Is a dream object an existent? How about the face in the mirror? The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context.

In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an existent is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer."

I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman.

I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint?

I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?

If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

A dream object is an existent, since it is apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer, that is a conventional cognizer that is not subject to any of the four superficial causes of error.

A dream object is a phenomena source. It is apprehended by mental consciousnesses (except in the continuum of a buddha).

According to Geshe Tenzin Tenphel, a dream consciousness is necessarily a non-conceptual perceiver, while Geshe Lobsang Jamphel says that a dream consciousness can be either non-conceptual or conceptual. Either way, a dream consciousness apprehending a dream car as a dream car is valid with regard to the entity of the object it apprehends.

The reflection of a face in the mirror is also an existent. Unlike the dream object, it is not a phenomena source but form.  While it is empty of being an actual face, it is not empty of being a reflection. It is in the entity of a reflection. A consciousness apprehending it as a reflection is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. On the other hand, a consciousness apprehending a mirage as actual water is wrong with regard to the entity of the thing, but that does not make the mirage a non-existent.

According to Prasangika-Madhyamika, conventional truths are not real. However, they are real in relation to the world in that, in the perspective of an ordinary being, they exist the way they appear. That is also why we say: of both truths (conventional and ultimate), only ultimate truths are actually truths. Conventional truths are only truths in relation to a consciousness that is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of phenomena.

Alright, lets give this a shot.

Lets write down a chain of how reality is perceived before we start. That way, we can understand where this question lies on the spectrum of experience.

The fundamental nature of reality of an unenlightened being is described as thus:

Nirvana exists.
All experience is born through Nirvana.
Experience is conceptualized as a false self. The illusion of consciousness is created.
A false self "observes" the same experience in item 2.
All "non-self" experience is conceptualized.
Conceptualized experience is labeled as an "existent" or "non-existent".

  I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true?

Consciousness is an illusion, and therefore, I disagree with your belief. Consciousness is a part of the illusion of a separate, permanent self. If I understand your definition of "existent" correctly, then I would say anything you directly experience is considered an existent, with the exception of Nirvana. Nirvana can not be experienced, but it can be realized. Therefore Nirvana is an existent.

  I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent.

Yes. There is no difference in how our "waking sight" and "dream sight" operate. Both are nothing more than experience coming through our 6 sense doors. Anything that is experienced, is an existent. You can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell both a dream-snake and snake. You can not directly perceive the son of a barren woman through sight, sound, taste, touch, or scent, but you can conceptualize about the son of a barren woman. You can experience thoughts about the concept of a son of a barren woman. These thoughts are absolutely an existent.

  Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true?

What you are observing here, if I understand you correctly, is what is called emptiness. All experience is. No experience has any qualitative aspects. No experience holds any meaning. No experience holds any wisdom. No experience holds any concepts. No experience holds any truth. It is not that snakes are not real. Our experience of any type of snake is real, waking or dreaming. They are both equally empty. There is only experience. We single out one aspect of experience and say "this is a snake!" A snake is nothing more than an interpretation of experience. A snake is the conceptualization of only a small aspect of experience. A snake is just a concept that we use to label experience. A label is empty. Just a word or idea. A concept can be realized, but that doesn't mean there is something behind the concept.


Is there are difference between 'self' & 'soul' in Buddhism? A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'.

Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings?

In other words, are the ideas 'self' & 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?

You tagged this question pali.

The PTS dictionary does gives two meanings:

  The soul as postulated in etc.
  Oneself, himself, yourself. etc.

There is for example a chapter of the Dhammapada called Attavagga, whose verses include the word; for example:

  Attana hi katam etc.

  Verse 165: By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

You could try to read/understand this as, "By the soul indeed is evil done", to see whether that makes more sense to you; but the conventional translation of it is, "By oneself is...".

I'm not sure that I should try to grasp this topic, for example because of the warning in the Sabbasava Sutta that questions like "what am I?" will result in various types of "views of self", a "thicket of views", a fetter -- and because I think it's an intellectual idea, which may be associated with "Mara".

According to the introduction of Piya Tan's Is There a Soul? one of the principle attributes of the alleged or Brahmanistic soul is that it's "eternal". I guess that "eternal" might contradict another of of the "three characteristics", i.e. impermanence.

I'm told that there is such a thing (a state) as nirvana and maybe timelessness; but I think that those are not maybe associated with a personal "self".

Saw this on a blog. Absolutely BRILLIANT. Not sure who wrote it:

The Unariyan Eightfold Ways on how to squirm and wiggle on the Soul

There is no Soul because my teacher said so
Because Atta is only conventional meaning such as yourself and doesn't designate anything really existing whatsoever.
Because Venerable Puthujjana Thera translates this passage with the word "myself", a reflexive.
Because the belief in a Soul is "Hinduism" not Buddhism.
Because Mr. Rhys David's 1921 Pali-English Dictionary which is based entirely on Theravada-nihilism advice says that Atta has two meanings depending on the context, even though his wife C.A.F. Rhys Davids who was far more a prolific translator states outright that her husband erred on this point completely.
Because Anatta means "no Soul" but Atta only means "yourself" (sick duplicity).
Because I am bipolar depressive and often suicidal and the notion of there being no Soul whatsoever calms me mentally.
Because ten million Theravada anti-foundationalist nihilistic sectarians cant be wrong!? Can they!?

The Eightfold no Soul Magga of the puthujjana

No soul is bliss. Soul belief is the source of all suffering. The end of the belief that there is a Soul is no Soul bliss. There is a path to no Soul from the suffering of the Soul
Wisdom is knowing that true Soul is no Soul. That which possesses true wisdom is no Soul.
Soul is unreal and untrue, therefore what is real and true is no Soul. What is real and true is highest! What is highest is no Soul.
What proclaims that there is no Soul is no Soul proclaiming it. What is no Soul is khandhas. Khandhas are Mara. Always listen to Mara!
There is never a Soul but always what is other than a Soul which is no Soul. What is no Soul is never Soul. What is no Soul is all. What is no Soul is the true refuge!
There is a path and no Soul reaps the fruit of it.
What truly knows that there is no Soul is no Soul. No Soul knows what it truly is, which is no Soul. This is bliss of no Soul.
There is an unborn, an unmade, an unmanifest and no Soul enters into it.

If you say there is no Soul, then you are aggregates. If you are the
aggregates then you are Mara. Mara is the five aggregates. What is
telling you there is no Soul must be the aggregates, which is Mara.
Mara is the great deceiver. If you believe there is no Soul then you
are none other than Mara, which is the great deceiver; therefore you
deceive yourself into believing there is no Soul.

If your never Self, then your always other. If your always other, then
your never Self. Therefore you can never be other than what you truly
are which is always other and never Self


Why should I give a bowl full of rice to a monk if there is no rebirth? If there is no rebirth, what is the response for a layman asking as below?

Oh, monk, I have been feeding you for ten years and I was told that my good deeds could secure me a better fortune on my re-birth, and that I will be paid a hundred or even a thousand times more. I was told that this deed of mine could even secure me a place among the Devas. But now I hear you say in secret amongs you that there is no re-birth, so tell me why should I give you this bowl of rice if there is no reward for me?

I feed my son too for ten years, but he gives me delight and I also know that he is going to support me when I'm aged and weak from feeding you and him. But you, you say that you will be extinguished like fire and be here and nowhere, so why should I feed you?

Ooh, is it because of my compassion that I feed you? But if so where is your compassion when your aim is to delight in the Jhanas and at last be extinguished leaving me and my son at lose? Tell me why I shouldn’t call you a hypocrite?

Buddhism is not an obligatory religion but a religion of voluntary individual participation. There is no obligation to feed monks for non-Buddhists who have not gained appreciation and thus gratitude towards Buddhism.

Monks have carried the teachings over the centuries & established places for dedicated practice. Therefore, grateful Buddhists feeds monks who they have personal faith in & respect for. For example, I once expelled a monk from my home & advised him he was not welcome for alms, because I had no faith in that monk.

In short, non-Buddhists or non-faithful have no obligation to feed monks.

Also, Buddhism states monks should be easy to look after & not cause hardship to supporters. In other words, if your family will be deprived due to feeding a monk, Buddhism does not expect you to feed a monk.

  Dhammapada 49. As a bee gathers honey from the flower without injuring its color or fragrance, even so the sage goes on his
  alms-round in the village.

If one would expand his awareness and look into the matter discerning, one would possible say:

"That's the way it is. One should never regret ones done good deed.

