What to do before correcting regrettable life choices? If someone has lived a regretful life and want to correct himself, what should he do before he begins his efforts?

If someone regrets the choices made in the past and intends to change, where should they begin?

In Buddhism, unwholesome action bears unpleasant fruit in this or a future life. But when and how intensely such fruit arises is mediated by what we do now and henceforth.  The most efficacious means for reducing such negative consequences are through developing our virtue, our mental capacities and our wisdom.  Below, I'll ground this response in the teachings of Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (known to many as "Bhante G," Abbot of the Bhavana Society, author of "Mindfulness in Plain English," etc., see, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henepola_Gunaratana) who anchors his advice in the oldest Buddhist texts and commentaries.

I recall during two different week-long meditation retreats with Bhante Gunaratana his being asked this same question, What to do when we've done regretful acts in the past?, by two different people.  One person was a innocent-looking young woman, the other a middle aged man who mentioned he had served time in prison and who appeared stooped over and brow-furrowed by deep remorse.  To each of these people, Bhante G gave the same response.  He first quoted from the "Lump of Salt Sutta" and then told the story of the mass-murder-turned-monk Angulimala.

In the Lump of Salt Sutta (in Pali, Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99 or 3.100, depending on which redaction; here's an English translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html; and, here's a Pali redaction: https://suttacentral.net/pi/an3.100), the Buddha essentially asks his disciples, would a lump of salt have the same taste in a small bowl of water as it would in the river Ganges?  The disciples state that the lump of salt would make the bowl of water undrinkable but would not affect the taste of the Ganges.  The Buddha then reveals that the lump of salt is a metaphor for bad karma and that the water reflects ones spiritual development.  More specifically, bad kamma will have a harsher impact on one who is "undeveloped" (represented by the small bowl of water) while it will have a nominal impact on one who is "developed."  Developed in what way?  To quote from the sutta:

developed in body (bhavita-kaya)
developed in virtue (bhavita-sila)
developed in mind (bhavita-citta)
developed in wisdom (bhavita-panna)

(An earlier part of the sutta adds, "He is unlimited and has a lofty character, and he dwells without measure" [trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi], which some commentators associate with ones practicing lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity, for instance, as indicated in the Bramha-vihrara Sutta, AN 10.208 [for which here is a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html; also see Piya Tan's article, "How loving kindness can limit bad karma" available at https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/an3-100-lo-akapalla-how-loving-kindess-can-limit-bad-karma-by-piya-tan/1801].)

Just a quick side note, if I may, the notion of developing ones virtue, mind and wisdom finds resonance in the more general Buddhist framework known as the Threefold Training (see, for example, this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training).  The notion of "developed in body" is often interpreted in terms of sense restraint (Pali, samvara; for a more detailed exposition, see, for instance, the Samvara Sutta, AN 4.14, an English translation of which is available at https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.14).

As for Bhante G's retelling of the story of Angulimala, a mass murderer whose very name refers to the necklace (mala) made of his victims' fingers (anguli), the most important canonical source is MN 86 (Thanissaro Bhikku's translation can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html).  Realizing the endless cycle of suffering he has created for himself and others, Angulimala disavows his murderous ways and becomes a follower of the Buddha.  (As Angulimala recites in this sutta and in Th. 16.8  [e.g., Norman's translation can be found at https://suttacentral.net/en/thag16.8 ]: "Swept away in a great flood, I went to Buddha as a refuge.")  Once, when going for almsrounds, Angulimala saw a woman in painful labor and was overwhelmed by how to respond.  The Buddha taught Angulimala the protective verse: "Sister, since I was born in the noble birth [that is, became a monk], I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus."  This exemplifies how Angulimala's new commitment to a harmless life enables him to both liberate himself and give comfort to others.

As an addendum to what I have learned from the wondrous Bhante G, I'd like to add two observations.  The first is that, among monks and nuns, there are communal processes for addressing interpersonal (and other) wrongs that include bimonthly communal confessions.  (See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha#Monastic_practice .)  I don't know if any such process is established in Buddhist lay communities and would, of course, welcome others sharing their knowledge about such.

Secondly, our regret is often intermingled with our own natural, understandable desire to be forgiven.  In Buddhism though, seeking such forgiveness is not achieved through debasing ourselves or some form of ritualized self-flagellation.  Instead, this impulse for forgiveness reminds me of a chant generally found in post-canoncial Theravada liturgies, "Khama Yacana" (see, for instance, http://chantpali.org/closing.html#khama_yacana), where the verses state in part:  "If by deeds, speech or thoughts heedlessly I have committed any wrong-doing, forgive me, O Bhante ... O Dhamma ... O Sangha ...."  In such a way, beyond the desire to resolve our karmic consequences and our desire to create communal harmony, we can try to temporarily ease within ourselves any excessive burden, facilitating the realization of liberation.

Follow the lay person precepts and take refuge.


How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing? The sorts of things that are not about being offended, not insults, but the exact opposite: are atrociously evil or wrong, so one would feel appalled if it had happened to anyone. On the one hand, one may be happy to let karma do its job, but -- on the other -- bodhisattvas must be impelled to save every sentient being.
Is the answer to seek material / earthly justice, and work to enlighten them, within the limits of Buddhist ethics?

one may be happy to let karma do its job
Recalling the brahmaviharas, I think that that -- i.e. "remembering that beings are heir to their own karma" -- is recommended as a recipe for "equanimity".
That's possibly not "good will" though -- i.e. if you're "happy" about someone's misbehaviour, that sounds like the opposite of mudita -- and good-will is important, see e.g. the parable of the saw (as an example of Buddhist doctrine that's relevant to what you're asking).
There's also the Dhammapada verses 3 through 6 -- which recommend against "he hurt me!" and "not stilling your hatred"...
There are other topics on this site though, about social justice -- e.g. if a person lies then you might not want to believe them in future; if they steal you might tell the police...
Or one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple

I gave him the money and he thanked me for it.

"Where is anger for one freed from anger,
Who is subdued and lives
perfectly equanimous,
Who truly knowing is wholly freed, Supremely
tranquil and equipoised?
He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse
than the angry man;
Who does not repay anger in kind, He alone wins
the battle hard to win.
He promotes the weal of both,
His own, as well
as of the other.
Knowing that the other man is angry,
He mindfully
maintains his peace And endures the anger of both,
His own, as well as
of the other,
Even if the people ignorant of true wisdom Consider him
a fool thereby."

