Is a Theravada Buddhist permitted/able to take a Bodhisattva vow? This is a sister question to this one.

Suppose a Theravada practitioner decided they wanted to take a Bodhisattva vow, could they (and remain Theravadin)? I guess there are a few of components to this question:

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?
Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?
Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The term theravāda means "doctrine" (vāda) of the elders (thera). It generally refers to the teachings found in the Pali Canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries. Anything laid down as doctrine in this large body of literature should be considered as theravada.

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?

The Buddha did not, as far as the theravada goes (and as far as I'm aware), teach his followers to become Buddhas, since his focus was on leading beings to freedom from suffering as soon as possible. It is acknowledged as a valid path, however, since that is obviously the only way a Buddha can arise. In many places the Buddha talked about how great was the arising of a Buddha in the world, for the benefit of many.

Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?

Again, there is no doctrinal teaching on the matter; the closest you'll get is in the Jataka commentary, translated in Buddhism in Translations, which talks about the perfections and characteristics of a Bodhisatta.

Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The theravada doesn't recognize the term "Mahayana"; it recognizes three paths:

sammā-sambuddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves and is able to teach others to become enlightened due to their limitless knowledge.
pacceka-buddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves but is unable to teach others to become enlightened due to their limited knowledge.
sāvaka-buddha one who becomes enlightened through the teaching of a sammā-sambuddha.

  While thus I lay upon the ground, Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire, I my corruptions might
  consume.

  "But why thus in an unknown guise Should I the Doctrine's fruit
  secure? Omniscience first will I achieve, And be a Buddha in
  the world.

  "Or why should I, a valorous man, The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve, And men and gods convey
  across.

  "Since now I make this earnest wish, In presence of this Best of
  Men, Omniscience sometime I'll achieve, And multitudes
  convey across.

  "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest, Destroy existence's three
  modes; I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship, And men and
  gods convey across.

  -- The Story of Sumedha

The Buddha did NOT take the Bodhisattva vow. His vow was to both reach enlightenment and provide a way for any other being who wants it to also reach it. He did both things. These thing are not the Bodhisattva vow by any means.

The Bodhisattva vow is contrary to it, one takes a vow NOT TO REACH ENLIGHTENMENT until one has helped all other beings to be liberated. This is mere attachment to becoming and to rebirth. First of all, beings are infinite, and vowing to liberate them all is non-sensical. Secondly, as stated by the Buddha, no one can liberate other beings. The Buddha provided the path, but cannot walk it for anyone. Thirdly, the vow would want for you to give others what you yourself do not have, have not realized and experienced. So even if it were possible to liberate others, which it isn't, you would still be unable to do it unless you yourself become enlightened. A Bodhisattva is by definition unenlightened, and so does not stand a chance.

Because of this Bodhisattva doctrine, which is contrary to Dhamma, no one from the Mahayana is ever liberated, and instead clings to becoming and rebirth, out of fear of letting go.


Sallatha Sutta and modern psychology The Sallatha Sutta, famous for the idea of two arrows, has the following passages that are less often discussed. I am particularly interested in interpretations of the highlighted words and how they might relate to the modern psychological concept of decentering, defusion, disidentification or a metacognitive stance. (See modern passage below.) Both personal opinions and references welcome.

Sallatha Sutta, SN 36.6, Thanissaro Bikkhu translation

About the "uninstructed person"...

  Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it as though joined with it.
  Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it as though
  joined with it. This is called an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
  joined with birth, aging, & death; with sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs. He is joined, I tell you, with suffering &
  stress.

And later about the "well-instructed disciple", the same structure, for example...

  This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined
  from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, & despairs.

The Nyanaponika Thera translation is a bit more condensed here and uses "fettered" instead of "joined"

  When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral
  feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks,
  is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old
  age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is
  fettered by suffering, this I declare

Bikkhu Bodhi (not online) uses "attached" and "detached"...

  "If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, he feels it attached. [209] If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging and
  death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, [210] he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-
  painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is
  called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death;
  who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
  despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

From the point of view of Buddhadharma of the Pali Canon, is it reasonable to say that the highlighted words (in the negative sense -- disjoined, not fettered, detached) have roughly the same meaning as the modern psychological concept in this passage from a 2002 paper by Teasdale.

  Particular importance has been attached to the shift in cognitive set
  known as “decentering” or “disidentification,” in which,
  rather than simply being their emotions, or identifying personally
  with negative thoughts and feelings, patients relate to negative
  experiences as mental events in a wider context or field of awareness.
  For example, a patient’s perspective on thoughts and feelings of
  worthlessness might change from one in which they are experienced as
  the “reality by which I am condemned” to one in which they are
  experienced more as “passing thoughts and feelings that may or may not
  have some truth in them.

I think they're related but not identical.
I think the Sallatha Sutta can be paraphrased along the lines of, "physical sensations lead to feelings (I feel that I like this, or that I don't like this) which lead to attachment (I want this to continue, or I want this to stop)" -- which means that, now you have two problems, i.e.

an unpleasant physical sensation
not getting what you want.

That's what's meant by,

"... So he feels two pains, physical & mental".

I think the reason given for the second pain is,

... he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him.

So I think this is an example of clinging or attachment causing suffering.

He does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling.

Instead he ought to see that the feeling (and sense-contact) is impermanent, that it arises and passes away, and not be attached to it.

Whereas a disidentification or decentering which you quote from the 2002 paper by Teasdale seems to me, not exactly the concept of 'detachment' or of seeing impermanence, but more specifically the concept of 'anatta' or 'non-self'.
For example, the article "No-self or Not-self?" suggests that any concept of self is a cause of suffering.
There's a description of decentering in the Gaddula Sutta,

It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

I think there are two related concepts:

Detachment from the clinging-aggregates (perhaps by observing arising-and-passing-away, which is an object of vipassana meditation)
Learning to avoid the view that, "This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am".

Three types of feeling a person get when senses are at work:

He thinks thoughts and emotions are valid states and therefore flows along with it. That is joined.
He can watch thoughts and emotions  but there is a sense of frustration just like a person who been chained but wants to break free since he has no control on them. That is fettered.
There is complete silence. Even if pain and pleasure arise he is not affected by them. That is detachment.

These are three stages of evolution for meditators. But dis-identification is (2.), I guess, because senses are still powerful.


Does the breath literally stop in the fourth Jhāna? I've been trying to understand the descriptions of each of the Jhānas in various Suttas, and I don't get what's meant by an element in some descriptions of the fourth Jhāna. For example:

When one has attained the fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been totally stilled.

– SN 36:11
It seems to me that that passage is saying that the breath literally stops, but this seems physiologically impossible. So perhaps the correct interpretation is that volitional in-and-out breathing ceases? Or is the passage, perhaps, referring to the perception of in-and-out breathing?
I've even gone so far as to look up the words in Pāli, but this has only added to my confusion, since they seem to translate as literally the cessation of breath. Is this, perhaps, a shortcoming of our understanding of Pāli?
If this is to be taken literally, what is the scientific basis for this phenomenon? Is it perhaps a perceptual phenomenon, where the meditator merely perceives the breath as having stopped? Or, if this is indeed an error in interpretation, then how is it to be interpreted?
I should clarify that I'm not seeking to troll, or challenge the tradition. I myself am a lay disciple of the Dhamma. I'm prepared to accept an answer one way or the other, but I really want to have a solid understanding.
Thanks.

