Is love in this life 'artificial'? In this life we experience love with family, friends, spouses and others. From my understanding of reading through this site and researching, love leads to suffering.

Is the love we feel towards others in this life just temporary or does it pass on to the next life?

For example, I love my family. I want to live the longest possible time with them. I know that one day we will depart one another. I hope to see them again in the next life. Does this thinking led to suffering?

Every conditioned thing is temporary and subject to destruction and changes including feelings.  Wanting to meet again means that one has to have a new birth or self in next life and it comes with all the heap of drawbacks and unsatisfactory.

In case you still want to have new birth, then the following sutta might interest you.

A loving couple asked Buddha this exact same question, and here was his reply:

  Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

Here is full sutta: the same in living

When Loard Buddha saw his previous lives, He observed that what ever he practices in previous lives was affecting his mind in positive way (because of his Good karma’s).

How ever if one is practicing Bad Karma’s would result in your mind becomes dirty, which will take more time to become pure.

We are born with 3 things

Age (How long you are going to live.)

Jati (Born as Human or animal.)
Bhog (Results of Bad Karma done.)

For E.g. We often see some small children are interested in different activities, Which is a result of the impression of previous lives on their mind.

While you are in deep sleep, mind doesn't get energy from soul, which means you are not aware of sleep.
But as soon as mind gets the light of soul, it will start working and you will see dreams (you will still love your family in dreams, because Buddha said "You become, what you think").

So Yes, Love is real but you don't take it to next life the way you perceive it.

Yes attachment leads to Suffering.


Science, the largest current religion, is it truth or does one follow actually on blind faith? From a Dhammic perpective of truthfulness: wouldn't, isn't following science preaching totally based on blind faith with no personal prove?
And isn't the non changing of the truth of suffering, the fact of being still dependend, not free, actually a proof that, althought putting it's advices into action, they hardly bring ever the actually desired effect?
[ Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, cyber-sex, unskilful entertainment of notions of identifications, or what ever world-binding trade but to get pregnant with the seed of release]

Science is not a religion, it is a method. Science does not "preach", has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.
In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:

Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.
Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms & particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.

“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific
investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact
emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And
suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist
theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the
scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama

“'Everything exists' is the senior form of science, brahman.”
“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”
“'Everything does not exist' is the second form of science, brahman.”
“Then is everything a science?”
“'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of science, brahman.”
“Then is everything a Manyness?”
“'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of science, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come ...Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist (Scientist)

As it seems, since non of the answerer and follower of the religion science have ever looked by themself whether the stated by their priests is right, have never investigated and proved things and follow actually blind, the follwers of the various sects of science are also heavy fundamentalist.
As follower of other sects, not believing in the basics of right view and kamma, actually denying all factors of right view, lokayatika count as merely not so much desired, a stony field, and would need to undergo a long test phase before they possible would be accepted by the Sangha.
Brainwashed from childhood on, living in fundamentalistic religious countries, they are hardly in getting toward Dhamma and let go of their former believes.

...“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.
“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.
“He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if praise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over.
“He feels angered, displeased, and upset if praise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.
“Monks, this is the tell-tale sign of one previously of another religion in regard to not winning approval.[3]
“Monks, this is how one who was previously a member of another religion does not win approval.
“When one previously a member of another religion who is displeasing in this way comes, he should not be given Acceptance.... Aññatitthiyapubbakathā
The Discussion of Those Previously a Member of Another Religion

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for release from this wheel and blind following believes]


Once nirvana is reached is there any connection to earth available? In Buddhism what information is there regarding the ability to communicate back to Earth from those who have transcended and reached Nirvana?

Is it possible or probable that those who attain Nirvana, die, and reach Parinibbana would/could try to help guide others?

The short answer is no.

When the Buddha attained Nirvana, he exclaimed (Dhammapada 153 - 154):

  Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (of life). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!

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

Explanation:

  According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of
  Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is
  individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the
  rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

So, thereafter, he would no longer be born again in any world or in any form again. Hence, there is no way that he can communicate with Earth directly. So, how does the Buddha reach people now?

From the Vakkali Sutta:

  "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."

  "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

This means that when one sees his teachings, one sees him.

And from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of
  you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher'
  — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed
  out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.

There is some misconception floating around regarding nirvana. Nirvana doe NOT mean that one is free from the cycle of rebirth. It means that one is free from suffering in the cycle of rebirth.

Rebirth in Buddhism is inevitable and cannot be escaped from. This is because of the law of causality - since every moment we create causes, we must exprience the effects in later times in our lives and environment. These effects are created in the depths of one's life the moment a cause is made (through action, word and thoughts), but much of it may not be apparent till it manifests in real life. Such effects exist, but stay in latent form in the depths of our lives till a manifest cause brings them into the fore.

Active life is the manifestation of such effects - latent karma brought into action. Life is an expression of the law of causality. Death (or passive life) is the other manifestation. Since the law is constant, so is life and death, therefore the cycle of birth and rebirth is constant. There is no escape from it, I think its a misconception that nirvana means freedom from this cycle.

True freedom is not being free of problems - it is to be able to employ the power of Buddhism freely to overcome sufferings and create a truly happy life.


Why is Buddhism not Nihilism? I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway.

So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is.

Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki

  life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes.

I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist:

Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes against the dependent origination. Also the name 'chair' is just a convention, nothing more.

Nihilism as we know it is a recent phenomena. The name has a Latin origin, so in the time of the Buddha Nihilism didn't exist like today. It was more related to ascetic practices of thinking that the world is a illusion and nothing exists at all. So the Buddha was trying to explain that things DO exist, but not as we think. There IS a chair, but it does not own a chair-nature. It is something transitory, impermanent with a dependent origination that we perceive with the eye-consciousness

If you hold the view that the Buddha taught there is no eternal soul, then Buddhism is basically nihilism. If there is no transcendent self outside the scope of samsara, there is no rebirth, no enlightenment and no liberation from samsara because there is nothing that is being reborn, enlightened or liberated, just a phantom and an illusion. Fortunately this is absolutely something the Buddha DID NOT TEACH:

  “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436]


What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo? I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (daimoku - Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism) for about 4.5 years. I also regularly attend Soka Gakkai International (SGI) meetings. I have experienced a lot of benefits from the practice.

But, I have been unable to understand what  technically  happens when we chant. I have read in some of the texts that we create a good karma when we chant or some of the questions here answered that the "act" of chanting leads us to the path of enlightenment.

But, being a Physics student, I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when we chant. For example- when I chant, I generate sound energy. Now that energy would have some temporal variation as the words "Nam" , "Myoho" etc. would have different sounds but the ratio of amplitudes and frequencies would be almost equal for each person.

I would be happy if someone can give a technical explanation of what exactly happens when we chant.

The simple explanation is that you are practicing mindful concentration. The latter threefold division of concentration required in the Noble Eightfold Path. Whether you are doing sitting meditation, chanting sutras, calling the name of the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, or chanting mantras, or even following the monastic discipline Vinaya as a monk. You can't simply concentrate on anything though, importantly it must be Right Mindfulness that is skillful.

  Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

  — MN 117

Chanting holy names is within this criteria, as with Myoho Renge Kyo -the Sublime Dharma of Lotus Sutra, as they do not promote bad unskillful thoughts and encourage positive reverential emotions. (With the added possibility of divine intervention..) The practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is said to lead to liberation from mental afflictions by the purification of mind, speech and action.

As exactly how the exact mechanics of this works, I can't say for certain, but it does work. Abandoning negative thoughts does wonder for the mind and body. At certain level of concentration you enter what is called the Jhana/Chan/Zen where feelings of bliss and peace arise, and is also a state where you can make many realizations. This is certainly possible through chanting.

Ihave beeen chanting for a goal over a year now ,hours a day attending meetings and doing activities i sometimes get exhausted hopeing tomorrow will be the day i am tired


What are the "Qualities of the Buddha"? What is meant by the phrase the "qualities of the Buddha"? Are these qualities to which unenlightened people can aspire or do these qualities emerge only upon enlightenment?

