons. I feel that sometimes, the best answer for me is to remain silent. But in doing so, she feels ignored, and suffers.

What is the best course of action in a situation like this? Is ignoring someone wrong speech in this case?

As a Buddhist, your boundaries & conduct in relationship should be clearly communicated. Just be honest with her.

One might ignore this answers message, so be careful here!

Another try in Alice in wonderland, feeling disturbed by Alice, to excuse by asking others to confirm the votes of defilements?

Even your question here might be wrong speech, Humpty Dumpty. A good name by the way. Caught by the tricks of defilements.

If someone sends you advertising, saying "come, make a trade for it", and one knows that it would no trade for long term happiness, would he take the offer?

It's of course wrong speech (giving signs) to simply keep "others warm" thinking: " I might lose an opportunity to gain", fearing "If I show signs not going into this certain deal, he/she might stop offer at all and he/she could posssible offer this or that later on if thinking I am interested in trade."

That is why honesty comes before keeping up relations, Silas are not lower as pleasant dwelling like sheep .

On the other hand, one needs to be careful that defilement do not misuse this understanding as well. Thought of the Uposatha of the wolf. Difficult. And easy if honest to oneself first, but that is the difficult part.

See him falling from his wall?

How may good did you already tried to "kill" by ignoring it (them)? Many "Buddhists" are using abstain from giving signs as signs and as one is able to "kill trolls" one might "kill sages" by same means. Now this is not really breaking the silas (as outwardly rules) but much heavier, kamma by mind and even very deceitful.

Best wishes by an karuna, defilement's Jabberwocky

{Note: not given for trade, exchange, stackes... but only for liberation and bounds toward only this}


Rebirth in the human realm I need to find the Sutta in where it is stated how a human being will be reborn. There should be different states for example if you are born in a high society you were respectful towards parents, elders, teachers and so forth in the previous life/lives. If you were into torturing and harming people you will be reborn with a poor health, if you were killing people you will be reborn with a short life span. There are more states but i do not know them.

Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

You might want to check out MN 135 and MN 136:

"Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings."

Important question indeed! But not a simple thing to explain.
Indeed, for the Buddha himself said that karma and reincarnation are one of the four things that can never be explained fully and to probe too deep into it will cause insanity!

There are a ton of stories throughout all the Nikayas.

I reccommend the book "Mind Experiment" by Bavo Lievens. You will see the glorious, intricate web of reincarnation across the planes of existence in vivid, holistic detail and see the things yourself by opening your Third Eye and most importantly the ladder to Buddhahood.

As for your question, I assume you are looking for some formulaic method to figure out someone's future or past based on their present deeds and situation.

Main principle: the present circumstance will help build up the OPPOSITE of whatever the person had too much of (e.g. if they forcibly repressed themselves from sex, they will go crazy with sex next life, if they be hatin'... they will be born in situations where the opposite of that can arise).
Why is this the principle? Because one's incarnation is an educational program.

Anyway, read the book. Here's the excerpt you wanted:

  When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid
  of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, that is, one birth .
  . .  a hundred births . . .  a hundred thousand births, many eons of
  world-contraction, many eons of world-expansion, many eons of
  expansion and contraction: “There I was so named, of such clan, with
  such an appearance . . .  and passing away there, I was reborn
  elsewhere.” Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my
  manifold past lives . . . I directed my mind to knowledge of the
  passing away and rebirth of beings. With the divine eye, which is
  purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being
  reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and
  unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their
  actions (karma) thus: “These beings who behaved wrongly
  by body, speech, and mind, who held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell; but these beings who behaved well . . . who held right view . . . have been reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. Thus with the divine eye . . . I understood how beings fare on according to their actions (karma). Thus was the second true knowledge attained by me in the middle watch of the night. (MN 36)


What did the Buddha say about motivation? What did the Buddha say about wholesome types of motivation?

Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"?