The breathing is imperceptible, that is all, because there must be movement of the breathing for it to be perceived. However, obviously the body continues to have breath flowing through it.

It would seem physiologically impossible, and it is so, to the mind, until one experiences it. This is why it is taught that true knowledge comes from direct experiencing (through practice), and not from what one has read, or is told, even by one's teacher/guru (read: guide).
But then consider that deep sea divers, or certain tribes that live by oceans/seas free dive for prolonged periods of time on a single breath. The official Guineas book of record is > 20 minutes... The average swimmer can hold their for 2-3 minutes without breathing.
In my own subjective personal meditations the deeper I go, the shallower I realize I'm breathing. In fact, one of my methods of going in deep, fast, is to still my breath as much as possible, and prolong the holding periods in-between to close to a minute (or more). At a certain point, i consciously let go, and my body subconsciously continues it on its own. Kinda like a subtle hand-over. If I follow my breath, I've gone up to a single breath every 2/3 minutes before I lost sense of my body. And on an occasion or two, I have snapped out of deep meditation to instantaneously realize that I wasn't breathing. And I had no idea how long I was under. It could have been two minutes, it could have been 10.
Thus to me, Science has proof it is possible, but my own personal experiences remove all doubt (for me).


Why do beings, even in lower/hell realms, like their lives? As to Lord Buddha beings suffer because they were born:

Jaathi pachchaya jara marana soka paridewa dukka domanassa upayasa sambhawanthi
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

It is understandable why beings in the higher realms like their lives; but is there an explanation for why beings in very lower realms (like hell) like their lives?

Yayam tanha ponobbhavika nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini, seyyathidam, kamatanha bhavatanha vibhavatanha

It is this craving(tanha) which produces re-existence and re-becoming (Punobbhava) and which is bound up with passionate greed’ (Nandi raga sahagatha) and which finds fresh desire now here and there (tatratatrabhinandini) namely (1) thirst for sense-pleasures (kama tanha) (2) craving for existence and becoming (bhava-tanha) and (3) craving for nonexistence, self annihilation (Vibhava tanha)

Is this refuring to Buddha teachings or just a thought concieved by you,for anyone to reply?
Life on Earth is a lower realm and can be a hell to some.Evil beings do not like being stuck in lower realms.The only beings who enjoy the lower realms are beings like Buddah and many others who enjoy helping all beings good and bad advance spiritual and on to a higher realm.


Leg pain in retreats and even zen short sessions I've never had a problem with sleepiness, and I only get impatient when sitting on my own.

But oh that leg pain is something else.

Does anyone have any advice from a Zen perspective - not necessarily how to reduce the pain, but how to not simply hate meditation because of it (at least the half lotus position, and at least when in that position).

As you progress in your sitting and develop samadhi, leg pain will become less of an issue.  You will still experience it along with the discomfort, but it stops being such a matter of "oh-my-God-this-is-terrible-ring-the-bell-now" and instead becomes less of an immediate concern.  It's almost as if it's happening in the background while your koan or mushin becomes the center of your attention.

Think of leg pain like a tooth ache.  When you are sitting around and watching TV with your mind diffused and disordered, you are very much aware of the discomfort.  If, however, your mind is absorbed in something else - and I don't know of a single person who'd complain about their molars during sex, for instance - that pain has less command of your attention.

The important take away is to develop your concentration.  Follow the breath to its very outer limits.  Let your mind ride your exhalation all the way to the end.  If you allow your attention to break even for an instant, discomfort, thought, judgement, and opinion will arise in the vacuum.

As a side note, don't sit in half lotus if it causes you pain!!!  Use the Burmese posture where you put one foot in front of the other.  There is no sense in torturing yourself.  If you hate meditation, you won't practice it.  Zen isn't about self injury, it's about waking up.

Think of your leg as already broken and the pain is just a memory.


What is storehouse consciousness? I've been reading Peter Harvey's Introduction the Buddhism and I've come across the concept of storehouse consciousness. It's in relation to Yogācāra and Chan Buddhism - originally with Yogācāra. It contains karmic seeds (not sure what they are to be fair). Can anyone give me an explanation of this concept. At the moment it seems to me to be some sort of real existence that underpins reality but I'm sure that's not it.

I appreciate that there is an explanation on wikipedia about it but I'm not finding that hugely illuminating.

Shinshu Buddhism also refers to this
http://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.com/2011/12/alaya-storehouse-consciousness-and.html

  The alaya consciousness or storehouse consciousness is the place where
  all the actions and experiences in this life and the previous lives
  generated by the seven consciousnesses are stored as karma, being the
  only consciousness which comes along with every birth. This
  consciousness influences at the same time the workings of the other
  seven consciousnesses.

  We take this alaya consciousness with us in all our births in the
  various realms of existence. It contains the seeds of various types of
  karma, and it is the storehouse of the habitual evil karmic tendencies
  that we have cultivated for eons. Because of the karmic seeds
  contained in the alaya consciousness one may die a premature death, be
  stricken with unexpected disease or inexplicable misfortune, overcome
  by strong desires, aversions and obsessions, can think and do things
  that one should never even imagine, etc. So strong is the influence of
  the alaya consciousness. .. When Shinran is recorded as saying in
  chapter 13th of Tannisho: “a person may not wish to harm anyone and
  yet end up killing a hundred or a thousand people”, he is in fact
  referring to the influence of past karma contained in the alaya
  consciousness.

  Blockquote

So this storehouse consciousness sounds like the karma dump or receptacle where all the seeds of previous intentions and actions reside. It sounds like just a different way of categorizing one of the basic principals of karma and the seeds that generate more illusory experiences. It is only creating a category for where the karma remains until it manifests.

THere is further info that might be useful further down on the page of the link above.

Hope this helps some.

people have five senses connected to their human organs .they work in normal natural  way that one can explain in medical terms.but if we look closely the linkage which they keep each other intact is the key to the understanding of the human mind. apart from these glands there is a misterical software that governs these  glands. the  store house conscience has the link to this entire function. that will also answer the question of reincarnation or Atman. and the yogacara   system has some explanation on this but  incomplete.


Buddhism, Reincarnation, and Doubt Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?

Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?*

Yes it's possible.

Skeptical doubt about the (whole) Dharma, about Buddhism (in general), is a hindrance (I think it would hinder "continuing to work").

The fact that you do continue, sincerely, suggests  a certain absence of doubt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "maintaining" a doubt. "Reincarnation" might be a topic where you'd find it more useful to be agnostic (i.e. "I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't understand, let's put that topic aside for now") rather than either believing or disbelieving. It's apparently a topic on which different people disagree (though you'll often find people try to emphasize that the dharma is "birth" or "rebirth" and not "reincarnation"); leaving that aside, perhaps there are other (perhaps, even, more important) topics that it's good to ascertain.

The topic (of rebirth) might become clearer as you understand other aspects of dharma.

There's even the Kalama Sutta, which suggests that "doubt", at least initially, about doctrines you find doubtful, is proper:

  It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; etc.

