Where do I focus ? On the outer nose or outer nose with upper lip? My question is that where do I focus ? The outer nose or outer nose with upper lip

The instruction is: sati-parimukkham, or parimukkham-sati.
This means: mind-around-mouth
It also means: mind-around-face
It also means: mind around the front
It also means: mind around the interface [between the personal and the external]
It also has been interpreted as meaning: mind the business at which you are about (that is minding).

This instruction is found in cases where a formula for meditation is being set forth, not exclusive to minding the in and out breaths.

There is no instruction that reads: 'focus where the breath is felt' or 'at the nose' or at any specific place. Try to focus on the point where the breath passes the nostrils you will quickly see that you cannot find that place. It moves around at light-speed!

That is why the instruction reads "around" (pari). The point is the focus, not the locus. This is also important as a preventive measure: our job here is not to maintain a state of concentration on any object. We are trying to develop concentration (or better, focus) as a skill with a tool to be used in understanding other things. You are not going to Nibbana with your mind focused on your nose!

Follow the instructions without trying to pick it apart and you will see the advantages of minding around the mouth as a starting point, minding the face as a matter of minding the sense-reactions, minding the front as minding the whole body, minding the interface as minding the inter-relations of the body and the external world, and minding your business as keeping you focused on the task. Round and round, up and down, back and forth. A spectrum.

Here is another method from a popular but controversial commentary Vsm 7th century;

  Here are the stages in giving attention to it: (1) counting, (2) connection,
  (3) touching, (4) fixing, (5) observing, (6) turning away, (7) purification, and (8)
  looking back on these.
  Herein, counting is just counting, connection is carrying on, touching is the
  place touched [by the breaths], fixing is absorption, observing is insight, turning
  away is the path, purification is fruition, looking back on these is reviewing.

  Herein, this clansman who is a beginner should first give attention to
  this meditation subject by counting. And when counting, he should not stop
  short of five or go beyond ten or make any break in the series. By stopping short
  of five his thoughts get excited in the cramped space, like a herd of cattle shut in
  a cramped pen. By going beyond ten his thoughts take the number [rather than
  the breaths] for their support. By making a break in the series he wonders if the
  meditation subject has reached completion or not. So he should do his counting
  without those faults.

  When counting, he should at first do it slowly [that is, late] as a grain
  measurer does. For a grain measurer, having filled his measure, says “One,” and
  empties it, and then refilling it, he goes on saying ‘”One, one” while removing
  any rubbish he may have noticed. And the same with “Two, two” and so on. So,
  taking the in-breath or the out-breath, whichever appears [most plainly], he
  should begin with “One, one” [279] and count up to “Ten, ten,” noting each as
  it occurs.
  As he does his counting in this way, the in-breaths and out-breaths become
  evident to him as they enter in and issue out. Then he can leave off counting
  slowly (late), like a grain measurer, and he can count quickly [that is, early] as a
  cowherd does. For a skilled cowherd takes pebbles in his pocket and goes to the
  cow pen in the morning, whip in hand; sitting on the bar of the gate, prodding
  the cows in the back, he counts each one as it reaches the gate, saying “One,
  two,” dropping a pebble for each. And the cows of the herd, which have been
  spending the three watches of the night uncomfortably in the cramped space,
  come out quickly in parties, jostling each other as they escape. So he counts
  quickly (early) “Three, four, five” and so up to ten. In this way the in-breaths and
  out-breaths, which had already become evident to him while he counted them in
  the former way, now keep moving along quickly.
  Then, knowing that they keep moving along quickly, not apprehending
  them either inside or outside [the body], but apprehending them just as they
  reach the [nostril] door, he can do his counting quickly (early): “One, two, three,
  four, five; one, two, three, four, five, six … seven … eight … nine … ten.” For as
  long as the meditation subject is connected with counting it is with the help of
  that very counting that the mind becomes unified, just as a boat in a swift current
  is steadied with the help of a rudder.
  When he counts quickly, the meditation subject becomes apparent to him
  as an uninterrupted process. Then, knowing that it is proceeding uninterruptedly,
  he can count quickly (early) in the way just described, not discerning the wind
  either inside or outside [the body]. For by bringing his consciousness inside
  along with the incoming breath, it seems as if it were buffeted by the wind inside or filled with fat.53 By taking his consciousness outside along with the outgoing
  breath, it gets distracted by the multiplicity of objects outside. However, his
  development is successful when he fixes his mindfulness on the place touched
  [by the breaths]. That is why it was said above: “He can count quickly (early) in
  the way just described, not discerning the wind either inside or outside.”
  But how long is he to go on counting? Until, without counting, [280]
  mindfulness remains settled on the in-breaths and out-breaths as its object. For
  counting is simply a device for setting mindfulness on the in-breaths and out-
  breaths as object by cutting off the external dissipation of applied thoughts.

  Having given attention to it in this way by counting, he should now do
  so by connection. Connection is the uninterrupted following of the in-breaths and
  out-breaths with mindfulness after counting has been given up. And that is not
  by following after the beginning, the middle and the end.54

  The navel is the beginning of the wind issuing out, the heart is its middle
  and the nose-tip is its end. The nose-tip is the beginning of the wind entering in,
  the heart is its middle and the navel is its end. And if he follows after that, his
  mind is distracted by disquiet and perturbation according as it is said: “When
  he goes in with mindfulness after the beginning, middle, and end of the in-
  breath, his mind being distracted internally, both his body and his mind are
  disquieted and perturbed and shaky. When he goes out with mindfulness after
  the beginning, middle and end of the out-breath, his mind being distracted
  externally, both his body and his mind are disquieted and perturbed and shaky”
  (Paþis I 165).
  3–4. So when he gives his attention to it by connection, he should do so not by
  the beginning, middle and end, but rather by touching and by fixing.
  There is no attention to be given to it by touching separate from fixing as
  there is by counting separate from connection. But when he is counting the
  breaths in the place touched by each, he is giving attention to them by counting and touching. When he has given up counting and is connecting them by
  means of mindfulness in that same place and fixing consciousness by means of
  absorption, then he is said to be giving his attention to them by connection,
  touching and fixing. And the meaning of this may be understood through the
  similes of the man who cannot walk and the gatekeeper given in the
  commentaries, and through the simile of the saw given in the Paþisambhidá.
  Here is the simile of the man who cannot walk: Just as a man unable to
  walk, who is rocking a swing for the amusement of his children and their mother,
  sits at the foot of the swing post and sees both ends and the middle of the swing
  plank successively coming and going, [281] yet does not move from his place in
  order to see both ends and the middle, so too, when a bhikkhu places himself
  with mindfulness, as it were, at the foot of the post for anchoring [mindfulness]
  and rocks the swing of the in-breaths and out-breaths; he sits down with
  mindfulness on the sign at that same place, and follows with mindfulness the
  beginning, middle and end of the in-breaths and out-breaths at the place touched
  by them as they come and go; keeping his mind fixed there, he then sees them
  without moving from his place in order to see them. This is the simile of the man
  who cannot walk.
  This is the simile of the gatekeeper: Just as a gatekeeper does not examine
  people inside and outside the town, asking, “Who are you? Where have you
  come from? Where are you going? What have you got in your hand?”—for those
  people are not his concern—but he does examine each man as he arrives at the
  gate, so too, the incoming breaths that have gone inside and the outgoing breaths
  that have gone outside are not this bhikkhu’s concern, but they are his concern
  each time they arrive at the [nostril] gate itself.
  Then the simile of the saw should be understood from its beginning. For
  this is said:
  “Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object
  Of a single consciousness;
  By one who knows not these three things
  Development is not obtained.
  “Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object
  Of a single consciousness;
  By one who does know these three things
  Development can be obtained.”


Is modern capitalism inherently opposed to Buddhism? In the Dhammapada in the chapter 20 - The Path it says

  "I will make this my winter home have another house for the monsoon
  and dwell in a third for during the summer". Lost in such fancies, one
  forgets his final destination.

(translation by Eknath Easwaran)

Although it clearly can't have been written with this intent - to me this reads like very pertinent critique of modern consumerism and capitalism. A lot of us find ourselves practicing in societies where this is the prevalent ethos so this feels relevant.