For the giving of alms to a contemplative Epic will spend many lifespans in heaven.

For the regret of having given alms to a member of the Sangha, on account of established wrong views act of thoughts and speech, if not coming to mind and timely not let it become even a bodily act of reject, Epic will for many livetimes have planty and whealth, but neither will she/he be able to enjoy the wealth and even the son of this livetime will not care for herghim in her/him age. Many times she/he will be heirless.

  Grain, wealth, silver, gold,
  or whatever other belongings you have;
  slaves, servants, errand-runners,
  & any dependents:
      you must go without taking
          any of them;
      you must leave
          all of them
              behind.

  What you do
  with body, speech, or mind:
      that    is yours;
              taking
      that    you go;
      that's
      your follower,
          like a shadow
          that never leaves.

  Thus you should do what is fine
  as a stash for the next life.
      Acts of merit
  are the support for beings
  in their after-death world.

  Aputtaka Sutta: Heirless (2)

On the significance of this, to that occassion:

"Indeed, it is trough association with fools, that foolish thoughts arising, or having arised, become nurishment.So is it that association, tending to the fools, listen on their advices leds upward, gives neither pleasant hold in this nor the next world, not to speak about beyound."

When ever the thought might arise "It would be good to be taught and encouraged in good ways, for long time benefit, it would be good to be explained what is benefical, what lead not to long lasting benefit." One might know how, whome and where to approach to be conductive satisfied.

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


Does the actions of one's ancestors pass down? I want to know whether the action of ancestors will be pass down to their children in the form of karma?..
A father's decision can affect his children like father quitting his job and staying at home can affect his children...but What i want to know is, if someone has a very crual father does atleast some of his bad karma gets pass down to his later generations not just to his childrens but maybe to great grand children...like for example a person's great grand father may have killed someone...and due to that this person is having a major disease...
Does karma works in this way?

People, beings find together of cause their inclinations. Relations usually as well. And grandchilden are often rebirth of their anchestors as well. Don't one forgeth that as well. So it would be not correct to say that there is no connection as there is a long time feed each other behind. So take care with whom you chose to associate. At least the smell will be on you.

That goes also toward your own behavior. Others, with similar origin may suffer from your possible behavior or benefit from your reputation according to their individual kamma in addition. There are no such as innocent phenomenas, people, as well as there are no "guilty" ones. Causes have effects and they lead all back to ones past and present deeds on touch.

But the fact that people, beings, are after the same food, certain conditions, does not mean that they act always equal. What ever one does identify oneself with it, is sooner or later suffering. So that's the reason why best possible relations are seeked to go beyond relations. It's not possible to say that you are lucky or in big misfortune to ever asked here, whether you get touched physical, or mental, right or wrong for your best, who could decide for you where to put attention on? Who could prepare your required foundation to receive what gives liberation?

See also Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?

So it's good to think on: Darkness here as well. "May all beings make the right choices to gain happiness for themselves with ease", is a good thought to leave it.

(Note that this is not given to leave one in trade, exchange, stacks bond, but as a tiny door for an exit.)

From AN 5.57:

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."

So for the case of the evil grandfather whose children or grandchildren having to face some terrible thing later on, it'd ultimately boil down to the individual's kamma: what negative kamma was committed by that individual such that s/he'd got reborn into the family of the evil grandfather to settle their kammic debt. Similarly for positive kamma, there must be some good kamma for an individual to be reborn into an environment where s/he doesn't have to suffer from oppression or violence, etc.


How does one cultivate uplifted energy (paggaha)? In the sutta quoted here the Buddha recommends cultivating in equal measure concentration, equanimity and uplifted energy.

As far as I know, in order to develop concentration one focuses the mind on an immobile object like a kasina, and for developing equanimity one observes the rise and fall of the breath.

Similarly, what practice can one perform in order to cultivate uplifted energy? Would shraddha (pious faith) and belief in the dhamma qualify? Or does it refer to moment to moment mindfulness?

Is there a specific meditation practice recommended?

  "A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: He should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations.

SOURCE: Nimitta Sutta: Themes - AN 3.100 (xi-xv) PTS: A i 255 Thai 3.103

From your quote, it sounds like the lack of uplifted energy is the hindrance of sloth and torpor, one of the five hindrances to practice. To quote Ajahn Brahmavamso:

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were.
  Setting a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at
  hand. A young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy,
  because its world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's
  life, or one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see
  ever new angles and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from
  sloth and torpor, alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop
  delight in whatever one is doing by training one's perception to see
  the beautiful in the ordinary, thereby generating the interest
  which avoids the half-death that is sloth and torpor.

  The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.

  Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the
  first signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach
  and take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in
  a road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

It would be chanda that might lead to viriya . One must have strong chanda and interest in one's own practice.


Should I teach an infant practice Anapana? I want to know what the right age for a child to learn meditation, for example if I do anapana with a toddler, can it stop the development or it will help the child to stay into panya later.

Vipassana courses starts from 8 year old, but that may be due to other reasons, but personally I think I can teach my daughter as soon as possible.

At the time she is less than 3 months old, and she had started making sounds, I know it doesn't make any sense, but this is the age when infants  start to learn and copy things right?

I think if I act like I am breathing my daughter will stop copying me in coming months, so could doing anapana  be good or bad for her?

I have a 17 month old and personally I feel there needs to be an intention to meditate in an individual, rather than blind copying or operant conditioning.. An infant's mind effectively goes through a process of building a self in the first few years and Buddhist thought goes against such a process in a way that I don't think a really young infant will comprehend. Myself, I am waiting till the kid hits 2.5-3 years old, when he will have enough access to language to begin the process of meditation through a personal, conscious choice (if he doesn't want to, then I won't force and will wait!).

We never know exactly the past karma of the individual let alone other however close, even of ourselves. The best thing is watch closely the behavior and emotional changes and act yourselves as a role model.


According to Buddhism, what separates humans from animals? Philosophers throughout history have been trying to pin down what it exactly means to be human -  what it is that separates humans from (other) animals.

Some have voted for our ability to make rational choices for the future - in a word the ability to intend; and then acting accordingly or contrary to our own better judgements. Some put emphasis on our capacity for language and communication by the use of signs/abstract representations. Another variety is about freedom of will as opposed to freedom of action. Humans, they say, has both.

Others still said it has really nothing to do with our rationality, but rather that it has to do with the internal structure of our will. That is to say, humans can want (or not want) to want something. We can have desires about our desires. I can say "I want to eat cake, but I don't want to be fat and I don't want to be seen as a person who succumbs to temptations. Therefore I shall abstain." A cat can want to chase and kill a mouse, but the idea is that the cat doesn't have the ability to say "I'm hungry and want to catch a mouse and eat it, but I don't want to be that kind of cat. Therefore I shall abstain."

How is this in Buddhism? What makes us human, what separates us from animals? Is it our capacity to understand/see that samsara is suffering? Is it our ability to see emptiness and dependent arising? Our capacity to be freed from suffering? Is it our rationality? Is this the same in all traditions?

According to Buddhism there 31 planes of existance out of one which is the animal kingdom.

Your next birth is decided by the last thought moment where you remeber a recent or grave act of Karma which you have performed. So what decides or separates us from animals the Karma which decided our birth.

" A cat can want to chase and kill a mouse, but the idea is that the
  cat doesn't have the ability to say "I'm hungry and want to catch a
  mouse and eat it, but I don't want to be that kind of cat. Therefore I
  shall abstain."

See this big cats behavior


Theravada and Mahayana - The Crucial Differences I struggle with the idea that Buddhism has two warring schools and wonder why they cannot make peace.

What are the issues on which Theravada and Mahayana cannot agree?

Just bullet points would be fine. I'm not inviting an argument about who is right, just asking for the facts. A summary of key doctrinal differences is what I'm after, if this is possible.

Issues such as which scriptures are authentic may be omitted since this is not a doctrinal difference, but differences in the interpretation of those scriptures would have to be included.

Thanks.

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. They make fascinating reading. The question has been answered well enough for my purposes.