From what I understand Right Intention is renunciation, good-will and harmlessness. I can understand how good-will and maybe renunciation can be a sort of motivation, but harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way

Basically what I'm looking for are the things that motivate us (as in "drives us") to do things, which are considered wholesome in Buddhism

(Maybe there is also a connection to Right Effort here)

Grateful for help with understanding this better!

Right effort(sammā-vāyāma) in terms of mindfulness is not a forceful , grit your teeth kind of effort. It's a moment by moment, continuous, good cyclical habit kind of effort.
Cetanā is Pali for
1- intention
2- volition
3- directionality of mind
4- attraction
5- urge
Intention(cetanā) can be defined as a mental factor that moves or urges the mind in a particular direction, toward a specific object or goal. Intention(cetanā) is the most significant mental factor involved in the creation of karma.
Sammā-vāyāma and cetanā are two different concepts. In practice, one concept(or the actual experience the concept points towards) might happen right after the other though. Then there is right intention (samma sankappa) that isn't really like sammā-vāyāma. Imho at least.
Samvega, the sense of shock and empty alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of living in the sleeping world, is what motivated the Buddha and others onto the wholesome eightfold path. Some are motivated by other things like faith(saddhā) in the  Buddha's teaching.
Right effort and right view are the two most important factors for an insight meditator to understand, it seems to me.
Right effort can be something like, effort to continue striving to remember to focus awareness on whatever experience arises in awareness and to strive in a broader sense to transcend all assumptions even the ones we don't yet see.
The Four Supreme Efforts
(cattārimāni sammappadhānāni)
1-Restraint Not to let an unwholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen(anuppādāya)
2-Abandonment Not to let an unwholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(pahānāya)
3-Cultivation To make a wholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen.(uppādāya)
4-Preservation To make a wholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(ṭhitiyā)
Effort can come easier with interest but then the path is to eventually develop a certain disinterest.

He said "whatever motivates one on the path is good."


How buddhists see/deal with Gaslighting? I've had my share of gaslighting and have given it as well. To me there's this sort of limbo situation, where the undefinition is the abuse, where a person has the underlying feeling that something is wrong with her rationale, and that there is no one else except herself to be blamed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Taking into account this disconcerting feeling that is produced by manipulative habits, what would be a buddhist approach/interpretation of gaslighting from both sides, the "perpetrator" and the "victim", if we can name them like that, so that a solution could be reached?

Here's an answer without claiming it's extraordinarily Buddhist.

Buddhism might recommend you be resistant to (or perhaps transparent to) blame and censure.

From two traditions:

Lokavipatti Sutta (AN 8.6)
Eight worldly preoccupations

I think they're also called "eight winds" -- so just let the wind blow through you, as it were, or don't be there for the wind to blow on, might be my advice to you based on my small experience of it.

And the fart is a related story -- trying to explain not being moved by reputation -- though possibly harsh.

That's not to say that you "don't care" -- I think we're warned that people who are "incapable" of remorse will tend towards being ill-behaved.

I think you're supposed to accept the teaching of your teacher perhaps (and/or "spiritual friends"), but perhaps you might be a better judge of your own character and intentions than other people are.

If you want to avoid being gaslit then perhaps "remembering your own virtue" then is important. And then again in this story -- Is That So? -- the question of "Am I the one to blame?" was not the important question.

Another doctrine is that "skilful virtue" on our part should occasion "lack of remorse" and, from there, some joy -- a "lack of remorse" (though not "incapable of remorse") is perhaps a good "defence" against being gas-lit -- except that perhaps it's not a defence (an ego-defence), in the sense that some absence of remorse is non-existent (see e.g. this topic).

People attempt to blame or appear to gaslight "me" on this site, sometimes, I could reference comments as examples. It might help to see that as neither true (it isn't a brilliant description) nor false (they are really saying that at the moment), it's perhaps their "view"? Whether it's even a semi-accurate view is another story, your saying "gaslighting" implies you think it isn't accurate.

But communication problems exist between people. And what people say -- e.g. about relationships and how they perceive you -- might also be based on something like their own experience with their own family and society ... so it isn't always easy to agree with everyone and about everything, and of course people might reach different conclusions when they start from different premises, and when egos become involved.