Is there something about modern capitalism that inherently conflicts with Buddhism? Or is it possible to find quotes from texts or established teachers that are more supportive of the kind of capitalism//consumerism that we find ourselves in now?

I agree with @ChrisW. In addition to his answer:

Here is a quote from the Sigalovada Sutta that supports investment in business.

  The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
  dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
  should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
  aside Against future misfortunes."

The Adiya Sutta discusses the five benefits that can be obtained from wealth.

The Dighajanu Sutta discusses how to maintain one's livelihood in tune:

  "And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.'

  "These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase.

Considering your quote, I would say your question is primarily about consumerism, in which case your initial interpretation is obviously correct: a way of life focused on the acquisition of material wealth and the consumption of sense-pleasures by the illusory "individual self" is obviously opposed to the Buddhist way of thinking, which rather aims to discard such attachments.

But since you decided to expand the actual question to "modern capitalism", I will refer to that as well:

Firstly, in its essence, capitalism (modern or not) promotes the individualization of capital ownership and usage/decision-making, based on the idea of "individuals" that can satisfy their desires better in separation than having to subject themselves (and their capital) to the desires of "others". It's an obviously ego-based worldview, clearly opposed to the Buddhist direction, which more closely resembles (doctrinal!) communism, where all capital is to be owned by everyone together and is to be put to use for the benefit of all, as it would be if administered by people who have realized the "ego" is illusory and that there is exactly zero difference between "my" interests and the interests of "others".

Secondly, modern capitalism is strongly intertwined with the idea of the free market (or competitive market), where individual capital owners compete against eachother to get as much as possible of the money the public is willing to spend on products and services. This is even more obviously an egotistical type of system, one that not only reinforces the illusory and detrimental notion of separate individual interests, it even explicitly pits these interests against eachother, maintaining an environment of unending competition/conflict, which is pretty much guaranteed to continually generate suffering in all those on the losing side of the conflict (and if we look at today's statistics on income inequality we can see that it's actually the greater part of humanity that's on the losing side at this time).

So I'd say modern capitalism is without a doubt opposed to Buddhist thinking because it's a fundamentally individualist and conflict-based system, and furthermore because of how tightly it's coupled with consumerism and the advertising/marketing machine that's keeping so many trapped in the sense-desire gratification cycle and implicitly in dogmatic ego-belief and in the cycle of suffering.

LE:
Since my interpretation was challenged in the comments I will add some supporting reference, and since Marxist thought didn't exist in the time of the suttas of course I will have to use more modern sources, in this case an article from the Access to Insight library:

  The writings of some Buddhists from Sri Lanka, Burma and elsewhere offer interesting examples of attempts to relate Buddhism to nationalism and Marxism (not to be confused with communism). Earlier in the century Anagarika Dharmapala stressed the social teaching of the Buddha and its value in liberating people from materialistic preoccupations. U Nu, the eminent Burmese Buddhist statesman, argued that socialism follows naturally from the ethical and social teachings of the Buddha, and another Burmese leader, U Ba Swe, held that Marxism is relative truth, Buddhism absolute truth. This theme has been explored more recently in Trevor Ling's book "Buddha, Marx and God," (2nd ed., Macmillan, London 1979) and Michal Edwarde's "In the Blowing out of a Flame" (Allen & Unwin 1976). Both are stimulating and controversial books. E.F. Schumacher's celebrated book "Small is Beautiful" (Blond & Briggs, London 1973) has introduced what he terms "Buddhist economics" and its urgent relevance to the modern world to many thousand of non-Buddhists.

-- Buddhism and Social Action - An Exploration, by Ken Jones

To this I would only add that the author seems to be making the same distinction I emphasized above when I said "doctrinal Communism" by calling the doctrine Marxism instead, to distinguish it from all the historical complications and deviations of (nominally) Communist practice.


What is the starting of Samsara? Every Buddhism believe in Eternity or Samsara. So, how can I imagine of Samsara?. What is the starting of it ?
 Any suggestions would be really appreciated.

According to the suttas, samsara has no beginning. There are many references to this.

From objective perspective, Samsara is a beginningless round of deaths and rebirths the beings are stuck in. "Beginningless" means, it has no beginning. The question you may ask: if Samsara has no beginning, and I am in it, how did I come to exist? This seems like a real puzzle.

Another piece of the puzzle, is Buddha's suggestion that despite being beginningless, Samsara has an end. The end of Samsara is attainment of Nirvana.

The usual superficial understanding of these, is to assume that one can escape Samsara, stop the round of deaths-and-rebirth, and effectively spend the rest of eternity in a state of perpetual lack of suffering.

Such answer though would omit a very important construct of Buddhism, one of "Tree Marks of Existence"

According to Buddha, the existence inevitably has characteristics of

Impermanence
Suffering
Selflessness (nonsubstantiality)

Which means, a state of perpetual lack of suffering would contradict the fundamental law of the universe (as presented in the Tree Marks). How could it be perpetual given the impermanence? How can suffering cease given that suffering is an intrinsic characteristic of existence? How can I spend the rest of eternity in this state if "I" (self) does not exist?

This seems like a serious contradiction. And yet Buddha insists, there is a way to solve this conundrum, there is a way to attain Nirvana.

Without giving too much away, I would like to hint at the direction the answer lies in:

Samsara begins when subject and object separate from each other. Samsara ends when subject and object are no longer separated. The answer lies in the realm of phenomenology of experience, including experience of suffering, life, and death. Good luck with your quest!


Which path might be appropriate for me? I've been learning about Dharma traditions for a while now.

In short: I am attracted by the figure of Siddhartha Gautama and by the fact that Buddhism is not based on faith in the scriptures (nastika). I am completely convinced by his speech on dukkha.

Besides that, I'm not convinced at all by the anatman. I believe in the atman, I am convinced by the vision of the advaita védanta, and I love the simplicity of Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga and its 8 clear and defined steps to the Absolute (Samadhi).

All this being said, which path to take? Which one would be the closest to my position?

I was told the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna?

Buddha is pretty cool. Jesus is too. Shiva is pretty cool. There are cool guys everywhere. The real question is what kind of teacher are you willing to understand? Shiva is like falling down a bottomless pit. Which is safe as long as it's bottomless. Jesus knew others like he knew himself and that creates a wonderful basis of good. Buddha didn't like things complicated. a direct approach. He would tell you it's not their responsibility nor his to carry you to the place you want to go. That's on you. They tell us where we could go if we choose to. Now these cool guys look like they might not agree but That's not true. They could see themselves and others well enough to understand they're doing the same work. People have a hard time hearing it. So just take some time a listen. I'm a Buddhist. If I thought there was a superior way to live my life I'd do that. Even if it was prostitution. Gautama did too. So find your love language you wish to speak and use that to learn and share in it.

Nagarjuna was a puthujjana philosopher who tries hard to pass his speculation for the dhamma, so you will never get enlightened  by basing your life on what he says, not even doing meritorious deeds, since the people who follow Mahayana even fail to stop doing bad deeds, because they fail to clean their mind.

For the  vedanta, it is completely normal for puthujjanas to reject the claims of the buddha about what is anatta, and it is completely normal that the idea of  atta, oneness and all that appeal to puthujjanas.

Since wisdom is what clearly separates the dhamma from  the various wrong views created by puthujjanas, you can still focus on sila and samadhi, from whatever wrong doctrine appeals to you currently. The only thing is that whatever samadhi you will get will not be tainted by right view, so you will still crave for bhava , if not still have Kama tanha, because the wisdom part of the dhamma is the nekkhamma and more generally the avijja viraga, ie '' the practice for the disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, relinquishment, forsaking of the present form'' and more generally whatever is conditioned.
This is what puthujjanas hate the most about the dhamma and it is precisely this which separates the dhamma from whatever wrong views puthujjanas create. For instance, the people who love vedanta completely fails to see that vinnana is conditioned so they fail to stop bhava tanha or whatever normal devas crave.


How bad is the karma of feeding meat to your children? I have a girlfriend who has a daughter from another man. If I raise this kid not vegetarian, will that be bad karma? Her mother is an omnivore and the kid is being raised in an omnivore household. It would be very difficult to change her diet. Is it my reponsibility to make her vegetarian?