Just like with any other religion, when the author of the teachings is no longer alive to clarify what is authentic and what is not, the followers of the teachings will naturally come up with different interpretations and also mix things up with teachings of other religions or belief systems. Even in the time of the Buddha, Devadatta was able to have his own faction of monks. So Buddhism having different schools today is nothing to be surprised about.
The Mahayana school branches out to truck loads of many other schools like Vajrayana, Zen, Pureland etc. It seems to be a natural consequence of not being shy to change the original teachings of the Buddha.  So these days when you say 'Mahayana', it's hard to get an idea of what you really mean.
But if you want to compare the fundamental practices of Mahayana with Theravada Buddhism, here are some differences:

Mahayana puts emphasis on attaining Buddhahood or becoming enlightened while another Buddha is alive. Theravada puts emphasis on working to become enlightened as soon as possible and actually making use of the Dhamma preached by the Buddha to do so, even when he is not alive anymore. Theravada tradition generally discourages those who aspire to become Buddhas out of ego or due to their lack of understanding of the enormity of the task. However, it does give blessings to handful of people who have proven their worthiness through mastery of the Dhamma at the highest level, if they have that aspiration.
Mahayana seems to give precedence to the quality of compassion. Theravada gives precedence to wisdom. Compassion is practiced as a supportive quality of the mind for the cultivation of wisdom.
It appears that Vipassana meditation, the meditation that leads to enlightenment is mainly practiced in the Theravada school. Comparatively, Mahayana school seem to give precedence to chanting, rights and rituals.
Vegetarianism appears to be a requirement in Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism keeps to the word of the Buddha and leaves it up to the individual and does not view one's food preference as an important factor in attaining enlightenment.
Theravada tradition as a principal tries to understand the teachings of the Buddha without changing them to suit the popular worldview of the time. As a result, it is widely regarded as the school which is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.

Well one of the most famous lack of understanding from the 3 main indian philosophers who invented mahayana by speculating on 1 of the abidhammas, is about their fantasy of the buddha nature, especially the claim ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' remains false, no matter how much they love to push for the contrary.

it is as if nibanna is raising your arm, those people would fantasize thus '' human has am arm, being enlightened is raising an arm, a human has the potential to raise an arm, therefore a human has the potential to be enlightened''.

The people who claim that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened''  fail to understand that the potential to be enlightened has nothing to do with only being alive. The potential to be enlightened is about cultivating the right behavior, which  is just  lots of energy to cultivate guarding the senses, cultivate lots of samadhi and lots of wisdom, but that's already too hard for the indian philosophers and they even explicit refuse to do so and clinging to their speculations that they can be good people by not training their minds.
It turns out that Following the path is what builds the potential for the nirodha of delusion, greed and aversion.

here is the points on they already struggle [and that's way before putting the ''intellectual understanding'' into practice, so no chance they will get the practice successful, even for doing meritorious activities.]:

the buddha says that puhutjjanas are not enlightened
the buddha says that puthujjanas have natural underlying tendencies for 7 things
the buddha says that puthujjanas have anuyasas not for nibanna and the things he claims are good, but The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance.
the buddha says that puthujjanas do not have natural underlying tendencies for lack of delusion  lack greed, lack of aversion, all the good things he says are good
the buddha says that anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' ''do not decline'' (from nibanna), like so
The limb of wisdom that is mindfulness,
the limb of wisdom that is investigation of the Norm,
the limb of wisdom that is energy,
the limb of wisdom that is tranquility,
the limb of wisdom that is concentration,
the limb of wisdom that is equanimity.

These, monks, are the seven conditions
that lead to non-decline.
https://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.025.wood.pts.htm#p1

ie they ''slide towards nibanna''
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.037.wood.pts.htm#p1
“Mendicants, suppose a tree slants, slopes, and inclines to the east. If it was cut off at the root, where would it fall?”

“Sir, it would fall in the direction that it slants, slopes, and inclines.”

“In the same way, a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.

And how does a mendicant who develops the noble eightfold path slant, slope, and incline to extinguishment? It’s when a mendicant develops right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go. That’s how a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.152/en/sujato

same thing with the ''four qualities", from which ''a monk is incapable of falling away and is right in the presence of Unbinding'' https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html
Even lay followers have their "Seven points of behavior on which a lay follower may decline or not" https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/07/an07-029.html

the buddha does not say that a human is ''on the verge on the unbinding'' just because this human is alive

So anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' has the potential to be enlightened, because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' means only being skilled in those ''7 factors of enlightenment'', ie fighting the bad inclinations that puthujjanas have naturally.

Anybody who does NOT cultivate those ''7 factors of enlightenment'' does NOT have ''the potential to be enlightened'', because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' never ever means ''just being alive'', and is inclined towards bad things.,

Most people you see around you do not have this ''potential to be enlightened''. most people you see around do not even care about that.

Anybody who claims that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' speaks falsely and you will never ever progress on the path  by listening to their creative lies.

That's the most famous wrong view they keep spreading. The next wrong view they love to spread is their obsession with non-duality. Sometimes they get so confused that they have a hard time  fantasizing about the difference about mahayana and advaita. Sometimes the Mahayanists even say they do not see a difference between the two, that's how bad it gets.

With their wrong view comes their wrong practice, with their obsessions about objects

The last fantasy of their doctrine being the fantasy of the ineffability of nibanna. This puts a mysterious veil on their doctrine, allowing their appalling ''crazy wisdom'' and puts their audience in awe. But at the end of the day, they remain only puthujjanas who love to speculate ad nausean to the point of creating super long suttas  which have nothing to do with the dhamma.

However all their wrong views are pretty normal. Daydreamers will always cling to their love for fantasizes and will always try to salvage them.
It did not take long for people to be confused about the dhamma and after few generations after the death of the of the buddha, people already did what they love to do :  speculating about what arahants can do and cannot do. Today they say 18 schools have been created, with people creating subschools, subsubschools, then schisms and sometime even slight mergers.
If all those schools survived, today you would have to read 18 abidhamma pitakas, 18 vinnaya pitakas and 18 sutta pitakas and you would be left just as confused as you are today... It would be horrible.


Questions about meditation Should concentration improve? I sit for an hour in the mornings and most days my focus does not stay on the breath for more than 2 breaths before I notice thoughts again. Is this normal? I find my mind full of doubts because of this. I think to myself that after 7 years I thought concentration would improve but maybe I'm incorrect. When the doubts arise I usually mentally note them.

Yuttadhammo Bikhu says to mentally note the rising and falling of the abdomen on the breath then if pain arises for example then to note pain until it goes then gently bring awareness back to the breath. But many times for me the pain does not go. It remains for the entire hour sit. Do I just sit there noting pain the whole time?

Another practitioner told me that if I can't seem to focus then to try not focusing on anything. I tried this but find I just become lost in thought even more.

The way I was trained, it's not like you'll have fewer thoughts - because the nature of mind is to think, it's more like, your mental balance will shift from thoughts to "nothing" that "does not change" as thoughts come and go. So instead of taking the thoughts too seriously and getting carried far away, as your practice develops you should be letting go of them a lot more easily, until they are just like children with their toys. The children can get excited or upset and crying over their toys, but you're like: "whatever, in a minute they will forget about it, not a big deal".

What's more important is not thoughts (although over time they will change too, but that's just a side-effect) - it is integration in the space beneath the thoughts. It's the feeling of no inner conflict, no fighting with oneself, not blaming - that's what should improve over time.

IMO, paying attention to breath and especially on the diaphragm/abdomen area helps see that "space beneath the thoughts" - which is where trouble is most of the time. Coming back from a movie played by the thought is important because what you're working on is that space, not the thoughts. And then at some point things should get peaceful enough that you don't need to worry about that space either. Thoughts come and go, the emotional foundation has some signless syrup slowly boiling, and everything is just the way it should.

Remember, what you are after is not any particular state, but rather, the whatever-happens-is-fine attitude of peace and integration, so having no thoughts is not the point, the point is having no worries - including worries about worries.

Of course, it's not like on your way to this attitude of all-acceptance you don't work at all. There is a lot of hard work in paying attention, letting go, and integrating - but it is a type of "hard" opposite to what we call "hard" when we torture ourselves. It's like slowly letting oneself fall into a bottomless abyss, which involves constant fight with one's fear and the instinctual grabbing on stuff, and that's where all struggle is.

And then as you go through this, if you're paying any attention, you will inevitably start learning about "the way things work" - and then things like Four Noble Truths etc. suddenly start making total sense, referring directly to your first-hand experience.

That's my experience anyway, your mileage may varyTM.

Follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Especially the Sila aspect of it.


How does Buddhism explain consciousness if there is no self? One major differing point between Hinduism and Buddhism is the understanding of the self. Buddhist reject the Brahminical notion of an eternal, non-material soul substance that is distinct from the mind, body and sense organs. How then, is consciousness explained? Acts of cognition must occur from a cogniser, a subject that knows, because consciousness does not belong to the body or the mind. Could it not be therefore inferred that this cogniser exists as the self - a non-material soul? How can Buddhism explain  consciousness?