Following are the 9 qualities of the Buddha one should get inspiration and try to develop:

Buddho – Awakened
Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
Sugato – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
Lokavidu – Wise in the knowledge of the many worlds.
Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
Bhagavathi – The Blessed one
Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."

(Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nine_virtues)

"What are the “Qualities of the Buddha”?"

Qualities of 'Bhagava Araham Sammasambuddho' is infinite and cannot be known by any human being.

Please see Sampasadaniya Sutta of Digha Nikaya.

The expression "qualities of the Buddha" belong to English Buddhism. Oxford Dictionaries define the 'the Buddha' as a historical figure that lived about 25 centuries ago-his birth date or the date of death is unknown.

However, the Tipitaka published by the Pali Text Society refer to a Bhagava Araham Sammasambuddho, in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas. Most of the words in the two Pitakas are utterences of Bhagava; the word means a spiritual teacher.

Human beings who have no clue to even the physical form of Bhagava, what would they know about his mind?


Blind police justice and right livelihood The police seem necessary for any defiled society; but that doesn't mean being a police officer, who must follow laws objectively but also blindly, is necessarily right livelihood.

They are encouraged in the US to use violence, depending on what the laws say not what their hearts say, and are allowed to lie to make the job easier. What do the suttas say? What does your heart say?

this comes to me, im not 100% sure if my memories correct.  One time, Lady Visaka (or other rich merchant in savatthi) was upset (or even crying) that king Pasendikosala denied her something.   Buddha said to be under someone's authority is suffering, but being under the authority of sensual desires is much worst.  When I get bullied (by bosses or any authority figures), my heart would think of this.

As far as view from authority figures, they have options not to break precepts.

Every modern/civilised government occupation has ethical guidelines. When government officials cease to be perceived as acting ethically (such as police in an emerging totalitarian state), it is obviously not the specific occupation (e.g. policeman) that is the problem but the entire government itself. In addition, democracy has also failed. For example, there are moral principles in Buddhism about how government should be conducted (both monarchy & democracy).

When this violent totalitarian government occurs, the general moral principles of Buddhism will dictate livelihood rather than an occupation (vocation) itself.

  And what is the drawback of sensuality? There is the case where, on account of the occupation by which a clansman makes a living — whether
  checking or accounting or calculating or plowing or trading or
  cattle-tending or archery or as a king's man, or whatever the
  occupation may be — he faces cold, he faces heat, being harassed by
  mosquitoes & flies, wind & sun & creeping things, dying from hunger &
  thirst.

  MN 13


Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics? Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding).
Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong?
Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).

You're going to find two schools of thought on this:

Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding
Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward

Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings will fade away, and they will be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.
Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we create through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead beyond the teaching to bone-deep understanding.
Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to learn, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to see: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.

But is there really one proper interpretation? Or two? If this were so, then why would the texts have erred on the side of allegories and/or parables?
As noted above, (absolute) language is flawed and inadequate (some more so than others) in describing any spiritual experience - i.e. anything pertaining to the inner world. Anyone who has had experiences and tried to share them with others knows this. Indeed, language itself has evolved phrases to illustrate this stark shortcoming: "I'm speechless", "There are no words....", "Words are not enough...", "I'm at a loss of words", "I can't find the words to...", "A picture is a thousand words...". And even with language, we gesticulate now and then when we're at a loss of words to render an exact experience with no details spared. (Which is why telepathy is a thing, if you believe in such things).
You are missing one thing. Understanding does not come through intellectual discourse... Or words read in a book/on paper. Understanding comes through direct individual experience. Hence the teachings are really a "guide" (which explains the parables/allegories), and people that 'teach' us are not really "teachers" in the Western sense of the word, but rather "guides".
Thus, a parable being a "picture with words", and a picture being a thousand words, what better way to 'teach*' than to paint a (verbal) picture...? - Indeed, we do it today when someone does not "get" us: we use "analogies", "scenarios" or descriptions prefaced with "let me paint you a picture...".
All of Bhudda's teachings merely point us along a direction, and Bhudda's teachings were different for different people. - Because people ARE different.
Interpretations are as diverse as opinions and subjective experiences, and yet, any of them that leads (read: guides) anyone to enlightenment is a "proper interpretation".
But be aware that reading alone, or "interpretation" alone will get one nowhere. Beyond reading, there is practice. And practice is more important than reading. Or any interpretation. Bhuddism after all is a "way of life".
If we "can't make sense" of Bhudda's teachings, it might be because we spend more time reading, than we do practicing....
"Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts)."

Reading is not a prerequisite to Bhuddism, nor to enlightenment???

As for a desire for objective study of the teachings, Enlightenment is not an objective experience, It is a very subjective one, and there is no one sole path that leads to it exclusively.. Nor can we lead anyone else to enlightenment, short of pointing them the way... So, which is more important? The study of it or the experience of it?


What are the canonical texts for the Buddhisms of the world? And as a follow up, what institutions are charged with expanding the list of canonical works, if any?

For Theravada there is the Tipitaka: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

This consists of the "three baskets"  of the vinaya pitaka,  the rules for monastics,  the sutta pitaka aka the sutta teachings,  and the abidhamma.

It is generally accepted that the oldest and most core part of the Tipitaka that is closest to what the buddha said,  are the four Nikayas

Digha Nikaya (long discourses)

Majjhima Nikaya ( middle length)

Samyutta Nikaya (grouped discourses)

Anguttara Nikaya ( numbered discourses)

There is also the Khuddaka Nikaya which is a collection of "little texts".  This is where the famous dhammapada  and Sutta Nipāta reside.

Nothing can be added to the list of canonical works of the Buddha.  They were recited three months after the Buddha's parinibbana and cannot be added to or subtracted from.


Five precepts and lower realms My understanding is that, although we are practicing five precepts in this life, there is no guarantee we will not be reborn in lower realm, it is possible to take rebirth in lower realm in the next life or many lives after. But according some sources, when one practices five precepts that person will not be reborn in one of the lower realms (in the next life). Which one is the correct one?

Reaching at least the Sotapanna state is the only 100% guarantee of not being born in lower realms ever again.

But if you reach at least the second insight knowledge -Paccaya Pariggaha Nana of the 16 stages of insight towards becoming a Sotappanna, it is said that you will not be born in a lower realm in the immediate next life.

If you are a devout Buddhist who keeps to the five precepts, it is highly unlikely to be born in a lower realm in the next life. But there's no guarantee. It mostly depends on the quality of your precepts. As in how well you keep to them.

Five precepts was declared by Buddha to maintain sustainability of society and harmony with nature is the best explanation and not for gain qualifications to get rebirth in upper realms. E.g killing each other will leads to spread violence and extinction and kill other animals may leads to unbalance and harm the delicate balance of nature. stealing discourage people form farming and manufacturing, sensual misconduct leads damage the health, taking intoxicant,alcohol or drugs damage health and crate violence, lie and break trust will spread violence and damage business and financial development. So five precepts are vital,wholesome and positive moral value essential to maintain sustainability and development in both personal and society-wise. Also adhere to these will give us result here and now no need to wait until next life. See the world with intensive violence,wars,STD(specially AIDS),non chronicle deceases like diabetes,cholesterol,stress,anxiety,corruption,crimes,robberies etc.. and when five precepts are followed  individually and society-wise is the proven cure for above issues in world.


What makes someone become a gay? Is this the result of engaging in particular sexual behavior such as (frequent) casual sex, infidelity, etc? How can someone take rebirth as or become a gay/lesbian when s/he is not in the first place?

I think the question is unimportant because Buddhism does not provide an answer for this question & because in Buddhism there is a path for laypeople that can be practised by both heterosexual & homosexual people. I personally know gay people who are very spiritual, very moral, very faithful to their partners & extremely compassionate. In short, there is no inherent correlation between casual sex, infidelity & homosexuality.

