Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople? Sometimes I see comments like, "the Buddha never taught the four noble truths to laypeople".

Is that so?
If so, why didn't he?
Aren't the 4NT the best, most succinct and most helpful, part of the Dhamma?
Isn't that difficult to reconcile with the teacher's not having a "closed fist"?

I know that the first sutta was only to the five wanderers (who were not house-holders); but doesn't the Kalama sutta, for example, warn against greed -- and the precepts, and suffering, all in one sentence?

  And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.

Isn't that the first two or three noble truths right there?

So if someone says that he didn't teach the 4NT, are they (more specifically) saying that he didn't teach the noble eightfold path?

But the noble eightfold path is a.k.a. the three trainings. And he definitely taught virtue, so ... is it saying that he didn't teach wisdom nor concentration? So is it saying, and is true, that he didn't teach e.g. meditation to laypeople?

Can lay people be enlightened at all -- if so, how without the 4NT?

And is it true to say that the 4NT are certainly taught to laypeople now? Even to children? I'm surprised to find that they're not mentioned in the introduction to the Jataka Tales (here and here), though it does summarise Dependent Origination. I don't remember such a book in detail but I imagined that the 4NT would be included in any kind of popular introductory book, such as one that mentions the four sights.

This answer says that the 4NT is part of the doctrine shared by all schools of Buddhism. Is it true to assume that every Buddhist in every country (including lay people) knows what the 4NT are?

Ugga, a rich layman, said in a sutta of the aṭṭhaka-nipātā (AN 8.22):

  With confident heart I paid homage to the Buddha. The Buddha taught me step by step
   (anupubbikakathā), with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. And when he knew that my mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, joyful, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in me: ‘Everything(suffering) which  is arise by the origins(samudaya), has an end.’ I saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. I went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. Right there I went for refuge to the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha. And I undertook the five training rules with celibacy as the fifth. This is the second incredible and amazing quality found in me.

After listening anupubbīkathā ("step by step"), some listeners can enlighten dhammacakkhuṃ ("dhamma eye"), i.e. from the Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2):

  So King Ajatasattu, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's words, rose from his seat, bowed down to him, and — after circumambulating him — left. Not long after King Ajatasattu had left, the Blessed One addressed the monks: "The king is wounded, monks. The king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat."

You can find more results by yourself by researching the words dhammacakkhu and anupubbika.

There are many places like that in the tipitaka: so the Buddha did exactly teach the four noble truths to the lay.

The required questions are:

What is anupubbīkathā?
Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to a lay?
Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as many partitions?
Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

 1. What is anupubbīkathā?

Anupubbīkatha:

In pāli canons, it is the sequential teaching or teaching step-by-step. It can be a story or history. See the search results from tipitaka and atthakathā.
In tipitaka context, it is a single-time teaching of the
entire instructional sequence. It is the very long sutta which
describes a buddhist practitioner's procedure, for example:

The single-time teaching of Nidhikaṇḍaṃ (Kp 8) (with some commentary)
Plus Uposathasuttaṃ (AN 3.70) (with some commentary)
Plus Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2) (with some commentary).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

 2. Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to lay?

Buddha taught anupubbikathā to everyone, not only lay, because every practitioner must practice step by step. No one can practice without sequence like a fog -- see Kīṭāgirisutta (MN 70, number 238):

  Mendicants, I don’t say that enlightenment is achieved right away.

However for a newbie lay who is genius,  buddha taught him from the beginning step to the end in single time -- such as single-time teaching of Kp 8 plus AN 3.70 plus DN 2 (as referenced above).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

That's why we can't find the single sutta of anupubbīkathā, in tipitaka context, or even in atthakathā as well. So, in atthakathā comment of anupubbīkathā:

  Anupubbīkathā is sequence of teaching and commentary of dāna subjects then sīla subjects then heaven subjects then practitioner's procedure.

But the buddha and teacher taught a shorter and more complex sutta to the insider lay man and lay woman (upāsaka and upāsikā), because they have enough ability and knowledge to learn the higher level, e.g. Dānasutta (AN 7.49). You can see that sutta is shorter and more complex, included only charity and the Path. It is anupubbīkathā, but it is not the meaning of "anupubbīkathā" word in the context like AN 8.22.

 3. Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as may partitions?

The first saṅgāyanā monks chose "anupubbikathā" words to avoid the over long of sutta. Because most lay people at that time didn't have much knowledge for enlightenment, the buddha had to teach them very long suttas (maybe longer than a DN sutta) and mix many contents to let them enlighten as sotāpanna, or trust to dhamma. So, if the first saṅgāyanā monks didn't separate it to be many smaller sutta, it would have been too long and unable to study by oral recitation.

The evidence from netti vicayahārasampāta:

  Herein, the Lord Buddha advises one of keen faculties with advice in brief; the Lord Buddha advises one of medium faculties with advice in brief and detail; the Lord Buddha advises one of blunt faculties with advice in detail.

 4. Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

Because they are misunderstanding of anupubbikathā. And they don't know how to read teaching as four noble truth, because they never memorize Nettipakarana, or never attained any professional knowledge, ñāṇa, from tipitaka-memorizer and jhānalābhī school, such as Pa-Auk.

Every noble one must enlightened four noble truth, but it is not every ordinary people can discover the noble truth from tipitaka. People who can understand the noble truth from tipitaka must deconflict every uncleared word of tipitaka. This is not feasible for people who can't memorize tipitaka pali and netti, because it needs nirutti-paṭisambhidā to deconflict the whole tipitaka.

For the example from VN Mahāvagga by assachi arahanta to sāriputta, who enlightened as sotāpanna:

  Ye dhammā  hetupabhavā (dukkha)          tesaṃ hetuṃ (samudaya) tathāgato āha
  tesañca yo nirodho (nirodha&magga)           evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo.

  ‘Those things(suffering) which proceed from a cause,  of these the Truthfinder
  has told the cause(origin), And that which is their stopping (cessation&path)— the great
  recluse has such a doctrine.’”

Or in Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ, which king Ajātasattu almost enlightened as sotāpanna, it is included vipassanāñaṇa part (brief dukkha), pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa+cutūpapātañāṇa (extended dukkha), āsavakkhayañāṇa (samudaya+nirodha), and all practitioner's procedures in this sutta are magga.

All above is the example of how to read the noble truth in tipitaka.

It's impossible while dwelling in a household to gain path and fruits, even if the Dhamma of the Noble Ones is taught.
Only in "Borderlands" is it possible to gain access to the Four Noble Truth in a liberating manner:

A "borderland" is a "state" between home and homelessness, outer lands and noble domains, outwardly and inwardly.
A monastery, traditional Wat (pi: vatta ) is outwardly a borderland, sometimes called Wat-Aram, (derived from ārammaṇa ).
What ever can be used as a country, whether outwardly (place, room, country, single person, group, society) and inwardly, ways of thinking and perceiving upholds and praises

It's impossible in "Outer Lands", dwelling in a household. So for now important: "When one is born in outer regions", if able to find some rest of old merits, able in erecting faith, one should put all efforts to trace borderlands, get familiar to it and maybe change one's dwelling totally to where access to the Noble Domain could be gained, the four Noble Truth can be fully penetrated.
Maha Mangala Sutta


Given that Buddhism could accommodate people's prior religious beliefs, why is Buddhism itself now described as a religion? Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs.

Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (like communism, socialism ...)?
But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha?
Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

As with anything else, that completely depends on what you consider a “religion” is, or what is a “religious belief”.

When westerners first came in contact with Buddhism they considered it a “philosophy” as they could not conceive of a religion that did not have a “god” at its center. The idea of an atheist religion did not make sense. You can see that such bias still exists in modern dictionaries.

But when does a philosophy become a religion and when is a religion a philosophy? Is Nihilism a religious idea or a philosophical one? What about philosophical skepticism? Can science itself be considered a religion?