To be honest I fear that "reincarnation" is a topic which puts many Westerners off Buddhism. All they know about it is, "Oh, Buddhism: that's something to do with reincarnation, isn't it? Well I don't believe in reincarnation, so I'm not interested in Buddhism." I think that's a mistake, though. Obviously a disbelief in reincarnation does prevent (some) people learning more/anything about Buddhism, but I think that isn't necessary so.

To "cross the stream" I suggest it makes sense to concentrate not (or not only) on what you doubt (e.g. "reincarnation").

If I am to use the very same words that you used, but to convey the opposite of what you said…. It is NOT possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, even if assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant. Re-birth is not a concept. It is the truth. So I hope that I will be able to shed some light on Re-birth as only in this acceptance will you be able to go forth towards Stream Entry.

Without knowing about the Buddha’s world view (31 realms of existence and the suffering in the four lower realms) you will not comprehend the “sansaric suffering” as most suffering is incurred when one is born in any of the four lowest realms. To have faith in the Buddha’s world view, one needs to spend some time examining the evidence for it.

Please check out the work of the late Professor Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia who conducted over 20 years of research on the authenticity of rebirth accounts.  Professor Jim Tucker continued on this and you will find several books on rebirth by these two professors. Ex.  “Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation” by Ian Stevenson. Also read “Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience” by Francis Story (2003); first edition 1975). THIS video discusses their work.

In “Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot”, Bruce and Andrea Leininger detail the story of their son’s recount of a past life. HERE is a ABC News report on the story. HERE you will find another story of the rebirth of a Civil War General.  . HERE is a three-year old chanting Buddhist suttas . Can a three-year old memorize such complex suttas? Check out the lives of other  child prodigies. HERE is a list of child prodigies from Wikipedia.

There are many cases of people remembering past lives when hypnotized. Then there are Out-of-Body Experiences and Near-Death Experiences that you could read about on internet. A living being, upon exhausting the kammic energy for one existence, grabs hold of another strong kammic potential for the next existence. If the energy of that kammic potential is large, the being may be reborn many times in that existence until that kammic energy is exhausted. It is important to remember that in Paticca Samuppada, it is “upadana paccaya bhavo“, i.e., grasping or craving (upadana) that leads to existence (bhava). When the kammic energy for your “bhava” has run out by the time your death occurs, then a new “bhava” will be grasped at the death moment.
In accepting rebirth, and in contemplating on it, when one begins to clearly see why it is not fruitful to stay in “this world” of 31 realms, he/she has understood the true nature, the three characteristics anicca, dukkha, anatta, of “this world”. Almost all of us have mis-understood and mis-interpreted the meaning of these three words - anicca, dukkha, anatta. That is why the True Path is hidden to all of us.


Why is in the budda days, jhana seem so easily attainable but so hard now? As i read text from canon. It seem like in the budda day jhana was a lot easier and highly recommended for the fold path. But now it seem like this rare thing only a handful of people can attain. If it was so easy how can we find the path to enter it without all the complication?

All my teachers without exception said that the idea of "goal" that you are striving to "attain" is THE final obstacle to attainment.

To that aim, one is advised to completely eradicate the idea of goal from one's mind. As in, on the deepest emotional level you have to give up any slightest hope, dream, or intent to attain jhana - and keep meditating on the resulting state.

Entering jhana, or dhyana is facilitated by merit and virtue. The elders had ALOT more merit and virtue (they had accrued much more blessings, generally speaking). That's why they only needed to hear the Buddha say a couple of phrases to get enlightened.

Personally, I strive for cultivating blessings and morality as the foundation for entering dhyana. It's hard.


How to deal with suffering and losing faith? I came across this section by chance, and read another question by a person with misanthropic feelings. I read all the answers because I feel the same as her.
I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve?
Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11 virgins - depending on the belief.
I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all. Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.
Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism,
but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but
what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so
many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin
hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also
saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn
possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me
more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have
to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other
persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still
struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if
suffering is a tool to evolve?

Buddhism can be rather harsh in the way it describes suffering. Bottom line is that no one is free from suffering until one reaches enlightenment. Until then, we can try to make things easier for others and not least ourselves by following the noble eightfold path.
Regarding ourselves, buddhism reminds us that people are acting cruel due to their own pain. As such, cruelty is the evidence of suffering of the person committing cruel things.
The idea is that if we can develop compassion - even for the ones committing cruelties - we are in fact going easier on ourselves for preventing the development of even more aversion towards other peoples cruelty. Everyone benefits from this, but it takes a lot of effort.

Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't
help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or
psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just
another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11
virgins - depending on the belief.

Maybe enlightenment is possible in conjunction with the fact that we are chemical, biological and psychological beings? I'm not sure i see the opposition.

I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and
i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the
suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all.
Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense
of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be
around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.

This is true. Committing to helping others may be the least bad option for everyone.

Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically
because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

Just don't forget to take a break every now and then.

I am glad that you care about animals and children but the world is way more cruel than you think. Humans are slaughtered. I guess you have not given a thought to it but sometimes head is taken away sometimes breath is taken away sometimes pride is taken away. It makes all the more necessary to spread the Truth of nibbana. Suffering of others and myself doesn’t make me disillusioned rather it makes me more enthusiastic about the teachings of Lord Buddha.


Is it never what you think it is? In the Sappurisa Sutta, MN 113, Access to Insight it says:

'The Blessed One has spoken of non-fashioning even with regard to the
attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,
for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from
that.'

Or as translated in The Middle Length Discourses, page 912

'Non-identification even with the attainment of the base of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception has been declared by the Blessed
One; for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than
that.'

and by Tang Huyen, alt.zen

'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of
not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither notion nor
not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what
(yena yena) they think it (maññanti tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m
hoti aññathaa ti).'

The phrase in the second translation: "for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that", seems to apply generally, as if describing Maya.
The other translations could be read as saying specifically the "attainment of the dimension ..." or 'Non-identification-with' should not be construed.
Should the more general sense apply?  Is that the original meaning?

Thanks to ChrisW for additional clarifications.
In my understanding, this is a reference to a folk poem-turned-proverb popular at Buddha's times about impermanence and the futility of human condition:

Yena yenahi maññanti,
Tatotassa hi aññathā;

In whatever way you think of it
It invariably gets otherwise.

Here Buddha creatively uses it to emphasize the point he's making about confusing any particular meditative state with Nirvana. However refined, any meditative state is fleeting, "it invariably gets otherwise". In whatever way one tries to grasp it and make it into something one can own and be proud of -- true Nirvana remains unreachable to the grasping mind. It cannot be held onto, cannot be conceptualized, it can only be realized through actually letting go, or, in Mahayana terms, through embracing Shunyata as one's actual modus operandi.
You can see on my example right here in the previous paragraph that, indeed, as soon as you use a positive statement to describe Nirvana, your very words become a conceptual box limiting the vast open space and misrepresenting the living realization.
Or to paraphrase OP's apt question title, Nirvana is never what you think it is.
To answer your question directly: the poem speaks about impermanence of everything in life in the general sense, but when the Buddha quotes it he refers specifically to the impermanence of meditative states vs the letting go of grasping at conceptual boxes (atammayata) as the only true Nirvana.

Fwiw i think the meaning is close to

there is 'thinking' & 'that; which one thinks about' and the two aren't the same.

However one thinks or conceives something it turns out to be something else.
Iow reality is whatever it is except from what you think about it.
Analogically whatever object you paint a picture of will turn out to be something other than the painted object.