Some people are extremely lustful towards the opposite sex that they wish to become like the opposite sex. This may lead to being born as lesbian or gay.


How to concentrate to suppress hindrances? I heard one needs concentration to abandon the hindrances -- however to have strong concentration, you need to have [already] abandoned hindrances, so that nothing can stop your focus. Which one is it? How do I abandon the hindrances: one hindrance at a time or all together?

Kusala means  minds that arise to abandon chance to arise of akusala-minds. While kusala arising, akusala-minds can't not arise ( just in the same person).

3 sikkha = adhisila-kusala-training, adhicitta-kusala-training (concentration meditation), and adhipanna-kusala-training.

So, the practitioner practices adhisila-kusala to abandon a chance of  akusala arising that form action/speech, practices adhicitta for just  some other akusala arising--such as beauty-attachment (akusala) by asubha-adhicittasikkha, etc, and practices adhipanna for whole akusala arising--11 khandha such as the past khandha, etc.

While whatever sikkha arising, no hindrances, no akusala arising.

Samatha meditation suppresses hindrances and Vipassna meditation eradicates them.


Wrong meanings commonly associated with the notion of Gratitude What are the common/widespread wrong meanings that people associate with or assign to the word 'gratitude'?
As we know, the society is made up largely of families, and those in turn are made of up relationships, which most commonly are underlied by sexuality, in turn often being related to guilt, as well as guilt based manipulations and control mechanisms. At the same time, we are inclined and even obliged to feel grateful towards our loved ones. So it is safe to assume that the obligation to be grateful and patterns of guilt (or other) based manipulations co-occur, and therefore can and probably tend to interact. And therefore it is also safe to assume that at least some part of the human species if suffering from views and actions rooted in a wrong understanding of gratitude.
Now, gratitude being such an important pillar of Enlightened teaching, what are some common roots and symptoms of false Gratitude which we should mindfully observe and then root out?

Good householder asks in an enviroment where even gratitude for low goodness is denied. What does he expect to be capable to grasp the topic rightly if bond to such circumstances? How ever, for those capable to get healed:
The gratitude toward being given sensuality, is a gratitude that bind one in the world, makes one the servant of Mara. The gratitude toward wrong views, a gratitude that honors the food for defilements, is a gratitude that turns one downwardly. The gratitude toward giving sort lasting happiness is a gratitude the leads one to go after such...
If interested there are some points of kinds of giving, goodness, guṇa.
Proper respect and veneration means understanding gratitude: Respect and veneration
And it's because ordinary people feeling gratitude in regard of what has no essence, doesn't lead to essence, that essence and what leads to it isn't seen.
Much done is there, not really possible to repay:

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

[Note that this isn't given for trade, stacks, exchange and not for use for Vollkoffer, but for an escape from this wheel]

You should feel grateful to the circumstances which led to your freedom from Samsara. Within the samsara you should be grateful to those who led you on the path of liberation like Buddha. Wrong gratefulness will include gratefulness to the circumstances which led you attachment towards the samsara. Within the samsara , wrong gratefulness will include being grateful to those who led you astray from the path of liberation like Mara.


Abhava versus Vibhava Is there a difference between abhava and vibhava? Or are those words synonyms?

When they are not synonyms, what is their exact meaning.

Let's assume that bhava means "existence".

I think that the a prefix means "not" (it appears in a lot of Buddhist words, like anatta and so on).

I think that the vi prefix might mean "the reverse of" (see e.g. the dictionary definition quoted here).

So my guess is that abhava means "non-existence", whereas vibhava means "destruction".

The phrase vibhavataṇhā is used in the definition of the second noble truth in SN 56.11, so you can read various translations of vibhava in the various translations of that sutta, for example:

  craving for extermination (of what is not liked)
  craving for non-being
  craving for non-existence (self-annihilation)
  craving for non-becoming
  craving for non-existence [for extinction].

The first translation of SN 56.11 that I read translated bhavataṇhā and vibhavataṇhā as "the craving to live and even the craving to die", so that's the way I remember it.

In summary, maybe they mean the same thing (i.e. "non-existence"); but if they aren't synonyms, then one simply means "non-existence" and the other implies a "transition from existence to non-existence" for example "annihilation, destruction, extinction, death".

Vibhava means disbelief in rebirth. Vibhava is always gets referred to with “tanha”. Tanha is “getting attached to things in this world” via greed, hate, and ignorance. Vibhava tanha then can be taken as "getting attached to non-existence" or that nothing exists after death. This view arises from the wrong view of materialism. In Pali it is called ucceda ditthi. One believes that at death one ceases to exist, i.e., one believes that the mind is a by-product of the body (brain), and thus when the body dies, that is the end of story. Thus one believes that one needs to just enjoy the pleasures of this life before dying as nothing exists after death.

It is easy to have ucceda ditthi and vibhava tanha, especially when one has not heard about the Buddha’s message about a wider and more complex world with 31 realms and a rebirth process. Since our normal human senses cannot access such “hidden” aspects of this world, one just believes what one sees. It takes a wider world view to explain such & in not seeing the truth, many immoral acts are done with ucceda ditthi (or materialism or nihilism) because one believes that everything in this world is for one’s enjoyment.

Abhava and Vibhava are two different words. Abhava means a death of a person or being. On the other hand Vibhava can have some relation to “antarabhava“ - “antara-bhava“ – an in-between zone from one bhava to another.  It is the Mahayanists who coined this term and started saying that there is an antarabhava. But at the Third Buddhist Council, this was proved wrong and that there is no antarabhava.


What is soul made of; as per Buddhism? As per Buddhism, What are elements of soul or what is soul made of?

(If we split body and soul to seperate them then what are elements of soul?)

In Buddhism a human being is composed of matter, feelings, perceptions & memories, mental fabrications (thinking) and consciousness.

A soul is a conceptual belief which does not exist. It is concept which is deeply ingrained in the mind.

Just like a car is just a concept which is an accumulation of parts a steering wheel, chassis, wing mrrors etc..

For more on consciousness in the Theravada tradition and how kamma transmigrate see my other post

In your question, you appear to suggest that the soul and body are two separate things. From this, I am assuming that you are actually talking about the mind (which is associate with thoughts, emotions, intentions, etc.) when you say 'soul'.

Therefore, I am assuming that you are interested in understanding what the mind is. The primary source in Buddhism which has comprehensive theoretical explanations about the mind is called 'Abhidhamma'. Here is the link to an English translation of the Abhidhamma: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
It is a very complicated text to study, but it will certainly answer your question about what the mind is made up of.

However, it is my personal suggestion that it would be wise to have a comprehensive practical understanding of your mind instead. Then you can see for yourself what the mind is made up of, what are the elements of the mind, etc. without having to believe in theory.
It will also be much more of use to you to have a practical understanding of your mind, since it can lead you to being free from your mental defilements (which are one of the main elements of the mind) and therefore lead you to freedom from suffering (the goal of following the Buddhist path).

If you want to have a comprehensive practical understanding of your mind, you must learn to be aware of your mind correctly (the practice of following the Buddhist path).
If you want to learn to be aware of your mind, and therefore understand the mind, follow thoroughly the comprehensive meditation instructions of the great monk called Yuttadhammo which can be found in this book: http://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf


Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana? I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.

I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.

I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.

I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).

And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!

I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.

Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar  -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.

People actually do try to reason their way into Nirvana. Many think it works, and if they are clever and intelligent, they can defend it quite well. But actually Nirvana is the view taken when subject and object are (subjectively) seen as nothing more than a figure/ground problem. Our ordinary consciousness contains the hand drawing the hand drawing the hand, etc. It's Nirvana that only sees the hand drawing. But we possess a bias ("me") which causes seeing things and not understanding that at the center is our blind spot. Everything about Nirvana is totally logical, but it's a logic that without it, we can't see. Observer bias. Without actual facts, we can't validate anything. We interject a fake "me" into every perception, the result  will always be wrong. The absence of a subjective self has to be experienced before one can understand that is is in no way illogical. Yet, it can't be grasped with the mind that contains the self. Meditation or some other rigorous training is necessary to prevent the mind from by reflex imposing a false projection of the problem in the first place.


Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator? Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator?

Do Buddhists in general also believe there is no supreme being, or do they settle on that there is no intervening supreme being?

Are these the Buddha's thoughts or a deductive conclusion from some type of logical reasoning? If they are mainly the Buddha's, how come they are generally accepted - as far as I understand it, he encouraged everyone to not take his word for anything, but instead seek the truth for themselves?

As you understand I'm a total Buddhist noob, please correct me where I'm wrong and clarify where needed!

For most people God is a dualistic concept. Meaning, for a typical person the unspoken assumption is: "I am here and God is over there". So when I think about God, when I speak to God -- I inevitably imagine some power outside of myself. It is in this power that I place hope for good life and for salvation; it is this power that I blame for unfairness etc. According to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, by attributing to God the power to save us or to send difficulties etc. we alienate ourselves from our own power.

Instead, in Buddhism our liberation is always in our hands. As Trungpa Rinpoche said, no one is going to descent in the golden chariot to take care of you. As long as you keep looking up to some higher power, how can you be the master of your life?

Two of my teachers emphasized such "master consciousness". My Zen Master said: "People say, 'God bless you', but Enlightenment is when you bless God". My last teacher said: "Utilize God". Both remind us to take ownership of our lives.

Not that [Mahayana] Buddhists deny the Absolute. What they deny is existence of independent "I" in the absolute sense. "I" is a label, a nominal designation that only exists relatively to other things. However, because the relative is subsumed in the absolute - not opposed to it - we can't deny existence of the relative either. This (here simplified) position is known as the unity of two truths. From this non-dualistic perspective, my power and the power of Absolute is the same power, my will and the will of Absolute is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of Absolute is the same spontaneity. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, like I said in this answer, "Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in the first-hand knowledge ... of God?"

The concept of ultimate creator is totally illogical and out of wisdom. There is no answer to who did create the creator?


Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again? Buddhist theories all summed up to the point of Nibbana. They have reached the goal, gone there(Tathagat). They conclude holy life is lived and goal attained. Cessation of becoming(No new formation).
But, when asked, Do Tathagata exist after death? is absurd question. It is that our individuality arise and ceases. So, why the buddhist assume there is stopping of birth and death?
Tathagata is synonym for ocean, where waves are arise and passes away, which we calls individuality.
Tathagata is the root of Tree of Samsara. It's branches and leaves are species and karmic stations respectively. So, when one attain to the root, the whole tree(Samsara) appears as mere bubbles or foam, rising and falling, absolute impermanent.
So, having so, why do they preach after attaining the Root, one attain freedom form birth and death?
They are not. Because from root, a new one is formed and rolled on, in this continuous existence.
That's why, its been asked by some of recluse of higher wisdom, Do Tathagata (the one who goes to that, the one who ceases) exist after fall of body and life? Buddha answered: Silence!
I feel that doesn't stop the new creation or new forming of individual. Hence I conclude, there is no such freedom from birth again. Why?
My assumption is that, the one who arise and ceases, doesn't exist in reality! It's like dream of someone else's and dream can't be true or real. It's only the dreamer tends to be real.
Tathagata(gati of the one)literally means to merge in Brahman. The dreamer. And see this universe as mere dream. So,it appears that no new dream arise after cessation of current dream, but not so. You can control the dream but not the dreamer. The Brahman.
That's why in Indian village, Saint Chokha says, 'What a miracle! The God of god is gone mad!' He is saying about Brahman.
Also in Bhuridatta Jataka, The Arhats said the same thing. ,

Nirvana/Kensho/Satori is only a "goal" as long as you haven't experienced it. The experience conveys the one-ness, emptiness and interconnectivity of all phenomena. In some Buddhist schools, this is referred to as "the Great Death", as this reveals the "I" as an illusion.
But from that point onward, attainment has been achieved and is no longer the "driving goal" of practice. In Zen, for example, this is illustrated in a sequence of drawings called the "Oxherding Pictures". The first nine pictures illustrate the stages toward attainment. The tenth however, shows the practitioner:

10. Return to Society Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I
am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me,
the dead trees become alive

A good book about life after attainment is Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry".
As to whether attainment stops the cycle of birth and death, the answer depends on what you ask is being born and dying. If you ask for the "I", then attainment will show this "I" to be an illusion. If you ask it for the emptiness of all phenomena, the most honest answer is "we do not know". "I"

Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again?

Depending on the context, there's the Nibbana-with-residue-remaining(sa-upadisesaNibbanadhatu), where the Arahant attains while still living (the Five Aggregates still exist, hence the "residue-remaining"); And there's the Nibbana-without-residue (anupadisesaNibbanadhatu), the Final Nibbana with the Arahant's final passing away. It's the latter context that guarantees no further rebirth, as per that Arahantship's signature stock phrase being mentioned repeatedly throughout the Canon:

Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." ~~ Refs ~~


Gautama self torture, holding his breath I posted yesterday here for my first time and received many very helpful answers. I'm so grateful for having found this site because I always have questions.

In continuing with yesterday's question regarding the Buddha's path to enlightenment, during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme fasting, which I've heard of. But there's one mention that I've come across that states the following:

"Another way of torturing his body was to hold his breath for a long time until he felt violent pains in his ears, head and whole body. He would then fall senseless to the ground." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/14lbud.htm)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the holding of the breath practice? Not that I'm interested in trying it myself or anything, that is, I'm aware that the Buddha eventually found these extremes to be unskillful, thus the middle way became his goal. I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it.

Thanks!

Kevin

In the ancient Hindu tradition, Tapasya or severe asceticism was the practice that was thought to give one special spiritual superhuman powers. There is some truth to that, if you think about it - it all boils down to developing will power.

What Buddha has realized, is that self-mortification and infliction of physical and psychological pain is counterproductive to the goal - however, development of will power - especially as it comes to one's ability to control one's thoughts, emotions, and the state of mind - is confirmed to be as valid as ever.

Holding one's breath is not especially more useful than any other physical exercise involving application of will power, otherwise Buddha would have taught it post-bodhi, but I'm sure there are other physical and mental exercises that can help one develop will power and control over one's attention, emotions, associations, mood, and energy - without risking health issues.

He tried both extremes. Kamasukhalyukanuyogaya was one extreme where as a prince he lived a life of luxury. Attakilamatanuyogaya was the other extreme of self torture.

What is important to note here is he gave up both extremes. It does not mean the solution is somewhere in the middle. Both the extremes as well as any moderation all remain in the mundane path (Loukika).

The only solution is not the middle path as popularly considered. The soulution is a total escape with Nibbana i.e. breaking the shackles that ties one to the mundane path.

This is becoming Lokottara i.e. super-mundane or escaping the mundane.


What does the Pali canon say about "death"? I'm just clinging to this notion that the small death (of prthagjanas) is never reversible, and never incomplete.

Leaving aside the notion of "karma" and "rebirth" and "continuity", what does the Pali canon say about "death"?

“Paticca Samuppada” is a discourse on the process of birth and death. As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).

The understanding of death &  impermanence is an antidote to desire and ill-will, is an encouragement to our practice of Dhamma, and is a key to understanding the ultimate nature of things, the way things really are.
Remembering death especially is said to be like a friend and a teacher to one, as it acts as a discouragement to excessive desire and ill-will. While death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. Life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Thus, we ought to practice the Dhamma quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.

The Buddha once gave a discourse on the impermanence of life at the village named ‘Alavi’. He admonished, 'Practice meditation on death. Reflect mindfully: Uncertain is my life, certain is my death, certainly one day I have to face death.'