Although Buddhism is very flexible and personal, it is very clear that to progress in the Buddhist path you have to accept a set of beliefs (e.g., Samsara and the eight-fold path) and reject others (e.g., atman/soul ).  It is possible to enter the path while still holding to incompatible beliefs, however sooner or later these beliefs will conflict with the teachings.

It is also very hard for most people to let go of the idea of a “god”, of atman, and many others. This sets a limit to progressing on the path.

Nyom veenusAV,

It's probably a believe and rendering of communist, socialist that the Buddha "advocated for education to all humankind without considering...". We already know that outcome called "Khmer rouge", (Khmer, pali khema, "person or land at peace", epic for Arahat), to give one of many samples, by adding red to wise, desire/aversion to calm.

As he told, his teachings are just for those "ready to be tamed" and of course it is a strong religion (i.e. binding, robe to something), but without an idea of "re" like others may advertise with certain anchors for pride. One hasn't been bond to liberation before the path to master.

So if one calls it "ligion", such would be probably better.

Is Buddhism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society...

The Buddha did not much care about ordinary society but only for his Re-ligion, Legion, the Sangha. Although he was open for good individual advises, he had neither the idea to lead nor to feel responsible for what societies are doing or not.

He also taught on and on on how one should thinks, even on what, so it can not be said at all that the Sublime Buddha was a "(Pseudo-)liberalist" but one who gave strict advises on how to gain real liberality.

And he rebuked the Scientist very often and he taught of what one should incredible fear and what not.

Since it is a very black and white way out of Samsara, his Dhamma will probably not fit even a little to modern ideas. It's just that trades are good in selling new things people are not able yet to know it a original or a market-fake.

As for Buddhism, that is housholder-stuff... they love to build their own things and sand-castles.

(Note: this is not given for Buddh-ism, exchange, stacks, trade and gain binding to world and common societies but for liberation)


Question about Vipassana After focusing on my breath during my meditationsessions a couple of years I desided to start practisiing Vipassana. I will like to add that I have never been on a Vipassana-retreat (yet). Im still very interested of practising it, but after some months of doing it I have some questions about my practise:

I tend to struggle to be aware of my tougths as they ocour and when I become aware of that Im following a train of thougths later I "Choke" them or supress them(?). They will stop instantly. This will go on and on during my sessions and it leaves me confused if I am practising this in a productive way.

I guess I still have alot to learn about this way of meditation, but Im still interested to see what you think about this and if you got some advise.

Thanks!

Take a look at Mindfulness Meditation (MN10). This is one of the key meditation suttas. MN10 breaks down meditation as a progression of 16 steps, grouped in four tetrads. The first tetrad is the body tetrad. Your current practice is breath awareness, so you are already doing part of the body tetrad. The following should be familiar to you:

  Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out

Notice that you're not forcing anything. You are simply being aware. This is very important. Just be aware without grasping or rejecting. In particular, do not "choke your thoughts". Instead, invite the mind towards an awareness of and engagement with the steps of the sutta. Following the steps, we eventually see:

  They practice breathing in experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing out experiencing the whole body

And so the sutta proceeds through feeling and thence to mind, etc.

Don't skip ahead, especially if your concern is agitation of mind. Although awareness of mind is a tetrad, it's later, after awareness of feeling. First take care of the stuff that makes sense and is doable. For example, you could spend years doing just the first tetrad. I did. Eventually, your own insight will prompt you to the next step when you are ready. It's not a race to be won. It's more like tending a garden--you can't rush this.

If your current awareness of body stops and skips, be aware of the body in the context of your breath. The breath is already smooth from the prior step, so a gentle consideration of the body while breathing will naturally become smooth. In other words, maintain the breath connection (aware of in/out/heavy/light) as your awareness touches the body.

When agitated, we breathe quickly, sometimes 6 or more times a minute. As meditation deepens, you will find that breathing slows on its own and everything settles. Perhaps you may find yourself breathing 3 times a minute. Or even 2. Effortlessly. As the breath calms, so does everything.

To be aware of thoughts as they arise is an extremely subtle practise and only something that can be done by highly advanced minds and is generally only a practise of "clear-comprehension" (3rd development in AN 4.41) although it also forms a small part of very advanced "vipassana" (4th development in AN 4.41).

That when you become aware of a train of thoughts and then later "choke" them, suppress them and stop them instantly is perfectly naturally and normal because the nature of the conscious (aware) mind is like this.

(i) Consciousness (clear awareness) and (ii) thinking are naturally two antagonistic (opposing) things. Generally, when the mind is conscious, aware & alert; it does not think very much. To the contrary, generally when the mind thinks alot; it is not awake & alert.

Naturally, the (false) ideas you have learned from so-called "teachers" of "vipassana" about "watching thoughts" will leave you confused because these ideas are non-sense because these ideas cannot be practised.

Buddhist meditation watches breathing (MN 118). Buddhist meditation gives up thinking (MN 19). The Buddha said Anapanasati (mindfulness when breathing) was his "dwelling" (SN 54.11) and the method he practised and developed for awakening (SN 54.8).


Can there be another Dalai Lama? From what I understand, the Panchen Lama is supposed to choose the next Dalai Lama. If he has been captured, is there any hope for another Dalai Lama to be chosen?

Dedi,

The Panchen Lama is supposed to facilitate the recognition of the Dalai
Lama. However, depending on his devotion and his powers, the Dalai Lama himself can state the place and time of his reincarnation. If not, he would give to adversaries a way to hack the process (by capturing and controlling the Panchen Lama).

It's sad, but every monk has to be aware of the danger and to practice his way to enlightenment!

  Overall 'Dalai Lama' means an 'Ocean of Compassion.'

Hope it helps!

Maybe everyone knows, my input is just duplicating. The selection of the lead Lama was introduced by Qianlong Emperor of Qing in 1792, called གསེར་བུམ་སྐྲུག་པ (gser bum skrug pa), or drawing lots from the Golden Urn, to pacify the political power struggle between the different Lama sects.

One of the two Urns is kept in Jokhang Temple in Lhasa >>

Emperor Qianlong said in his stone engraved "About the Lama":

  乾隆皇帝在其御制碑文《喇嘛说》中有精到阐述：“其呼土克图之相袭，乃以僧家无子，授之徒，与子何异，故必觅一聪慧有福相者，俾为呼必勒罕(即汉语转世化生人之义)，幼而习之。长成乃称呼图克图。此亦无可如何中之权巧方便耳。其来已久，不可殚述。孰意近世，其风日下，所生之呼必勒罕，率出一族，斯则与世袭爵禄何异?
  …… 然转生之呼必勒罕，出于一族 (all coming from the same clan)，是乃为私 (this is
  for self-interest only)。佛岂有私 (How could the Buddha be for
  self-interest)？故不可不禁 (Therefore couldn't not prohibit
  it)。兹予制一金瓶，送往西藏，于凡转世之呼必勒罕，众所举数人 (the nominated few persons by
  all)，各书其名置瓶中 (writing every of those names put into the
  urn)，掣签以定 (drawing lot to confirm)，虽不能尽去其弊 (though couldn't
  rid all the faults)，较之以前 (yet compared to what was in the
  past)，一人之授意者 (appointing one person)，或略公矣 (this may slightly
  be more fair)。”

The stone engraving still resides in this palace in Beijing >>

Well, facts taking many camouflages, we will never know what is real. The only remedy maybe, practice, until one gained divine vision so that we can really know what is what. However, that the fun may be lost since ambiguity or fuzziness is always intriguing and enticing :)


How is consciousness measured? There is a sphere of infinite space and there is sphere of infinite consciousness.
It is easy to comprehend what is infinite space is but it is not clear what is meant by infinite consciousness?
Does it mean infinite history of experience?
Or does it mean infinite presence of sentient beings with consciousness?