Acts of cognition do not require a "cogniser, a subject" that knows (apart from the mind itself), because consciousness belongs to the body & mind.

The original question contains an implicit assumption that is invalid.

Cognition results from consciousness; just as a mirror reflects without a self.

Buddhism explains there are five aggregates (khandha) that compose a human life. SN 22.81 explains the idea of 'self' is ignorantly created by the 'sankhara khandha' (mental forming aggregate) and not the 'vinnana khandha' ('consciousness aggregate'). SN 22.59 clearly states each aggregate is 'not-self'. The sankhara created 'self' is a temporary product of ignorance (SN 22.81) & suffering (SN 5.10).

Despite ideas contained in later-day Buddhism about 'relinking' or 'stream of consciousness', the Pali suttas report the Buddha taught there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38), without other aggregates (SN 22.53) and without a mind-body (SN 12.67).

Also, the suttas do not explain a 'cause' ('hetu') of consciousness, i.e., the parts or sub-elements that create consciousness (similar to how water, clay & pain are the parts used to make a cup or how ignorance, craving & attachment mix together to create suffering). The suttas only state consciousness has a requisite 'condition' ('paccaya'), which is the mind-body ('nama-rupa') & sense bases ('salayatana').

Without repeating everything above, I'd like to add something very simple to the discussion, amongst the many quotes from suttas and texts :-)

Consciousness is an Illusion. The assumption that one's experience of the Universe somehow necessitates "Consciousness" is not valid, since it requires an absolute.. aka. Consciousness, to make it.

It is an infinite regress, and thus must be illusory. Or.. at least.. that conclusion seems closer to Truth.

The question becomes then, if Consciousness is illusory, what the heck is going on? How are any of us even making assumptions in the first place?

And that is just what Buddhism is trying to figure out. I suppose we'll all be let in on it when it does :-)


Barriers to Compassion I think most would say that anger and prejudice are the main obstacles to compassion, but I'm wondering on the topic of sympathetic joy. If everything is empty, and suffering, and impermanent, how can we be happy for the joys of others which are empty, and ultimately suffering? I feel like being happy for a joy which is in fact suffering is like being glad someone took poison. I would like to develop compassion for other's joys--the real joys that will further their lives--but I find most of the things people are satisfied by detrimental things. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Also, I wonder how, since everything is intrinsically empty, one can truly be happy for events occurring to someone else since they have no absolute effects. This would imply one would have to be happy for the happy emotions others have in themselves rather than what occurs, but once again, but Buddha explained these as suffering, even the most blissful states.

With practice, you can be content by reflecting on the good karma of others rather than joy or happiness. It is very close, if not the same, to praise. For example, if someone you're showing compassion to is now able to feel happy, then you can think "Now this person has the opportunity to practice dhamma since his problems are lesser. This is good". Maybe you can go further and help the person practice dhamma even for a second. This way, you don't cultivate thoughts that nurture attachment, nor do you appreciate any wrong joy or happiness in the other person you helped (such as thanha).

The Three Characteristics are teachings or vipassana objects for enlightenment.

The four Brahma Vihara are social attitudes rather than teachings for enlightenment.

Compassion is the wish for others to be free from suffering, including the wish that evil doers be free from the suffering that pushes them to do evil deeds.

Sympathetic joy is rejoicing in or appreciating the good actions of others, such as if a person saves the life of another person. Sympathetic joy is not something practised towards evil doers. Only three Brahma Vihara can be practised towards evil doers.

The noble path has three trainings therefore Brahma Vihara is part of the training in Right Thought & Right Conduct towards others, which is based in conventional reality rather than the ultimate reality of Emptiness.

A Buddha is perfect in both enlightened understanding & conventional behaviour.


How can I be sure if the Buddha actually woke up? waking up to the ultimate truth of reality and that anyone can do like him. I feel like I'm living in the matrix. but i'm not so sure if waking up is possible.

I feel the reason why people struggle to see that becoming " Awakened" is impossible or very difficult is because of ignorance. How can anyone possibly see something that they can't comprehend, it's a paradox!

But......this is why we know the Buddha was "enlightened" and "awakened" to the truth of suffering because He created the Dhamma, the Noble Eightfold  path, the way out of suffering.( It would be impossible for someone to show others the way out if they themselves were not free!)

The matrix you speak of is the delusion, it is the ignorance which blinds us of the truth, but once you come to realize the truth, you will see that in fact it takes more energy and creation to live in a world of fantasy, a world of fantasy that will bring pain and suffering to all!!

I hope i have helped you in someway!

Metta

You can be sure that Buddha woke up( got enlightenment) because after he attained nirvana he thought to himself that "I have attained Buddhaship. I am the teacher of three worlds. "


Subconscious & Vipassana Is the subconscious what becomes conscious when insight occurs? When the hinderances fall is the subconscious seen? What is the subconscious in relationship to the scriptures & the Abhidhamma?

Related to this question: Cravings Arising to Consciousness

One of the best descriptions of the structure of consciousness from a Abhidhamma standpoint is found in Lama Govinda's 'The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Philosophy" pdf page 121. Recommend the entire book, as a user friendly account of the Higher Doctrine of the Buddha i.e. Abhidhamma.

If by conscious we mean the state of not being unconsconscious and to the word subconscious we assign tendencies and conditioning.

In this case as i understand it, it would not be agreeable to say that one becomes the other at any point.

When hindrances are supressed this is called samatha of the hindrances, a tranquilizing of the hindrances. When hindrances are thus stilled and calmed this is called The 1st Jhana. (Ref Patisambhiddamagga)

When the hindrances fall it is not an unconscious state, therein thinking is a factor, joy, pleasure and mindfulness are as well.

In the pali canon consciousness has a specific meaning and so do words like 'latent tendencies' and 'insight'.

Insight in particular has meaning overlap with terms like; right views, path factor of investigation, wisdom and knowledge. In the Abhidhamma these are used to explain one another (dhammasanghani or vibhanga)

Consciousness is more difficult to analyze fully because it is a support for a bunch of demonstrable phenomena, is associated with phenomena, arises as one thing and ceases as another and is furthermore conjoined with bunch of phenomena born of phenomena with which that which is called consciousness, mind or intellect is associated when it comes into play as a cause and condition. This is just by going off the Sutta method, Abhidhamma method is an icing on the cake by further classifying as sometimes conditioned; sometimes unconditioned.

Therefore further classifying "Consciousness" as sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious, is probably not going to work and would require some incredible semantic prowess at the very least i think.


Is Nirvana redundant? I'm confused over Buddhism's lack of afterlife, yet belief in rebirth.

If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?
What happens to the five aggregates after death?
Consciousness in Nibbana

From reading answers given on this site, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness. Logically then any concern of either suffering from bad karma in a next life, or being reborn as an animal is unwarranted.

Although apparently death leads to rebirth, Nirvana appears futile as life will continue to reproduce unhindered. Life is far more effective at producing more life than death is.

What does Nirvana offer that death does not? It would seem they both lead to oblivion.

"No afterlife" means, from a Buddhist perspective, that there is no ego-centered identity to experience that afterlife. After life, the ego entity created by the human mind is no more but the consciousness in which that individual was operating in never dies.

As Andrei_Volkov answered, the Buddhist perspective likens consciousness to a vast ocean. The Five Aggregates are what happens as consciousness becomes embroiled and enmeshed in straits and currents, like tidepools on the coastline where water can be "trapped". If it mixes with pollutants here, it will still contain them if swallowed by a stork or channeled elsewhere. This is karma and it is a causative process stretching infinitely.

The human brain reasons and automates judgement which can blind one and veil true causation and the true nature of things. For instance, the human brain contains two dedicated regions in the parietal lobe: one to keep track of the body's boundaries ("elbow: check! nose: check! right arm: check!..." and another to keep track of the body in space. These regions greatly contribute to the human sense of ego or I-ness or self. There is no afterlife for this sense of self that is delimited by skin and bound in space. However, consciousness channeled through the eddies of the individual will forever return to the ocean (rebirth) carrying the traces of its course (the five aggregates).

Nirvana, the great blowing or washing out, is only possible when the water returns to its pure and primordial state. Death will always accompany life, and to the Buddhist death is only a turning point on a great wheel of eternity. Nirvana refers to the complete freedom, beyond conception. Nirvana is not a possibility only after death. Despite the rendering of the phrase "to enter Nirvana", it is not an "arrival" like you die and you go there instead of somewhere else. It is freedom from the perspective that otherwise glues consciousness to life, but in an ultimate sense - not a temporary conceptualization within an individual mind's understanding.