The Buddha also exhorted his listeners to be always mindful and to strive to perceive the true nature of life. He also said, 'As one who is armed with a stick or spear is prepared to meet an enemy and some other poisonous and dangerous animals, so also, one who is ever mindful of death should face death mindfully. He will then leave this world for a good destination. – “Blind is this world. Few are those who clearly see. As few birds escape from a net, few go to a blissful state.” '

In many a suttas it is shown that beings in the un-ending Samsara (cycle of birth-and-death) are bound to eye as ‘me’ (considering eye as ‘me’). In a similar manner, beings are bound to ear as ‘me’, nose as ‘me’, tongue as ‘me’, body as ‘me’, and mind as ‘me’.

As long as they are bound to all these faculties, they are actually bound to Māra. In order for one to free from this bond of Māra, one needs to investigate the notion of ‘me’ about each faculty (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) separately.

We should see that there is nothing permanent in rūpa (figure), vēdanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sanskāra (intention; volitional effort), and Viññāna (consciousness). But, we are bound to these five groups of clinging because of the thought of ‘me’. That binding results in a birth. That binding results in our death. That binding results in getting another life (birth) after our deaths.

Death is about leaving a physical body, and continued to the another process of transformation according to your doings by the whole lives as you lived in after you existed in this repeating worlds.

This phenomenon takes 2 things to another transformation

1 - Your doings on good or bad (fate)
2 - sticky or holdings of your mind (such as hobby,habitat,interests,achievements)

(1) is cleared.
(2) to explain briefly, eg. everybody can speak native speaking without trying hard, this is a stack from your last lives. And you will have a skillful on something without trying hard or even not trying as the other are affording on it. Like feeling you auto understanding on it, you will see 2nd step of facts while learning on 1st step on something.
Why, because you already achieved and learned on those things. Much achievements can bring more powerful of mind success on it.

Death brings 2 of those things to your new life.

But according to Pali Pidagat, it cannot be assumed as bringing them to new life. There is no bringing in buddhism nature, all factors are appearing as new.

Like a flame on a candle, water from the stream , the flame now burning on you watching is not the same as 3 sec ago flame. and the water too, not the same as you touch on second time.

Like that, there will also be a change ,if how much you can take from the last lives. Eg, how much you are proficient at education on before this life, if you are not trying in this life, you will fail.

Buddha theories are very complicated and never get perfect on it.
There is numerous factors that can cause dynamic fate on death. But I think it should enough about death.

Thank you. My answer will not contain details about death, dying.


What can be done about wanting to change things in the present that you can't? I've practiced meditation, and a lot of it seems to be about not dwelling in the past, or waiting for a future which may not arrive as we expect.

But what about the present?

The deal is relatively trivial or trite; I want someone to say something: apologise. Actually, any sane person would want the same, given the (past) behaviour or this person. All the same, it seems of overwhelming importance whenever I let my thoughts wander.

And while it is pretty trivial, when my thoughts do wander in this way, I believe that everything in my life is great just as it is, except this, which is making me want to give up completely.

It seems a little wrong to say just don't think about it. Is there any other option?

There is only now, the present moment. There are thoughts about the past, fantasies about the future that are arising in the present moment.

What must be done is to become aware when such a thought do arise, and to observe that thought, objectively. Without investigation or analysis, without reacting, by simply turning, holding and sustaining your attention to what has just appeared, just at time of its duration.

You will realize that when you do this, the thought will simply disappear, it will vanish.

Ultimately it is only a thought, nothing more. The problem is that we create more out of it. The desire to control what is out there will only lead to your own misery. Let it go, give it up.

Have you ever heard about satipatthana / vipassana ?

This should help you, friend.
http://en.dhammadana.org/vipassana/what_is_it.htm

One simple, effective, answer would be to ask why you think this way. Are you e.g. using it as an excuse?

Trying to find out why you want to change something may be one everyday way in which you can then learn to do otherwise.


Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time? I am born Hindu and have been following Buddhism for more than a year. The change has been a life changing experience but now I find myself at the junction of two religions. I sometimes face contradictory situations where its ok in one religion but violates the other. Traveling in two boats at the same time is certainly not possible but its also difficult to choose one over the other. So my question is:
1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?
2) How to maintain a balance between the two?
3) Or would I have to choose one over the other?
4) Or is it possible to choose Buddhism as subset of Hinduism, just like Jains do i.e. the mainly follow their own religion first & then they following Hinduism. So even in contradictory situations, they choose Jain rule over Hindu rule.

In Buddhism the main teachings you have to have faith in is the 8 Fold Path divided into 3 trainings, which is to develop higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom.

No religion is incompatible with developing higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom, therefore you can start practicing considering you self a Hindu. As you find parts of Buddhism logical and verified at the experiential level then you can lowly accepting parts of Buddhism at your own pace.

I will try to answer your questions which are of great nature.

  1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?

Yes. At least from a Hindu point of view. Buddha is unanimously admitted by Hindus to be an Incarnation of Narayana or God, who came to rescue the kingdom of Righteousness.

  2) How to maintain a balance between the two?

You need to get in touch with Brahmins of Buddha Gaya in Bihar , India, who are practicing the religion with Buddha as the Avatar of Vishnu. They are leading a very balanced life in spite of the contradictions between Vedas and Buddha. I am not aware of how they are doing it but they are doing it.

It is said in the book "Buddha Mimamsa" written by Maitreya that the original Religion of Buddha was part and parcel of orthodox Hindu System based upon the world-old religion(Sanatan Dharma) of the Vedas. Moreover it is worthwhile to mention that Gautama Buddha was himself a Hindu so whatever he learned he must have learned from a Hindu...His own discoveries like no-self , five aggregates and dependent origination doesn't make Buddha a Buddhist. What Buddha stands for is Truth. So if you are a Truth seeker then I guess you have no choice but to follow and understand what Buddha said. There is in my opinion no need to become a Buddhist without yourself realizing the absoluteness of his teachings.


How to stop a war according to Gouthama Buddha? Are there any scriptures discussing on how to prevent wars?
I mean for example, from the insights of scriptures, if Buddha were alive then how would Buddha have tried to stop World War 2?

There's a description of that here: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed?
I think the article is based on the canon, but I've forgotten where in the canon I read of it.
Anyway to quote from the article:

When the Buddha learned about this outbreak of hostility, he came there himself. On seeing this revered and eminent person from their royal clan, the warriors of both sides became deeply embarrassed. All of them laid down their weapons and paid homage to him. This was the traditional way of paying respects to the Buddha in those days.
Whenever King Pasenadi of Kosala went to pay respects to the Buddha, he would leave the royal insignia such as his sword, turban, fan, parasol and sandals outside with his attendant before entering the chamber of the Buddha.
The Buddha took the seat prepared for him on the open ground of the riverbank. The Sakyans and the Koliyans paid homage to the Buddha and sat respectfully on one side before him. The Buddha explained to them that their blood was much more valuable than the river-water. They should not spill blood unnecessarily. Instead, they should find a way to share the water peacefully. The Buddha was a peacemaker filled with compassion. He did not consider it proper that human life should be lost for the sake of trivial material gains.

And it goes on -- you can read the article for more.
The eventual outcome was that the Sakyan clan was massacred.

Take a look at this web site, which addresses this very subject. (I have no connection with the site or its owners.)

https://www.thoughtco.com/war-and--449732


List of book recommendations For the reasons explained here, can you recommend one or more books about Buddhism?

I suggest a format like,

  Title of Book by Name of Author

  A summary of what's in the book, recommended for these reasons.

One book per answer (but multiple answers, a different book for each answer, is welcome)
Books -- but not videos -- i.e. readable; published in print, and/or online
I think it's more important to mention why you recommend a book, and less important to summarise what's in it

Unlike most other topics on this site, this topic is Community Wiki.