In MN121 the Buddha explains his step by step method for achieving Liberation or Nirvana. This method relies on the gradual removal or abandonment or "giving up" of objects and any boundaries/limits, any separation, any division. First, the gross objects/limits/separation is removed, then medium-gross objects/limits/separation is abandoned, then subtle objects/limits/separation is "given up", and this process of incremental iterative refinement is repeated and perfected all the way until Final Liberation.
This process can be compared with a loop in a software program, a cycle:
var A = AttendTo(any object);
repeat until(A==Nirvana){
    var notA = FindComplement(A);
    A = AttendTo(A + notA);
}

On each iteration of this loop our current object is A. Next, we find its counterpart, the NOT A. Next, we combine the total of A + NOT A and make that our new A. This is repeated until Nirvana.
The first step of that process is to start where you are. Let's say you are looking out of your window and see a parking lot with cars and people. When you focus on one of those people, that's an A. When you focus on another person, that's another A. Any single person or any car can be your object. Then you try to find the counterpart (or the mathematical complement) of that A, the NOT A. If you take one member of a mathematical set, then the complement is the rest of that set. If you take any one object (person or car) on the parking lot, then its complement is everything else on that parking lot except that first object. Next step is to put together A + NOT A and make that your new A. When we combine our first person with the rest of the parking lot, the resulting A = A + NOT A is "the entire parking lot". This is the end of the first iteration.
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire parking  lot". The NOT A is the rest of the world. The A + NOT A is "the entire planet".
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire planet". The NOT A is the rest of the universe. The A + NOT A is "the Infinite Space". The reason it's called "infinite" or "boundless" or "limitless" is because it is spatially all-inclusive without any borders or separation. It is our first serious attempt at attaining an undivided meditation object.
The next iteration is when our A is "the Infinite Space". This is where it gets a bit more tricky. What is the NOT A, what is the complement of the Infinite Space in an even broader context? Can we expand from the Infinite Space even further out? In other words, if the A of Infinite Space is one member of a larger set, then what could those other members be?
(...drum roll...)
The other members are all other phenomena, all other contents of our consciousness! Then A = A + NOT A is the entire consciousness with the entire totality of all its possible states and objects. When this becomes our new A, our new object of our iterative meditation refinement process, this stage is called "The Infinite Consciousness". Again, the reason it is called "infinite" or "limitless" or "unbounded" is because it is our new standard of all-inclusive undivided object of meditation.
The next iteration of this goes as follows. If A is The Infinite Consciousness, then what is its counterpart? What is beyond all phenomena, beyond all states of mind, all contents of consciousness? It is the complete absence of any content, complete Nothingness. This is our NOT A. And what is the superset of both A and NOT A? It is that which includes both "entire realm of conscious experience, with all its possible states" and "the complete absence of anything". This A + NOT A is called "the realm of neither (just) perception nor (just) nonperception", in other words it is the common ground for both consciousness and nothingness. But what is it, really? It is the point of view that comprehends all conscious experience as well as comprehends nothingness. It is the ultimate reference point.
Finally, taking this last object as an A, we need to work harder to find its complement. Could there be anything beyond the ultimate reference point that comprehends both consciousness and nothingness? It seems impossible to imagine. However, if you look very-very carefully you can realize that this ultimate reference point is nothing but a sign of "I", the sign of "subject". The complement of that A is complete cessation of I-making, complete cessation of being a point of view. Which means, it is complete cessation of interpretation, evaluation, discernment, and recognition, complete cessation of semiosis. This NOT A of "neither perception nor non-perception" is traditionally known as "cessation of perception and feeling". And if we combine these A + NOT A, that is if we find the common ground of both, then finally we are done.

What about all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who lived in the past? Have you comprehended their minds to know thatKiṃ te, sāriputta, ye te ahesuṃ atītamaddhānaṃ arahanto sammāsambuddhā, sabbe te bhagavanto cetasā ceto paricca viditā:those Buddhas had such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”‘evaṃsīlā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃdhammā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃpaññā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃvihārī te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipi, evaṃvimuttā te bhagavanto ahesuṃ itipī’”ti?
“No, sir.”
https://suttacentral.net/dn28/en/sujato
I asked a similar question in Dhamma Wheel.
Can stream of consciousness naturally come to an end?
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36287&hilit=Infinity+consciousness


Power Struggles in a Buddhist Group A good friend emailed me about some troubles in a Buddhist meditation group she belongs to. It's a lay led group. The problems are some apparent power struggles about even routine matters and also an element of cliquishness. It seems to be just a small number of people out of the group that are creating the issues.

I don't really know how this sort of thing should be viewed from a Buddhist point of view. But if anyone has a solution or a correct way of looking at this I'd like to pass it along to her. She likes the group overall and she really didn't expect to find this type of behavior among meditators.

My specific question is "From a Buddhist point of view, how do we view bad behavior specifically in a Buddhist setting? Should we allow for these very unenlightened behaviors as we ourselves are unenlightened too? Or should be expect more and move on as this type of behavior may indicate that the meditation is this group is just not working somehow.?"

In other words, if meditation is sincere and regular, can these types of defilements simply continue with no improvement in an individual?

The initial instinct will be to assign blame, or to approach the issue from a victim perspective.

As meditators, we must know better and let go of these views.

Powerful emotions can be very good teachers if we know how to harness the energy.

The teachers in the Thich Nhat Hanh sangha have a detailed conflict resolution guide for exactly this situation that I suggest you review

http://orderofinterbeing.org/docs/Conflict-Guide.pdf

Background: http://www.orderofinterbeing.org/2013/11/conflict-resolution-guide/

We are often the victims and the attackers, if we can realize this, we can solve anything.

A poem by Thich Nhat Hanh

  Please Call Me by My True Names

  I have a poem for you. This poem is about three of us. The first is a
  twelve-year-old girl, one of the boat people crossing the Gulf of
  Siam. She was raped by a sea pirate, and after that she threw herself
  into the sea. The second person is the sea pirate, who was born in a
  remote village in Thailand. And the third person is me. I was very
  angry, of course. But I could not take sides against the sea pirate.
  If I could have, it would have been easier, but I couldn’t. I realized
  that if I had been born in his village and had lived a similar life
  - economic, educational, and so on – it is likely that I would now be that sea pirate. So it is not easy to take sides. Out of suffering, I
  wrote this poem. It is called “Please Call Me by My True Names,”
  because I have many names, and when you call me by any of them, I have
  to say, “Yes.”

  Don’t say that I will depart tomorrow — even today I am still
  arriving.

  Look deeply: every second I am arriving to be a bud on a Spring
  branch, to be a tiny bird, with still-fragile wings, learning to sing
  in my new nest, to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower, to be a
  jewel hiding itself in a stone.

  I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry, to fear and to hope.

  The rhythm of my heart is the birth and death of all that is alive.

  I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river. And I am
  the bird that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.

  I am the frog swimming happily in the clear water of a pond. And I am
  the grass-snake that silently feeds itself on the frog.

  I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as
  bamboo sticks. And I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
  Uganda.

  I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws
  herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate. And I am the
  pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

  I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my hands. And
  I am the man who has to pay his “debt of blood” to my people dying
  slowly in a forced-labor camp.

  My joy is like Spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom all over the
  Earth. My pain is like a river of tears, so vast it fills the four
  oceans.

  Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and my
  laughter at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

  Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up, and so the door of
  my heart can be left open, the door of compassion.

  ~Thich Nhat Hanh

control and power clicques that work witin rigid structures and do not incorpate the views and contributions of others in sanghas re merely a reflection of those people operate in the real world outside of th sangha - inbussiness and so on ..such habit are ifetimes in the making ..its idealistic to expect otherwise..if there is abise ( a common cntrol issue in cprprate or any large orgs, then its reflected in a static sangha leadership over long period calling all the shots @ few new members, many leaving .......watch for the signs and dont allow oneself to be victimised..sangha in sense s just a concept ,,my more trusted freinds arent buddhist at all or part of sangha ..even thugh i suppose a serious buddhist (remeber the story of buddha ws ask of the congrgation present ( ofmr all walks of life -not only buddhist ) who would be enlightned..he said most of the poeple n that congrgation that  were not buddhist ,,attchment ,,is a tricky thing


Is lazyness a killer? If so, in how far is it a killer, a quality that harms?