To explicitly answer your question, Nirvana offers nothing -- and death doesn't exist -- it begets more life. Like night and day, they are just vantages from a stationary point on the rotating earth. The sun just shines and gravity just propels and it makes a whole horse-and-pony show out of next to nothing. Again, Nirvana offers nothing.

The Buddha never ever taught the concept of " emptiness" (all phenomena is empty of inherent existence). This concept was added by later Buddhist schools hundreds of years after the Buddha died. The Buddha taught that all phenomenon is empty of self because the self transcends all phenomenon. If this were not so, then the self woul be temporal and we would all be up s creek without a paddle.This realization is Nirvana, and because Nirvana exists, you have hope of escape from eternal suffering of samsara and this life is not a tale told by an idiot.


What arguments are there for "karma" -- that the agent inevitably experiences the result of their actions? There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy.

What about karma?

  And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter.

Or again:

  He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is
  karma; and the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of
  that performed karma. Without karma, an agent is not established.

The Inner Kālacakratantra, unknown page.

  The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview.
  In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have
  consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact,
  it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of
  karma as another manifestation of dependent arising
  (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything
  that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law
  of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally
  followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But
  they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably
  to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic
  consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has
  presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing,
  lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an
  unpleasant human situation or in hell.

Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness?

I was looking at the wild fox koan here, and this part struck me:

  Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny
  causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one
  cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and
  effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they
  are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this.

I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect.

But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience cause as effect. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: karma.

UPDATE based on the edited question with a suggested definition of karma.

While it is true that the Buddha taught that each and every volitional action has specific consequences this is most definitely not in opposition to the fact that repeated actions based on volitional thoughts can be habit forming. Indeed, consequences of a karmic action can be that it leads to further such actions.

If I were to tell you right now not to think of a pink elephant the chances are likely that you will do so in the immediate future. What's more, it is likely that many beings reading this will be thinking of pink elephants in a more distant future as a consequence of the pink elephant they are bringing to mind right now. I invite you to observe your monkey mind at work with its discursive thoughts and see if you can't trace the cause and effect consequence of each thought leading to others in a more or less continuous process. One moment of mind gives birth to the next and on and on.

Surrounding the definition in the Stanford Encyclopedia is a discussion of how karma and rebirth are in some tension with the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. I believe the correct conceptual understandings of emptiness, karma and rebirth resolve this tension.

This whole notion of the fruits of karmic action being delayed as some sort of puzzle is itself somewhat puzzling to me. In my very life I have observed that my actions can have far reaching consequences. Far reaching in time and space. What I have done or failed to do when I was young (decades ago) has manifested in the situation I am in now. Isn't that just obvious for you as well?

Asking where the consequence of a karmic action (that has ceased) is stored in time and space betrays the wish for a metaphysical explanation. And this metaphysical explanation leads to the doctrine of emptiness as it explains how things exist and how they do not. In what manner they exist and in what manner they do not. Asking where the consequence is stored (in time and space) betrays the idea that phenomena (including karmic actions) have substantial inherent own-being. They do not. That is explained and reasoned through by the teaching on emptiness that Nagarjuna has expounded.

The sutra below explicitly lays out that the Buddha says that the consequence is not stored in time and space. And it goes on to show that actions, consequences, death, birth, karma, are all void of own being. This is the teaching on emptiness.

Believing that the teaching on emptiness somehow is problematic for dependent origination or the law of cause and effect is just wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite as Nagarjuna has said in his famous treatise! Without emptiness - that is if things had their own-being - then actions could not be performed and there would be no cause and effect or dependent origination.

Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Although I am not certain about what your question actually is about I thought I'd share this passage from a rather obscure sutra that may help your mind:

  THE NOBLE SUTRA OF THE MAHAYANA DENOMINATED - "THE PASSAGE THROUGH
  EXISTENCES"

  Homage to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvaas. Thus have I heard. Once
  the Bhagavant stayed in Rajagrha, in the Bamboo-Forest, in the place
  of the kalandakas, in the company of a group of one thousand two
  hundred and fifty bhiksus and of very numerous great Bodhisattvas.
  Then, the Bhagavant, while he was surrounded by many hundreds of
  thousands of his followers, looking at them, expounded the Dharma and
  expounded in its integrity the Brahmacarya beautiful in its beginning,
  beautiful in the middle, beautiful in its end, fair in its meaning,
  fair in its expression, without confusion, completely fulfilled,
  completely pure, completely immaculate.

  Then Sreniya Bimbisara, King of the Magadha country, going out from
  the town of Rajagrha, with great royal pomp, with a great royal force,
  went to the Bamboo-Forest where the Bhagavant was. On arriving, after
  bowing down at the feet of the Bhagavant and turning (around the
  Bhagavant) the right side towards him three times, Sreniya Bimbisara,
  King of the Magadha country, spoke thus to the Bhagavant : "O
  Bhagavant, how do actions, (a long time) after having been done (and)
  accumulated, a long time after having ceased, (re)appear in the mind,
  on being near the moment of death? All conditioned things (samskara)
  being void, how do actions pass without being annihilated?"

  So (the King) spoke, and the Bhagavant to Sreniya Bimbisara, King of
  the Magadha country, said thus : "O great King, just as for instance a
  man, in a dream while he is sleeping, dreams that he extremely enjoys
  himself with a beautiful woman of his country and, when he awakes from
  his sleep, remembers that beautiful woman of his country (he has seen
  in his dream) - what do you think, O great King : does that beautiful
  woman of the country, (seen) in the dream, (really) exist?"

  (The King) said : "O Bhagavant, she does not exist."

  The Bhagavant said : "O great King, what do you think : that man who
  ardently desires the beautiful woman of his country, (seen) in his
  dream - is he a wise man?"

  (The King) answered : "O Bhagavant, he is not - if it is asked why, O
  Bhagavant - because that beautiful woman of the country, (seen) in the
  dream, does not exist at all; and although he does not perceive her,
  (nevertheless) he goes on thinking of enjoying himself extremely with
  her. Thus that man, being deprived of her, has a destiny of sorrow."

  The Bhagavant said : "O great King, in the same way, an ordinary man,
  foolish, ignorant, on seeing with his eyes lovely forms, ardently
  desires those forms which are agreeable to his mind. While ardently
  desiring them, he becomes attached to them. On becoming attached to
  them, he feels a passion for them. On feeling a passion for them, he
  performs with his body, speech and mind,, actions that are born out of
  desire, hatred and error. And those actions, after having been
  performed, cease. And after having ceased, (those actions) stay
  neither in the east nor in the south nor in the west nor in the north
  nor up nor down - nor in any region of space. But, at any other time,
  at the moment near the instant of death, when the karma corresponding
  (to the life that is being concluded) is exhausted, at the (very)
  moment the last consciousness ceases, those actions (re)appear in the
  mind (of the dying man) - just as for instance the beautiful woman of
  the country (in the mind) of the man that wakes from his sleep. O
  great King, immediately after the first consciousness has ceased,
  there arises the series of consciousnesses, which corresponds (to the
  life that is beginning), and in which the ripening (of actions
  previously performed) will be experienced. O great King, although no
  element of existence (dharma) passes from this world to another world,
  nevertheless death and birth take place. O great King, the last
  consciousness which ceases is called 'death'; the first consciousness
  which arises is called 'birth'. O great King, the last consciousness,
  at the moment it ceases, does not pass to anywhere; the first
  consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth, at the moment it
  arises, does not come from anywhere. If it is asked why, (I answer:)
  because of their lack of an own being. O great King, although the last
  consciousness is void (of the own being) of death, action is void (of
  the own being) of action, the first consciousness is void (of the own
  being) of a first consciousness, birth is void (of the own being) of
  birth, (nevertheless) actions do not perish. O great King, immediately
  after the first consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth,
  has ceased, there arises without interruption the series of
  consciousnesses, in which the ripening (of actions previously done)
  will be experienced."

This sutra speaks directly to karma and how it ripens from moment to moment and life to life even though actions previously arisen have ceased and exist no where whatsoever in space or time and yet they ripen at later times and continue to produce fruit. The important point is that the manner and way this happens from moment to moment in this very life is the same manner and way it happens from life to life. There is no difference in extent or manner.