Is Buddhism life denying or life negative? My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question.
I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says;

Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere.
That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various
realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds,
birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth
at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still
be found?

"No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and
condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence
is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to
understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no
continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence
in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless
realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation
of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.”

Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)?
If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour?
In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?

Why your question and all the other similar questions you linked are not getting a direct answer, but a shuffle is because the Buddha did not give an answer for such questions.
You may read many shuffles here, but the truth is questions such as Begining of life, end of life (i.e. beginner and end of Samsara); or hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings attain Nirvana will receive a cold silence as an answer from the Buddha.

Ok, do you believe rebirth is the cause of death or death the cause of rebirth?  Sounds like the former.  However the buddha was enlightened and he still died.


How much of our initial conditions come from past Kamma? When we come into this world, in a rebirth, how much of our situation is predetermined by our past Kamma? I think I have some understanding of the role of inherited Kamma in our personhood. But, are there teachings which indicate if our genetic makeup (good or poor) and our initial social/economic situation (born to rich or poor circumstances) are influenced by it?

To ask in another way, does a person with negative Kamma have a likely-hood of being born with worse health and in poorer circumstances than one with positive? Or are these 'random' factors, uninfluenced by Kamma? Or is this an unanswerable question?

I sense these are unrelated but I have not found guidance yet in this issue.

Buddha addressing the issue of Kamma in the Chula-Kammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya No. 135) has shown us why “No two people are alike and why human beings differ in their skills, beauty, longevity, health, personality, etc..”. It was in response to a question asked by Subha. Subha asked as to why no two human beings are alike? Why some people are short lived, and others long lived, some sickly and others healthy, some beautiful, and others ugly, some influential and others non-influential, some rich and others poor. In response Buddha said:

  ” beings are the owners of their own actions, born out of their actions, related through their actions, and have action as their arbitrator.  Action is what determines and differentiates beings in terms of their processions, character and the qualities they inherit.”

From this we can take that the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. As I pointed out before, everything is NOT due to Kamma. Kamma is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one can divert the course of Kamma and the degree to which depends on oneself. Only the Buddha had the perfect knowledge about kamma. He is the only one who fully realised kamma. He is the ONLY one who could teach the nature of kamma, how it works, how it originates, how it is eliminated. For you and me, it is too complex an issue to try to understand. For example, ONLY when a person gets married that for him/her all hell would break loose and the marriage end in divorce. That person can never find contentment in marriage even in subsequent marriages to others. Then there are those who can never find success as a recluse/bhikku. That is their Kamma. Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past the present. So in short yours is an unanswerable question.

AN 3:76 Bhava Sutta: Becoming, gives us an analogy to describe how becoming is produced:  “Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.” Kamma gives us a range of possibilities in which the seed of consciousness can be planted and on which it can feed. Craving is the moisture that keeps the seed alive and allows it to grow into a state of becoming.

Then there is this aspect too. Kamma can mean different things in different contexts. Once Buddha said that “Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.” — AN 6:63. In others, kamma means also the results of that action. The six sense media (Ayatana) are old kamma. Whatever kamma one does with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.” — SN 35:145. kamma is complex because the relationship between old kamma and new kamma is intertwined. It is so complex that that past kamma does not absolutely determine one’s experience of the present moment. There is a tendency for a certain type of kamma to lead to a certain type of result, but the intensity of that result is not a fixed thing. It is also influenced by a factor of present kamma: one’s state of mind now when a particular instance of past kamma ripens. Thus the kamma of one’s state of mind in the present moment plays a crucial role in influencing how the ripening of past kamma is experienced.

These ideas arise from interpretations of the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta. However this sutta is questionable both in terms of its composition (see this discussion) & visible actual reality. Or otherwise, it is wrongly interpreted due to the complex 'dhamma language' contained in it.

In the visible actual reality of the world, some of the most wealthy people do very evil things to acquire their wealth & some of the most beautiful people live lives of emotional turmoil. It is highly improbable such people did something exceptionally good in a past life & then became so evil & neurotic in the next life. Further, we can know exactly the steps a person look in this life to become wealthy, as written in their biographies (eg. Bill Gates). This shows their wealth is unrelated to any actions performed in a past life but often related to greed & deceit in the present time.

This visible reality is confirmed by suttas such as SN 1.28 & SN 3.7, which state:

  Those of great wealth and property,

  Even khattiyas who rule the country,

  Look at each other with greedy eyes,

  Insatiable in sensual pleasures.

~~~

  I saw that even affluent nobles, affluent brahmans & affluent householders — rich, with great wealth & property, with vast amounts
  of gold & silver, vast amounts of valuables & commodities, vast
  amounts of wealth & grain — tell deliberate lies with sensual
  pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the reason, simply for
  the sake of sensual pleasures.

  That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Even affluent nobles, affluent brahmans, & affluent householders... tell deliberate
  lies with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
  reason, simply for the sake of sensual pleasures. That will lead to
  their long-term harm & pain.

  That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:

  Impassioned  with sensual possessions, greedy, dazed by sensual pleasures, they don't awaken to the fact     that they've gone too far —
        like fish into a trap set out.  Afterwards it's bitter for them:
    evil for them       the result.

Or in the visible actual reality of the world, some individuals born into the world into very poor families eventually become very wealthy. It is illogical that a person with a disposition towards accruing wealth would choose to be reborn into a poor family.

Or in the visible actual reality of the world, it is rare to find beautiful children born to ugly parents. It would seem quite obvious that physical beauty is related to cellular genetics rather than to past lives.

MN 64 states when a new child comes into the world, it has underlying tendencies (anusaya) that are common to all new born children. MN 64 does not support the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta & state new born children are born with underlying tendencies to be short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning, etc.

Similarly, AN 3.61 states whatever happiness, suffering or neither-happiness-nor-suffering a person experiences is not caused by what was done in the past. AN 3.61 states when one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, there will be no desire & no effort to change one's life situation and one will abide bewildered & unprotected.

The Mallikadevi Sutta is very similar to the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta however it uses more straightforward & temporal language.  It does not use words such as 'kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā', which have specific real meanings but are capable of being interpreted in worldly ways. It seems obvious the Mallikadevi Sutta is referring to spiritual wealth & spiritual beauty rather than physical wealth & physical beauty because it states a woman getting angry cause her to reappear (paccājāyati) as ugly.

There are many suttas that distinguish between physical & spiritual attributes, such as:

  There are these five kinds of wealth. What five? The wealth of faith, the wealth of virtuous behavior, the wealth of learning, the
  wealth of generosity & the wealth of wisdom. AN 5.47

~~

  Householder, a noble disciple who gives food gives the recipients four things. What four? He gives life, beauty, happiness and
  strength. (1) Having given life, he partakes of life, whether
  celestial or human. (2) Having given beauty, he partakes of beauty,
  whether celestial or human. (3) Having given happiness, he partakes of
  happiness, whether celestial or human. (4) Having given strength, he
  partakes of strength, whether celestial or human. AN 4.58

~~~

  Dhammapada Verse 204: Health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth, a trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the
  greatest bliss.