How does it arises, when arising? How does it vanish?

[Note that this isn't given/asked for trade, exchange, stakes or other layziness supporting means but for liberation]

Once the Exalted One spoke to the Venerable Maha-Moggallana thus: "Are you drowsy, Moggallana? Are you drowsy, Moggallana?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

(1) "Well then, Moggallana, at whatever thought torpor has befallen you, to that thought you should not give attention, you should not dwell on it frequently. Then it is possible that, by so doing, torpor will disappear......................

AN7.58

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Laziness is a killer.

For example, if seeing a destination on the other side of a road but are too lazy to look down the road for motor cars, this laziness is a killer.

Or if seeing a destination on the other side of a stream but are too lazy to look into the stream for crocodiles, this laziness is a killer.

Similarly, if reading in DN 1 about "here-&-now" but are too lazy to also read the words "existent being" & "self", laziness leads to thinking "here-&-now" is wrong view rather than "extinct being's self in the here-&-now" is wrong view.

Here, there is wrongly believing "Nibbana here-&-now" is wrong view rather than correctly understanding "self attaining Nibbana in the here-&-now" is wrong view.

Therefore, the mind never overcomes self-view, which the Buddha said was the "killer".

  Yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's
  son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in
  a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even
  then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder
  or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

  "Yes, my friend."

  "In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self...

  "He assumes perception to be the self...

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.

  SN 22.85


Thought or intention is always karma? "Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami".

  Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought
  that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. (
  Nibbedhika sutraya)

My question is simple. Does thought or intention alone become karma? Or does it need to have certain characteristics (Sorry if this word is inappropriate) for it to become Karma? If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed?

 Can we just "think" that we are helping the poor and have good karma? Can we "think" that we are giving dhana to monks and have good karma? In the context of good karma, can we just have good intentions and thoughts of good deeds and get the same karma that we get from physically engaging in such activities?

Thought is what decides Karma. Same action with different motivation or volition can be bad or good depending on the motivation or volition. That is volition is what becomes Karma.

If you follow though with your intentions then this can lead to rebirth linking Karma. If you don't it will be weaker Karma.

If you have the volition but not the means to follow through then it will be a weak Karma as discussed above.

Volition bears fruit based on the root and level of mental lethargy or whether you or someone else has to prompt or motivate you to do something. If you have the thoughts but not the desire to do it then the root are missing or very weak hence there is unlikely to be Karmic results. If there is lethargy but there is genuine desire, the roots weak but present hence will have diminished Karmic results. More than the thoughts, imagination of doing something, visualisation of doing something, what counts is motivation or volition or desire to do the thing, though such thoughts could lead to desire or motivation or volition to act. As discussed above all factors may not align to successfully follow through nevertheless karma is created but at different intensities of potential results.

Thoughts alone become Karma whether they are followed by actions & words or not. Lets see why....

As you already know mind is capable of generating Karma just like the body. When a body does something it is not Body's thought, it is just the execution of thoughts that turns into actions. Same theory applies to the words.

As thoughts are followed by the actions feelings are followed By thoughts. Thoughts are the execution of mind's activities. Just like actions & words are the executions of mind's activities.

As Lord Buddha taught there are three types of thoughts...

1:-Thoughts that create "Attachment"

2:-Thoughts that create  "Collision"

3:-Thoughts that are "Neutral"

Above 1 & 2 create Karma but the 3rd does not because it is neutral and therefore unable to create attachments,collisions or deceiving thoughts.

So if any thought that can be taken into the categories 1 & 2 obviously create Karma.

Can thoughts of doing good alone Create Karma?

Yes, If you want a good Example look at the very famous "Meththa Meditation" (also known as - Loving Kindness Meditation). Even the thoughts of doing a good thing create good Karma. And one must be aware that this is a two way street, meaning thinking of bad creates bad karma too.

This is a very important concept only found in Buddhism. Even though there are few other religions that use the word Karma they do not have a full definition on how exactly karma should be defined.

So my friend you should know....

The minute you start thinking or planing some good deed it create good karma.

The minute you plan bad it creates bad karma.


Is understanding a phenomenon? Buddha says all phenomenon are nonself. If understanding is a phenomenon then my understanding of Dhamma will fade away and I will again fall into ignorance.
So my question is: is understanding a phenomenon?

At least yes, the Dhamma as a stand, or "my" understanding of Dhamma, all stands/views (diṭṭhī) have to be abounded at least, whereas the Dhamma (teching), the raft, will be abounded when having reached the other shore, see the "raft - simile". Note that it is the very last, and in no way good to abound fist or in the middle of the ozean.

Having layed down all views, seeing knowing as unreal as well, one then might reach what is called paññā-vimutti knowing-release, where all kinds of stands or views are abounded, would no more related to.

The word under-stand-ing it self shows well that it is a matter of "holding on it" (upādāna), yet there are Dhammas, there is a Dhamma, that is useable to get free of unreal, insecure (anicca) things.

The first step here is to distinguishing right understanding from wrong understanding: Micchatta Sutta: Wrongness, and after having developed the path completely, one, by abounding it also, gets free of troubles:

  Among those who live above confrontation
      not pitting view against view,
      whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?

  To Pasura

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

"Understanding" is our linear, time-limited conception of mental awareness. That is our ability to comprehend things in our world that are beyond our immediate perceptions. Is it a phenomenon? Sure.

Will you fall into ignorance? I dont think so. I actually believe in the eternalism of our awareness or consciousness or soul or whatever crafty name we have for it this week. This body is a meatbag that our awareness drives around. Once we are back to pure awareness we will no longer rely on memory or perceptions or understanding. We will experience everything at once in our realm of perception - whatever perception awareness encompasses. We're no longer limited to these crappy perceptions and tools that make us have to piece together fragmented clues of reality to experience something from afar. We just experience it and everything else all at once.


In short, what is the path to enlightenment? Where to begin? If I were to begin meditating, what practical list of advises would you give me?

The shortest explanation of the path to enlightenment is to not crave or cling egoistically (possessively) to anything, which includes meditation & enlightenment. For example, in meditation, if everything becomes peaceful, calm & blissful, the mind does not think: "I am blissful" or "I love this bliss". Instead, the mind just experiences the bliss, without thinking about or judging it.

Similarly, when reading or hearing about 'breathing meditation', the mind should not try to do breathing meditation because this is craving. Instead, the mind should just quietly & gently free itself from craving (while sitting in meditation) and allow the breathing meditation to occur by itself.

While 'non-clinging' is not exactly the same as 'non-judging', for a beginner, it is similar. Therefore, a short path to enlightenment is described as follows:

  You should train yourself thus: 'When seeing, merely see what is seen; when hearing, merely hear what is heard; when
  sensing, merely sense what is sensed; when cognizing (a mental
  object), merely cognise what is cognized.' In this way you should
  train yourself, Bahiya.

  Bahiya Sutta

Meditation for enlightenment requires the foundation of non-harming; with the aspiration to not harm anything or anyone. This makes & keeps the mind pure, without obstacle or hindrance. It also generates compassion, which is an important energy for meditation. Here, a clear v ision/view in respect to sexual morals is especially important because the primary obstacle to meditation for enlightenment is often sexual desire. When there is non-harmful view about sex, the instinctual sexual drive can be transformed into compassion.

Also, beginning by doing a short meditation retreat (7 to 10 days) in a meditation centre or monastery can be particularly useful; not so much for the teachings; but for the atmosphere.