Akkosa Sutta: Insult


5 Skandhas / 5 aggregates My question is what is the action each of the 5 aggregates perform. If I was not clear about the question please drop me a message here I will try to be much clearer. Please provide a Sutta as a reference.

"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is
  called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

  "And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called
  'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.

  "And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is
  called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.

  "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate
  fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.

  "And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it
  is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html

My comments:

I think the description of 'perception' above is to highlight the perception of 'difference', 'contrast', etc. Thus, it could include shapes, length, sound frequencies, texture, sensations, etc.
The meaning of 'sankhara' above is question in itself. However, the key term is 'abhisaṅkharonti' ('fabricate'; a verb), which generally refers to 'attachment' in the suttas (eg. SN 12.51) and is also used in suttas about 'kamma' (eg. SN 12.25). Therefore, the description of 'sankhara' above appears to refer to 'mentally constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates as 'self' and 'pertaining or belonging to self'. It appears to mean 'mental constructing' ('abhisaṅkharonti') each of the aggregates into something much more than they actually are. For example, SN 12.2 refers to 'producing' (abhinibbatti) views of 'beings' (sattānaṃ) in respect to the 'appearance or manifestation of the aggregates' (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo).
The description of 'consciousness' above & below, in terms of both 'tastes' (above) and 'feelings' (below) appears to highlight consciousness as a 'sensory impact'.

  'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
  'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
  cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
  cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'

  Discernment (wisdom) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
  disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.

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

  'The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In
  reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact.
  Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
  The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose & aromas
  there arises consciousness at the nose. The meeting of the three is
  contact. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness
  at the tongue. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the
  body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The
  meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the intellect & ideas
  there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three
  is contact. 'The six classes of contact should be known.'

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

  At Savatthi... There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of
  beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search
  of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined;
  contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and
  consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the
  maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of
  those in search of a place to be born.

  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.063.than.html

5 skandha are empty. There is no real person living. But due to ignorance the individual take it as real and attach to it. As he attach, there arise fuel for becoming. Becoming produce birth, old age and death.
So can one give simple explanation about skandhas? Yes.
It's as follows;
Think that you have to create a living puppet which feel, discriminate, think and act. You put together mass of form or substance to build the body first. So, 1st skandha in form. Now you put feelings into it. This is 2nd skandha. You go on to put notion of "I" into it. It's 3rd skandha as Sanna. After you put behavioural pattern attributed to previously planted "i". It's 4th attribute as Sankhara. The last step is you put intelligence so that it come alive. This is 5th skandha as Vinnana. So puppet is ready. Now he think he is born, now act and think.
But the most important question remains? The intelligence you put in the puppet belongs to whom? It belongs to the one who created the puppet. He trojen intelligence into it.
These are 5 skhandas. And there is also higher intelligence who have took this form.
We are just puppet made by Absolute. For the  Absolute Buddha termed as Anatta. And for 5 skandhas as Anitya.
Knowing that we are just puppet. There is no one here that lives or die, the sorrow comes to an end. This is awakening.
Nor 5 skandhas is real you nor the absolute is you. So, you are annihilated totally. No more becoming, no more fuel. No more puppet, no more pain. May all awaken to it!


Does levitation really exist? Sometimes you hear of people who can levitate from the ground. It looks like it is not just a state of mind but a real physical happening.

So is there any prove of the existence of it and how is it is physically possible.

Yes it is possible and Lord Buddha had to show some supernatural powers in certain incidents. But Lord Buddha's perspective was a bit different from what you might expect....

One day Lord Buddha and some monks were on path to reach a certain village / city. On the way the group had to cross a river, there was a boat and people had to pat the boat owner to cross the river (Like a ferry). Suddenly a person who looked like a sage crossed the river levitating above the river. It was done by him to show off as the Lord Buddha's group was there.
Lord Buddha asked "how much does it cost to cost the river".
The amount was told to Lord Buddha, Then Lord Buddha said "That is how much that person's Power is worth"
(Because the power he had only helped him cross the river and that costed a certain amount,no matter how many river he cross that has no value other that the money he save when using the power. In the Grand scale of things he is just as helpless as any other being because his power does not free him from "Samsara")

Lord Buddha asked us to focus on the path and not on fancy powers. Because you do not necessarily need to be a Buddhist to do all of that. Because even Before Lord Buddha's birth people was able to do so much more (Like inter-realm travel).

One day a sage from another teaching wanted to know the answer to the same question that you are asking, So he came to Lord Buddha's Monastery and became a monk. All he ever did was practicing hard to reach the same level as the monks. He was sent by the elder sages of his earlier practice to learn Lord Buddha's teaching so they can show powers and attract people to their teaching (Foreigners to india and even some indians to this day ask questions like why are there so many similarities among Buddhism and other religions without knowing the kind of foul play Buddhism had to deal with).
He tried his best and he couldn't reach the level he wanted and he started asking questions from "Arahats" who visited Lord Buddha to acknowledge their completion of the path. But at the time all the Arahats visited was not with any powers (There are two different practices to reach the end and depending on what path you choose you either get or miss the powers,but there is no lack of the path between the two versions).
In the end he was fed up and directly went to Lord Buddha and told the truth. Lord Buddha kindly advised him and he became an "Arahat". But never returned to the older practice.

There is also another side to Powers....

One day a monk who had reached "Universal hearing (Dibba sotha)" came to Lord Buddha and asked Lord Buddha's guidance to gain (Dibba chakku) "Universal seeing/eye".
Lord Buddha looked at the monk's Karma and said you have not done enough good Karma to reach that level

So there is a clear mention that not only powers vary in the path also the powers can only be reached by ones who have done enough Karma to make it available.

Yes...it does, yet the probability of seeing this depends on you and not the Ones who can achieve such feats.


Is there a correlation between sukha and passadha? Is there a correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga)?

When Piti arises and you stay equanimously watching the arising and passing knowing its impermanence (with no attachment or craving to this feeling) then Piti will fade away and Passadhi will arise. When Passadhi initially arises you may think your meditation is regressing as you loose Piti and also board after a few hours of Passadhi.

Piti is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara resulting from craving.

Passadhi is a stage which is conducive to tame Sankara from Ignorance or Sanna.