If it's a good introductory book then post it here instead -- Introductory books to Buddhism -- and use this topic for other (non-Introductory) books about any more-specific topics.

"In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. The PDF version of it can be downloaded here.

It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds the Sutta Pitaka too huge and difficult to traverse. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of the foremost translators and scholars of the Pali Canon. He also created this 512-page anthology arranged in a systematic manner, for the benefit of Pali Canon students everywhere.

I quote from the Preface:

  In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003, I devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.

  This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.

  The second type of readers  for whom this book is meant are those,
  already acquainted with the suttas, who still cannot see how they fit
  together into an intelligible whole. For such readers, individual
  suttas may be comprehensible in themselves, but the  texts in their
  totality appear like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered across a
  table. Once one understands the scheme in this book, one should come
  away with a clear idea of the architecture of the teaching. Then, with
  a little reflection,  one should be able to determine the place any
  sutta occupies in the edifice of the Dhamma, whether or not it has
  been included in this anthology.

The most important book for most Buddhists (who are not stream-enterers) for the reason they don't end up in hell due to misrepresenting the Lord Buddha is:

Two Kinds of Language by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

  Everyday language vs Dharma language: In every day language the term birth refers simply to physical birth from a mother's body: in Dharma
  language birth refers to a mental event arising out of ignorance,
  craving, and clinging. Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I,"
  the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind
  of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who
  falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything
  of the Buddha teaching.

  The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
  The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
  birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.


Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism? Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

AFAIK there aren't any explicit references in the scriptures to ecological concerns and sustainability. I guess that in the days of the Buddha, there weren't many problems in that area. The ideas behind sustainability aren't new, but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century (the energy crises in the 70s) that they became more prominent and that the growth of the entire human population and increased resource consumption were seen as a potential major problem for mankind.

I think what makes environmentalism and sustainability so interesting for Buddhists (or the other way around?) is that several main ideas are rather similar, or at least in line with each other.
For example, the Buddha taught that everything, all life, is connected (dependent origination). Also there is no self, the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions (anatman). This means that if you damage the Earth then you indirectly are also damaging a part of yourself.

Buddhism also teaches us that we should take the middle way, lead a simple life, don't engage in addictive behavior or excessive consumption, be kind to others. These ideas are also prominent in sustainability. We shouldn't waste resources and should try to improve the living conditions for everyone, not just the rich people living in the Western world.

So to answer your question; I think Buddhism and environmentalism/sustainability just attract the same kind of people. People that really care for the well-being of others.

BTW, being a protem moderator of the Sustainable Living SE site, I can't resist making at least one reference to that site here. ;-)

Yes.. In some places Buddha has taught his followers to not to pollute the environment.


Does everything happen for a reason? If something unexpected (and incredibly unlikely) happens, should we take it as something deeper or just a fact of life?

Something highly unlikely and very positive happened at a very bad and negative point in my life, this event arguably showed a very different future to the one I imagined.

Don't know how to read into it, or how my actions should be after the event, should I embrace the change?

My teacher taught me that I must choose how I interpret such events in whichever way that produces the most wholesome mindstates.

So if thinking that this event was a sign from the hidden nature of things and held special significance makes you stronger, go for it with no hesitation. This is called, utilizing the power of faith.

In Varjrayana we learn to see hidden connections between things, hidden patterns and relationships. So having a sense of intuition for special events in one's life is important in our practice. In the absence of egoistic desires, and the baselessness of Emptiness, how else can we pick the course of action? So we choose to interpret things in a certain way, and act based on that. It's more an art than a science but there is a system to it.

Yes. Everything happens because of a reason, a cause. Otherwise there can be no enlightenment.


What are other peoples minds according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra? I read that everything is just my own mind from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. If everything is my own mind, what about other peoples minds? Are they also my own mind? How can this be understood?

For instance in Chapter 7 of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra there is this passage:

  The Blessed One replied: There are four things by the fulfilling of
  which an earnest disciple may gain self-realization of Noble Wisdom
  and become and Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: First, he must have a clear
  understanding that all things are only manifestations of the mind
  itself; second, he must discard the notion of birth, abiding and
  disappearance; third, he must clearly understand the ego-less-ness of
  both things and persons; and fourth, he must have a true conception of
  what constitutes self-realization of Noble Wisdom, provided with these
  four understandings, earnest disciples may become Bodhisattvas and
  attain Transcendental Intelligence.

If all things are manifestations of my own mind, doesn't this mean Buddhism as expressed in this Sutra is the equivalent of solipsism? How do we understand the problem of other minds given this Sutra?

Thrangu Rinpoche once said that everything we see (all phenomena we experience) is our own projection - except other people's minds. Only other people's subjective experience is not our projection and therefore exists independently of us.

That’s a very commonly misunderstood idea.  Yogacara is not solipsism.  What the sutra is referring to is how discrete dharmas (e.g. stuff in the world) is “transformed” by latent seeds in the storehouse consciousness, by the self conceit, and by the executive function of mind consciousness.  Things exist independent of our own minds.  We just never see them as such because our own conditioning is reflected back to us.    In essence, we don’t live in a world of true forms; instead we live in a world comprised solely of the delusions existing in our own minds.

These delusions can take on a seemingly infinite number of forms, but can generally be reduced to existential matters (e.g the hindrances, experience, the three cankers, etc) and fundamental perceptual errors (like the inability to perceive shunyata existing within the field of perception).  Yogacara, practically speaking, seeks to unburden us of those two sets of conditioning.  In fact,  Zen koans, a yogacara practice if there ever was one, operate on those two axises.  Some address existential matters, other seek to reorient perception.  As we begin to see through our conditioning, bit by bit, the world is revealed in its “thusness”.

So to answer your question, yes, other minds exist independently of our own, but so do bus seats, granola bars, and flat wear.  You’ve just never seen them - only the warped image that your own mind creates.


How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood? Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is -  the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu)  and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

I’d be grateful for a more detailed description  of their nature and relationship, and if possible the relevant suttas that mention these.

OP: Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is - the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu) and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

Here is a good explanation:

The element which is mano-dhatu or mind-element is nama. Mano-dhatu comprises the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness) and the two types of sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which are kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Thus three kinds of citta are mano-dhatu.
Dhamma-dhatu comprises both nama and rupa. Dhamma-dhatu is the cetasikas, the subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) and nibbana.
Mano-vinnana-dhatu or mind-consciousness-element is nama. It comprises all cittas which are not the dvi-panca-vinnanas and not mano-dhatu. For example, santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) and the cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-mula-citta are mano-vinnana-dhatu.
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (seeing-consciousness-element, etc.), the mano-dhatu (mind-element) and the mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element) are: vinnana-dhatu (consciousness-element).
Dhamma-dhatu is not identical with dhammarammana (mind-objects). Cittas are included in dhammarammana, but not in dhamma-dhatu, since dhamma-dhatu is: cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. When cittas are classified as elements they are the seven classes of vinnana-dhatu, namely:
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (which are five classes), mano-dhatu (mind-element), mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element).
Concepts and conventional terms (pannatti) which are included in dhammarammana are not dhamma-dhatu, because they are not paramattha dhammas. Only paramattha dhammas are classified as elements.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom, Chapter 18 - Elements

OP: if possible the relevant suttas that mention these

This is found in:

Vibhanga
Dhatukatha

A physical eye, similar to a mirror, may reflect an external image/object in it. However, the mental property/element of eye consciousness is require for the mind to experience/know the external image/object/sight.

Similar to the physical eye, the mano-dhatu is the sense organ required for the mind to know things/objects that can only be sensed/experienced/known by mano-dhatu. The things/objects that can only be sensed by mano-dhatu include:

Feelings
Perceptions
Thoughts and defilements (moods, emotions, drives)
Consciousness itself
Truth, such as Four Noble Truths, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, emptiness
Nibbana

While the Pali suttas do not explicitly define 'dharma-dhatu', obviously 'dharma-dhatu' are far more extensive than mere 'mental objects' (feelings, perceptions & thoughts) because they must include Truth (Insight) and Nibbana. Obviously, this is why the word 'dhamma' is used (rather than a term that is exclusively mental, such as "cetasika" or "nama-dhamma").