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".

According to most schools of Buddhism, it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.

Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's  ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.

As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.

To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.

If you can introduce her to vegetarianism and at least not encourage meat consumption, it would be of benefit to you both.


Ways of Raising Energy I've eliminated many addictive fetters which deterred me from practising meditation. However, now I've noticed that getting into a meditative posture leads--perhaps because of the addictions such as social media which gave me dopamine are gone--to a kind of lethargy, a low energy. I have thus a few questions.

1) I've always had trouble with the breath as meditation object. I enter a state of less thoughts when I'm focusing upon it, and seemingly it diminishes my total experience of the body, mind, etc. Which meditation object would really increase my awareness and energy? Is it possible to achieve shamatha with outer objects, or even inner images?

2) Are there alternative ways to raise energy, such as physical exercise or other things like this. Will such activities increase my meditation energy specifically?

3) In terms of interior images, which seemingly arouse my mind slightly when I let myself visualize random things: are these recommended as meditation objects? I'm a very visual person, but I've been afraid of interior images as meditation objects for a few reasons.

First, the images that arise during meditation, in my case, sometimes seem disturbing. Second, I have always had a difficult time separating my inner impressions from reality; although, to be fair, I always am conscious of what's real and what is not, but I am very superstitious and attribute a lot to images or impressions that arise in me.

If any of my questions are answered, I thank you in advance.

Anapana (Breath-In/Breath-Out meditation)

Anapana is suitable for people who frequent train of thoughts. If you are easily distracted person Anapana is well suited technique as meditation. Thoughts are hindrance to meditation. It is also one of Five hindrances prohibit meditator not to achieve keen concentration to clearly see the bubbles of matter and non-matter states. If you are seeing images/thinking about images during meditation, it is some kind of restlessness (uddhacca) and this does not allow your progress in meditation (whatever goal you are trying to achieve).

Please keep in mind that meditation does not help healthy body or energy. The mindfulness/proper attentiveness plus having insightful knowledge of eating habit of your own (when you have to eat, how much do you have to eat and which one you can eat) can only help sound body and energy. Other than walking with normal pace, physical exercises are not recommended as body building is not recommended for those who practice meditation.

2-3 Samatha Recommendations

Based on your hobbies and attitudes, you need to choose which type of Samatha is suitable for you. Usually, this is done when you go retreat to some meditation centers. Generally people nowadays are easily distracted and that is the reason Anapana is ubiquitous choice in many meditation centers. For the people with distraction it is recommended to do meditation in confined space and do meditation walking in open space is not suitable. There are some constraints in choosing type of meditation for particular type of people with specific hobbies but nobody is master in choice, only combination with own personal determination/reasoning on type and experienced teacher from meditation centre can do approximation.

Below are some of the type of Samatha for the person with specific hobbies, attitudes and inclinations but you are warned to seek proper guidance from centers instead of choosing the type of Samatha your own.

Anapana - for most distracted people
Marananusati (intensive mindfulness of dying) - for people of pride
Asuba/32 Human parts - for people with strong sexual/sensory desire
Metta - for people with strong aversion

There are many more; colors, four elements, and 10 anusati including Marananusati. All are for people with different hobbies, attitudes and inclinations. I hope you could find your most suitable techniques of meditation by consulting a good teacher in meditation center and make progress in meditation.

Achievements. Focus on your achievements. Review how difficult it was and how you made it. Review your good qualities. Review how you are free from many problems that people have. Review the progress you are making. Tell yourself a good story. This is first jhana.


Important Commentaries? Q:

  1) Can someone name the most important commentaries, sub-commentaries,
  etc. I should read while reading the Tipitaka?

In my opinion commentaries and sub commentaries are important. Even the Tipitaka is a tabulation by certain Arahants.
In any case, I ask a similar question in the Dhamma Wheel.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=35754

There are no important commentaries & sub-commentaries. The Buddha did not teach his Dhamma for there to be a necessity for commentaries & sub-commentaries. Commentaries are heretical to what the Buddha taught. If you place faith in commentaries & sub-commentaries then you do not have faith in the Buddha & the Dhamma. Instead, you have faith in other individuals, who often misunderstood the Dhamma. The Buddha taught:

  The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in the here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.

  SN 16.3

  Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain,
  open, explicit and free of patchwork

  MN 22

  Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
  saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
  Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
  esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.

  DN 16

  In future time, there will be bhikkhus who will not listen to the
  utterance of such discourses which are words of the Tathāgata,
  profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world, connected
  with emptiness, they will not lend ear, they will not apply their mind
  on knowledge, they will not consider those teachings as to be taken up
  and mastered. On the contrary, they will listen to the utterance of
  such discourses which are literary compositions made by poets, witty
  words, witty letters, by people from outside [the Dhamma], or the
  words of disciples, they will lend ear, they will apply their mind on
  knowledge, they will consider those teachings as to be taken up and
  mastered. Thus, bhikkhus, the discourses which are words of the
  Tathāgata, profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world,
  connected with emptiness, will disappear.

  SN 20.7

However, if you are that keen:

http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/atthakatha/index.html

http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/tika/index.html


Is Maha Brahma a GOD? In Buddhism, we can find a name called "Maha Brahma".

Is he a GOD (as per Buddha, there are no such people called GOD), or some kind of different bean?

Maha Brahma is a realm, and not “A GOD”. Any living being (including each of us) has been in all realms in this beginningless sansara. We have been at the highest (except the five pure abodes in rupa loka which can be accessed only by Anagamis or Non-Returners). One time the Buddha pointed to a bunch of ants on the ground and told bhikkhus that each of those ants had lived in a brahma loka. The sansara is that long; there is no discernible beginning. These 31 Planes of Existence  is described in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. It lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma.

In the realm of Great Brahmas (Maha brahma) Buddha mentions about one Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe. It is in Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta (DN 11). Kevaddha Sutta informs one of what even a “God” does not know. Maha Brahmas, like Baka, think they’ve gone beyond anything the Buddha knows, so the Buddha has to go up to their Brahma heavens and subdue their pride, to show
them that they still have more to let go of, that there is something the Buddha himself has gone beyond but they haven’t.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma, and in one part of it names the 6 deva realms and 15 out of 16 rupi Brahma  realms. The sutta is meant to convey the way to “see” the true nature of existence with wisdom, not with the physical eye. Only a Buddha can discover the true nature, but a human can comprehend it, once explained.

In the brahma realms, all brahmas are born fully formed without the help of a mother’s womb. Theirs is an “opapatika” birth. For example when a human dies, his body becomes inert like a log, and at the very instant a fully-formed brahma is formed in the appropriate brahma world. This brahma will have sense faculties appropriate for a brahma: only eyes, ears, and a mind. These are the indriya for the new existence. These indriya can become ayatana (a factory that produces sankharas of another birth)  at times depending on the activities of that brahma.

Male/female distinction is there only in the kama loka. In the brahma realms (higher 20 realms), there is no such distinction. Brahmas do not have dense physical bodies or sexual organs. One is born in either the 16 rupa loka realms or the 4 arupa loka realms (brahma realms) because one has given up all desires for bodily pleasures, including sex, because one has seen the value of niramisa sukha (and jhanic pleasures) that can be achieved by giving up bodily pleasures.

All brahma realms are “unisex“. Brahmas do not have dense bodies to experience touch, taste of foods, or smells. They have very fine bodies. A brahma “body” has only the most minute of matter that is much much smaller than an atom in modern science. This is why it is thought (erroneously) that there is no matter in arupa lokas. There is matter, but it is insignificantly small. The Buddha said that vinnana cannot exist without a pancakkhandha, and the pancakkhandha in the arupa loka has a rupa component, even though negligibly small.

Brahmas in rupa loka are removed from “coarse sense pleasures”; they do not have a desire for tastes, smells, or body touches. Seeing and hearing is enough for them. Brahmas in arupa loka do not even have a desire for sights and sounds. Mind pleasures are enough for them, and the presence of matter is minimal in the arupa loka. So, sense pleasures are absent in brahma loka.