There is no correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga) because there is no correlation between passadha and jhana.
The rapture of sambojjhanga is not the rapture of jhana. This is quite obvious because the rapture of sambojjhanga arises before the concentration of sambojjhanga, as follows:

For one whose mind is uplifted by rapture the body becomes tranquil and the mind becomes tranquil.... For one whose body is tranquil and who is happy the mind becomes concentrated.
SN 46.3

The rapture of sambojjhanga is merely the rapture that occurs when the 1st and particularly the 2nd  sambojjhanga are being practised successfully.
This type of rapture is similar to the rapture below that occurs due to faith in the teachings about ending suffering, which is not jhana:

"Tranquillity, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does
not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition
for tranquillity? 'Rapture' should be the reply.
"Rapture, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
rapture? 'Joy' should be the reply.
"Joy, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack
a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for joy?
'Faith' should be the reply.
"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
SN 12.23


Does this statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu conflict with traditional mettā meditation? I'm a beginner and I'm studying (and trying to practice) both meditation on breathing and mettā meditation, and in the book Anapanasati by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, which i'm following with some initial success, when dealing with preliminaries and false views, it is said:

"[...] Some forms of "radiating loving kindness" are phrased in an amusing way, for instance: "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!" This really reflects fear and self love on the part of the speaker. How could a person with such a weak mind ever put forth the effort necessary to realize impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-selfhood? With this kind of ritual he will only disturb his mind all the more. [...]"

Now, i think almost every book and guide on mettā I've read suggests phrases like the one took as example in the above cited text. For example in Brahmavihara Dhama by Ven. Sayadaw it is suggested the phrase "May i be happy and free from misery" and similars. So the above mentioned paragraph confused me a bit. Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice? What view of things should a beginner follow, between these?
Thanks in advance!

I suggest this book you are studying might be too complex for a beginner, even though the section on metta is reasonable. The book 'Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners' might be more suitable.

As for metta meditation in relation to Anapanasati, Buddhadasa's point is obviously straightforward and correct, namely, to realise enlightenment the idea of "I" must be abandoned. The Buddha taught suffering can only be extinguished when the idea of "I" is abandoned therefore the Ven. Sayadaw idea "May I be free from misery" is obviously illogical, as the suttas show, as follows:

  ...it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and obsessions with conceit have long been well uprooted that even if
  there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise
  within him no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. SN
  21.2

Buddhadasa's idea may conflict with the majority of teachers who consider themselves to be Buddhists but Buddhadasa's idea obviously does not conflict with the Dhamma of the Buddha. The Pali suttas generally refer to what Buddhadasa said in his earlier paragraph, namely, "metta is radiated towards all living beings based on reason & insight", as follows:

  There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an
  awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below,
  & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world
  with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive,
  immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. MN 43

  And he lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of Love, and so the second, and so the third, and so the fourth. And
  thus the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere, does
  he continue to pervade with heart of Love, far-reaching, grown great,
  and beyond measure. Just, Vāseṭṭha, as a mighty trumpeter makes
  himself heard—and that without difficulty—in all the four directions;
  even so of all things that have shape or life, there is not one that
  he passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free,
  and deep-felt love. DN 13

  Wishing: In gladness and in safety,  May all beings be at ease. Whatever living beings there may be;     Whether they are weak or strong,
  omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,   The
  seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away,  Those born and
  to-be-born — May all beings be at ease! Let none deceive another,     Or
  despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will
    Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life     Her
  child, her only child, So with a boundless heart  Should one cherish
  all living beings; Radiating kindness over the entire world. Sn 1.8

Occasionally, there are teachings in the suttas about 'self-love' but unlikely to practitioners of samatha-vipassana. For example, in Ud 5.1, the Buddha makes a comment to himself about unenlightened worldlings who love themself more than others:

  Having gone around in all directions with the mind, There is surely no one found who is loved more than oneself.

  In the same way others each love themselves, Therefore one who cares for himself should not harm another.

  Ud 5.1

This teaching in Ud 5.1 is about the 'Golden Rule' or 'morality' rather than about Anapanasati.

In conclusion, the teaching of metta in the Anapanasati Sutta itself shows Buddhadasa is correct & all of the other teachers, regardless of how many of them exist, are wrong. The Anapanasati Sutta includes the following instruction, as found in MN 62:

  Develop the meditation of good will (metta). For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion will be
  abandoned.

  Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the
  conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.

This shows metta is to be developed together with abandoning the conceit "I am".

Therefore, the statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu certainly conflicts with traditional (worldly) mettā meditation  but does not conflict with the mettā meditation the Buddha taught.

Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice?

Yes, he did, because he is a  unusually argumentative regard to commentary and  abhidhamma. His quote is in visuddhimagga. So, he againt it.

  What view of things should a beginner follow, between these?

The uneducated beginner should follow the traditional mettā practice, because it is easier to understand "what is mettā".

So in the path of purification, loving kindness meditation section, wrote:

  when the practitioner doesn't know how to mettā, he should mettā to himself, before meditate mettā follow the tipitaka. "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!"

It is because the uneducated practitiner can easily notice giving-happiness-to-himself mind by this way. When he know what is mettā, then he can let the  giving-happiness-to-the-others mind arise.


What's the role of altruism in Buddhism? In discussions about how to translate words such as averena (a negation of some quality), I've seen two general kinds of answer: or the compound word is not just the negation of the suffix, but its polar opposite; or the compound word is just a negation of the suffix. In the case of averena, the first method renders 'love', 'loving-kindness', or whatever translation is used for metta; in the second, 'non-hatred' is the translated concept.
This discussion (on how to translate negations) has made me think on the role of altruism in Buddhism (which can be seen as unrelated to the root topic at first).
I know there are suttas like AN 11.1 which explain the importance of virtous conduct to the development of the other factors of the path. These suttas seem to indicate that the main purpose of ethics is to liberate one's own mind (which, of course, makes one a positive influence on others). But also there are suttas like SN 47.19 state that looking for others is key as well. I don't see both positions as contradictory, but as complementary. And we have as well the teachings on the practice of Brahmaviharas, with metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha as mind-states to cultivate.
Despite all of the above, in the descriptions of the Noble Eightfold Path (which I understand as containing all that's sufficient and necessary for "moving" from sotapanna to arahant) Samma Sankappa is broken down as nekkhamma, abyapada and avihimsa, with at least two of those three factors being words with negative prefixes, which depending on how you translate negations, could indicate the predominant role of the absence of the unwholesome over the presence of the polar opposite of the unwholesome, i.e. non-hatred over loving-kindness.
After considering all of above, here's the question:
What would you say is the role of altruism (understood as an active effort for improving the quality of life of other, whether by teaching the Dhamma, giving advice, getting involved in education, improving access to material conditions, etc.) and other forms of positive (as "presence of something", not as "good") wholesome deeds in the different buddhist traditions?
How important is to buddhist to make the world a better place, not just by developing negative (as "absence of something", not as "bad") wholesome qualities, but by changing the general conditions of the world?
EDIT: I'd like to add a new question to give more perspective:
As santa100 has noted, the negation of the unwholesome includes the positive wholesome deeds. However, it'd be interesting to know how important is for the buddhist practice to actively engage in positive wholesome conduct, and why does it matter. With that I mean: what effects does have on the world and on ones own mind to do those positive deeds?
My motivation for gaining some perspective on this is to know what to think about the idea of buddhism being not altruistic enough.
I'd appreciate personal points of view and/or references to buddhist teaching/discourses that support your views.
I apologize for any wrong understanding of the Dhamma I could have expressed in the premisses. Please, correct me if that's the case.

Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
With respect to Buddhism, altruism is therefore:

AN4.95:1.4: one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

Quite significantly, Buddhism goes further:

AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Importantly, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are not practicing stinginess in the conventional sense. Rather, those who practice to benefit themselves but not others are in seclusion extinguishing defilements of self-involvement.
Ultimately, Buddhists ideally practice to benefit themselves and others:

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

When I first read this, I found it a startling departure from my preconception that altruism was the highest ideal.
A parallel consideration here is that altruism concerns itself with "good deeds". Here, too, the Buddha says quite simply:

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results; bright deeds with bright results;

But the Buddha goes on to say more:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; and neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

We're all familiar with the muddle of dark and bright. But what is the fourth goal?

AN4.233:5.1: And what are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds?  It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results.

That fourth goal leads to the end of suffering for all.

The world is currently in a really bad place therefore no amount of altruism can tangibly make the world a better place.
For example, I often give what i can to independent reporters who risk their lives in foreign countries (or report other things) but, in reality, that is a waste of time because so few people listen to their reporting.
Or recently I gave some donations to Beirut & Gaza but I trust the Gaza donation won't do much.
The role of altruism is to make your heart & hands open; so you are free from miserliness & hardheartedness.
For example, when a Devadatta enemy came trolling for donations for his friend on DW, I immediately gave a donation without a thought. Someone asked me so I gave.
Then when another Devadatta enemy criticized me, I gave another (small) donation in his name to save his soul from rebirth punishment with King Yama in Niraya Hell.
This is what altruism is. When reasonably asked, you give.
The only purpose is the development of your heart to be unselfish; without fear.

And what is the wealth of generosity? Here, a noble disciple dwells at
home with a heart devoid of the stain of miserliness, freely generous,
openhanded, delighting in relinquishment, devoted to charity,
delighting in giving and sharing. This is called the wealth of
generosity.
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako vigatamalamaccherena cetasā agāraṃ
ajjhāvasati muttacāgo payatapāṇi vosaggarato yācayogo
dānasaṃvibhāgarato.Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, cāgadhanaṃ.
AN 5.47


Are multiverses real according to Buddhism i have heard that buddism also says that multiverse exists. So, i want to ask something. Before few weeks, i saw two dreams in which I was totally aware of myself and at that time at those places, i can clearly feel that whatever I was experiencing, they are Real. In other word, if somebody would have come at that time and told me, this is your dream, than i would have laughed to much. In other words, I can still remember all the detail of that place(dream) and time, the detail of my hands etc. How can this be possible? As I've heard that worlds are just state of mind, similarly dream also. So does that makes, the dream world also as a real world, if a person is always their? Can I again feel such experience? That was very cool, I can still remember that. Before sleeping that night, I was thinking about how multiverse is possible, which I think sometime a because these things are very cool, specially from spirtual path. Were those two of the universe(world) among infinite other universe?

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html


Union with Brahma, or company of Brahma? The following phrase comes from DN 13:

  “ayameva ujumaggo, ayamañjasāyano niyyāniko niyyāti takkarassa
  brahmasahabyatāya, yvāyaṃ akkhāto brāhmaṇena pokkharasātinā”ti.

T.W. Rhys Davids translated here as:

  ‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which makes for
  salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of
  union with Brahmā. I mean that which has been announced by the Brahman
  Pokkharasādi.’

Bhikkhu Sujato translated here as:

  “This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone
  who practices it to the company of Brahmā; namely, that explained by
  the brahmin Pokkharasāti.”

What does "brahmasahabyatāya" mean? What does "sahabyatāya" mean?

This translation could be meaningful. "Union with Brahman" sounds like the modern Hindu concept of Moksha which is a union with God or Ultimate Reality. On the other hand, "company of Brahma" sounds like rebirth into the Brahma realm. What's the correct interpretation?

In DN 13 the term is originally used by Brahmins talking with each other, and so between them it meant whatever (non-Buddhist doctrine) they each understood it to mean.

At the end of the sutta the Buddha teaches them the four brahmaviharas and defines or explains that these are the path to "companionship with Brahma" -- i.e. I think he thus redefines brahmasahabyatāya (whatever it used to mean) in Buddhist terms, in a way that can be understood and agreed by the Brahmins.

DN 13 is not for Buddhists. It is an example of the Buddha's universal love; in that he taught something suitable for Brahmins; which probably also became the doctrine of Christianity. The Lord Buddha is the Lord of the whole world. MN 115 says there is only one Buddha is a world-system.

"Union with Brahman" merely means "Universal Love". Refer to MN 43, which refers to Boundless Liberation Via Loving-Kindness (which is said to not be the foremost liberation).

Previously, the Brahmans, like the Jews, believed they were a chosen or special people, born of Brahma's Mouth or Breath (refer to MN 93). But Buddha, which was later taught by Jesus, said Brahma is Universal Love (rather than exclusive tribal or caste self-love).

This is unrelated to "rebirth" or Hindu Moksha.


How to do walking meditation? I recently came across the concept of doing walking meditation, but I am not clearly aware of the technique or procedure to do walking meditation.

Can someone help me understand this?

Thank you.

This is to be mindful about walking. Walking creates sensations in the body like:

touch of your feet on the ground
the tension of the muscles
sensations due to change of posture
sensations due to fatigue.