~~

  As the stainless moon

  moving through the sphere of space

  outshines with its radiance

  all the stars in the world,

  so one accomplished in virtuous behavior,

  a person endowed with faith,

  outshines by generosity

  all the misers in the world.

  the Perfectly Enlightened One’s disciple,

  surpasses the miserly person

  in five specific respects:

  life span and glory,

  beauty and happiness.

  Possessed of wealth

  he rejoices in heaven.

  AN 5.31


Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech? Throughout the Pali Canon you can find instances where the Buddha appears to engage in harsh speech that seems to be contrary to the noble eighfold path. There are several important points/possibilities to understand first:

It may just be the appearance of harsh speech, and not actually contrary to the path.

My understanding of harsh speech may be too gentle compared to what the Buddha intended, and rather the way he engages in what seems to be 'harsh speech' is the norm (or limit) of gentle speech.

The Suttas may be fabricated and inauthentic.

The Sutta in question may be authentic and the speech may be harsh, yet the Tathagata may be engaging in harsh speech because he knows the limits of all actions and cannot be reckoned by Karma.

There are (at least) several Sutta instances of the Buddha engaging in what would seem to me to be harsh speech. These examples are not common and they are hard to find without re-reading sections of the Pali Canon. Here is one that I remember off the top of my head:

"Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?"[4] — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord."
After these words the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, confused, with his shoulders drooping and his head bent, brooding and incapable of making a rejoinder.

The Discourse on the Snake Simile
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)
To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech. If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for.
Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

The answer to this comes in the Kesi Sutta:

  As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "You, Kesi, are
  a trained man, a trainer of tamable horses. And how do you train a
  tamable horse?"

  "Lord, I train a tamable horse [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness."

  "And if a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, Kesi, what do you do?"

  "If a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild and harsh training, lord, then I kill it.
  Why is that? [I think:] 'Don't let this be a disgrace to my lineage of
  teachers.' But the Blessed One, lord, is the unexcelled trainer of
  tamable people. How do you train a tamable person?"

  "Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness.

  "In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is
  the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such
  is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct.
  Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such
  are human beings.'

  "In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is
  the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is
  the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is
  the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'

  "In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily
  conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily
  misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good
  verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is
  verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is
  good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such
  is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such
  are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"

  "And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or
  to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"

  "If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."

  "But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the
  Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"

  "It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."

To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech.

You are misreading. You are imagining things. His tone is always of compassion.

If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for.

You are trying to criticize Buddha for using harsh speech. If as a father you scold your son sometimes to put him on the right path then is it harsh speech ?

Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

Criticizing Buddha is like criticizing Father. Such a criticism will lead you towards doubt and confusion. He is rebuking in the best possible way ,in the best interest of the monk.


How to reconcile non-attachment in a Type-A, North American culture where work is life? I've been meditating on-and-off for years.

However, the non-attachment preached by the Buddha conflicts with the environment around me. I'm in a large urban center in North America.

Achievement is valued; I feel like I'm contributing to the world in a small way.

I feel like it makes me better at my job to dream big and get attached to goals big and small, whether it's mentoring someone junior or committing years to a project that has an uncertain payoff.

This puts me at odds with my meditation practice, where "letting go" is emphasized.

The best resource I have found specifically addressing this question is Stephen Batchelor's book "After Buddhism". In it, Batchelor lays out one possible interpretation of the scriptures, in which the Buddha and his disciples are very much 'in the world'---businesspeople, merchants, town doctors, etc.---this was refreshing to read and made me feel more at ease.

Am I asking to eat my cake too? I value Buddhism and meditation, but I also value my Western individualist roots and feel egoistic achievement is necessary for progress in science and technology.

Thank you!

Firstly, I am very much against this pop-culture Buddhism where too much emphasis is given to letting go and not that much emphasis on Bhavana and development of wholesome qualities. Letting go of what, exactly? Definitely, check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's talks on YouTube who shares a similar opinion. There are many things which we need to let go: anger, jealousy, rage, covetousness, stinginess, delusion etc. There are many things we need to develop or "acquire": Metta, Compassion, Euqanimity, Mindfulness, Patience, Humility, Wisdom etc. Knowing which qualities are wholesome and developing them and which are unwholesome and letting go of them is practical wisdom.

Why does achievement need to be egoistic? Why not process and vision driven? We can always frame "achievements" as something bringing long term happiness to ourselves and the people around us instead of something "I" have added to my shining Resume. If that is the case, then no need to hesitate in pouring our energies into it; unless you realise later that this is not really the case.

A very interesting Theravada list is the four Iddhipada (four bases of mental power) cultivated for success in spiritual practice but equally applies in lay achievements. They are Chanda (Desire or Aspiration), Viriya (Energy), Citta (Keeping the Goal in mind), Vimansa (Review or Investigation of results to adjust). So, the Buddha is not against being competent, efficient and energetic in achieving your goals. Quite the opposite, he encourages it.

Also, don't worry about ego too much. Even third path Anagamis have conceit. It is a very deep fetter. So, don't be too worried about it as long as you are aware of it. Even, Ananda the Buddha's attendant once mentioned that we use conceit to overcome conceit (for example to be regular in practice), and moderation in eating to overcome sense desire. Otherwise, you would be going to the extreme of self mortification, which is ignoble and of little benefit.

Hope, this helps.

However, the non-attachment preached by the Buddha conflicts with the environment around me. I'm in a large urban center in North America.

In North America & in the West, some people even treat Buddhism itself (and teaching Buddhism) as a business (for making money). I would suggest to not take to heart everything you might hear and read, because the heart of Buddhism is beyond the reach of the average person.

  Achievement is valued; I feel like I'm contributing to the world in a small way.

Worldly achievement is required to earn a living or livelihood.

  I feel like it makes me better at my job to dream big and get attached to goals big and small, whether it's mentoring someone junior
  or committing years to a project that has an uncertain payoff.

Sure. The attitude above shows why you should not allow Buddhist theory to confuse your ordinary & natural thinking processes. Buddhism used inappropriately in the wrong contexts may lead to confusion. It is best for us to avoid getting confused & illogical. This also leads to not harming Buddhism.

  This puts me at odds with my meditation practice, where "letting go" is emphasized.

Buddhist meditation is for ending suffering rather than for achieving worldly goals.

  The best resource I have found specifically addressing this question is Stephen Batchelor's book "After Buddhism". In it, Batchelor lays
  out one possible interpretation of the scriptures, in which the Buddha
  and his disciples are very much 'in the world'---businesspeople,
  merchants, town doctors, etc.---this was refreshing to read and made
  me feel more at ease.

Stephen Batchelor is I think an example of what I described above; of trying to commercialise "Buddhism" in a way which harms the Buddhist teachings, by attempting to make Buddhism relevant for people that Buddhism is not actually relevant for.

  Am I asking to eat my cake too? I value Buddhism and meditation, but I also value my Western individualist roots and feel egoistic
  achievement is necessary for progress in science and technology.

I would suggest to simply give up any trendy aspects of your interest in Buddhism, including that book of Stephen Batchelor's.

For example, if scientists find a cure for AIDS or Cancer, there will be a great celebration in society. It will become the most trendy news. However, if this occurs, this does not mean you should take the AIDS or Cancer medicine cure if you do not have AIDS or Cancer.


Fastest way to Samadhi I have heard that Metta Meditation is the fastest way to a samadhi mind. How effectively fast is it? How is Metta properly cultivated as a meditation? As in how to develop the Vitakka Vicara on metta in meditation?