People here come up with all sorts of answers about enlightenment, believing in this or that. I hate to burst your bubble. They are not telling you about enlightenment because they don't know what it is. If nobody knows what the hell it is, how can they tell you how to achieve it? They only have concepts of something they read, which they have not verified.

Buddha really meant to reduce the suffering we are currently undergoing in our lives by techniques like meditation. How do you feel after meditating? If done properly, you will feel calm right? And then later you would be back, your villain mind will be back. This mind always looks after itself. It's ALWAYS LOOKING OUT FOR "YOU". So when this mind asks for "enlightenment" it is trying to add onto itself! "Become better" or something like that. It's looking for something more and then something more, endlessly. It's like wanting to be a billionaire.

We always desire this or that and think about the future or past. Be clear about this. Buddha did NOT talk about enlightenment. I repeat there IS NO ENLIGHTENMENT in the way you or your mind thinks there is. If you think so, you are unnecessarily bullshitting yourself and will chase your own tail and end up nowhere. It's not outside you. But if you clear yourself out, I hope you find it, God willing or yourself willing ;)

Gautama Buddha is only telling you about reducing your level of mental misery. The very fact that you are searching for something means you are not okay with whatever you have currently.

I'll only tell you one thing here. By looking at the enlightenment of other people, I think they mean self-annihilation or self-destruction. Your concept of your own self. Destroy that and see yourself as a part of everything in this universe. When I say "you" cannot achieve enlightenment, I mean this current thing which you think is "you". Enlightenment is when you somehow find out you are NOTHING but a blob of energy which will leave its current form when the universe needs it. That's it. Everything else is, I am sorry to use this word, bullshit.

Now I don't know how to do this clearly, because my thoughts get in the way everytime telling me this or that. That's all the karma. A memory of myself. I don't want to get into the details.

That's why I said you have to clearly know what you are looking for. If you don't know it, don't bother with it.


Vajrayana VS theravada - after death theories - do they contradict each other? As far as i understand the having opposing views  about what happens between after you die until you are reborn again right ?  or do they "sit together" some how ?

From Wikipedia on the Tibetan bardos:

  Kyenay bardo (skye gnas bar do): is the first bardo of birth and life. This bardo commences from conception until the last breath, when
  the mindstream withdraws from the body.
  Milam bardo (rmi lam bar do): is the second bardo of the dream state. The Milam Bardo is a subset of the first Bardo. Dream Yoga
  develops practices to integrate the dream state into Buddhist sadhana.
  Samten bardo (bsam gtan bar do) is the third bardo of meditation. This bardo is generally only experienced by meditators, though
  individuals may have spontaneous experience of it. Samten Bardo is a
  subset of the Shinay Bardo.
  Chikhai bardo ('chi kha'i bar do): is the fourth bardo of the moment of death. According to tradition, this bardo is held to
  commence when the outer and inner signs presage that the onset of
  death is nigh, and continues through the dissolution or transmutation
  of the Mahabhuta until the external and internal breath has completed.
  Chönyi bardo (chos nyid bar do): is the fifth bardo of the luminosity of the true nature which commences after the final 'inner
  breath' (Sanskrit: prana, vayu; Tibetan: rlung). It is within this
  Bardo that visions and auditory phenomena occur. In the Dzogchen
  teachings, these are known as the spontaneously manifesting Thödgal
  (Tibetan: thod-rgyal) visions. Concomitant to these visions, there is
  a welling of profound peace and pristine awareness. Sentient beings
  who have not practiced during their lived experience and/or who do not
  recognize the clear light (Tibetan: od gsal) at the moment of death
  are usually deluded throughout the fifth bardo of luminosity.
  Sidpa bardo (srid pa bar do): is the sixth bardo of becoming or transmigration. This bardo endures until the inner-breath commences in
  the new transmigrating form determined by the "karmic seeds" within
  the storehouse consciousness.

Above, you can see that the fifth and sixth bardos are located between death and rebirth.

However, the Theravada view according to Ven. Narada Mahathera from his book The Buddha and His Teachings, chapter 28:

  In the foregoing case, the thought experienced before death being a
  moral one, the resultant rebirth-consciousness takes for its material
  an appropriate sperm and ovum cell of human parents. The
  rebirth-consciousness (patisandhi vi?āna) then lapses into the
  Bhavanga state.

  The continuity of the flux, at death, is unbroken in point of time,
  and there is no breach in the stream of consciousness.

  Rebirth takes place immediately, irrespective of the place of birth,
  just as an electromagnetic wave, projected into space, is immediately
  reproduced in a receiving radio set. Rebirth of the mental flux is
  also instantaneous and leaves no room whatever for any intermediate
  state (antarabhava). Pure Buddhism does not support the belief
  that a spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary
  state until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."

From the above two excerpts, it appears that the Tibetan and Theravadan views are contradictory.

In the Pali suttas, 'death' is the unenlightened ending of a state of attachment or acquisition, which is a form of sorrow & suffering. Therefore, what happens after death in the Pali suttas is sorrow & suffering. The Pali suttas say

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘Acquisition has craving as its source, craving as its origin; it is born and produced from craving. When there is craving, acquisition comes to be; when there is no craving, acquisition does not come to be.’
SN 12.66


Whatever bad deed done with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - "whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along" (yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti)

This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas.

How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)?

What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?

Also related is the phrase "A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core." (Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco.). What does this mean?

From AN 10.219:

  “What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the
  liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion,
  altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a
  bad deed?”

  “No, Bhante.”

  “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
  on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”

  “A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity).
  A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals
  have mind as their core.

  “The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and
  also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in
  this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does
  not penetrate to a further liberation.

What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?

It appears to mean "body born of causing".

It's a compound, e.g. kara ("causing") ja ("born of") kāya ("body").

The PTS dictionary entry for Kara includes ...

  Kara (p. 195) Kara Kara [fr. kṛ] 1. (adj.) ( -- ˚) producing, causing, forming, making, doing

... and ...

  ja "born of kamma" in karaja -- kāya the body sprung from action, an expression always used in a contemptible manner, therefore=the impure, vile, low body A v.300; J i.5; Vism 287, 404; DA i.113, 217, 221; DhA i.10; iii.420; DhsA 403. karaja -- rūpa Vism 326.

Also ...

  Ja (p. 277) Ja Ja ( -- ˚) [adj. -- suffix from jan, see janati; cp. ˚ga; gacchati] born, produced, sprung or arisen from.

So it's literally or etymologically kara-ja-kaya i.e. "body born from kara", where kara is defined as "producing, causing, forming, making, doing".

I don't see exactly why kara and kamma are being equated, but they're obviously pretty similar.

Given this translation ...

  Whatever bad deeds I have done in the past with this deed-born body I will experience here.
  yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ

... I think the literal word-for-word translation is something like ...

  Whatever my something in-the-past I have with this body-born-of-causing bad-deeds done, entirely in-this-world I will know them.

Perhaps you might as well just read it as kaya (i.e. body).

There are other bits in the sutta which just refer to body, e.g. ...

  For neither women nor men take this body with them when they go.
  Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa  vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo.

First, AN 10.219 appears to be fake dhamma because loving-kindness cannot end the suffering of birth, aging, illness & death. The following verse appears to be adhamma:

  What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the liberation
  of mind by loving-kindness from his childhood on, would he do a bad
  deed?”

  “No, Bhante.”

  “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
  on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”

However, about past kamma, AN 10.219 appears to correctly say:

  Bhikkhus, I do not say that there is a termination of volitional kamma
  that has been done and accumulated so long as one has not experienced
  its results, and that may be in the present moment, or in the near future,
  or on some subsequent occasion

  The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along [into the future].’ When the liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness has been developed in this way, it leads to
  non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does not penetrate to a
  further liberation.