And note that the doctrine of emptiness is very definitely tied up with this ripening of past karma. Karma could not function without emptiness. Were things not empty, there could not be actions and the ripening of those actions. Understanding emptiness is indispensable in understanding how actions ripen and bear fruit and that is why it is said that emptiness and dependent origination go hand in hand.

According to emptiness, there is only cause and effect.  Emptiness has nothing to do with it.  A fully enlightened monk falls down a well.  How is this possible?

To appease the mods - the koan cited in this question has nothing to do with what’s asked and should be redacted from the original text.


Are all Buddhists vegetarian? Most if not all Buddhists I know are vegetarian or vegan. Thinking about the precepts this is not surprising - one should abstain from killing. However is this universally true in all Buddhist traditions? Are there some Buddhist traditions that emphasize vegetarianism more than others? For instance I believe the Tibetans were originally pastoral farmers which wouldn't lend itself to vegetarianism naturally.

So is Buddhist vegetarianism universal, specific to tradition or culture, or a lot more flexible than that?

Very much not the case, so long as you don't engage in a No true Scotsman fallacy and say that they aren't really Buddhists unless they are also vegetarian.

In some traditions it is common for a begging monk to eat whatever is put in their offering bowl, mixing it together first (see the interview with Achaan Chaa in Living Dharma).

For laypeople the provision is against engaging in the business of meat as it says in Vanijja Sutta, AN 5:177:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

There's little that I am aware of, at least from the Pali Canon, that addresses meat eating for laypeople. Even monks get a pass in some circumstances on this as well, as it says in The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople:

  The Buddha did allow bhikkhus to eat meat and fish[88] except under
  the following circumstances:

    If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him,
    he may not eat it.[89] (M.I,369)

This is clarified with footnote 90 with the following cited quote:

  The flesh of animals which have been slaughtered to sell as meat for
  the people, however, is called 'flesh which exists already.' [It] has
  been slaughtered for their meat to be used for food by one person or
  by a group of people, apart from fellow Dhamma friends, or specially
  for the butcher himself… If people cook such meat and offer it to a
  bhikkhu, [it] will not be an offence to accept and eat it.

Citing The Entrance to the Vinaya, (Vinayamukha), volume 2, pages 131—133.

It should be emphasized that these are predominantly guidelines for monks, not for lay practitioners.

This gets further modified depending on the specific tradition. His Holiness 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, simply try to lessen the amount of impact or the amount of meat eaten, and I have seen quite a few Vajrayana practitioners eat meat.

Many other sects have de-emphasized the need for vegetarianism depending on the local conditions and the history of that specific sect.

Basically: Even among monks the following of vegetarianism is not absolute and it isn't even clear that restrictions on that order exist for lay followers in a lot of different Buddhist traditions.

Did Gautama Buddha eat meat?

  Yes and no, If the meat is killed not particularly oneself, Arhats can have it. If they know it was killed for themself, they won't take it. Similarly there is enough evidence that his
  disciples, including Arhats, ate meat.

Did Gautama expect his disciples to be pure veggies?

  No. Not even when a group of monks led by Devadatta requested for a
  prohibition. His response was explicit and unambiguous. Killing
  animals for consumption is wrong. But eating meat per se is not
  prohibited for his disciples under certain conditions. ‘Thrice
  cleaned’ meat (thrikotika paarishudhdha maansha) is accepted. This is
  like making Halal food. A meat is ‘thrice cleaned’ if a monk has not
  (a) seen, (b) heard or (c) do not suspect the animal specially killed
  for his consumption. This applies only for monks.

Has Gautama encouraged meat eating?

  No. Never. On the contrary, he declared meat as one commodity a
  Buddhist observing Samma Ajiva (the right livelihood) should avoid
  selling, the others being weapons, human beings (slaves), alcohol and
  poison. It is strange why only a part of the transaction (selling) is
  defined wrong without any reference to purchasing. Perhaps it was too
  obvious to be emphasized.

Is it wrong for Buddhists to eat meat?

  No.

Any kind of food craving is bad as per Buddhism. Buddhists shouldn't craving for any food. They eat food just to maintain the body and live. They don't craving food for taste or build the body. They don't mind meat or fruit or vegetable. Any food is just a food for them.

Reference


What is the perspective of the western buddhist cannon websites? In the eastern perspective, Tipitaka is memorized and studied by Atthakatha-teachers from generation to generation and still going on nowadays, so it is weird to study Tipitaka without Atthakatha.

But I look at the western Buddhist canon website and they look like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his."

For the example, https://suttacentral.net/ protects 84000.org to show suttacentral's page on its iframe directly after this function opened ere long.

I requested this function to 84000.org webmaster because I need to use tipitaka, atthakatha, and tika in pali thai, pali roman, siamrattha thai translation, mahamakutta thai university translation, MCU translation, and english translation. (I don't know why 84000.org chose iframe instead of the real source from inside, but I think the webmaster may avoid the license problem).

Actually, that protection is not the main idea, however it means suttacentral webmasters already knew the problem that suttacentral has not enough canons for the reference, no Atthakatha-pali and no Tika. It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites put the losing resources into their website, although they already knew there were demands?

So,

What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?
Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like  "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his"?

Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

OP: It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites
  put the losing resources into their website, although they already
  knew there were demands?

  OP: Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

SuttaCentral for example, has a discussion forum here. If you want new features. You can ask them directly. I'm sure other "western" buddhist canon websites have similarly reachable community or administrators. If they lack manpower, maybe they will focus on the canon first, which is itself huge.

Apart from the suttas, there's also translation of the Visuddhimagga online and also summaries of the Abhidhamma.

  OP: What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?

I think this is largely due a lack of manpower, so they focus on what they think people need the most.

For example, you can see that not all of the Sutta Pitaka is available on AccessToInsight. Only the ones judged by the admin to be the most useful are there. Similarly with Piya Tan's collection at The Minding Centre.

On the other hand, SuttaCentral has grown to contain a far bigger collection of the suttas, perhaps hoping to cover the whole Sutta Pitaka one day. This is by itself a huge effort.

Comparatively, the Atthakatha is seen as secondary to the Suttas and less important.

But nevertheless you can read parts of the Atthakatha indirectly quoted by Piya Tan at The Minding Centre and other translators like Thanissaro Bhikkhu on AccessToInsight.

  OP: Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's
  explanation because it's not actually his"?

I don't think this is the attitude. I think it's more like "I want to listen to the master's words first. That's more important to me. But if there is a disciple explaining it, I can refer to it, but it's less important or secondary."

Q. Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's
  explanation because it's not actually his"?

A Western Buddhist website is https://www.accesstoinsight.org. On this website is the Ani Sutta: The Peg SN 20.7, where the Lord Buddha told us to not follow the "words of disciples", as follows:

  In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when
  discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering.

  In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the
  Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — will come about.

  Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that
  are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
  transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will
  lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these
  teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train
  yourselves.

Aṭṭhakathā (Pali for explanation, commentary) refers to Pali-language Theravadin Buddhist commentaries to the canonical Theravadin Tipitaka.

Aṭṭhakathā is the words of (heretic) disciples (with wrong view).

Aṭṭhakathā leads to 'rebirth' in the 'animal kingdom' and, eventually, to 'hell'.

Some examples of 'rebirth' in the fire of 'hell' is below:


Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta I understand that Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one with everything but that we are under an illusion that we are separate and through enlightenment we can realise the truth.
Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self' but that we are under the illusion that there is one because we are too distracted to see that what we call self is nothing more than a bunch of impermanent processes i.e. the 5 skandhas.
I have issues with both beliefs.

With Advaita it doesnt matter how many Rupert Spira videos I watch I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain. Unless some penny drops and I finally get it somehow, my view won't change any time soon. Sure there is the sense of an observer when we sit and watch the thoughts etc but there is no proof that this is an 'eternal self' and not just some process of the brain being able think about thought.

With Buddhism I have begun to grasp the concept of Annatta because it kind of makes sense that all these different things are arising and passing however I have failed to hear any clear explanation about rebirth.  If there is no self then what is it that is reborn?  I know this question has been asked a zillion times but all I ever hear from Buddhists is that lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing.  If this illusion of self is not what gets reborn therefore I will not even remember my past life then why does it even matter at all? Also what do Buddhists believe about the observer of experience? They teach to sit and observe what is going on internally so what do they believe is observing? Nothing? Nothing is observing something?  The Advaita school of thought say that Buddhists are overlooking the truth. That the reason they think there is no self is because the self cannot look at itself just as eyes cannot look at themselves.