As for your gaslighting other people I'm not sure why you think you are or want to be doing that at all. It might perhaps be typical of the competitions which people get into -- like "I am superior to you", or, "I am more deserving", see also this answer (about "conceit" and identity view) -- and a reason to be careful of what relationships and personal relationships you engage with -- see also Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

For more on whether you're gaslighting people try to pay attention to right speech and to not being a sectarian.

It must be pointed out that when the original terms that the Buddha used when explaining the Dhamma – terms such as anicca, dukkha and anatta gets translated into other languages there’s always the possibility that terms such as impermanence (anitya), suffering (dukkha) and soullessness (anatta) can be interpreted and applied erroneously by conventional Buddhists. Because of the misleading translations, the meaning of such words can get completely distorted. As a result, wayfarers such as you and me, and untold number of people will end up getting adrift in the darkness of samsara. For example, how would we know whether Majjima Patipada in Buddhism is erroneously translated or not as a middle path, and if so whether this error has turned it into misleading and irrelevant statement?
If one establishes oneself on sensory discipline and is able to terminate sensory obsessions, such a person who operates with wisdom will not get overpowered by feelings and will be in a position to see the true nature of things, and the true meaning of these key words. Such a person will one day br liberated and free. . . . . . . . . . . .


Is there any advice in the Buddhist scriptures that would help a leader balance a safe economy with people's concerns about sickness & death? Is there advice in the various Buddhist scriptures that a leader
could use in this Coronavirus situation?
Is there advice in the Buddhist scriptures that a lay-person could
use in this Coronavirus situation?
What are Buddhist leaders doing about this Coronavirus situation?

The government and leaders should provide just protection and security to its citizens. Basically, they should undertake the right measures to take care of their people.

From DN 26:

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

The lay Buddhist should play the role of a good patient and heed the advice of competent authorities.

From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Buddhist leaders should set a good example as the Dalai Lama had done (from this article).

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama has
received his second dose of the Covishield vaccine at his residence on
Monday, according to CTA run Tibet.net. He received the first jab on
March 6 at Zonal hospital in Dharamshala.
“The vaccine was administered by a medical team of Delek hospital led
by Dr Tseten Dorjee, personal physician to His Holiness,” Tibet.net
reported. The entire staff and security details of His Holiness,
including those living in the residence, were also vaccinated, the
report further stated. ...
The Nobel laureate wrote that he has been following the alarming news
of the pandemic across the world, especially including in India. “May
I take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for all the
efforts that are being made to tackle this devastating pandemic,
especially by those courageously working on the frontline. I pray that
the pandemic threat will end soon,” he wrote. ...
The Dalai Lama cancelled all his public engagements since February
last year and engaged with the pubic through virtual platform for
teachings and other interactive dialogues with students, Buddhist
followers, and various organizations from all across the world. The
Buddhist leader’s only public appearance since the lockdown was during
his first Covishied jab at the local hospital last month, where he
urged others to take the injection, “I want to share that more people
should have the courage to take this injection.”

Buddha taught to examine the cost (ādīnava) vs benefit (assāda) of worldly things. It follows world leaders must examine the benefits of their Covid measures (eg here) versus the damaging consequences (eg here or here or here or here) of their Covid measures.
As for Buddhist leaders, most would be engaged in the passive political correctness most Buddhist leaders engage in today.


The Animal Plane & Evolution? (Please Theravada perspective if possible)

NAMO TASSA BAGAVATO ARAHANTO SAMMA-SAMBUDDHASA (I am not fluent, forgive errors)

These are my following questions:

  Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?
  What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?
  How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?
  How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Metta to all!

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an
  instinctual level only?

AN 3.61 says "for those who feel, I teach the Four Noble Truths". Animals do not "feel". If animals could "feel", they would not be controlled by their cravings & emotions. They would employ mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact & feeling. But instead of "feeling", animals are driven by their emotions rather than "feel" their "emotions". If animals could "feel" their emotions, they could practise vedanupassana & cittanupassana and stop the arising of craving.