  This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion … with a mind
  imbued with altruistic joy … with a mind imbued with equanimity,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  equanimity, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill
  will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’

In other words, the results of "past deeds" were experienced as the "five hindrances"; that we cleansed; per the below:

  And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? You should say:
  ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’

  AN 10.61

What is correct in AN 10.219 is explained in SN 12.37 and SN 35.146:

  Bhikkhus, this group [of aggregates: "kaya"] is not yours, nor does it
  belong to others. This is old kamma, to be seen as mentally constructed by [past] volition, as something to be felt [in the
  present].

.............


Does Buddhism kill creativity? My decrease in creativity does most likely not have anything to do with my feeble meditation attempts, because it is natural to have ups and downs, even when it comes to creativity.

But still, meditation deals with ridding oneself of attachments by observing mind states objectively and I think that following through an idea and turning it into a finished piece of work requires quite a lot of attachment and devotion to the project.

I suppose my real question is: is it possible to balance being a practicing Buddhist and a creative artist?

Many working artists are also Buddhists. A number of high profile creative people such as Leonard Cohen, Herbie Hancock and Steve Jobs are Buddhists. See Wikipedia's long list of celebrity Buddhists, many of whom work in creative industries.

Most people report that creativity increased after taking up meditation. At least one scientific study reported that meditation enhances creativity. The Huffington Post has reported much the same news.

Buddhist practice requires not just moment to moment awareness, but also considerable continuity of purpose. If one emphasises only the former then one is unlikely to make much progress. It's a bit like walking downstairs and forgetting why you went down there.

So there seems to be no reason to think that being a practising Buddhist would "kill creativity". And no reason to think you cannot balance being a practising Buddhist and a creative artist. I personally know at least a dozen people who do just this.

Buddhism is the Development of creativity, Creativity is human nature, it is the sole reason for the rapid advancement of human kind, and Buddhism grounds our creativity with purpose. It's not easy being an artist, we get "lost in the clouds" sometimes and we give credit to the chaos that we call "the Creativity process" Creativity is not a process Stop assuming it is. If you have to think to hard to use your creativity its because your actually just thinking.
And Apple is not a representative of creativity, they are programmers, the ego is a program, a strategist. creativity is intuitive, it is effortless. I'm 32 years old, i ether, draw, paint, sculpt or write every day, I have never had a creative block, and as a child i assumed that a creative block is just what people who weren't artistic. With a Buddhist understanding Creativity is your true human nature that develops thru the pure mental state that comes from contentment in meditation (natural state of human development free from selfish motives).  Evolution is pushing change but this human form is optimal for the harnessing of creative.  I would recommend doing some intuitive paintings like splatter paintings so you can get a taste of actual pure creative energy, that is meditation for artist and unless it is extracted from enjoyment in the moment and free from egotistical subject matter you are not living an authentic life. Authenticity is opposite of ego, I believe now as an adult that creative block is more of a conflict of what you believe to be important enough to show devotion to. You need to take a long look in the mirror, find the doubt in your practice, have faith that doubt is one of the five hindrance that dissipates with the defining of phenomenon and eradicated with meditation.


Understanding Saṅkhāra in dependent origination as *choices* of body, speech and mind? Continuing to try to understand Dependent Origination from my own reading of the suttas as well trying to grok the understanding of other skilled practitioners and I've come across an interesting debate. The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices' as seen by this translation of SN 12.2:

  And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way
  of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

However, I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation? It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice. Marvelous suggestion and I'm hoping to conduct just such an experiment!

However, I want to nail down the actual disagreement if there is one - I'm still not entirely sure there is - and to figure out how to setup the experiment to reveal the truth.

First, I've seen alternative translations on this site which omit the 'volitional' or 'choices' connotation and use the alternative 'accumulated tendencies' to describe the Saṅkhāra. Is it agreed by Theravada that this is the proper translation? How about by Mahayana?

I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

  If you don’t intend or plan, but still have underlying tendencies,
  this becomes a support for the continuation of consciousness. When
  this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When
  consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future. When there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future, future rebirth, old age, and death
  come to be, as do sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
  That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'

Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?

Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency? Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits that may involve some measure of choice and some are simply non-volitional and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se? The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions... the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated? Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it - the extent or intensity - that could very well be accumulated? Like some people might have a very slight ripple while others - because of accumulated tendencies - might hyperventilate?

Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen, but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation? What is the minimum level of competence necessary to verify this and the kind of type of meditation necessary?

Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond. The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?) and the question would be whether there was choice involved or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?

Help or ideas appreciated!

skilled practitioners

Yes.

  The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices'

The above is wrong. "Volition" is 1st mentioned at nama-rupa.

  There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

The Pali is kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, which are defined in MN 44 as in & out breathing; initial & sustained thought; and perception & feeling.

Breathing conditions the state of the body = kaya sankharo = body conditioner.

Thought conditions speech = vaci sankharo = verbal conditioner.

Perception & feeling condition the state of the mind = citta sankhara = mind conditioner.

  I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation?

D.O. was hijacked to create a theory of reincarnation to provide moral teachings to people. Not all practitioners teach D.O. the same because some monks deliberately don't teach the truth but teach skillful means.

  It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice.

Yes. My explanation accords with meditation practice.

  I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

The above is irrelevant because it is not about the 2nd condition sankhara. It is about "becoming" or "patiṭṭhā
 viññāṇa", similar to AN 3.76. It says:

  When consciousness is established and grows, there is production of a new state of existence (bhavā) in the future.

Note: Bhikkhu Sujato translations are often ignored by serious scholars; particularly anything about dependent origination.

  Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'

You are bouncing too far ahead, from ignorance to kamma. Kamma does not occur until volition, which starts at nama-rupa and then starts again at attachment.

The word "anusaya" means "underlying tendencies" and is often mentioned after contact, such as in MN 148. My point is the use of the word "anusaya" does not indicate any of the specific 12 conditions.

While "anusaya" is part of ignorance; the word "anusaya" is used in different places in the teachings.

  Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?

Correct. This is the correct view of kaya-sankhara, as confirmed by meditation.

  Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency?

No. The underlying tendencies are part of ignorance (AN 7.11). They "asava" or "flow out" at ignorance (MN 9). They cause the breathing (kaya sankhara) to become laboured and also can trigger discursive thoughts & memories (vaci & citta sankhara).

  Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits

No. Please do not use Mahayana to interpret Pali. Nagarjuna was wrong about sankhara, the same as most Theravada commentators are wrong.

"Accumulated tendencies", which is an energetic drive, form part of ignorance. The "sankhara" they trigger may be classed as "habitual thoughts" however the underlying drive or tendency is part of ignorance.

In meditation, when you crush a discursive thought, the pulsating energy can still remain.

The discursive thought is "sankhara". The pulsating underlying energy is part of "ignorance", as clearly described in MN 9. Read MN 9, the very end of the sutta.

  that may involve some measure of choice

No. There is no choice at sankhara. Sankhara is the opposite. It is non-choice. The choice occurs at nama-rupa, when nama-rupa feels, perceives & has contact with the sankhara. Refer to MN 19, which clearly describes how Buddha made a choice to end the discursive thoughts.

  and some are simply non-volitional

Sankhara are non-volitional.

  and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se?

Not all underlying tendencies are "accumulated" from the past. Some underlying tendencies are in-born (refer to MN 64, beginning of sutta).

  The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions...

Yes!

  the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated?

The ignorant emotion may be accumulated and "stored". But the sankhara is not accumulated. Each sankhara is a new sankhara.

  Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it -

Pali does not use the term "accumulated". Forget this term.

  Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen

Indeed.

  but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation?

Clear mind established in breathing.

Clear mind must be able to see the arise of discursive thoughts out of relative empty or thoughtless mind.

  Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises

Yes!

  in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond.

Yes!

  The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?)

Waves are formed by energy. The energy is from ignorance. The waves are sankhara.

Its not "action". Its "motion" of breath, thought or feeling/perception.

  and the question would be whether there was choice involved

There is no choice at this level. You should already understand when distracting thoughts arise in meditation (when you want to concentrate) they are not a "choice".

  or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?