Whatever sensation:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Just define a path of 20 to 30 steps. Mark each end of the path, with shoes, sticks or anything. Simpy walk back & forth. Walk up the path. Turn naturally & slowly. Stand and compose. Then walk down the path. Then repeat. If your mind is quiet, the mind will follow the breathing. Also, practise standing meditation anytime. Stand still, relaxed, get in touch with the breathing in & out.


Dhatu-vibhanga sutta question? Why consciousness not discussed as internal and external in Dhathu-vibhanga sutta?

"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind.
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

If you look at original Pali, what they translated as "consciousness" is actually "vijnana" - (discriminative) experience.

The point of the sutta is, as you meditatively investigate what seems to be your "I", you progressively exclude all physical elements as obviously not "I", until you are left with just experience itself. Then you investigate that experience and realize that it depends on the sensory input, which depends on attention.

When you don't pay attention to any sensory input, experience stops. What's left is called "equanimity" ("upekkha"), characterized as "luminous" or "radiant" ("pabhassara"). See Pabhassara Sutta for the canonical reference to "luminous mind".

Then Buddha explains that although this equanimity can be shaped into any other meditative state, including the formless jhanas, the meditator understands that any such state would be contrived and conditioned and therefore finite and prone to suffering.

This realization leads to letting go of desire to attain any state different from what is presently unfolding. The resulting state is pure suchness providing no basis for suffering to arise. The meditator realizes that this indeed is the culmination of the path, "the knowledge of the ending of suffering".

So, the "experience" is not analyzed as internal and external because we are talking about meditator's own experience as he tries to find who he is by separating from everything that is conditioned and unreliable. Experience (vijnana) itself is conditioned on sensory input and is therefore unreliable, not suitable to be called "I" or to be our basis for eternal happiness. Which leaves us with nothing to rely on, nothing to stand on - and this final realization being the only unshakable truth, acceptance of which gives unconditional freedom from any mismatch of expectations, - is the very Nirvana the Buddha is leading us to.

Because unlike rupa, vinnana is always internal for this or that being.

External means it's not kammically acquired by any being such as the water in the ocean or the juice of flowers this part is in the vibhanga paragraph 175/83.


Chinese Buddhists consider all people to be potential Buddhas Do the Chinese Buddhists of all Chinese schools of Buddhism regard all people as potential Buddhas or just Buddhists? Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? What is the difference between their relationship to people whom they consider potential Buddhas from their relationship to ordinary people? Thanks everyone.

Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment?

In the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding, the Buddha teaches that "in any doctrine or discipline" that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found:

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"

"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."

"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."

Yes. But all schools of Buddhism say it is possible for any being to become a Buddha, but given their rarity unlikely - and a Buddha is specifically an originator of the teaching in a realm without one, so as long as Buddhism exists, there can't be a new Buddha only arhats and bodhisattvas. There is a long tradition not only in Chinese Buddhism, of recognising the wisest teachers of other traditions as pratyekabuddha, those who have some degree of awakening but do not teach it's full realisation. Lao Tzu has been widely identified as such a one.
Scholars have linked the emphasis on the tathatagharba doctrine of original enlightenment or Buddha-nature in Chinese Buddhist schools, to it's resonance with the Dao and principle of Li in Confucianism, which are doctrines of natural or original harmony.
The doctrine draws from Buddhas description of the 'luminous mind':

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming
defilements" -Anguttara Nikaya, 1.49-52 (alternative translations and Therevada discussion of here)

And

"He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established,
solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or
Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: 'I am a true son of
Blessed Lord (Bhagavan), born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by
Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.' Why is that? Because, Vasettha, this
designates the Tathagata: 'The Body of Dhamma,' that is, 'The Body of
Brahma,' or 'Become Dhamma,' that is, 'Become Brahma.'"" -Digha Nikaya
III. 84

The tenth chapter of The Lotus Sutra, emphasises that everyone can be liberated, that all living beings can become a buddha, not only monks and nuns, but also laypeople, and non-human creatures. It also details that all living beings can be a 'teacher of the Dharma'. The Lotus Sutra is foundational for and of the highest prominence in Tiantai, Tendai, Cheontae, and Nichiren schools. But also important in Chinese Zen, and there is a commentary on it by Vasubhandu in the Therevada tradition. A copy of The Lotus Sutra is the world's oldest printed book, bound in blue silk, and is held in the British Library in London. Worth dropping in to see if you're there.
It is interesting to note the dharmakaya within the trikaya doctrine in Chinese thought. The trikaya are the three bodies of a Buddha, the nirmankaya or 'transformation-body' is a physical manifestation of a Buddha in the world. The sambhogakaya or 'bliss-body' is the celestial manifestation. And the dharmakaya or 'dharma-body' is the unmanifested "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a Buddha out of which Buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. It's interesting to me, to notice parallels with Christian theology, both of the trinity, and specifically of immanence. The framing I choose, is to see religious practice and doctrinal innovation as about succeeding in helping practicioners and communities of practicioners to succeed, and live well. So I note this as a kind of convergent-evolution that highlights the doctrines effectiveness.


What to do when music gets played in the mind I get the idea of recognizing mind states .Knowing their existence separates them from self but sometimes .I get this addictive Music like a recording in my mind that constantly restarts diverting my concretion from work .I recognize that it may come from states but dealing with it isn't as easy
.

I tried

Knowing that its just music
knowing the reason why it came (maybe when I was listening I wasn't mindful.
diverting my attention ardently away from it

All this didn't work maybe helps in understanding but it still doesn't stop it sometimes it gets even more energy.

Music playing in the mind are mental formations. Approach in the same way as all other mental formations. Notice that it's there but try not to add feeling or thought to it. Doing so will create frustration. In the case of this happening, notice the thoughts you attach to the music in the same way and be with the feelings that occur.

You may say "this repetitive music is annoying me" then you may feel an unpleasant feeling. Notice this! Notice without judgement.

Alternatively, switch your attention to something that requires a high level of focus like creative writing. The music will stop. Become very curious about how it stopped being careful to note the change in mind state and degree of alertness. This will tell you something about your various states of mind namely lower levels and higher levels of functioning. In the lower levels mind has a tendency to do what it likes perhaps governed by the autonomics of conditioning. In the higher levels, conscious directed thought allows you to step out of this process where you can have more choice about how to use your mind.

According to the ancient therevāda buddhist tradition, the buddhist people recite > memorize > comprehend buddha's teaching. It is ears/mouth/mind-redirection from the nonsense story to the advantage story.