  What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

In Buddhism, the word translated as "animal" is "tiracchāna", which means to "move horizontally" or not evolve on a spiritual level; to merely be guided by instincts of reproduction, sex, territorialism, etc. For example, "worldly talk" by monks in Buddhism is called "animal talk".

The word translated as "human" is "manussa", which means "high minded". Suttas such as SN 56.47 define the "human state" as moral righteousness, non-harmful & realised the Four Noble Truths.

For example, animals believe pornography, sexual promiscuity & other forms of liberal sex are OK. Where as "humans" see the danger, degradation & dysfunction of sexual liberalism. The Lokapala Sutta says:

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
  two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
  other honored persons.

  Lokapala Sutta

  How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

Animals leave the animal plane by realising the Four Noble Truths, as taught in SN 56.120, SN 56.47, etc, and abandoning instinctual lusts. This video (in English here) shows the animal named Angulimala realising the Four Noble Truths and having rebirth in the human realm due to abandoning violence.

  How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Buddhism is about 'spiritual evolution' rather than 'physical evolution'. Sutta, such as MN 8, says wholesome states 'lead upwards'.

  The Way Leading Upwards

  Cunda, just as all unwholesome states lead downwards and all wholesome states lead upwards, so too:

  (1) A person given to cruelty has non-cruelty to lead him upwards.

  (2) One given to killing living beings has abstention from killing living beings to lead him upwards.

  (3–43) One given to…to lead him upwards.

  (44) One given to adhere to his own views, who holds on to them tenaciously and relinquishes them with difficulty, has non-adherence
  to his own views, not holding on to them tenaciously and relinquishing
  them easily, to lead him upwards.

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?

I don't really understand the question.

It's taught though that animals react to (your) good-will with their being non-violent toward you -- see for example here:

Ahina Sutta (AN 4.67)
Metta Means Goodwill

Modern experience suggests they may react in a similar way (i.e. non-aggression) if you're not afraid.

Yet the monastic code tells monks to not attract laypeople into places where there are dangerous animals.

What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

If they're unable to understand language, is one difference that they can't easily learn the Dhamma?

I think that's a reason why people are urged to take advantage of their having-been-born-human, i.e. it's a rare opportunity.

How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

Perhaps that's answered by the sutta of the turtle and the hole, i.e. SN 56.47 and SN 56.48.

The Pali word adhicca has meanings like "fortuitous", and "unlikely" or "rare".

How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

I don't understand what you're asking about (i.e. what you heard).

There is a sutta -- Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) -- which is described as being "an account of the origin of life and the world" ... so you might take it as an origin myth or as saying smething about the evolution of species ... but I think it may be allegorical.


Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language Could you describe to me what all the Jhanas mean in everyday language because I couldnt understand it by reading the sutras. I couldn't understand what they meant by reading the sutras describing them like neither perception nor non perception and nothingness and I didnt understand the others either so could  you tell me the meaning of all the Jhanas so I can understand what they actually mean.

Also in Buddhism conciousnesss arises dependently so how is it possible for there to infinite conciousness when conciousness arises dependently.

Thanks

I recommend this book: Ajahn Brahm: The Jhanas; where a description of each form jhana & each formless sphere should be summarised, somewhere. Ajahn Brahm's description of vitakka & vicara as the "Jhana Wobble" is very helpful for discerning the difference between true jhana and the fake jhana often declared on Buddhist chatsites by shameless egotists.

In the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives infinite consciousness as the salient/ primary experience of the meditation. Also, the physical body continues to exist, even though the physical body is not experienced. Therefore, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the other aggregates, such as perception, feeling & physicality (plus the subtle intention to remain in that meditation experience), continue to exist & dependently support consciousness.

Related to this, MN 43 describes the 9th stage called "cessation of perception & feeling". Here, consciousness ceases to operate because there is no perception, no feeling or any other sense object to support the maintenance of consciousness. However, note, the life force of the physical body continues to remain alive.