Brahmas and devas can “see” humans engaging in activities (if they want to), but they do not have any liking (upadana) for such “coarse pleasures”. Their mental state is much higher, just like a human who has developed abhinna powers.  They could actually be repulsed by human bodies. Just like we do not “miss out” on the activities of worms, they are not interested in human activities. It all depends on the mindset associated with the particular bhava.

The brahmas (and also devas) can “see” without the aid of light and “hear” without the having air to transmit sound waves; their “physical bodies” do not have “eyes” and “ears” like ours. Thus they can “see” and “hear” over great distances. And they can be anywhere they wish within a short time. The closest analogy of how their “vision” works is how we “see” dreams; we don’t need eyes to see dreams. Likewise the brahmas just perceive.

See:  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Indeed there is Brahma. What you see, hear, touch, felt and see is actually experienced by Brahma. He is the seer behind all individual and the root of samsara. Samsara where one takes birth, grow old and dies is samsara, means the body of Brahma. But delusionally individuals in it think that they are different, do deeds as good and bad and gets the result of rebirth. But actually this whole world of men, animals, birds, maggots, reptiles are his forms, means he is the silent witness who enjoy the action they do. So, whoever talks of universe is Brahma is talking truth but when they say it's eternal is wrong. Because it changes very rapidly. Brahma, who is non-eternal, changing take the fool as eternal and non-changing.
So, Brahma world is samsara of sin and virtue.
Only realised one found the escape. How?
Throw away that, which is not yours! Why? Because it belongs to Brahma. Body, senses, mind, feeling, counsiousness is not yours....are changing......are suffering....are the branches of pain....And the root is Brahma.
So, there is path of purity to attain nirvana. Nirvana means total extinction of samsara and it's root, brahma.
The path appears sudden like a shock in invidiual who detached and rightous. That light is Inner master, Hari, what buddha called as "Anatta". It's eightfold path. Why not seventh? Well, the 7th is Brahma, the root of pain. Veda stumbled onto the 7th Brahma and sang his vain glory. It's like one worship the enemy.
Anitya is synonym for Brahma and Anatta is synonym for Inner master. So, conclusively self is utter illusion from individuals point of view.
Because, there is two truth, one is root of suffering(Brahma) and other is way of relieving the suffering (Inner master, Guru, Hari, Anatta, highly Lord greater that brahma).
Whoever found the true meaning of Anatta, receive food while begging. Why?
Imagine the whole world is Brahma which is root of pain in samsara. So, whoever got awaken will use his tools? Can he pluck out the fruit from tree of Brahma and eat it while knowing it is mixed with poison?
So, awakened one doesn't regard to this body and eat only extent to that which sustain their life by begging without humiliation. Why don't they disappear although know this whole world is root of pain? Because of only compassion to the living ones and he know how to deliver them. So, they live for the sake of others, do actions for the sake of others but never ever they go astray. They are like lotus amid pond and clay. Lotus is Anattta and dirty soil is Brahma.
So, there is no great brahma because Brahma is not great. In fact he should devout to Inner master and clean his Sin.
May all find peace!


Where is the mind referred to as being luminous? I recall the natural state of mind being referred to as luminous somewhere in Buddhist canonical texts. I've always been very taken with that imaginary. I'm sure it's quite a common image in the texts but can anyone give me one or two examples of it. Also is this concept/image linked to the notion of Buddha Nature in some way?

The earliest reference is from the Pali Tipitaka, AN 5.49-50:

49. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhan”ti.
50. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi vippamuttan”ti.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed by those invading defilements it is defiled.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed from those invading defilements it is released.

Buddha nature is luminosity of mind seeing perfection in every moment, every phenomena, every living beings i.e. not a single taint of imperfection. Needs a Path to bring Perfection into fruition - 84,000 of them. Choose one (or more) that suits.


Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? I dimly remember reading this, but no argument or anything like that.

The first and perhaps most famous sutta like that which comes to mind is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN22.59) translated here and here.
I think that says that if something (e.g. form or consciousness or feeling or perception) is impermanent, then it's "not fit" to be regarded as "self".
The word translated as "not fit" is kalla ("clever", "healthy", etc.).

There is a line expressing that the notion of an annihilation of an existent self/being is a misrepresentation of the teacher's message.
It can be wrongly deducted that it therefore follows that the teacher's message is that an existent self couldn't be annihilated.
There is no Buddhist collective with a set of beliefs as it is not a homogeneous group.
Therefore asking whether Buddhists claim this or that is not going to get you very far as one can find "Buddhists" who believe pretty much anything.
Some Buddhists reject Early Buddhist texts which contradict their theories, whilst another spends his time making new translations which suit his views and another follows an alternative set of magically produced texts.
Even at the time of the Buddha there were many monks who held wrong views. One of the monks even tried to kill the Buddha.
The term Buddhist is rather meaningless and it should become evident if you spend some time on this site.
People ask a question, get 5 contradictory answers and just go with the one which is philosophically most easy or psychologically most pleasing. It is rather disgusting.


What are the three marks of existence? What are the three marks of existence and where are they found in the canon? Is there any fundamental differences in interpretation among the different traditions?

The Three characteristics of existence are part of the core teaching of the Buddha and found throughout his teachings. In essence every single compound (i.e. made of the 5 aggregates and/or the four elements) thing has these characteristics inherent in their very existence.

When one realizes with their own experiential knowledge that all things we have attachments and aversions to have at their core these three characteristics, then there is nothing to cling to, nothing to run from, there is just peace.

We understand that everything, from the universe itself down to ourselves and our loved ones are subject to change and decay(impermanence). We understand that every compound thing is subject to and can be part of the cause of Dukkha(unsatisfactoriness/suffering). Because of our attachments and aversions, nothing created can bring lasting happiness. And Thirdly we understand that there can be found nothing that we can truly identify as "self". What we take to be self is not-self. There is no inherent permanent self/identity in anything created, the "self" we take to be us is merely a coming together of the 5 aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), processes that come into being, and eventually decay.

As far as I know( and I'd love to be proven wrong on this if anyone can link it) there is no one grand sutta solely on this specific topic, but it is inherently at the core of all of the teachings and therefore pervades the whole cannon. I agree with what Catpnosis said about there being no fundamental differences, but differences in interpretation and usage as part of the various paths.

Here are a few Suttas regarding the three characteristics:

  Dhamma-niyama Sutta: The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma

  "Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

  "Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

  "Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

And from the Dhammapada:

  Maggavagga: The Path

  "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

I think this passage from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta speaks volumes about understanding impermanence:

  Then, when the Blessed One had passed away, some bhikkhus, not yet freed from passion, lifted up their arms and wept; and some, flinging themselves on the ground, rolled from side to side and wept, lamenting: "Too soon has the Blessed One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Happy One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Eye of the World vanished from sight!"

  But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"

Of course Dukkha is all over the teachings.. heck it's the first noble truth:

  "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

And about not-self:

  Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

  "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

  "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

They are:

Anicca - Everything ends in one day or in a moment.
Dukkha - When things end (property, loved ones, life, etc.) all beings sense it as sad.
Anatta - The ending of things cannot be controlled by ourselves or others.


The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that.
An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy".
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”

To whom would he submit?