'Re-birth' is merely the re-arising of the 'self-belief' or 'self-concept' (in this life). To quote:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form, feeling, perception, thought fabrication &/or consciousness to be a 'self'. That assumption is a thought fabrication. Now
  what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that thought fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That thought fabrication (of 'self') is born of that.
  SN 22.81

  The craving that makes for re-becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving-to-be, craving not-to-be: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One. MN 44

This 'self-belief' or 'concept' is a thought that is known or observed by 'consciousness'. Just as consciousness is not the thought of a 'dog' or 'tree', consciousness (which observes) is not the thought of 'self', 'I' or 'me'. The thought is a separate thing to the consciousness.

There is no evidence of anything living on beyond the ending of the activity of 'the' brain (not 'my' brain). The totally lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing was not an analogy spoken by the Buddha. Buddhism teaches the five aggregates are impermanent. When the activity of life (the aggregates) ends, that's it. If the mind can fully realise & accept all life ends, it will be at peace. That is all that needs to be done. Please read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta and the Maggavagga and be free from doubt.

Advaita Philosophy was popularized by Acharya Shankara , who succeeded in convincing Indian Buddhists , that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism.You may refer to the book " Shankara Digvijay--traditional life of Shankaracharya" ,written by Madhava-Vidyaranya ,published by the Ramakrishna Math , Chennai ( Madras) , India and available at Ramakrishna Mission Centres.Shankaracharya lived in the second half of Seventh Century AD (aroud 650 to 690 AD ).He succeeded in convincing Indian Buddhists , that Buddhism was a branch of Hinduism and succeeded in integrating Buddhism to Hinduism. Shankara also portrayed the Buddha as the Ninth Incarnation of Vishnu . Those Buddhists , who did not integrate with Hinduism ,were later (around Tenth Century AD) , slaughtered or converted to Islam by force , by the Muslim Invaders.  Shankara's Philosophy is known as Advaita Vedanta Philosophy. But over the years ,it has undergone many modifications , by different preachers ,trying to popularise the idea in their own ways.  Latest attempt at popularisation of Advaita Vedanta ,was by Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) ,who also founded the Ramakrishna Mission. Hinduism has many Books of knowledge ---the Vedas  ,the Upanishads ans the Six Schools of Philsophies. The Vedas popularise worshiping different powers of Nature --like the Earth ,Sun ,Air ,Fire ,Lightening ,Sky etc. symbolised as Gods. Upanishads are philosophies of Individual Teachers -who tried to popularize the concept of One God --Creator ,Sustainer and Destroyer of the  Universe .They also  tried to integrate Individual Consciousness to Universal Consciouness and to Space and Time--assuming the existence of a set of Universal Laws. The Six Philosophical  schools ,attempt to integrate the ideas of Upanishads , into a self consistent logical system. They are --(1)Shaankhya (2) Yoga (3) Nyaya (4) Vaisheshika (5) Purva Mimansa (6) Uttara Mimansa (Vedanta).Advaita Vedanta has evolved out of Vedanta . Literally Advaita means Not Two-ordinarily accepted as One or Zero.So the Universal God , can be One or Zero( Shunya or Space).In this philosophy , Existence and Non-Existence , are treated as two sides of the same coin.It assumes three sates of consciousness -waking , sleeping (dreaming) and deep sleep (unconsciousness ,coma or memory less)--all to be TRUE . And tries to INTEGRATE them to a SUPER_CONSCIOUS state--called the Ultimate Reality. For a beginner, trying to understand Advaita Vedanta and its links to Buddhist philosophies ( or Tantra) , I would suggest going through the works of Swami Vivekananda.


Other than Nirvana , what else is not changing? It is said that Nirvana is not changing. But I found a text here which states that dharma of conditioned arising is unchanging.

  The Buddha said to the monk: “Conditioned arising was neither made by
  me, nor made by others. Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or
  not, this element of dharma remains unchanging.

If sabbe dhamma anatta then how is it possible that Dhamma of conditioned arising is not changing ?
And is it possible that Nirvana and Dhamma of conditioned arising are the same?

This answer is in the context of the Tibetan Gelug School and is taught in modern Buddhist Monasteries of this tradition.

Uncompounded space (as opposed to the usual idea of space) is a permanent phenomenon. This is the standard example of an existing thing that is permanent. Like emptiness, uncompounded space is taught to be a non-affirming negation. So what is uncompounded space? First, we have to understand what compounded space is...

Compounded space is the vacuum between material things. Take two material objects (made of matter) that are spacelike separated. This means not only do they not occupy the same space, but that they have a vacuity between them. Imagine they are placed in the void of deep space with a meter of distance between them. In this meter of distance between them, there is no air, there are no molecules, no matter. This is what is meant by compounded space.

Uncompounded space is the complete absence of obstructive contact. Those two things we imagined above are spacelike separated and sitting in a void. They have no contact with anything. They have a complete absence of obstructive contact. They are sitting, if you like, in uncompounded space.

This is thought of as a permanent phenomenon and not dependent on causes and conditions. How can it be said to be independent of causes and conditions? Unlike compounded space, it does not rely upon matter. Whether there is something sitting in uncompounded space or not, the mere absence of obstructive contact remains. It is unproduced.

Objection! Doesn't this mean that uncompounded space contains a self? Doesn't it mean that it is inherently existent?

Answer... No, because it is a mere non-affirming negation. It is the mere lack of obstruction. No matter how hard you look "inside" of uncompounded space you will find nothing. There is no inherently existent self in uncompounded space that can be found. This is what is meant by a non-affirming negation. There is nothing left whatsoever to be reified.

Objection! But isn't uncompounded space an independent phenomena?

Answer... No, it is dependent upon name and designation. It is empty of inherent existence just like all phenomena.

All compounded and/ or conditioned things are impermanent or changing. This applies to the five aggregates, physical objects, matter, energy, physical space, time, most mental concepts and ideas etc.

All matter can be broken down to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. That we know from Einstein's E=mc2. Matter can convert into different forms and so can energy.

Physical space and time can be warped by matter. This we know from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Nibbana is not impermanent. The Buddha's Dhamma (teachings) is also not impermanent. These things are not conditioned or compounded. They do not depend on anything else.

However, all things including Nibbana, Buddha's teachings, matter, physical space, time, thoughts, concepts are not self. There is no permanent, standalone, independent thing called self, just as you cannot find a thing called music when you breakdown a musical instrument into its constituent parts. Please also see this answer.


Is buddha's paths corrupt as no one attains the goal nowadays? (or are they?) Anyone reaching nirvana in recent years?

People practise buddhism for many years but no one achieves nirvana. No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā). The only theories Buddhism offers are anātman, nirvana, and the five aggregates, so my question is this: Is the Buddha's path corrupt, because no one achieves the goal?

Since many do not talk about attainments it is difficult to ascertain who has reached Nirvana, but there those who have practised fully would have realised it. This is a conjecture on can reach by taking the 1st few steps one reaches certain milestones in the path.

If you consider more milestones than the final goal itself there would be many more people who have reacht it.

Some milestones one would encounter are as follows:

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

Ones own practise will reveal to you what as further one practices more milestones are reached.

I know for certain that there is one person who has achieved this lofty state of Nibbana. May I for now call him Ven. Jahn Galt?  John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is not identified by name in that novel until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer. What is important here for you and I, is that this Ven. ‘Jahn Galt’ who is an Arahant can show you the correct way. For example one correction I will make here. It is not ‘Nirvana’, but ‘Nibbana”.

Nibbana means freed from existential captivity or having existential relationships extinguished. The antonym is samsaric captivity. One who is captive in the circle of raga, dvesha and moha creates own existential relationships for survival and goes adrift. All three binds of captivity are like strings woven together (bāna) causing samsaric existence to continue. Nibbana is the outcome of eradication or uprooting of all three strings of the bāna.

For your next main question, YES, the 'Buddhism' that is known to us in the present day is CORRUPT. It is high time that this corruption is shown as there can be at least one or two of you can then attain Nibbana in this very life.

As expounded by the Buddha, the Buddha Dhamma that discusses the noble path toward the attainment of Nibbana is known as Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma (pati – bond; ichcha – desire; sam – 3 fetters – lobha, dvesha & moha; uppãda – arise). To comprehend the four immovable truths (chatu ariya sachcha), the knowledge of the Patichcha Samuppada Dhamma is indispensable. Gaining of true penetrative wisdom, to grasp the reality of life (or existence) as it is (yathābhuta gñana), is possible only through full comprehension of the four immovable truths. This is not about gaining the full extent of theoretical knowledge or learning but rather, attaining a penetrative deep experience that exceeds the dimensions of conventional wisdom while transforming one’s attitudinal inner view on life/existence.