No. They are not reinforced at "sankhara".

They are reinforced at nama-rupa, when nama "chooses" to give "attention" to those sankhara. Remember, "nama" is "feeling, perception, intention/choice, contact & attention".

Again, read MN 19, the part where the Buddha mentions "inclination of mind". The word "inclination" is "namati", the verb of "nama".

The ignorant sankhara is either reinforced at nama-rupa, by giving attention to the ignorant sankhara; or, otherwise, the ignorant sankhara is cut & stopped at nama-rupa.

  Help or ideas appreciated!

Study very carefully or meditatively page 3 to 6 of this link: Shape of Suffering by Bhikkhu Thanissaro.

Or read my blog: Dependent origination: Namarupa and here: Dependent origination: Sankhara

The involvement of intention need not be ones own:

  DN33:1.11.171: Four kinds of reincarnation. There is a reincarnation where only one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not one’s own.  There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective.  There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective.

If we are awoken and killed by robbers in our own homes and horrified by that killing, then that kamma is driven by the intentions of others interacting with our own underlying clinging to life.

This example is a bit dramatic but it points out the fallacy that intention arises locally out of self. Therefore our experiments must include acceptance of what is experienced without underlying tendencies.


Is the Karma theory an essential component of Buddha's teaching? Stephen Batchelor claims in several speeches and books that

Buddha never said the Karma and rebirth theory was true,
it is not important to Buddha's teachings, and
when he was a Gelug monk and asked for support for the Karma and rebirth theory, he didn't get any sufficient answers (despite the fact that Gelug Buddhists tend to focus on scientific methods of acquiring knowledge).

According to Batchelor, the Karma theory was a common worldview in India at the time. Siddhartha Gautama's contemporaries believed in Karma like we believe in the Big Bang theory and evolution. Neither of these theories can be proved or refuted with an affordable effort (in order to prove evolution for yourself, you need substantial knowledge of biology plus systemic thinking skills -- both of which are hard to acquire).

Also, neither of these theories affects the main purpose of Buddhist practice -- to reduce suffering. If tomorrow someone proved the Big Bang theory to be definitely true (or definitely wrong), it wouldn't make most of the people happier/unhappier than before.

However, the question about Karma theory affects the Buddhist practice.

If someone believes in rebirth, then they would spend most of their time meditating and preparing for the next lives. This is not just theory -- in some Buddhist communities advanced members spend almost all their evenings in the Buddhist center and almost every vacation on some retreat. It looks like they don't have their own life apart from this practice.

If someone does not believe in the Karma theory, they will focus on making the best of this life (which may be the only one we get). Buddhist practice is a means to live the one life one has as effectively as possible. Basically, you meditate in the evening in order to better achieve your personal goals during the day.

Is the Karma theory an essential component of Buddha's teaching or not?

There is no Buddhism without Karma. Paticcasamuppada (the Law of Dependent Origination) is all about Karma and it's consequences.

Akiriya-ditthi is the false view or opinion of the inefficacy of action: That neither moral good nor moral evil action have any delayed consequences for anyone.

This wrong view was taught by Pūrana-Kassapa during the time of the Buddha.

Today also there are people like Pūrana Kassapa who spread such views. What is more dangerous is that instead of presenting such views as their own beliefs, they try to present them as the teachings of the Buddha and mislead many who are new to Buddhism.

The Buddha taught his special teaching is for the destruction of kamma, as follows:

  just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63

The teaching of kamma is for puthujanna (common worldlings) that are unable to give up self-view or 'acquisition'. MN 117 states kamma is a defiled (impure) mundane or worldly teaching for unenlightened common people to make merit (be moral ) & avoid self-harm, as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions?...There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. MN 117

In other words, 'kamma' is not a teaching that is unique & special to the Buddha. Therefore, kamma is not an essential teaching, as shown in the first two sermons of the Buddha, where the method to liberation was explained as ending craving. When a person lives without craving, they automatically do not engage in any harmful behaviours & are also free from suffering.

The Buddha often explained what he taught & never included 'kamma' as his special & unique teaching, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

  What I have revealed is: 'This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, and this is the Path
  that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.' And why, monks, have I
  revealed it? Because this is related to the goal, fundamental to the
  holy life, conduces to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation,
  tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbaana, therefore
  I have revealed it. SN 56.31

  When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and
  lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas,
  viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path. MN 56

  These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
  ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental
  examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is
  the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable,
  and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. AN 3.61

  the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness (sunnata) ... SN 20.7


In the Dependent Origination formula, shouldn't perception precede craving instead of feeling? In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.

As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
(felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.

If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?

Thanks in beforehand.

Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.

=============

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm
Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.
Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.
You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and  anybody wants more pleasant vedana.

"Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
scents, beings would not lust after scents.
But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
after scents.
If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
repelled by scents.
But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
scents.
If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
from scents.
But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
from scents.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1

the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path

One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,
Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:
He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.

But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html
and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get  more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.
Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.
If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta  on vedana
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm
Typically this stuff is what the sutta in  Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.
Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN,  Bhante Dhammavuddho
https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1
you can get the records of his readings here
http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go


How do Buddhists justify or explain that monks and/or temples amass and use wealth? This question applies mainly to Theravada Buddhism, which is the prevailing branch of Buddhism in my country (Sri Lanka).

I've observed, many times, how many temples and monks are amassing wealth and influence. Some monks travel in luxury vehicles. Some buy expensive phones. These are just a few examples that comes to mind.

How is practices like this aligned with Buddhism, i.e. how is it justified or explained by Buddhists?

Also note that I emphasize "some", and not all.

One should feel pity for those ignorant monks for they're sowing some very bad seeds for their future's well-being:

  Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? (1) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’ (2) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to illness; I am not exempt from illness.’ (3) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’ (4) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (5) A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’ ~~ AN 5.57 ~~

It's not justified by the suttas. Karaniya Metta Sutta gives instructions for the performance of metta. (Metta is the basis of Buddha's noble path.)

  This is to be done by one skilled in aims who wants to break through
  to the state of peace: Be capable, upright, & straightforward, easy to
  instruct, gentle, & not conceited, content & easy to support, with
  few duties, living lightly, with peaceful faculties, masterful,
  modest, & no greed for supporters.

  Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure.

  -- Karaniya Metta Sutta: Good Will

So how can one begin to transgress the path is such a wealth-amassing atmosphere with his mind focused on wealth? However, one can be living with all kinds of luxuries and be a self-realized sage. Krsna explained this to Arjuna in the second chapter of Bhagavad-gītā.

  "Arjuna said: What are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is
  thus merged in Transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his
  language? How does he sit, and how does he walk?"

  "The Blessed Lord said: O Pārtha, when a man gives up all
  varieties of sense desire which arise from mental concoction, and when
  his mind finds satisfaction in the self alone, then he is said to be
  in pure transcendental consciousness. One who is not disturbed in
  spite of the threefold miseries, who is not elated when there is
  happiness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called
  a sage of steady mind. He who is without attachment, who does not
  rejoice when he obtains good, nor lament when he obtains evil, is
  firmly fixed in perfect knowledge. One who is able to withdraw his
  senses from sense objects, as the tortoise draws his limbs within the
  shell, is to be understood as truly situated in knowledge. The
  embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste
  for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by
  experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness. The senses
  are so strong and impetuous, O Arjuna, that they forcibly carry away
  the mind even of a man of discrimination who is endeavoring to control
  them. One who restrains his senses and fixes his consciousness upon Me
  is known as a man of steady intelligence." -- Bhagavad-gītā 2.54-61

The justification comes from one's self. Arjuna asked Krsna what are the symptoms of the self-realized human being? Arjuna inquired about the external symptoms. Can his transcendental state of consiosunsess be recognized by external symptoms, seen with material senses? Is his transcendental state of consciousness reflected on his external actions?