All-seeing (Annadatthudasa)
All-transcending sage (Sabbabhibhu Dhiro)
All-vanquishing sage
Arahant (fully enlightened)
Awakened One
Best of those who can be tamed
Blessed One
Brahma (as in master of the brahma-viharas)
Buddha (Awakened One, Enlightened One)
Bull among men
Bull among seers
Bull of the Sakyan clan
Conqueror of beasts
Conqueror of Mara (Maraji)
Consummate in knowledge & conduct
Dhamma
Discoverer (in the Dhamma after it died out)
Dispeller of darkness
Elucidator of meaning
Endowed with all the foremost marks
Endowed with knowledge and good conduct (Vijjacaranasampanna)
Exalted One
Expert with regard to the world
The Eye
First in the world
Foremost jewel
Foremost of all people
Foremost of charioteers
Foremost of those who can cross
Foremost sage
Fortunate One
Freed (nibbana)
Fully enlightened one
Giver of the deathless
God of gods (Devadeva)
Gotama (his family name)
Great One
Great seer
Guide (Nayaka)
Healer (meditation types)
Helper (Natha)
Helper of the World (Lokanatha)
Him-of-the-Ten-Powers (Dasabala)
Incomparable Charioteer of men to be tamed
King of the Dhamma (Dhammaraja)
Kinsman of the sun
Knower (enlightened) of the World (Lokavidu)
Knowledge
Lion (of the Dhamma; Siha in Pali)
Lion Man (Narasiha)
Lion of the Sakyas (Sakyasiha)
Lord Buddha (respectful, devotional title in appreciation for the teachings)
Lord of sages (Muninda)
Lord of the Dhamma
Master Gotama (referring to being a teacher with his birth name)
Noble One (by attainments, not birth)
Of excellent wisdom (Varapañña)
One who sees (Cakkhuma)
One who transcends all (Sabbabhibhu)
Peaceful sage
Peerless bull
Perfect in knowledge and practice
Physician (Bhisakka)
The Perfect One
Pure (enlightenment)
Radiant One (Angirasa)
Recluse (monk not attached to home or possessions)
Related to the sun (Adiccabandhu)
Rightly self-awakened
Sakyamuni (Sage of the Sakyas)
Samma-sam-Buddha (Pergectly self-awakened)
Self-dependent (Sayambhu)
Shower of the way
Siddhattha (his given name)
Stainless (pure in virtues)
Sublime One
Supreme among those who can be released
Tathagata (the one “thus-gone” or “thus-come“)
Teacher (Sattha)
Teacher of divine and human beings
Teacher of the world (Lokagaru)
Thoroughly mature
Torchbearer of mankind (Ukkadharo manussanam)
Training leader (Vinayaka)
Ultimate leader
Unconquered conqueror
Unexcelled trainer for those people fit to be tamed
Unsurpassed charioteer of beings to be tamed
Unsurpassed doctor and surgeon
Unvanquished (Anabhibhuto)
Vanquisher (Abhibhu)
Victor in battle
Wanderer (monk gone forth from lay life)
Wellfarer
Well-gone one (Sugata)
Wielder of power (Vasavatti)
With great wisdom (Bhuripañña)
World-knower
Worthy one +++

What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address." -

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Soma knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.


when one Citta perishes,from where does the next arise? Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas.There can be no stable permanent Citta,in kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.one citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?it cannot be a nothing.but the Citta also cannot preexist as that would be absurd and there would be infinite mes or yous right now somewhere.it would also mean that the world would be Fate.but such a notion is Absurd anyway.it cannot also be that there is an infinite set of predetermined Cittas in a dormant state.as Cittas are all that' Exist' in the Mahayana and Tibetan schools.They cannot be dormant.dormant where?in a concrete external world?if such a receptacle existed wich was permanent and unchanging and not momentary it would be a Self!
Citta can be equated with Vijnana Skandha or alaya vijnana aswell,as the alayavijnana is momentary within Buddhism.
it cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta because then it would just be the same Citta and Cittas are not Substantial according to Nagarjuna.
It cannot be that a Citta endures until the next arises because this would confer confused Experience and still the former Citta has no Causal power to create another Citta Exnihilo.
So how does the momentary flux of Cittas work?

Citta arises from mentality-and-materiality (nama-rupa). As long as the physical body (materiality) is alive, cittas will continue to arise.
Note: citta is of the same substance as consciousness.

Mentality-and-materiality is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate. SN 22.82
With the origination of mentality-and-materiality there is the origination of
citta. With the cessation of mentality-and-materiality there is the passing away of
citta. SN 47.42

The Buddhist body-mind model is similar to the hardware-software model of how a computer or robot works.
Hardware and software (of a computer or robot) are both machines or automatons on their own right and also depend on each other to continue functioning. It is similar in the case of the mind and the body. Even if the exact mechanism is not the same, the general principle is the same.
Just as how a robot or computer (hardware-software) does not require a soul or Self to function, similarly the body-mind also does not require a soul or Self to function. The self is just an idea of the mind.
Please note from DN 2:

“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision.
He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed
of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother,
built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and
pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness,
supported by it and bound up with it.’

The last statement shows the dependence of mind on body to continue functioning ("supported by it") and also the inter-dependence of mind and body with each other ("bound up with it").
From here, I quote the Buddhist teacher Stephen Batchelor who describes this operation as a fluidic stream of events:

I would argue that there is really no present moment. The present
moment is one of these things that Buddhists have become terribly
attached to. If you think about it, you try to find the present
moment, you will never find anything. The present moment is actually
just a concept; it can be a very useful, strategic concept … I will
often say when instructing in meditation, “Stay in the present
moment.” But I don’t mean by that, try to find this elusive thing
called the present moment and stay in it. It’s basically a way of
saying, Don’t get caught up in the unknown future. Don’t get caught up
in reminiscing about the past. But confront the situation at hand. And
the situation at hand is always unfolding. It’s fluid. It’s like
water, it’s like a stream. Things are constantly impacting your
senses, constantly bubbling up in your thoughts, constantly emerging
as emotions and feelings; it’s always in motion, it’s moving. And it’s
such a mobile experience that notion of ‘The present moment’ really
has no place there. There’s no point really. So, every situation that
occurs, and you could call it ‘at the present moment’ if you wish, but
it’s basically an unfolding of events that is calling forth an
appropriate response. And in this sense, it’s always in time.

A river looks like it flows uninterruptedly, just like the mind. But the river is composed of moving water molecules - each time you look at a flowing stream, you are looking at a different set of water molecules.
Similarly, the movement of the mind involves arising and ceasing cittas - so fast, that they appear uninterrupted.
Now scientific studies are also validating this - please see this answer for details.


In today's perspective is it possible to practice mindful meditation except bhikkhus? Mindfulness: the Vipassana Meditation is a great methodology to reduce suffering, avoid attachments and gain pure happiness. But in present education, competition, living needs, relationships, responsibilities, duties etc too much are mandatorily attached to a single person. So is it really practical to practice this except bhikkhus?

I don't think it is all that different than in past times. The distractions and duties might have been different, but there were surely many obstacles on the way.

The texts always mention householders and lay people for a reason.

The degree to which you practice or are able to practice may vary on your circumstances; many of those might not be that fixed as one may think, though. Too many possessions to look after? Too many duties that need your attention? If you need more time to practice, change the elements of your life. Downsize.

Most things that we think are necessary or "needs" are really useless if you think about them. With every excess you remove, life get's a whole lot easier.

Also, mindfulness can be practiced in many contexts. You could say: the harder the environment, the better the training.

Yes - the answer is yes  with no doubt  -   you can practice vipassana meditation  and gain great success with it in this day and age in the lay life  - even with a demanding life

Is it better to be in a monastery ? yes also    -  its more easy to practice at a monastery


Benefits of "Mental Noting" during positive events? I've been using Mental Noting to improve my handling of anxious thoughts and emotions but I ran into a strange situation today. Most of my thoughts have been neutral or negative, and mentally noting such thoughts has allowed me to disassociate myself with any such passing clouds in my mind so that I can continue about my day.

However, after a physically gloomy day today I saw the sun come out and light up the city. I initially felt very happy seeing the sun shine across the buildings but then my habit of noting came in the picture and I felt a distance between me and the emotion (just as I would an anxious emotion). From what I understand, this is what the practice calls for me to do in any type of event.

Is there something I'm doing wrong or missing here? It seems that long-term noting will cause me to put a distance between pleasurable moments just as it would with negative ones? Why would I want this? I enjoy such emotions and whatever pain I experience from them being so fleeting is worth it. I'd rather maintain the duration by which I experience such moments, not shorten it with noting. I'm not sure what perspective to have in such cases and whether there is some greater benefit to continuing to do this for all situations?

I spoke before about the power of narratives. Narratives is how our mental world is shaped, narratives is one of the main ways to control the sukha/dukha mechanism described in the Four Noble Truths.

In this case, mental noting is a special case of narrative. By looking at thoughts and emotions in a certain way ("in and off themselves" as Buddha said in Satipatthana) we create a special philosophical narrative in which the thoughts are things of a different order than they are in our regular everyday context. We look at them neutrally, philosophically. Hence the dissociation effect.