Is it a lie to not report income in taxes? Facing a situation where if I report cash income, a lot of people would get in trouble. Would it be a lie to report income as zero when filing taxes?

Is abstaining from declaring income on paper a lie?

Thank you

As a lay practitioner you should make the fivefold offering (pañca,balī) out of which offering to the king [the government] (rāja,balī) which is akin to tax filing in the modern day. [Adiya Sutta, Patta Kamma Sutta]

Since taxes are legally owned by the government and not paying them would be misappropriating something belonging to the government which is similar to stealing. If you add false information in your tax return to get away with taxes then it is both lying and stealing. Also withholding information with the intent to mislead is also like lying.

Having said this by all means use tax planning / tax avoidance (legal) but not tax evasion (illegal). If what you are doing is illegal and there are sums owed to the tax authorities then it is stealing as iterated above.

I know that the western buddhist monastics at Sravasti Abbey consider it a lie and stealing when not reporting income in taxes. But if it's a situation where you're lying to save someone's life, that's a different matter.
It sounds like you were in a tricky situation. What did you end up doing and how did you come to your decision on the matter?


Why are Buddhas always Indian, male and human? Dipankara, Siddhartha Gotama, Maithreya to name a few (of the 28 named in the Buddhavamsa) - it feels a bit like a Hollywood plot where it's always only an all American hero that fights off the alien invasion of planet Earth.

Given that the dharma is universal why isn't a Buddha a deva or a Pacific islander or a woman?

Why is it also always only one person and not like say a united nations of Buddhas?

The question has two parts. Why only one Buddha? This is only in the Theravāda. In other Buddhist schools two, five, or up to millions of Buddhas can be seen. Two in the White Lotus, Five in the five Buddha Maṇḍala (featuring Vairocana Tathāgata, Akṣobhya Tathāgata, Ratnasambhava Tathāgata, Amitābha Tathāgata, and Amoghasiddhi Tathāgata), and an infinite number in the Avatamsaka Sūtra. Most non-Theravādin schools accept the existence of multiple Buddhists.

The second part is why ethnically North Indian? Artists in different countries tend to depict the Buddha as having features similar to their own ethnic group, and besides have nationally distinctive styles, so one can usually tell say a Khmer Buddha from a Chinese, or a Tibetan. Many of the Buddhist artists (the image is by my colleague Dharmacārī Āloka) I know paint the Buddha as similar to themselves - since most of the artists I know are English or Kiwis, their paintings tend to look Anglo-Saxon. But there's nothing to stop, say someone of African descent portraying the Buddha as African.

And of course there is some cross over. So Khmer artists tend to portray solitary Buddhas but with Khmer features, whereas Tibetans portray many Buddhas with Tibetan features. For some artists it makes sense to portray Gautama Buddha as an Indian because it seems more historically authentic, though of course we do not know the ethnic identity of Buddha - it's possible the Śākyas originally came from Iran for example.

first of all Alex S is right about what he said,But i think a response from Theravada must be added to this.
As we believe there is a special planet in the universe,the planet is always earth.But this time it was India next time it will have a different name.As we believe the place Lord Buddhas will achieve complete wisdom will always be the same.If you want to look in to this search for the word "Mangala / Magul Sakwala"


Relationship between sampajanna definitions in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35 What is the relationship between the definitions of sampajañña (clear comprehension) in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35?

From SN 47.35 (translated by Bodhi):

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

From SN 47.2 (translated by Bodhi):

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts with clear comprehension when
  going forward and returning; when looking ahead and looking aside;
  when drawing in and extending the limbs; when wearing his robes and
  carrying his outer robe and bowl; when eating, drinking, chewing his
  food, and tasting; when defecating and urinating; when walking,
  standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, speaking, and keeping
  silent. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

In line with what I said in my other answer, both are descriptions of self-awareness, of not getting carried away by the circumstances.

This does not refer to "zombie bare awareness" executed mechanically, but to normal, pragmatic, careful self-awareness of an intelligent person.

The difference is, in the 4 jhanas,  SN 47.35  is the more suitable range of activity, since one is typically doing quiet sitting with eyes closed. SN 47.35 is the same as a portion AN 4.41, which clearly puts it in the 4 jhanas and samadhi development context. Standard 3rd jhana formula, explicitly states one has sati and sampajano.

Outside of 4 jhanas, S&S sati and sampajano do not shut off, they continue working, but with a dyanmic range of activity as SN 47.2 gives examples for.

sampajano  in both SN 47.35 and SN 47.2 mean the same thing, sampajano is one who is lucidly-discerning, or clearly-comprehending exactly what they're doing every moment.


Need help understanding this I am reading up on the jhana and theres this paragraphs. There talking about the 3 ways Beginning, Middle & End and the 10 characteristic of jhana. I'm not sure what im suppose to do or what this is suppose to mean. The book is the path to purification.

  “‘Of the first jhána intensification of equanimity is the middle’: how many
  characteristics has the middle? The middle has three characteristics. He [now]
  looks on with equanimity at the mind that is purified; he looks on with equanimity
  at it as having made way for serenity; he looks on with equanimity at the
  appearance of unity.32 And in that he [now] looks on with equanimity at the
  mind that is purified and looks on with equanimity at it as having made way for
  serenity and looks on with equanimity at the appearance of unity, that
  intensification of equanimity is the middle of the first jhána. These are the three
  characteristics of the middle. Hence it is said: ‘The first jhána is good in the
  middle which possesses three characteristics.’

Heres the full page. The parts specifically im asking about is on line 112

That is an effect of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ, that appear before your quote.

My link is just a head. There is more information in that book after the head.

For a guideline:

Beginning = complete and perfect practicing of all dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ (achieved jhāna).

Middle = an effect of the 7th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

End = an effect of the 6th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

You must memorize dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ head, and meditate it to get a deep understanding.

Note: I never read throughout the english translation version (my english is terrible), that make me not sure about the translation's quality. So you can ask more, if you see something that is unclear.

My reading of the text finds there is only one practise to perform, namely, looking on with equanimity. The other characteristics, such as serenity, unity, etc, occur automatically when the mind automatically manifests jhana from the practice of developing equanimity.

The Pali scriptures (SN 48.10) teach jhana is developed by making 'letting go' the meditation object. The text in question is stating when the mind jhana becomes serene or has rapture, etc, to look upon those features & characteristics with equanimity. In other worlds, don't cling to those characteristics & features.

  And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga), attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10


looking for citation, pīti and sukha of 4 jhānas compared to dying of thirst, seeing water in distance, and drinking it There's an excellent simile in the Theravada non canonical literature explaining the difference between piti and sukha in the first 3 jhanas, reminiscent of the lotus pond in this sutta MN 40. (citation?)

As I remember it:

Piti = you're in a desert, dying of thirst, as you're approaching oasis/pond, you realize there's water in the distance, that you're not going to die, and you're going to drink that water soon. The thrill and excitement of that is piti.
sukha = you've arrived at the oasis/pond, now you're drinking the water. The pleasure from actually drinking the water is sukha.

Three questions:

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?
might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?
What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

MN 40 excerpt here:
MN 40: what is the meaning of the lotus pond simile?

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?

It's from the Visuddhimagga-Ch IV.100 (pg. 139):

  And wherever the two are associated, happiness is the contentedness at getting a desirable object, and bliss is the actual experiencing of it when got. Where there is happiness there is bliss (pleasure); but where there is bliss there is not necessarily happiness. Happiness is included in the formations aggregate; bliss is included in the feeling aggregate. If a man, exhausted31 in a desert, saw or heard about a pond on the edge of a wood, he would have happiness; if he went into the wood’s shade and used the water, he would have bliss. And it should be understood that this is said because they are obvious on such occasions.

.

  might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?

Possibly. But notice the context is different between MN 40 and Vism IV.100. In MN 40, the lotus pond simile was used to illustrate the benefits of cultivating the Four Divine Abodes and how it benefits everyone; while the Vism's simile was for describing the Piti/Sukha absorption factors of the Jhanas concentration practices.

  What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

The Four Divine Abodes.

The simile you describe sound similar to what i've heard some people use to explain the stages of; a faith/dhamma follower as one who realizes the thing; one attained to view as one who sees; arahant is one who quenches the thirst.