I have heard that Metta Meditation is the fastest way to a samadhi mind. How effectively fast is it?

It depends on the practitioner. All beings have different Kamma. Some have sharp and balanced faculties and others must work more diligently on theirs.

The initial effort/goal of any (Samatha)meditator must be to quiet down the five hindrances. They are an obstruction to Samatha meditation. As long as the hindrances are present strong concentration (Jhana) cannot arise.

The two most influential hindrances are 1) sense-desire and 2) ill-will. The Buddha often talked about how ones faculties cannot remain sharp if one is prone to indulge in sense-desires, e.g. in MN 75 - Magandiya Sutta:

  "So too, Magandiya, in the past sensual pleasures were painful to
  touch, hot, and scorching; in the future sensual pleasures will be painful
  to touch, hot, and scorching; and now at present sensual pleasures are
  painful to touch, hot, and scorching. But these people who are not free
  from lust for sensual pleasures, who are devoured by craving for sensual
  pleasures, who burn with the fever of sensual pleasures, have faculties
  that are impaired; thus, though sensual pleasures are actually painful
  to touch, they acquire a mistaken perception of them as pleasant."

So the fastest way in any form of Samatha meditation is to ensure that the hindrances are kept in check.

This can be done in a number of ways; most importantly is to guard/restrain the sense-doors.

That can be done either by practicing

Morality (precepts)
Mindfulness (guarding the sense-doors, Right Mindfulness)
Attaining Wisdom (into the 3 sign of existence)
Patience and Forbearance (Khanti)
Effort (Right Effort from the Noble 8-fold Path).

If just one of these methods arises then one has fulfilled the goal of restraint.

  How is Metta properly cultivated as a meditation?

See my in-depth and detailed answer on how to pratice Metta Meditation correctly.

  As in how to develop the Vitakka Vicara on metta in meditation?

Vitakka and Vicara is practiced in the same way as in all other forms of Samatha meditation.

Vitakka means to apply the Mind to the object and Vicara means to continually keep the Mind on the object.

Vitakka is like striking a bell once.

Vicara is like striking a bell continually with a little pause between strikes so that the bell sounds will have a balanced and continuous flow.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to the post feel free to ask.

My friends[more than 1] who've been doing a lot of retreats once said "It's like 20 years of anapanasati retreat in 7 days"

Feel the happiness and keep on staying with the object.

Actually as long as you know how to do it, any object will do.


Buddhism and Evolution I heard an atheist ask this question from a christian and found myself lost in this question as well.

Plainly and simply the question is this,

  How does your religion fit into earth's history?

His point was that although many religions talk about a very old human race, we are a new species. even if we deny all the archaeological evidence, we still can't answer how such a human civilization escaped the few annihilation earth faced, like the long ice age and the meteor that killed the dinosaurs etc.

Do we as Buddhists have an answer, considering we believe in an even older human race's existence?

When the Atheist asked his Christian pal about the evolution of this race, there is only some variations of one answer that our education system, the media and so-called information technology promotes. They are the main instruments used by the Western Christian countries in the present day. There is no freedom of knowledge or of media as there is no second opinion given at any time. It is what this ideology decides that is given to the public. The so called alternative view is only another version of the view of the western Christian mindset and people have no choice in this matter. Even today creationism is allowed to be taught in schools and Darwinian evolution and creationism are nothing but twin systems that try to give an answer to the question how the world (universe) was created and then evolved.

What Buddha said on this is found in the Agganna sutta. Agganna Sutta is the 27th Sutta of Digha Nikaya collections. The sutta describes a discourse imparted from the Buddha to two Brahmins, Bharadvaja and Vasettha, who left their family and caste to become monks. These were two brahmins who were insulted and maligned by their own caste for their intentions. But what is important for us here is that the qualities of the Dharma (Law, truth) is the same as the qualities of the Buddha and forms his "truth body" or "Dhamma Kaya”. A reference from the Agganna Sutta says to his disciple Vasettha:
"Tathagatassa h'etam Vasettha adivacanam Dhamma-kayo iti pi ...":
O Vasettha! The Word of Dhammakaya is indeed the name of the Tathagata.

Dhamma in Buddhism has two primary meanings: the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment, and the constituent factors of the experienced world. A sankata is an entity arising due to a sankhara; a sankhara is also a sankata, because just like any other sankata, any sankhara arises and falls; thus sankhara is sometimes used to include both. However, a sankata is normally something that arises due to sankhara  (a living being, house, nest, a thought, hopes and dreams, etc) and eventually is destroyed. Nothing in this world lasts forever.
At the deepest level, anything in this world arises due to the mind. That is what was meant by the Buddha when he said, “manopubbangama dhamma……” or “mind precedes everything else…”. It is this that gets described in detail in the Agganna sutta.

In that sutta, the Buddha explains how conglomerates of “planetary systems” blow up and are re-formed in time scales of “mahā kappas“. He has given a simile to get an idea of the length of a mahā kappa and it is approximately several billion years. And this destruction of a “star system” seems to be what scientists have observed as a supernova. Supernovae are of common occurrence; about three of them can be expected to happen every century in our Milky Way galaxy.

A suddhāshtaka is a “packet of energy” and is the basic unit that all matter is made out of. It is much smaller than in energy compared to a light photon that we see. A humongous number of suddhāshtaka would have the energy of a light photon. A suddhāshtaka, being a sankata, is created by the mind. This is why the Buddha said, “manō pubbangamā dhammā…”, i.e., “everything has mind as the precursor…”.

It is a valid question to ask and observe that in the few annihilation that earth faced, like the long ice age and the meteor that killed the dinosaurs etc., the “what if so? questiion.When the human and animal realms are destroyed, all those beings would be reborn in the first rūpa realms. When that is gradually destroyed, they will be reborn in the next higher realm and so on, until they are all in the Abhassara realm.

Buddha’s explanation of how all living beings in the lower realms get into the Abhassara Brahma realm when our world system (Cakkavata) is destroyed is not properly explained in any text found online. When the Sun starts heating up, fine sense objects start being destroyed, and with time less and less sensual objects will be there to trigger kāma rāga. All humans and animal will move to higher realms (over an antakkappa which lasts billions of years).

Even though all dense material realms are all destroyed at the end of a world cycle, all rūpa and arūpa realms at or above the Abhassara realm remain intact. When the Solar system is “re-formed” after billions of years, they all gradually come down to lower realms. . In the future, it will become clear to us that anything in this world has origins that can be traced back to the mind. That is the story in the Agganna sutta.

During ice age we wore animal skin and cuddled near big fires.

Before the meteor fell we gathered food and hid in caves.

Why?

Because of karma.


past memory of recall previous life There are discussions about previous life recall and it is can't be scientifically proven. According to modern science memory are electrical traces on neuron cells in brain and that is scientific fact and modern scientist have recreate memory artificially as it is. So memory has physical aspect rather than mysterious spiritual aspect. My specific question is how do it prove that recall of previous lives which does't cope with facts?

Think of the brain as a proxy server connecting you to the internet(all past life memories). Just because your browser can only see the proxy server, is it wise to assume that the whole internet is contained in the proxy server?