Krsna replied from the point of view of consciousness or internal, subjective self-awareness. Real symptoms are seen in the quality of consciousness. This means one can be extremely materially opulent and still be situated in transcendental consciousness. On the other hand, one can be fooling himself by living like a hermit in a cave but actually contemplating the object of sense gratification. See?


I am finding myself being unable to enjoy things, my mind keeps going to meditation I have noticed that while watching TV or trying to do work, my mind keeps getting caught up in the feeling of my breath, or the random noises around me. These are the exact things that I notice while meditating, and while meditating I allow myself to notice those things and observe myself noticing them. But, when I want to read a book I am finding that I am now noticing those things instead of reading the book, like I am going back to meditating without meaning to.

I’m having a hard time getting into a flow state at work or while doing something enjoyable. It’s bothering me. I don’t want to stop meditating, but if this keeps happening then I will have to stop.

Skill at anapanasati means being able to read & work with awareness of breathing. Here, the tempo or pace of reading & work adjusts to conform with the rhythm of the breathing.

You should practice Vipassana walking meditation instead of Samatha meditation.


Should I consider multitasking while listening to audiobooks? Is it a danger to mindfulness? One of the several advertised benefits of listening to audiobooks is that it is an ideal activity to accompany those many chores, such as washing the dishes, doing the laundry, running outside etc., that considered all together subtract a considerable amount of free time.

For normal people doing this may look like a great idea, but as a meditator and buddhist practitioner I also see which dangers are there in relation to the mindfulness practice. In particular, I am afraid that by listening to audiobooks or, more generally, by conducting too many activities all at once, I may easily undo the effects of concentration meditation and mindfulness or lead my mind too astray.

Even though I'm planning to do the experiment myself, I would nevertheless like to ask: have you ever been able to integrate your mindfulness practice with doing multiple activities at the same time? What have been, specifically, the results regarding listening to audiobooks, provided you have ever tried this?

In my experience, though I'd hardly call myself a mindfulness expert, I don't feel audiobooks and the small level of multitasking they allow me to take on really negatively affect my mindfulness.

I guess, truly, the challenge is to resist the temptation to multi task or listen to books when you SHOULD be being mindful.  I suppose everyone's mileage varies, but I became an avid audiobook listener before beginning my mindfulness practice.

Mostly I listen to these while driving or if I'm doing some menial tasks like cleaning.  These aren't exactly places and times I find myself practicing really being present anyway.

Just my 2 cents.  Hope it helps someone. :)

When you visit & stay in Buddhist centers, you listen to audio talks about Buddhism while you meditate. Deep meditation & listening to audio can occur at the same time. Therefore, I doubt listening to audio information impairs meditation. I listen to as much audio information as I can (rather than read books) since I have never been partial to reading books.

As for multi-tasking, meditation can help a lot there. A nibble mind can multi-task better.


Does Nibbana lie within The All or not? The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states:

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states:

  Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is
  to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be
  abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be
  realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be
  done.

  Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to
  limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to
  the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse
  shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and
  feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana
  would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another
  point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest
  of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even
  dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).

  This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana,
  does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena
  are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174
  states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining
  (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is
  to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify
  the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of
  differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or
  not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond
  the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all
  differentiation is allayed.

On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II:

  On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and
  external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense
  faculties and their objects, with the term āyatana, base, having the
  sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this
  supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already
  from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of  bases as a
  complete scheme of  classification capable of  accommodating all the
  factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the
  six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23), in which
  the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from
  which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of
  literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
  Pitaka defines the mind  base (manāyatana) as  including all classes
  of consciousness, and the mental phenomena  base (dhammāyatana) as
  including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types
  of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73).

So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why?

What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

I didn't read the question but Thanissaro says as a footnote:

  To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

Nibbana is the same. Nibbana is not experienced due to passion & desire for Nibbana. Therefore, passion & desire for Nibbana is also abandoned.

Nibbana is included within The All, i.e., included as a sense object (per Ud 8.1) experienced by the mind sense organ. Thanissaro is wrong translating 'dhamme' as 'ideas'. 'Dhamme' is 'mind objects'. Nibbana, per Ud 8.1, is a mind object or 'ayatana'.

Nibbana is ultimate stoping of senses. Completely detacheded state. But The liberated one still use it, but never ever attached to it. The state is like lotus, where the drop of water ultimately drop. Nothing doing, mere natural.

But who don't reached this state are still clinging to sense, they are attached. They call their individuality as their own, do deeds as their own and eat the fruits thereoff as their own. Hence Nibbana is not included those who are not detached. Nibbana is not all as related to blind but at the same time it is all for the realised one as one uniformity.

Buddha just said, in one statement, the Truth. "Yam kinki samudayadhamna, sabbam tam nirodhadhamma". The real meaning of the statement is, "Whatever light has com burning inside, verily, is the path to relieve your suffering".

In another word, "Atta Dip Bhavo". Be one with that lamp of wisdom.Keep it burning, so that all your deeds burn, to find the release.
In my word, it's the inner Teacher which is the real lamp burning inside. When you are, he isn't, when you are not, he is.

If you like to know how the person who reached that state live, I would recommend to see U. G Krishnamurti.

......May all being be awaken.


Can a Buddhist mix Buddhism with other religions? Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?

It seems significant that HHDL advises us not to abandon the religion of our birth yet also encourages us to strive for realisation. This is the view that religion is a vehicle, not a destination.

All those I know who endorse more than one religion also say, equivalently, that they have no religion. It depends whether we see our religion as a proscribed set of beliefs or a set of methods and practices for transcending belief.

And then, talk to any three Christians and they will probably have three different religions, such is the game of Chinese Whispers.

Buddhism is not a religion. What Buddha revealed to the world is, how the world exists, how the things happens. And also interestingly, since the world is not a place which gives you ultimate happiness, Buddha has shows us the way to uproot the existence of this life.

So if you want to have other religion and buddhism there's no issue. But when you realise the core of the buddhism, you start to move away from all the religions as those are useless to the ultimate happiness or the Nirvana


How sexual relations with multiple partners affect us? What are after effects of promiscuity? I want to know how promiscuity affects us? How it binds? What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?

In his 1st sermon, the Lord Buddha taught:

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving
  for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.

Therefore, the more sexual partners, which is interactions based on lust, the more suffering.

Buddhism teaches to relate to people with non-harming (ahimsa), loving-kindness (metta) & compassion (karuna). Therefore, there is absolutely no place in Buddhism for the recommendation or endorsement of sexual promiscuity, because sexual promiscuity is a behaviour (kamma) rooted in lust.

MN 9, which is about Right View, states:

  And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root
  of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The Dhammapada states:

  Verse 202: There is no fire like lust.

In Buddhism, if a person needs to have sex due to strong natural urges, a person should establish a relationship based on loving-kindness & compassion.

In the Pali suttas, there are no teachings about how to engage in sex because all of the teachings are about how husbands & wives should behave in the more important compassionate & loving ways. For example, in AN 4.55, it is taught when a husband & wife are complete with virtue & love towards each other, they will naturally enjoy whatever sexual pleasures they desire.

In conclusion, Buddhism describes the world of promiscuity as the 'animal world', as follows:

  ... the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. AN 2.9

Therefore, Buddhists that tell other people that sexual promiscuity is "OK" are teaching the path (magga) leading to animal birth (tiracchāna-yoni-gamanīyā), as follows:

  And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of defilements.

  And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb (tiracchānayonigamanīyā), those that lead to
  the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
  those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
  diversity in defilements.

  And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.

  And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals (tiracchānayonivedanīyaṃ), kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.63

I personally don't care a hoot what religion says about sex. It has no place in my love life.  You only need to look to the rampant hypocrisy within Christianity/Catholicism to realise that the ones moralising about sex don't practice what they preach.   My view is enjoy it while you can but be cautious and stay as safe as possible. I've had countless casual encounters over my life and I don't regret any of them.