In the suttas, each jhana & sphere is described with the salient/primary experiences of that jhana & sphere; even though other phenomena may be experienced or may be functioning. MN 111 is a sutta offering a more detailed description of each jhana & sphere.

Reply to comments:

Each consecutive jhana & sphere represents a refining of the mind and the objects in the mind.

The feelings of rapture, happiness & equanimity of the four jhanas are based on bodily feelings arising in the physical body that has been profoundly relaxed & purified (even though the body itself, including the subtle breathing, is not experienced in jhana). This is probably why the four jhanas are called "rupa (form, material) jhana".

In the arupa spheres, only mental feelings & mental phenomena are experienced. However, as said, each arupa jhana is a refinement of the salient object perceived/experienced. Thus, in the sphere of infinite consciousness, the mind perceives or classifies that experience as 'infinite consciousness'. But as the mind continues to refine, that PERCEPTION "INFINITE CONSCIOUSNESS" ceases. Since there is no salient object left to PERCEIVE, the mind perceives "there is nothing". Then when this PERCEPTION "there is nothing" also ceases, the perceptual framework of the mind starts to breakdown before entirely ceasing. This breaking down of perception, where something akin to perception is occurring & non-occurring is the sphere of neither-perception nor non-perception.

What is important to understand here is perception & its dependent objects are refining, becoming more & more subtle, until there are no more objects to perceive. When there are no objects to perceive, perception & consciousness must cease (even though the physical body remains alive, as described in MN 43).

From Ajahn Brahm:

  THE MIND-BASE OF UN-LIMITED CONSCIOUSNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited space lies the perception of
  no-space, of space losing its meaning. When the mind attends to this
  feature within the First Immaterial Attainment, space disappears and
  is replaced by perception of absolute one-pointedness of
  consciousness. As indicated above by the common experience of
  one-pointedness of time, in the state that perceives one-pointedness
  of consciousness, consciousness simultaneously feels infinite and
  empty, immeasurable and undefined. One has entered the second
  Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of unlimited consciousness.
  This is the perception that fills the mind completely and persists
  without wavering for even longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NOTHINGNESS

  Within the perception of unlimited consciousness lies the perception
  of no-consciousness, of consciousness now losing it meaning as well.
  When the mind focuses on this feature within the Second Immaterial
  Attainment, all perception of consciousness disappears. Perceptions of
  material form and space have already disappeared, and so all that one
  is left with is the one-pointedness of nothingness. One has entered
  the Third Immaterial Attainment of the mind-base of nothingness. This
  is the concept that fills the mind totally, persisting unchanging for
  yet longer periods of time.

  THE MIND-BASE OF NEITHER PERCEPTION NOR NON-PERCEPTION

  Within the perception of nothingness lies the perception of not even
  nothing! If the mind is subtle enough to see this feature" then the
  perception of nothingness disappears and is replaced by the perception
  of neither perception nor no perception. All that one can say about
  this Fourth Immaterial Attainment is that it is, in fact, a perception
  (AN 9's, 42). In the simile of the thousand petalled lotus, this state
  is represented by the 1,000th layer of petals, still dosed, with all
  the 999 other layers of petals fully open. The l000th petal is almost
  a non-petal, being the most subtle and sublime of all. For it clasps
  within its gossamer fabric the famous "Jewel in the heart of the
  lotus," Nibbana.

Note: Ajahn Brahm's idea about Nibbana often appear questionable.

Note, formless attainments (where awareness of the body totally disappears) are not attributes of the four jhanas.

In ordinary terms, relatable to ordinary experience:

You relax deeply and thoroughly the mind and body.
The body is close to a sleep state, as if you wanted to move any body part, it has a delayed response.
The mind is relaxed, but is alert, not sleepy. That's the hard part for people to learn. They usually only know 2 extremes, dull/sleepy or overhyped, jumping around like a wild monkey from random thought to the next.