However, mental noting is just one way to do narrative. The idea is to be the master of your thoughts (via control of the context / frame of reference) instead of being driven by your thoughts (being locked in a certain context). So don't fall in the same trap with your positive experiences, you don't have to shape it in a way that does not induce positive states of mind. You are totally free to create any sort of narrative (assuming it is true, not harmful, and does not go contrary to Dharma) - as long as it drives you up. In fact the whole point of the First Jhana is to learn to control your mood via narratives (and then directly, in the Second Jhana).

Being happy seeing the sun shine across the buildings is a relatively harmless, simple & beautiful pleasure however, according to Buddhism, it remains a 'sensual pleasure' that the mind depends on or takes refuge in for happiness.

Buddhism teaches about an even greater happiness or pleasure when the mind experiences the 'non-sensual pleasure' of meditation/concentration/jhana.

Therefore, as Dhammapada 209 states:

  If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater
  happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the
  greater.


What happens to the five aggregates after death? What happens to the five skandhas of a particular person after death?

Do they stay together, and cause birth of a one specific person (which can be called rebirth), or do they separate?
If they separate, do they separate just into 5, or does each aggregate split into smaller parts?
If they separate, do they cause births of many different persons?

I'm interested in answers from many traditions, with references to relevant sources (scriptures, books, articles).

EDIT: I didn't get unambiguous answers to my questions, but what Suminda and Prahlad write seems to suggest that all the aggregates arise and pass all the time, but when we look at them at a higher level, we can conclude that four of the aggregates (sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness) stay together and cause a new birth of one specific person, while the remaining aggregate (rūpa, matter) separates and splits into parts. Can anyone confirm/disconfirm this?

EDIT 2: I was asked to specify what is exactly meant by "overall structure of the aggregates remain intact", when we know that the aggregates arise and pass all the time. What I mean is the continuity of the illusion called "self". I have the illusion that I'm the same person as a moment ago, even though my body, my feelings, etc. have changed. Does this illusion continue after death? According to Buddhist doctrines, is there an illusion of the continuity of consciousness? Of the continuity of feelings? Of the continuity of the body?

I watched Yuttadhammo's video about rebirth and understood that Buddhists believe in perceived continuity of the consciousness after death. Is this a canonical opinion that can be concluded from Buddhist scriptures? How about the continuity of other aggregates?

1. Do they stay together, and cause birth of a one specific person (which can be called rebirth), or do they separate?

Even when you are alive, the 5 skandhas arise together in every experience. So when you ask "do they stay together", you are asking if the experience stays. No! The experience disappears immediately. There's no staying. The skandhas in this experience are not the same as the skandhas in the next.

2. If they separate, do they separate just into 5, or does each aggregate split into smaller parts?

The 5 skandhas are grouped into 2 categories. Nāma (mental) and Rūpa (physical). Rūpa contains only the 1st skanda and the Nāma contains the remaining 4.
Usually only Rūpa can arise independently, e.g.: a log, stone, corpse etc.
Nāma always needs to arise in association with Rūpa except in Arupa Brahma Realms. But again, when you ask "if they separate", you are making the assumption that there's something fixed lasting for a certain time period. It doesn't work that way. A single experience can contain a maximum of 17 thought moments. 1 Rūpa unit lasts only for 17 thought moments and there's no example in nature to compare to the time 1 thought moment lasts but to the lifespan of another thought moment.

The mind at the time of death

  When a person is about to die the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment and passes away. The interruption is caused by an object which presents itself to the mind-door. As a result of this a mind-door-adverting citta arises. This is followed by five javana thought moments which are weak, lack reproductive power, and serve only to determine the nature of rebirth consciousness. The javanas may or may not be followed by two registering thought moments (tadaalambana). After this comes the death consciousness (cuti citta), which is identical in constitution and object to the bhava"nga citta. The cuti citta merely serves the function of signaling the end of life. It is important to appreciate the difference between the cuti citta and the javanas that precede it. The cuti citta is the end of the bhava"nga flow of an existence and does not determine the nature of rebirth. The javanas that occur just before the cuti citta arises form a kammic process and determine the nature of the rebirth consciousness.

3. If they separate, do they cause births of many different persons?

There's no separation. When a person dies, the Nāma doesn't appear in the body anymore. Only Rūpa caused due to reasons other than Nāma continue to appear. There's only one Patisandi citta. So the death of a being does not result in multiple births.

  we can conclude that four of the aggregates (sensation, perception,
  mental formations and consciousness) stay together and cause a new
  birth of one specific person, while the remaining aggregate (rūpa,
  matter) separates and splits into parts.

Again, there's no staying. They appear together and disappear instantly. Nāma does not go from this life to the next. The first citta of the next life is a result of the Javana cittas that occur just before the cuti citta.

  I have the illusion that I'm the same person as a moment ago, even
  though my body, my feelings, etc. have changed. Does this illusion
  continue after death?

Ignorance or Moha is a cetasika. The cetasikas are the mental factors or concomitants that arise and perish together with consciousness (citta), sharing its object and basis. Cetasikas don't appear independently from the cittas. So there's nothing going from this moment to the next. But that doesn't mean the next citta cannot have an ignorance cetasika.

  I watched Yuttadhammo's video about rebirth and understood that
  Buddhists believe in perceived continuity of the consciousness after
  death.

Venerable Yuttadhammo is talking about the continuity of experiencing. He's not implying a panchaskanda going from this life to the next or from this moment to the next.

I would think that all processes related to the senses will fade in the dying being, i.e. stop arising, as vitality is ebbing. Only Karma formations aggregate (Sankhara) will remain, along with the consciousness that is conditioned by it, the mind-object consciousness, in a very muted form, enough to be the seed for a new life.These are what reappear in another womb, as the bases for new life, the formations ensuring Karma continuity, and mind-object consciousness ensuring life-force. Once the new life starts to develop sense bases, then other skandhas develop in the new being and grow. Actions performed by the new being add to the formations aggregate, which thus records all actions from the past and present.

Remember that the Buddha did not point to the top of the mountain and parse the topography, but instead pointed to the base of the mountain and taught people how to climb it. Detailed breakup of the processes does not conduce to liberation, only intellectual play.


Choose option in suffering? Hair fall suffering..
Breakup suffering.
Self criticism suffering.
Separation suffering .
Not to  get what is want .
....................................................................................................
Option:
1.run from suffering.(escape from suffering)( drink alcohol)
2.face suffering..
3.Effort to overcome suffering.
4.Accept what is suffering..
Your opinion

According to SN 56.11 e.g. as summarised on page 46 of this analysis:

  Suffering should be known
  Craving should be abandoned
  Nirvana should be realized
  The path should be cultivated

I think that means something like,

Experience suffering (or sufferings plural)
Understand that suffering co-arises with (and ceases with) with craving and attachment
Abandon (don't attach to) cravings

Perhaps "accept what is suffering" isn't a good description of what to do. More specifically something like, "accept without craving so that suffering doesn't arise".

The one and only option which closer to the one and only answer is

4.Accept what it is.

But Accept what? what's the meaning of what it is are the things that we should understand first.

First of all to Accept we need to understand how the world behave. Answer to that is paticcasamuppadaya. This is a very highlevel answer so you need to find out what's the meaning of paticcasamuppadaya. Once you realize that -> you would know that everything in the world behave as a result of a cause.
Cause -> Result. So when you understand (realize) this the nature of the world, you have to accept the flows (way of things happening) of the world.

Next let's see why we have to accept it as it is. Why we can't change it. Why we can't apply new causes and change it to the way we want it to be.