Think of the electrical traces stored in neuron cells as the information stored in the cache memory of the proxy server. If somebody alters or adds new content to the cache memory, it will be shown on your browser. Then is it wise to assume that the whole internet is just electrical traces stored in the cache memory of the proxy server?

The brain is simply a tool used by the mind. Mind doesn't cease to exist even if the tool breaks.

In the Pali suttas, the words translated as "recalling past lives" are "pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya". The word "nivāsā", in particular, does not mean "lives" ("jiva") but means "abodes", "dwelling" or, literally, "homes".

The Pali dictionary makes no difference between the words "nivāsā" & "nivesā". The word "nivesa" means "adherences", as found in the Haliddakani Sutta, as follows:

  And how, householder, does one roam about homeless? The desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental
  standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies regarding the form
  element: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the
  root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more
  subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who
  roams about homeless.

  nivesa settlement; a dwelling-place, a house, a home. settling (on or in), attachment (to); where one settles.

In summary, the practise of "recollecting manifold past abodes" is only described in the Khajjanīya Sutta. If the Khajjanīya Sutta is read, it will become apparent that "pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya" is unrelated to recalling past lives but related to recalling when in the past the mind ignorantly attached or adhered to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".


How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help.

Thank you :)

Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted.

Remember we are not our body. Our body is just a cloak we wear for this incarnation. Thus within us is a spirit. When we meditate, we leave our conscious surroundings and (hopefully) get into this world/this space. In essence, we are spirit. You are spirit, as am I.
Having laid that foundation, when I meditate if I want to time my meditation, or I have somewhere to be, I set a specific time /duration for my meditation by voicing it out within my mind. e.g. "I want to meditate for 30 minutes. At the end of 30 minutes I wish to get out of meditation". I repeat this at least 3 times for it to sink in.
When I started this, it was eerie to come out of meditation to discover the time was exactly as I had asked...
It is also one more point of proof (to yourself) if it happens again and again (skeptics will always doubt you, even if they're the ones asking for proof - without even putting in the effort to try it out for themselves). I just had someone in this group call/discount my (repeated i.e. replicable) experiences during meditation as "magic", asking for the 'confidence interval' of my 'scientific mathematical proof'. And yet, magic is nothing more than anything whose workings we do not understand, "Science yet unknown".
One tip is to do your cleansing breaths and relaxation first before setting the time. This will ensure that you are somewhat into the trance of meditation, to where the communication is effective.
It's also an amazing feeling. One second you're deep in meditation/trance, the next, you're out and wide awake/conscious. And then you look at the clock....
Once you achieve this, you can go into meditation any time, set your internal alarm, and let go completely, confident (from the result of previous experiences) that when it's time, you'll pop out of meditation.


Is it fine to learn Vipassana meditation online? Is it essential to go to SN Goenka centre for 10 days to learn Vipassana? Or is it fine to learn Vipassana online?

Doing an intensive course at a dedicated meditation centre is incomparably better than online learning, but doing an online course or something similar is actually better in my opinion as a first step.

Often when people come to our centre having never practiced or having practiced a different tradition, they spend quite a bit of time becoming accustomed to the practice and accepting it. They waste a lot of time doubting and fumbling, and given they often have a limited number of vacation days it often makes finishing a foundation course difficult.

Much of the doubt and fumbling is mitigated by online teachings - most people coming to our centre have little doubt and lots of practice based on static teachings they have found on the internet. Moreover, those meditators who have completed our online course (which just means they practiced at least an hour a day and we talked once a week, giving them new exercises weekly) veritably and invariably sail through the intensive course since they are very well prepared for it.

So, yes, online meditation is perfectly valid, but I think it serves better as a preparation, rather than a replacement, for intensive practice which is best done with a teacher at a centre.

You can check out https:/meditation.sirimangalo.org/ for our online course system. There are some testimonials you can read I think, but I can say myself the online courses have made a big difference in our community.

I have never been to a meditation retreat. All that I learned was reading books and watching Youtube videos by various monks. You can listen to the ten-day Goenka meditation by Goenka in youtube. Perhaps it is not a bad idea you familiarise yourself reading and listening to retreat set up before you undertake a real one or do a short retreat.
The great thing about attending a retreat is you can clarify your questions then and there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz7QHNvNFfA&list=PLPJVlVRVmhc4Z01fD57jbzycm9I6W054x


Should I decrease the amount of time I practice concentration meditation? I have been following buddhist practices for little over three years now, and samadhi - or concentration, as you prefer - meditation was obviously part of my practice. As I was often taught from some of the books from which I learned meditation, I used samadhi meditation as a way of stabilizing my mind and of being able to do insight practices, beyond just getting more relaxed.

One of my primary concerns after having exited the "bubble" of samadhi meditation after a long time is that I feel that some of the daily-life difficulties that I was somehow able to attenuate with concentration meditation are now reappearing, although with much less strength. More precisely, since when I needed to decrease the time for samadhi meditation I have been experiencing more mood swings, a little more anger, sometimes even a bit of depression, but at the same time I also felt more connected with the environment around me. Just a few months ago, when my samadhi meditation routine was more strong, I kind of avoided part of the suffering surrounding myself by making use of my concentration abilities.

This left me wondering whether I should try to tackle some of my personal problems through insight or other practices in a more definitive way, rather than trying to avoid them by shifting my concentration to more tranquil places. I am not at all against consistently practicing concentration meditation, but sometimes it takes more time than I have; also, I think to have heard time ago the Buddha criticizing a routine composed of just samadhi meditation. Actually that seems a reasonable recollection, since the elaboration of the four noble truths and of the noble eightfold path from the Buddha seem to be oriented toward solving the problems of existence in a more definitive way, while, as I was taught, the jhanic states are only temporary and shouldn't be considered otherwise.

Concentration meditation is only a tool to temporary suppress your problems and hindrances.  It is not a self-contained technique for eradicating them.  This was one of the Buddha's great discoveries - an obstacle that he saw past when he was under the teaching of Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama.  Concentration is only valuable insofar as it aids in insight practice.  As the Buddha says, “When my concentrated mind [in the fourth jhana] was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to..." (MN 36.38).  The malleable and clear mind that you enjoy following samadhi is not an end in itself but needs to be directed back to the world of form.  That includes all of your mental hangups, psychological issues, etc.  The techniques for doing this are vast and include everything from mindfulness practices to Zen koans.

Ultimately, concentration meditation and insight practice go hand in hand.  They add value and support to each other making either practice greater than it would be on its own.  You don't need to abandon samadhi practice.  Just make sure you are using it effectively.

Your view is wrong, because it attacking your concentration meditation.

Your daily life is difficult, because your sīla is not good enough. This is the important cause of your life impact, not concentration meditation.

What is sīla?

Observing precepts.
Manners behavior.

If you have manners behavior, you will prepare your daily lifetime much enough for each concentration meditation. For the example (from pali canon), you can make a table of daily life such as "I will do whole day meditation 1 day per week and everyday when laying on bed", etc. This is the reason that why we have uposatha day.


Playing repetitve music as meditation practice The way I see it, music (like everything else?) is empty of inherent existence. This is not obvious. Plato and Aristotle believed that harmonies and rythm express/represents "charachters". Contrary to the Greek champions, I do not think musical harmonies and rythms express or represent anything in and of themselves. The "meaning" and interpretation of music is dependent on causes and conditions, dependent on its parts, and imputed by mind. Music is empty.