Actually, you can do the meditation, listening dhamma, or talking dhamma. But I think the reciting dhamma is proper to be the best enemy of singing/music-addiction.


Nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used? I was reading a comment on this answer and it mentioned the word mind being used in nine different ways.

Comment below :

  If you learn to apply episteme, the way Foucault, Derrida, and Kant had
  used, in deconstructing the key Buddhist Pali words, you may find
  other deeper meaning to them that are of a supramundane nature. For
  example, you will find nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used

Specifically in what 9 ways is the word mind used? In only nine ways? Not more not less?

According to my experience, there are two main meanings of the term "mind" in Buddhist context. It's important to understand those meanings, in order to avoid confusion and misconceptions.

First meaning is "mind in general", which means limitless space where all the reality manifests.

It's related to notions of Buddha-mind, Dharmakaya, Universal Mind, Consciousness.

There are many kinds of consciousnesses. In the philosophical Buddhist tradition of Chittamatra (or Cittamatra), which means "Consciousness Only", there are eight consciousnesses. (Some schools count few more or less).

These eight consciousnesses are:

The five primary - the consciousnesses of:

eye
ear
body
nose
tongue.

The sixth is the mental consciousness, which processes the data from the previous five. Our practice deals with this, the sixth consciousness. Sometimes it might be referred as "mind".

The seventh is manas. As I understand, it's like consciousness in post-freudian psychology: a part of the space centered on our personal perceptions.

The eight is alaya-vijnana, or Store Consciousness. I understand it as limitless ocean where our seventh consciousnesses floats like a crystal ball.

Alaya-vijnana stores our karmic seeds - imprints of past actions - kinetic energies of our intentions.

It is related to the notion of vijnana as the fifth group of phenomena (dharmas). (The fifth skandha).

Please don't feel overwhelmed with all these concepts. They are just pretty simple ways to describe our experiences. If you study them in practice, it all becomes not so complex.

Note that for the most part I spoke of consciousness rather than mind; I distinguish these terms.

So basically the first major meaning of "mind" is limitless space where dharmas appear.

Perhaps the most important and praised philosophical school of Buddhism, Madhyamaka ("Middle Way"), emphasizes emptiness of all phenomena, conditional nature of all notions and objects.

Even the mind - as that limitless space, or in any other meaning - is not really existent. (Though also not really non-existent).

In that sense, Buddhists speak of awakening as realization of No-Mind. As long as we cling to ideas of mind or self or whatever else, we rely on the level of ideas, production of the sixth consciousness, rather than the original reality.

Therefore, what is actual Buddha-mind? Nothing real. Not even that limitless space I mentioned before.

In awakening, we see all such things as mental generalizations, nothing more.

Now what is the second major meaning of "mind"?

When Zen teacher asks you, "What's your mind?" - what would you answer?

Maybe you would describe your experience you are living through, right now.

In that sense, "mind" is the experience now. It can be clouded, with vexations, or very clear and bright...

This meaning of "mind" relates somehow to the notion of consciousness from Twelve nidanas (links of dependent origination).

Consciousness from Twelve nidanas is depicted as monkey jumping among fruits on a tree. From one fruit to another. It's consciousness engaged in activities formed by samskaras (mental constructing).

Being limited by our mental creations, consciousness becomes entangled in samsara.

So liberation can be explained as dropping the limits of mental constructions, opening the mind to being unlimited, dropping even the notions of "mind" and "unlimited" and "awakening" and "liberation".

I'm not sure I answered the question completely - as you see, I have no idea what they meant by "nine meanings of the term mind".

Theories are endless. I hope I pointed at some key ideas which can help you in the practice.

Use the mind well, and through practice of exploration you will always find some useful understanding, eventually helping all beings in liberation.

To better understand the key words in the Sutta Pitaka – the first basket, one must look into the third basket - the Abhidhamma Pitaka of the Tipitaka, the Pali Canon. The sutta pitaka gives a synopsis - a summary of key terms. For each of the key concept, there is a Vibhanga – a detailed description, in the third basket.

The different levels what we generally refer to as the MIND is explained in the Vibhanga Prakaranaya. At one end is the radiant mind. Then the mind goes through the nine stages of contamination, and the other end is the defiled mind. These stages are:
Citta,   Mano,   Manasan (Manasa),   Hadayan,   Pandarung,   Manayathan,   Maneendriyan,   Vinnana,   Vinnanakkhanda.  This classification is given in the Patisambhida-magga-prakarana section of the  Vibhanga Prakaranaya.

The reason for the Pali Tripitaka has been wrongly translated to English and then to Sinhala, has very much to do with Buddhaghosa and Visuddhimagga.  The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification) written by Buddhaghosa has been a curse, that had misled almost every single one of us in the wrong path.

Only now we are beginning to see the true meaning of the words of the Magadhi language. Maghadi is language of sound. It is meant only to be spoken. To write down the lengthy discourses that were in Maghadi that Buddha took hours to preach, PALI was invented. Pali is a form of Precis writing. With Pali, the Arahants of yesteryear managed to describe as accurately and briefly as possible the substance or main ideas contained in the discourses that Buddha gave. As a result an hours long discourse was condenced into a couple of paragraphs.

The distortion of the True Dhamma happened when it was translated to Sanskrit. The people who translated the Dhamma did a word to word translation which caused the path to Nibbana be closed to all of us. Now the incorrect meanings have got so entrenched in our collective psyche, that it is a question whether the true meanings would ever come to light. If I am to briefly explain a couple of the forms that this ‘Mind’ of ours would take:

CITTA is the Mind in its most radiant, pure & pristine form. Its most contaminated form is called VINNANA. Our consciousness (vinnana) is not like that of an Arahant. Ours is contaminated by defilements. This awareness of ours is like looking though a foggy window. It is like a glass of water clouded from impurities. A pristine clear glass of water is on the other had the Citta - the “radiant mind”.

Vinnana is “Vi + Gnana”. The prefix “Vi” gives the meaning of distorted, biased, prejudiced, coloured, form of sanna. Sanna (perception) identifies the object according to one’s gathi. Thus vinnana changes from moment to moment from feelings of  Sukha, Dukha, Somanassa, Domanassa, elation, fear, etc. etc.. Vinnana is forever adding things through the senses, further lengthening the samsara process. The Buddha has taught “uno loko atitto tanha daso” - The world is empty, insatiable a slave of craving” - That nothing can be maintained to ones liking. The more that one sees this the more that one comes toward the radiant mind.


Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism? I read the following on the internet:

In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.

Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness
Generally accepted social norms.
Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time)
Law of the land.

If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as
they wish.

Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?

I was taught by my Buddhist teacher, that sexual conduct falls under the law of cause and effect, aka karma.  And that every action we do creates a future result.  If we would like to have a pleasant future in samsara then we undertake activities that will provide a pleasant result.  The laws of the land and accepted social norms often times "accept" behavior that will result in unpleasant karmic consequences.  (For instance, white lies are "accepted" by social norms, but would not constitute "right speech" and would lead to undesirable consequences.)
I can't back up this idea with a reference, but logic would say that the laws of the land and accepted social norms may not be "right sexual conduct" according to Buddhist thought.

The flip side of what Mahakhema said is that society may forbid various behaviours. And I get the impression that if something is forbidden by society then you should consider that before acting, for example:

If it's a crime in your society to work on whichever the "holy day" of the week is, then maybe it'd be better not
Perhaps more to the point, if for example it's a crime to marry somebody when they're aged 12 or something, then again you'd better not -- even if you did (theoretically) have their parents' permission, and/or even if there's nothing explicitly forbidding that in Buddhist scripture.

I'm not sure how to prove this by reference to scripture -- the suttas don't say very much about lay ethics. Terms like Kamesu micchacara and Abrahmacariya are used (in the precepts), and sometimes defined in a sutta, but even so different people and different societies may have different opinions about how that's applicable in the modern day -- i.e. there are various fringe topics or edge cases, for example prostitution, and "dating" outside marriage, and so on.
The Vinaya is a lot more detailed, and of course according to the Vinaya all sexual activity is forbidden to monks. But this might be a clue -- page 1069 of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's translation and explanation of The Pāṭimokkha Rules says that there are various reasons why someone might be ineligible to become a Bhikkhu, including being some kind of criminal:

Someone with an arrest warrant, or is on probation or parole

An escaped criminal

A notorious criminal, unless they're well-known for having amended their ways

Minor criminals who have not been caught and have
abandoned their criminal activity are not prohibited under this rule. This
prohibition was inspired by the public reaction to Ven. Aṅgulimāla’s
ordination

There are other places in the Vinaya which reference civil law.
I'm not trying to imply that "anything tolerated by society is considered to be moral according to Buddhism" -- which might be how you're understanding the quote.
Even the opposite -- i.e., "anything forbidden (or required) by society is considered to be immoral (or moral)" -- isn't necessarily always true, for example laws of the State which require you to kill might be considered immoral.
But avoiding extremes, maybe it's right to (as quoted) at least consider "social norms" and "law of the land" as one of several relevant "angles" when "looking at" sex.
Also the quote doesn't seem to be about "Buddhism" (as in the title) but about the Buddha. It might be presumptuous to claim to understand all of the Buddha's thought-processes, but the doctrine does seem to consider social norms and laws. For example, this answer includes a quote from the Commentary which explains what MN 41 means when it describes someone as "protected" by their parents. That social norm was presumably contemporary then, and might be universal too (i.e. more or or less true in every society, except perhaps slavery).


Group meditation vs. Solo meditation Other than personal preference, are there known to be advantages or disadvantages to meditating in a group instead of alone?

Think about it - we go to refuge to the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha.  If community wasn't important, it wouldn't be one of the Three Jewels.  There's ample scriptural support for this as in Dhp 6.78, the concept of the kalyaṇa-mittata or spiritual friend, and the Upaddha Sutta where the Buddha called admirable companionship the "whole of the holy life".  While it can be difficult to find a group where you feel "at home", being around like minded individuals striving to the same end will only bolster your practice.  Furthermore, even those tiny annoyances like someone shifting during meditation, someone coughing, or a loud breather help strengthen your concentration and resolve.  Life is not perfectly collected samadhi!  We need to learn how to overcome obstacles.  What better time than when you're on the cushion!  I think it important to add that monasteries are supposed to be places most conducive to the spiritual life.  If solo meditation was somehow "better" than group meditation, then monks would not sit with each other.  Needless to say, this is clearly not the case.

I will also say that personally, I always sit more deeply when I meditate with others.  The ritual of driving to the same place, seeing the same people, and feeling the energy in the room - nothing can replace that!

As off color as this metaphor is, I feel the need to share it.  One of my teachers once told me that meditation without community is like sex by yourself - it's pleasant and effective, sometimes something dramatic occurs, but always there is the sense that something is missing!  :-)

There is neither group nor solo practice. It is a false distinction. The delusion of duality perpetuates this illusion.


Can I meditate while lying on my back? Is lying flat on my back an acceptable meditation posture?  Why or why not?

You can, but it's not recommended.  Many people come to meditation with the notion that it is a relaxation exercise.  With that preconception, it's no surprise that so many wonder why we just don't meditate lying down or in an arm chair.  There may be some kind of benefit to this sort of mediation.  Whatever the benefits, however, they do detract from the kind of meditation taught by the Buddha.

There is a very strong connection between the body and the mind.  The condition of one really determines the state of the other.  To meditate properly (from a Buddhist standpoint), it is very important for the body to be in an upright and invigorated position.  When we lay down or sit in a comfortable chair, it is all too easy for our minds to go slack and lazy.  These sorts of positions effect our concentration and makes it all too easy to fall into sloth and torpor.  You don't want that.  To hold the body upright is to hold the mind upright.  What you want is a state where you are as awake (from a physiological standpoint) as you are going to get.  Discomfort, even a little pain (note - little!), is very conducive to raising your attention and applying it on the meditation object.

Only very experienced meditators can meditate lying down without visiting the sleep world.
Any upright comfortable postion is good. If sleepy, imagine breathing in energy.
Have a great week.


Was the Buddha an arahant? According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant? Is this word synonymous with the title 'the Buddha' or does being the Buddha mean something over and above being an arahant? If the terms 'the Buddha' and arahant are synonymous then why don't we call all enlightened beings Buddhas?

My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?

"According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant?"
IN SN 22:58 we read the Buddha saying:

"The Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One [...]"

Describing himself as an Arahant, he proceeds:

"What is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? [...] The Tathagata, bhikkhus, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path"

There are other characteristics of a Buddha. In MN 115 (*) he declares:

It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. [...] It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. [...] It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One.