Originally, Bhikkhu Bodhi properly translated dhamma-dhatu (in Pali) as "mind-objects"; meaning "objects known by the mind". But recently, he has changed his translation to "mental phenomena", which is wrong (because Truth and Nibbana are not mental phenomena or nama-dhamma). The translations of Thanissaro and Sujato Bhikkhu of "ideas" and "thoughts" is also wrong.


How is the "manifestion" (pātubhāvo) of the earth element the arising (uppāda) of suffering? The translations of SN 26.9 sounds unusual to me; which are as follows:

Yo kho, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti
abhinibbatti pātubhāvo … pe … jarāmaraṇassa  pātubhāvo; yo āpodhātuyā
… yo tejodhātuyā … yo vāyodhātuyā … yo ākāsadhātuyā … yo
viññāṇadhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso
uppādo, rogānaṃ ṭhiti, jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo. Yo ca kho, bhikkhave,
pathavīdhātuyā nirodho … pe … jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo; yo āpodhātuyā
nirodho … yo tejodhātuyā nirodho … yo vāyodhātuyā nirodho … yo
ākāsadhātuyā nirodho … yo viññāṇadhātuyā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo,
dukkhasseso nirodho, rogānaṃ vūpasamo, jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo”ti.
Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death. The cessation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.
SN 26.9

Since the 2nd Noble Truth and Dependent Origination explain suffering arises due to craving, attachment & becoming, how does the "manifestation" of the mere physical elements, per the above translations, manifest as the arising of "suffering"?

The genius student can memorize and understand a big/maximum data each studying, so, the sutta is long. But, if the student is not too much smart, he can memorize and understand a little/minimum data each studying, so the teacher have to teach the sutta for him in short form and maybe incomplete paṭiccasamuppāda's process.

Because, in the oral study system, we memorize one sentence/paragraph (=each sutta) from the buddha or the tipitaka-memorizer (arahanta). Then we study/ask/practice/comprehension follow that memory, until we perfectly understand it (professional). If we still not enlighten after that. We will go to memorize the other lesson more, again. We will loop it until we are the tipitaka-memorizer, too. This is the tipitaka tradition. We still doing follow this tradition, for 2600 years.

So, it is already described itself, if you read the previous sutta. They were sequenced by paṭiccasamuppāda.

Let's see:

13.4.1 (30) Catusso — Four Elements = kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) = rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda, upattibhava/jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.

13.4.2 (31)/13. 4. 3.(32) Pubbe — the satisfaction (assāda), danger(ādīnava) and the escape (nissaraṇa) on account of the earth element.

Assāda = 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa, in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, which are objects of taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda:

  Bodily phenomena in the world are pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

Buddha said assāda as somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32):

  Whatever pleasantness and pleasure arises on account of the earth element, that is the satisfaction in the earth element.

So, above quote showed assāda as 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa which come to salāyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, then let somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise, then let taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise.

But the way to escape "kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) in paṭiccasamuppāda" showed  in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32), too:

  “ That the earth element is impermanent, unpleasant and a changing thing is the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element. Taming the interest and greed for the earth element and dispelling the interest and greed for the earth element is the escape(nissaraṇa) from the earth element.

13.4.4 (33) Yo no cedaṃ –– If There Weren’t, is then if the practitioner can not realize the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element to escape (nissaraṇa) it, then there are the interest and greed (taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda) which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda. (And that sukkha/somanassa-samphassaja-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda taking the earth element at kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda together with kāya/mano-samphassa-paṭiccasamuppāda as well. Also, that  kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda are rūpa/nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda, which is "mano pubbaṅgamādhammā".) So, buddha showed somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda, and upattibhava-paṭiccasamuppāda in 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35):

  “Bhikkhus, he who does not delight (taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda) in the earth element (mana-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda's object) does not delight in unpleasantness(kevala[ssa] dukkhakkhandha[ssa]). He that does not delight in unpleasantness, I say, is released from unpleasantness.

Then the buddha presented the effects, jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, of "he who does not delight in the earth element does not delight in unpleasantness. " from 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35) into 13. 4. 7. (36) Uppado — Arising:

  “Bhikkhus, the appearance(upādo=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), being (ṭhiti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), arising (abhinibbatti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), and rebirth (pātubhāva=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda) of the earth element is the appearance of unpleasantness, the continuance of ailments and the manifestation of decay and death.

Please notice, abhinibbatti and pātubhāva are used as the synonym of jāti-dukkha-ariyasacca to describe "jāti" in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, too. So, they are connect together.

The four key Pali words in this sutta are uppādo, ṭhiti, abhinibbatti and pātubhāvo. Pātubhāvo is used twice, namely, in respect to the object of the sutta (eg. earth element) and to the outcome, namely, jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo (manifestation of aging & death). Therefore, I think to understand SN 26.9, these four Pali words need to be understood; not necessarily according to their dictionary meanings; but according to how they are used in the Pali suttas.

In the Pali suttas, pātubhāvo is used in the following contexts:

  Monks, the manifestation (pātubhāvo) of six things is rare in the
  world, namely: 1. The manifestation of a Tathagata (Buddha). 2. One who can teach the Dhamma & Discipline of a Tathagata. 3. Attainment as a noble (enlightened) disciple. 4. Endowment with unimpaired sense faculties. 5. Being intelligent & astute. 6. Desire for the wholesome Dhamma. AN 6.96

  The manifestation (pātubhāvo) is five gems in rare in the world. What
  five? The manifestation of a Tathagata; a person that teaches the
  Dhamma proclaimed by a Tathagata; a person who understands the Dhamma
  when taught; a person who practises that Dhamma; and grateful &
  thankful person. It is the manifestation of these five gems that is
  rare in the world. AN 5.144

  When the mind is concentration, the Dhamma becomes manifest
  (pātubhāvo), because of which he is one reckoned as 'one who dwells
  diligently'. SN 55.40

  At Savatthī. Bhikkhus, these eight things, developed and cultivated,
  if unarisen do not arise apart from the appearance of a Tathagata, an
  Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One. What eight? Right view … right
  concentration. These eight things…. SN 45.14

  If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come
  into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement,
  then there is no manifestation (pātubhāvo) of the corresponding
  section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external
  forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious
  engagement, then there is no manifestation (pātubhāvo) of the
  corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is
  intact and external forms come into its range and there is the
  corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation
  (pātubhāvo) of the corresponding section of consciousness. MN 28

  These five faculties of his— the faculty of conviction, the faculty of
  persistence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration,
  the faculty of discernment — manifest (pātubhāvanti) weakly. Because
  of their weakness, he attains only slowly the immediacy that leads to
  the ending of the effluents. This is called painful practice with slow
  intuition. AN 4.163

In the Pali suttas, abhinibbatti is used in the following contexts:

  Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through greed, born of greed, caused by
  greed, originated by greed, ripens (vipaccati) wherever individuality
  (attabhāvo: lit: 'self-becoming') is produced (nibbattati). Wherever
  that kamma ripens, it is there that result is experienced, either here
  & now (diṭṭheva dhamme), later (upapajje) or following that (apare
  pariyāye). A person unknowing: the actions performed by him, born of
  greed, born of aversion, & born of delusion, whether many or few, are
  experienced (vedaniyaṃ) right here (idheva): no other ground is found.
  AN 3.34

  Suppose, bhikkhus, an artist or a painter, using dye or lac or
  turmeric or indigo or crimson, would create the figure of a man or a
  woman complete in all its features on a well-polished plank or wall or
  canvas. So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces
  (abhinibbattento) anything, it is only form that he produces
  (abhinibbatteti); only feeling that he produces; only perception that
  he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only
  consciousness that he produces. SN 22.100

  By recollecting his ancient maternal & paternal family lineage, his
  individuality (attabhavassa) is produced (abhinibbatti)... MN 96

In the Pali suttas, uppādo is most prominently used in "paticcasamuppada", namely, "dependent co-arising".