My question is how this emptiness of music can be incorporated into my practice. In stead of giving up music because I want to spend my time with meditation, I am wondering if the emptiness of music might in stead and in addition be used as a "mantric device" in mediatative practice.

Here's the idea. I play bass. Me and my fellow musicians love minimalist repetition. Some say practicing an instrument is boring because you have to to the same thing again and again, but I don't agree. I think playing the same bass line over and over (alone or with others) is giving the same experience as meditation with mantras. When you play a simple line hundresds of times, you don't have to think about playing. And after a while you don't know where the line starts and ends, it's circular. The mantra is in my fingers and not my mouth. In the end, both mouth and fingers are in the mind anyway.

It may be a long shot, but I wonder if this way of using repetition is used as a meditation device in any Buddhist practices. What schools of Buddhism is most open to this kind of idea?

The biggest issue with music is:

you can get attached to it
can created mental recitation of the lyrics which in turn creates verbal fabrications

Hence best is to resort to more conservative meditation pratice. Having said this Richard Shankman of Metta Dharma Foundation teachers mindfulness of sound as an alternative meditation technique. Excerpted from “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation”:

Mindfulness of Sound
In the instructions for mindfulness of breathing we let all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness, not forcing or pushing them away but bringing a gentle sense of allowing them to be in the background while giving some preference or predominance to awareness of our breathing. In the same way, with this practice we allow other experiences to stay in the background and we give preference or predominance to the experience of sound. You may feel a natural draw or pull to awareness of hearing, and this practice can be very calming and settling. Those for whom mindfulness of sound works well commonly report it as an easily accessible and even compelling meditation object. You may be drawn to awareness of the sounds themselves or you may be more naturally aware of the act or the process of listening or hearing.
Mindfulness of sound entails working with either inner or outer sound. Even though it may be very quiet where you are meditating, you may feel drawn to rest your awareness in listening to however many or few sounds may be present at any time. Other people hear an inner sound, a clear perception of ringing or some other sound, experienced not through the ears but in the mind. You can see if you have such an experience and if you are drawn to rest in awareness of inner or outer sound.
If you are working with mental noting, you can mentally repeat hearing or sound if that helps keep you stay connected and centered with the auditory experience. If you practice mindfulness of sound, just substitute hearing every time I use the terms breath or breathing.

Since you seem to like music the main question would be how you can do this without attachment in order to make this effective, i.e., using music as a means to meditate.

Also perhaps the following might might help you (thanks to @ThiagoSilva for point out): Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

The deepest meditation happens in silence. Usually a mantra is given to beginners. The mantra purifies the thoughts, because it possesses a sacred vibration and meaning. This is why most mantras, Buddhist and Hindu are Sanskrit, which is a language which has a very deep resonance to the mind and body. It is unlike mundane music or language. Spiritual music is good and can create devotion and states of meditation, but it does not replace a genuine practice of meditation in silence. All of the masters, no matter what tradition emphasize this. Stillness, silence, erect posture, focusing between the eyebrows. The mantra is used at the beginning for giving something the mind can grasp onto. This is the same principle as the form of music you are talking about. But eventually the goal is to have the mind steady enough it no longer needs to grasp anything, and becomes independently stable without any support. What you are suggesting, I am not trying to imply is bad. It is just not a substitute for the traditional meditation in the sense of Buddhism. Often we want shortcuts or to make things easier, that is natural. But we should stick to the instructions of the masters who have attained the goal.


Meaning of the Rooted Sutta From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato.

What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph.

  ‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them.
  Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is
  their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer.
  Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And
  extinguishment is their final end.’

  ‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā,
  phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā,
  samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā
  sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā,
  nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.

The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here:

  “‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into
  being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They
  converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6)
  Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their
  supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the
  deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’

The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here:

  All phenomena are rooted in desire.
  All phenomena come into play through attention.
  All phenomena have contact as their origination.
  All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.
  All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.
  All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.
  All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.
  All phenomena have release as their heartwood.
  All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.
  All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

This is what Sujato has to say;

  No, “gain a footing” is incorrect. Amatogadha is a common term,
  frequently used alongside amatapariyosāna and amataparāyana in the
  sense of ‘culminate, climax, finish’.

  The basic meaning of ogadha is to be grounded or gain a footing, but
  here it clearly has an idiomatic sense. I think the root of the
  metaphor may lie with a boat crossing a river: when it reaches the far
  shore (parāyana) it is beached or grounded. Perhaps we could translate
  something like “gains a safe harbor in the deathless”.

Which is imho not much of substantiation.

As for your inquiry it is somewhat noteworthy that 8 out of 10 points from 10.58 appear in AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions), commentary to the Sutta has it that "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) there means the five aggregates. This is important because it comes into play when people express their interpretations where some might say that sabbe dhamma refers to only "wholesome qualities" for example, this has happened.

This is not the only place where this disagreement between translators plays out, there is also AN7.48 wherein the amatogadhā amatapariyosānā occurs as well as sn48.44. It is the same disagreement however if one looks at Bodhi's translations one will see that he has previously translated amatogadha as footing for sn48.44.

Each of these Western translators is certainly incorrect, here. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda & Piya Tan can be added to this list of incorrect translators of AN 10.58.

The word 'dhamma' here means (supramundane) 'skilful qualities' or 'path factors'; as confirmed by many other suttas. Refer to discussion topic at Sutta Central: All things are rooted in desire, particularly posts by Deele and Piotr, who complete an extensive cross-referencing of other suttas.

Most translators appear bent by their doctrinal belief that Nibbana is the end of reincarnations, therefore they wish to impute Nibbana is the end of all things. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda appears stuck in his usual 'solipsism'.

These incorrect translations show how much the belief in Hindu reincarnation and Vedanta (solipsism) pervert the True Dhamma.

The Buddha said:

  Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears.

  MN 26

The Buddha did not say: "Open are the doors to the Deathless to all things".


First life in samsara In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma. But was there a time when it was our first time in any of the 31 Planes of Existence?

If that is the case, how would we be reborn anywhere since we did not have any karma to pay off?

If that is not the case, how were we just infinitely here?

If i may kindly correct the beginning sentence of your question, i.e. "In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma."
We actually try to verify these things for ourselves by studying reality through insight meditation, thereby gaining insights into how reality functions. We practice to gain experiental knowledge instead of believing things to be in a certain way.
Through insight meditation one will come to see that phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. One sees that phenomena can spawn new phenomena.
Looking for a first cause is problematic. Why is that?
A first cause breaks causality. One can then ask "What caused the first cause? Or What caused the cause that caused the first cause? And so on ad infinitum".
This question of origin also belongs to The Four Imponderables, namely the 4th one "Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about".
The Buddha explained that is it not conducive to ones practice to think about these things. That is because one cannot understand it unless one is a Buddha. If one is not a Buddha thinking about them will only leave the mind agitated and distressed which will not be beneficial for ones practice.

"Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna."
-- SN 56: Saccasamyutta.

Your questions sounds like: how can one be born a first time before having sinned ? Life is not a punishment, Through life you will get ups and lows and try to match theses variation with a constant rule, that is why we have this notion of good and bad which is different according to cultures and individuals. How do you believe what living people can tell about death ? No one will ever know.