As you know

Causes -> Results.
Causes + new Causes -> Some other results ; (We add new results)

If I take an example : breakup suffering -> let's assume

Girl want to stop the affair -> Breakup
Girl want to stop + Boy pleads not to do (or buy some expensive gifts ) -> No Breakup

Now in the second step the new causes (pleading or buying new gifts) are caused by the greed (love) of the boy to that girl. So that greediness will cause the boy another results which is not good. In buddhism Raga, Dvesha, Moha (greed, hate, delusion) are the causes for bad results. So when trying to change the flows of the things happening in the world, always done based on greed, hate or delusion, which will results in a new bad things. Because everything is Causes -> Results. (This is what explains in the paticcasamuppada)

Understanding this nature of the world explains in dhamma yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan -> Not getting what one desires. This is also meant by the Anicca. A very closer word to this meaning in english is insatiable

Note: Most of the people thing Anicca means impermanence which is not true. Actually impermanence is a subset of anicca. I'm not going to change what people think about this, because nothing is icca -> (getting what one desire : opposite of anicca) Everything is anicca in this world. This impermanence misinterpretation is a result of sanskrit translation (which buddha advised not to translate to sanskrit )

Below are the proof for my points from the pali cannon. And also please note there are some conflicts / mistakes in english translations. I've highlighted that in the latter part.

Below is the core of buddhism which extracted from Saccabihanga sutta

  What is meant by not getting what one desires, that too is suffering?
  To beings subject to birth there comes desire: 'O might we not be
  subject to birth, and birth not come to us.' But this cannot be
  attained by mere desiring. So not getting what one desires, that too,
  is suffering. To beings subject to aging there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to aging, and aging not come to us...' (as
  before). To beings subject to disease there comes the desire: 'O might
  we not be subject to disease and disease not come to us...' To beings
  subject to death there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to
  death and death not come to us...' To beings subject to sorrow,
  lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and
  despair, and sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair not
  come to us.' But this cannot be attained by merely desiring. So not
  getting what one desires that too is suffering.

But in above translation it is written with the word too (that too is suffering). But in pali cannon there's nothing like that. It just say, not getting what one desires (yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan).

Therefore accept things as it is, trying to change things won't give you positive results. And also this doesn't mean that when don't save someone when he is about to hit by a bus even though when you have a chance to save him. As I mentioned earlier if the thoughts are based on greed, hate or delusion then there's a problem. If your thoughts are against those then go for it (this will also become useless as it keep you in sansara It's a different topic to talk about). With the understanding of insatiable state of the world, trying to changing things will be decreased.


Why the view "I am the owner of my karma" not contradict anatta? Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "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" when this seems to contradict anatta?

Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?

There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?

Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?

From AN 5.57:

  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.

This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.

The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.

As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.

The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!” Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.

There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma” as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.

So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.

See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming

I think the questions are closely related.


Emptiness in mind and in reality Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor)

  Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate

  Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate

  The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.

  If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths".

Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness

So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing.

I don't think it's a normal interpretation?

For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical.

  Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics
  especially : separating something into component parts or constituent
  elements.

  Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Subtleties... The concept of emptiness is a mental object that is predicated on other things. We only get to the concept of emptiness by seeing through and negating the fullness (meaningfulness) of other concepts.
The experience of emptiness in not predicated on the concept of it. To experience emptiness is to see that 'emptiness' is no more real than 'fullness'.
If one holds the concept of a thing-in-its-own-right (an 'own thing'), one must hold the concept of its negation (that which is 'not-such'). If one holds the concept of a negation, one must hold a concept of that which has been negated (a thing-in-its-own-right). So what lies beneath those concepts?

I've asked a question about philosophical reasoning from this phrase.
  Suffice to say I was wondering if it can be read as an argument for a
  karmically conditioned rebirth

Its the opposite. When there is no essence of things nor in conditions, there can be no "rebirth".


Does "old karma" come from our parents, family, community, surroundings? In SN 35.145 (below), we see that the body, intellect etc. is "old karma", capable to be felt. But it doesn't say whose "old karma" it is. The sutta also talks about "new karma" generated by decisions and actions within our control, but also not pinned to a specific individual self identity. Also SN 12.37 reiterates this.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

The following comes from SN 12.17 (although this quote comes from here). Here, karma is not pinned to a specific self identity or a specific individual. Karma is attributed to past decisions and actions, coming from dependently originated conditions.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

From MN 38, SN 22.85, SN 12.20 and other suttas, and from "sabbe dhamma anatta" (all phenomena is not self - Dhp 279), we have learned that there is no specific individual self that is permanent, unchanging and continues to wander within this or other lives. The endeavouring being (self) (AN 6.38) is ever-changing and arises from dependently originated conditions.
So, where does the "old karma" which generated our physical body and our mind come from?
Does it come from our parents, family, community, media, books, surroundings?
Are there any scriptural references or commentaries to support this?

When you feel a breeze on your skin, where does the breeze come from? Is there a single time or place where we can say "The breeze started here"? Is there a group of air molecules such that we can say "These molecules (and no others) are the breeze"? A breeze comes from everywhere and nowhere. It is the culmination of all the movements of the atmosphere, dependent on all the breezes that came before, and on the heat of the sun and the earth as they pass through the days and the seasons.
Karma is like the breeze: neither here nor there, not specific to this or that, not inherent in him or her or them. It's not personal. It's the culmination of all the movements of human minds as they brush past and push against each other, dependent on all the actions of all who have come before. Our bodies are given to us by the actions or our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, etc... Our minds our shaped by the minds of our parents, which were in turn shaped by the minds of our grandparents... Our bodies and minds are continuations of karma that ran through them to us, and continues on from us to others.

This
sutta:

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma."

... with its delineation between 'new' and 'old' kamma is simply referring to a delineation according to when the action was taken and when the fruit manifests.
Evidence in support of this can be found in SN 12.37:

Mendicants, this body doesn’t belong to you or to anyone else. It’s
old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions,
as something to be felt.

"So, where does the "old karma" which generated our physical body and our mind come from?"
It comes from actions performed in the past that are manifesting now. In a conventional sense those actions were performed by us in the past. Hear the words of the Buddha in MN 135:

"“What is the cause, Master Gotama, what is the reason why even among
those who are human beings some are seen to be inferior and superior?
For people are seen who are short-lived and long-lived, sickly and
healthy, ugly and beautiful, insignificant and illustrious, poor and
rich, from low and eminent families, witless and wise. What is the
reason why even among those who are human beings some are seen to be
inferior and superior?”
“Student, sentient beings are the owners of their deeds and heir to
their deeds. Deeds are their womb, their relative, and their refuge.
It is deeds that divide beings into inferior and superior.”
...
“Take some woman or man who kills living creatures. They’re violent,
bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings. Because
of undertaking such deeds, when their body breaks up, after death,
they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.
If they’re not reborn in a place of loss, but return to the human
realm, then wherever they’re reborn they’re short-lived. For killing
living creatures is the path leading to a short lifespan.

And here in SN 11.10:

Whatever kind of seed you sow, that is the fruit you reap. A doer of
good gets good, a doer of bad gets bad. You have sown your own seed,
friend, now you’ll experience the fruit.

These are just two of many such suttas where the Buddha describes the fruit of good kamma and the fruit of bad kamma as being our own and due to our own actions and inactions. This kamma can ripen in this life or can ripen in the next life, like for instance when faithfulness results in a fortunate rebirth in a heavenly realm.
"Does it come from our parents, family, community, media, books, surroundings?"
Our body is due to the genes we inherit from our parents and the semen and egg that produced them. It is also due to our past karmic actions. There is no real contradiction here, but some might have the conception of an apparent one. This seeming contradiction arises due to ignorance and is not a real contradiction.
Some will regard the real truth to be that our body is due to the genes we inherit from our parents while the explanation due to karmic actions is just a fictional contrivance.
Others will regard the real truth to be that our body is due to past karmic actions while the explanation due to our parents genes is just a fictional contrivance.
The contradiction happens because we regard one or both of the truths above to be real and existing in an ultimate sense. But neither are true in the ultimate sense. They are both simply conventional truths. This is what the Buddha meant when he was admonishing Kassapa with, "Do not put it like that!" The Buddha said this because Kassapa was seeking an answer to the question of suffering as of "one's own making or of another's or both or neither" believing in the true existence of this suffering. Believing in the true existence of what it means to say 'one's own' or true existence of 'another's.'
To state it another way, Kassapa's question presupposed the true existence of 'self' and 'other' and also presupposed the true existence of 'suffering' and the Buddha was trying to tell Kassapa that these presuppositions were groundless and that when one analyzes with the famous Buddhist tetralemma one comes up empty and can then discern that these presuppositions are simply unwarranted. This is subtle and hard to understand for most sentient beings.
If you look closely at what Kassapa is asking it is very close to the opening verse in Nagarjuna's famous treatise:

Kassapa is asking the Buddha whether Karma arises from the past actions of self, of another, of the both or neither and the Buddha answers that none of these is correct. He goes on to tell Kassapa that he teaches via the Middle Way. One gets the distinct sense that perhaps Nagarjuna had SN 12.17 and Kassapa in mind when he wrote that verse! :)
Please see this answer to try and understand what it means to be a conventional truth vs an ultimate/absolute truth.