An examination of the above three Pali words shows they refer primarily to mental production, mental manifestation & mental arising. "Abhinibbatti" in particular refers to the production of ideas about "self" or "individuality" ("attabhava"). .

It follows the meaning of SN 26.9 is the continued manifestation, production and arising of views of "self" based on the six elements is the mental manifestation of (ideas) of aging & death that result in suffering.

Most importantly, SN 26.9 show the "physical" interpretation of "birth" ("jati") in the Dependent Origination is wrong (since these Pali words abhinibbatti and pātubhāvo are found in the definition of "jati").


Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching? Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching?

I just wonder the teaching of Gandhabba is not a Buddhist teaching.

‘But do you know
‘Jānanti pana bhonto—

how an embryo is conceived?’
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti?

‘We do know that, sir.
‘Jānāma mayaṃ, bho—
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hoti.

An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of her menstrual cycle, and the spirit being reborn is present.’

Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn93/en/sujato

From MN 93 (though translated by Sujato, I replaced "spirit being reborn" with "gandhabba"), the sentence in question is:

  An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the
  mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of
  her menstrual cycle, and the gandhabba is present.’
  Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti
  hotī’ti.

Pretty much in Buddhism and Hinduism, Gandharvas are a kind of musician devas . According to the wisdomlib page on Gandharvas:

  A Gandharva (Sanskrit) or Gandhabba (Pali) is one of the lowest
  ranking devas in Buddhist theology. They are classed among the
  Caturmaharajikakayika devas, and are subject to the Great King
  Dhrtarastra, Guardian of the East. Beings are reborn among the
  Gandharvas as a consequence of having practiced the most basic form of
  ethics (Janavasabha sutta, DN.18). It was considered embarrassing for
  a monk to be born in no better birth than that of a gandharva.

  Gandharvas can fly through the air, and are known for their skill as
  musicians. They are connected with trees and flowers, and are
  described as dwelling in the scents of bark, sap, and blossom. They
  are among the beings of the wilderness that might disturb a monk
  meditating alone.

As stated in the Hinduism.SE answer linked by Dhammadhatu in his comment, Kandarpa is another name for Kamadeva, the cupid god of Hinduism, from the wisdomlib page on Kandarpa:

  Kandarpa (कन्दर्प).—Another name for Kāmadeva. Kāmadeva was born of
  the mind of Brahmā and as soon as he was born he turned to Brahmā and
  asked "Kaṃ darpayāmi?" (Whom should I make proud?) So Brahmā gave him
  the name Kaṃdarpa alias Kandarpa.

It doesn't make sense that a Gandharva is present for conception.

It could make sense that cupid (Kandarpa) is present for conception, so this is the first hypothesis from me. Of course, cupid here could be a personification of romantic or sexual passion. So, this could just mean that sexual passion is present.

From the wisdomlib page on Gandharvavivaha or Gandharva marriage, we find:

  Gāndharvavivāha (गान्धर्वविवाह):—The Gāndharva marriage (vivāha).—This
  is a marriage arising out of the voluntary union of a maiden or her
  lover which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its
  purpose. It can be compared with the modern love marriage.

Based on the definition above, once again, "Gandharva" being present, could just mean sexual passion being present.

From the wisdomlib page on apagabbha, we read:

  apagabbha : (adj.) (apa + gabbha) not destined to another rebirth; (a
  + pagabbha) not haughty.
  (Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

  Apagabbha, (adj.) (a + pa + gabbha) not entering another womb, i. e.
  not destined to another rebirth Vin.III, 3. (Page 50)
  (Source):
  Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

From this page (quoted from Max Mueller's book "Vinaya Texts"), we see that this comes from the Vinaya, where the Buddha said:

  He who has freed himself, Siha, from the necessity of returning in
  future into a mother's womb, and of being reborn into new existences
  who has rooted out (his being subject to) rebirth, and has done away
  with it, as a palm tree is rooted out, so that it is destroyed and
  cannot grow up again - such a person do I call apagabbha.

So, if "apagabbha" means one who is not destined for descending into a womb, then presumably "pagabbha" means one who is destined for descending into a womb i.e. being to be born. It's possible that "pagabbha" became changed into "gandhabba".

So, these are my two theories:

"Gandhabba being present" just means sexual passion is present.
"Gandhabba being present" was originally "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.

The second theory originated from Andrei's comment on gabbha.

  ‘But do you know
  ‘Jānanti pana bhonto—

  for sure whether that spirit is an aristocrat, a brahmin, a merchant, or a worker?’
  taggha, so gandhabbo khattiyo vā brāhmaṇo vā vesso vā suddo vā’ti?

This part nullifies the first theory, so we are left with the second i.e. "gandhabba being present" was originally (probably) "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.

This is probably the same meaning as "sambhavesi" in the Karaniya Metta Sutta which according to the wisdomlib page on sambhavesi means:

  sambhavesī : (m.) one who is seeking birth. || sambhāvesi (aor. of
  sambhāveti), esteemed; honoured; mixed with.
  (Source):
  BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

It simply means one who is to be born.

The OP asked whether there is a spirit or soul or being that is born or reborn?

If one answers "yes", that would eternalism. If one answers "no", that would be annihilationism.

According to SN 23.2, there is the definition of "being" as follows:

  As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord.
  'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'

There is another definition of "being" in SN 5.10:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
  The word 'chariot' is used,
  So, when the aggregates are present,
  There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be,
  Suffering that stands and falls away.
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,
  Nothing but suffering ceases.

So, there is a being in Buddhism, but it's not eternal and it is constructed dependent on conditions.

The concept of "rebirth" in Buddhism is simply the continuation of suffering beyond death. There is no eternal person or being or soul or spirit or consciousness or self that dies and is reborn. In fact, it's not even the same being or person or consciousness throughout a single lifetime. It's always changing.

However, looking at the context of the sutta, the Buddha simply wanted to prove that there is no such thing as caste from birth.

MN 93 has the following discussion:

  "'But do you know, masters, if the mother who bore you went only with
  a brahman, and not with a non-brahman?'

  "'No, master.'

  "'And do you know if the mothers of the mother who bore you — back
  seven generations of mothers — went only with brahmans, and not with
  non-brahmans?'

  "'No, master.'

  "'And do you know if the father who sired you went only with a brahman
  woman, and not with a non-brahman woman?'

  "'No, master.'

  "'And do you know if the fathers of the father who bore you — back
  seven generations of fathers — went only with brahman women, and not
  with non-brahman women?'

  "'No, master.'

  "'Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?'

  "'Yes, master, we know how there is the descent of an embryo. There is
  the case where the mother & father have come together, the mother is
  fertile, and a gandhabba is standing
  present. The coming together of these three is the descent of the
  embryo.'

  "'But do you know for sure whether the gandhabba is a noble warrior, a
  brahman, a merchant, or a worker?'

  "'No, master.'

  "'That being the case, do you know who you are?'

  "'That being the case, master, we don't know who we are.'

The above teaching questions two things:

How do you know if your mother slept with a non-Brahman (i.e., had an extramarital affair)?
How do you know if the sperm your mother received was non-Brahman sperm (from the above extramarital affair)?

This teaching has nothing to do with reincarnation. The teaching explicitly asks how can you know who your mother slept with & what she bore?

Shame on so-called 'Buddhists'. Shame. How shameful the superstition, which the Buddha condemned (in MN 95). Shame.

Shame on Thanissaro for slandering the suttas by including "[the being about to be reborn]" into the sutta translation. Shame.