"I feel MN 135 is a teaching for beginners, given to a lay Brahmin student, while SN 12.17 and SN 12.37 are advanced teachings based on anatta."
While this is true, it is important we don't construe undue inferences from it. Here are some of the wrong inferences to guard against:

Wrong - MN 135 is contradicted by SN 12.17 thus revealing MN 135 as just a fictional contrivance aimed at dull beginners. In fact, MN 135 is not contradicted by SN 12.17.
Wrong - SN 12.17 refutes that we generated our past karma and are owners of its' inevitable fruits in favor of the idea that our past karma is due to others (parents, family, community, surroundings). In fact, SN 12.17 specifically refutes karma arising from some truly existing 'other' just as much as it refutes karma arising from some truly existing 'self'. SN 12.17 is emphatically not trying to say that our old kharma is only due to our parents, family, community, surroundings and now that we're sophisticated students we can finally understand this.
Wrong - SN 12.17 is basically saying that karma isn't true and that all that we see and experience comes from impersonal physical laws that are immutable and the result of a clockwork universe and karma is some fictional contrivance to goad students into moral actions for fear of facing fictional consequences. In fact, karma is true and we do experience the fruits of our past actions in this life and in the next. But this truth is a conventional one just like the truth that our bodies are due to our parents semen and egg conjoining and the genes thereof.

What's remarkable about these two conventional truths - that karma is true and we do experience the fruits of our past actions and that our bodies are due to our parents... is that the Buddha was specifically interested in the first one and not the latter one. The latter one was surely known by the Buddha, but he never made a whisper of concern about it or attached any relevance to it, but the same is not true of the former. That one he did attach relevance to and thought it important that we understand and accept. That is true for both beginners and advanced students alike and SN 12.17 does not contradict this in the slightest.


Is the Buddha nature nothingness or the Dharmakaya? In a lot of Buddhist literature you will find passages suggesting that our Buddha nature is actually "nothingness" or "emptiness". I was wondering if this was true? I'm starting to doubt this claim because of the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya is one of the three bodies of Buddha which is transcendent. While some say that the Dharmakaya "is" nothingness, others claim that it is neither part of space (emptiness and form) nor time. The idea is that everything, including nothingness (emptiness), originated out of the Dharmakaya. It's an impersonal force which holds everything together, originated everything, and maintains everything through a transcendent state.

My question: What is the proper understanding of the Dharmakaya and it's relationship with our Buddha nature? Is it the Buddha nature or not?

According to Yogacara, buddha nature is a seed in the mind basis of all. According to Madhyamika, buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. It is not the dharmakaya.

Dharmakaya is divided into two (sometimes three): 1. the wisdom truth body, which is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and 2. the nature truth body, which is the emptiness of the mind of a buddha. We also call the nature truth body: 'emptiness [of the mind] without defilements' while buddha nature  is 'the emptiness [of a mind with] defilements'. Just like the emptiness of the table is not the same phenomena as the emptiness of the cup, the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha) is not the same as the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. Therefore, we can not say that buddha nature is the dharmakaya or that an arya buddha possesses buddha nature.

Moreover, in no traditional text have I seen the dharmakaya qualified as 'transcendent'.

Dharmakaya is equivalent to Buddha Nature, God, Allah, Brahmin, etc.... the Ultimate source that is beyond existence and non-existence. The "Creator" (though it neither creates nor is created, it begets nor is begotten).

Emptiness is similar to it but it is not it.

Because emptiness is similar to it we cultivate peaceful mind until we achieve samadhi.

This is similar and brings us "closer" to enlightenment but nonetheless Emptiness is still falsity.

When we can initially let go of the peace of emptiness and leap beyond all Three Realms... then we are bodhisattvas... on the road to Buddhahood and learning to clear out the even more deep-seated attachments.

So basically the order of cultivation is:

let go of existence attachment (Desire Realm and Form Realm)
let go of nonexistence attachment (Formless realm)
abide in the Ultimate


Buddhism and fornication Most of the people follow the 3rd precept of lay buddhism without knowing the actual meaning of it. Personally, even I don't know the actual meaning of it. Most of the people including me understand it as, "not practicing adultery outside marriage". But I know there's more than that. I simply don't know what.

Can you give a clear answer for this two questions.

What is the actual meaning of the 3rd precept?
What does it(the 3rd precept) say about "fornication"?

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.
There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.
Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely:

women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care;
married or betrothed women;
bhikkhunis and religious women observing the Holy Life.

For all women,

a man forbidden by tradition or
under religious rules

is prohibited as a partner.

If someone is an unwilling partner, who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (2) and (4) exclude them from having violated the precept.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) - urbandharma.org

It is also sexual misconduct when one engages a partner at an inappropriate time, such as when a woman is pregnant, or when she is nursing. It is unethical to take the mother away from the baby for sex. It is also misconduct to have sex at inappropriate places, such as at places of worship.

Source: The Third Precept: Abstain from Sexual Misconduct

Also it is sometimes considered Poya / Uposatha is in appropriate time to have sex.

In addition, outside the bedroom is considered an inappropriate place in some interpretations.

As for the question about fornication: if the partner belongs to a category you should not have sex with, then you break the precept.

The 3rd precept was spoken by the Buddha at a time in social/cultural history where it was a social/cultural norm for parents to arrange the marriage of their children. The Sigalovada Sutta advocates this is a duty of parents towards their children. Therefore, the 3rd precept should be considered in this social context. In other words, the 3rd precept when literally read may be inadequate for modern Western society/culture.


Searching for a Pali sutta where Buddha said "Enough!" to rebirth speculations There is a sutta where a man kept asking the Buddha about forecasting destinations or future lives or something similar and the Buddha said to the man: "Enough!" and exhorted the purpose or goal of the holy life is to be dispassionate.

Can someone help me locate this sutta? Thanks

SN 42.3 (To Yodhajiva The Warrior) and SN 42.2 (To Talaputa the Actor) both contain the phrase,

  "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

The reason why he says "enough" seems to be that he doesn't want to have to tell them that they'll be reborn in hell or the animal realm.

The sutta to the Warrior includes a warning against wrong view; and the sutta to the Actor a warning against delusion, passion, intoxication and heedlessness.

Maybe the idea of such existing was mixed up with the occation where a monk told the Buddha that he would leave the holly life if he would not tell him whether there is a "Self" or not. In such way confronted the monk got hardly rebuked an asked if the Buddha ever told that he teaches, will teach such. (Link, later?) Going then back to his usual way of teaching dispassion.
But of course, to speculate about futher existences, likewise past or present, lies in the sphere of "I-making" (papanca, or craving-verbalisations). Of which my person guesses that the thought such "Enough" statment like in the OP-Question derives from.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' (MN 2]
there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
"This, monks is craving the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations." (AN 4.199)

The fact that "selves" get reborn is at least no encouragement to seek for it, and as also mentioned in the question: the Buddhas teachings are about getting dispassionate with1 all kinds of becoming. It (notion of self and it's possible harm or support) just used as a governing prinziple to gain a good notion of self. When ever there is no more notion of any self indentification then such as rebirth has come to an and.
Of course it is nonsense to speculate about "what" kind of rebirth if still subject, if there is still a condition for it. Of what rebirth one may gain next, the Buddha described with the falling of a stick thrown into the air, one time falling on this end, then this, or on the side (link later) But in regard that certain actions give certain results on ones being, when ever such may ripe, and there is rebirth if the is the condition for it, in this regard the Buddha was clear and did not let any door for speculation but encouraged one with it to better take the secure way and let short timely "fortune" and "misfortune" better behind: in putting an end to birth.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]