Also, MN 12 describes the ten powers of a Buddha (I don't believe these always apply to arahants):

(1) "Here, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible."
(2) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future, and present, by way of possibilities and causes."
(3) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations."
(4) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements."
(5) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations."
(6) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons."
(7) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments."
(8) "Again, the Tathāgata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births... Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives."
(9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathāgata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate... and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions."
(10) "Again, by realizing for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathāgata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints."

"My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?"
Yes. The difference, it seems, is not of attainment, but of role and skills. Many suttas depict the different skills of arahants, sometimes in contrast with Bhudda's skills.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi develops this further on:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

(*) While this excerpt exemplifies distinct characteristics of Buddhas, its important to note that the portion about the impossibility of a woman to become a Buddha is absent in the agama version of this sutta. See Analayo's paper The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities and related Q&A here

no an arahant learns from a buddha, a buddha discovers the path on his own.

ive also heard that buddhahood has additional powers, its not just nibbana attainment and thats it. i coukd be wrong on that.


Secular Buddhism and Suicide I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, but let me first explain my perspective. More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process. From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering. I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities.

This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism. If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves? I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think all Buddhists would commit suicide.

I apologize for this question being so broad. I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers. I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern science.

This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

I used to think much the same thing. I thought that the main problem according to Buddhism is suffering. But the Buddhist resolution to suffering isn't extinction or happiness, but is more like an in between peace.  The bit about nirvana, is the historical Buddha attempting to explain his program of ending suffering, by using a word that sounded a lot like moksha. Re-using the language of his time (karma, reincarnation, brahma, etc) actually makes it more difficult for modern people to understand the core message.
Next, the central solution in Buddhism isn't re-evaluating one's desire, but a realization about who one is, in particular, we aren't a permanent, easily identifiable thing or soul, we're a temporary collection of things, and we can reframe our sense of self as being everyone. So the problems of suffering that anyone has is our problem too. So in with a Mahayana sense of how anatman (selflessness) works, to "solve" the problem with suicide, we'd have to kill everyone.  This particular argument works regardless of whether we think we rebirth or reincarnate or not.
Anyhow, with everyone dead, they aren't happy, unhappy or anything. Which brings us back to the goal, which is to chart the path between seeking pleasure (by working on your dad's farm, serving in the provincial Maghadan government) and asceticism (doing without) and living a life without suffering, but instead something close to "peace" or "equilibrium".  The Dalai Lama had a good quote about this, he usually uses the word "happiness" to indicate the goal of Buddhism, but noted that the English isn't quite right, Buddhist happiness means neither clinging to pleasurable thing, nor pushing away from things that make us suffer, leaving us in between. (Ah, I found it, it's in the video: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/11/the-dalai-lamas-guide-to-happiness-and-farting/ ) "Happiness is a neutral experience that can bring a deep satisfaction"
(I won't go into why traditional Buddhists thought suicide wouldn't work, except they said people who commit suicide would go to Buddhist hell. For a Buddhist extinctionalist (one who believes we do not reincarnate), then suicide is an uninteresting solution. It brings no peace, it brings something entirely different, like asking for a cake and getting the color blue-- not even in the same category)

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme = suicide.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.

3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

  "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?

6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)

Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

  "Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
  benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html

Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

  SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

  Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).

That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.


What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed? I would like to know what are all the cases in which a karma's fruit is destroyed.

Except being destroyed by walking the "path"  - this will derail this question cause this causes discussions on this point alone  ... so please ignore the destruction of karma with practicing the nobles path.

karma's fruit can be destroyed by other karmas - right?

Karma's fruit can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right?
(*Subsequently effective kamma - upapajjavedaniya kamma)

answer to second mini question : yes  (counting karma with tiny amount to ripen as destroyed vipaka )   -  but that does not mean that karma with destroyed vipaka has no effect cause there are 3 effects for karma  -  and there always have to have at least one effect the three are :  samuṭṭhānas  - accummulations - vipaka

No, actions can not be done undone, breath, past can not be destroyed. So also their results will come into being, as long (as excluded to be answered) there is to BE.
That's importand: outside there is no escape.
By effort, having a cause, certain deeds are done or not, and those effects will take place or not.

Breath: "I read now at manual of abidhamma that karmas can destroy other karmas - and a comment from some member here that if some karmas dont have a chance to rise in this life or the next they destroyed (by destroyed i mean they dont have any effect)"

Maybe add a link in your question, for such is not the Dhamma of the Buddha: no effect, when there is a cause. One may, as said, by training the mind skillfully, bear it with more ease, of cause even to big extend. Nevertheless, what has been caused will have it's effect.
Here again some illustrations and Suttas (also to do not understand the law of kamma as a straight line, determinated):

Aṅgulimāla’s case illustrates a general principle stated in AN 3:101: If the workings of kamma required strict, tit-for-tat justice—with your having to experience the consequences of each act just as you inflicted it on others—there’s no way that anyone could reach the end of suffering. The reason we can reach awakening is because even though actions of a certain type give a corresponding type of result, the intensity of how that result is felt is determined, not only by the original action, but also—and more importantly—by our state of mind when the results ripen. If you’ve developed unlimited goodwill and equanimity, and have trained well in virtue, discernment, and the ability to be overcome neither by pleasure nor pain, then when the results of past bad actions ripen, you’ll hardly experience them at all. If you haven’t trained yourself in these ways, then even the results of a trifling bad act can consign you to hell.
The Buddha illustrates this principle with three similes. The first is the easiest to digest: The results of past bad actions are like a large salt crystal AN 3.99. An untrained mind is like a small cup of water; a well-trained mind, like the water in a large, clear river. If you put the salt into the water of the cup, you can’t drink it because it’s too salty. But if you put the salt into the river, you can still drink the water because there’s so much more of it and it’s so clean. All in all, an attractive image. The other two similes, though, underscore the point that the principle they’re illustrating goes against some very basic ideas of fairness. In one simile, the bad action is like the theft of money; in the other, like the theft of a goat. In both similes, the untrained mind is like a poor person who gets heavily punished for either of these two crimes, whereas the well-trained mind is like the rich person who doesn’t get punished for either theft at all. In these cases, the images are much less attractive, but they drive home the point that, for kamma to work in a way that rewards the training of the mind to put an end to suffering, it can’t work in such a way as to guarantee justice. If we insisted on a system of kamma that did guarantee justice, the path to freedom from suffering would be closed. (from: Wisdom over Justice)

See also:

Kamma & the Ending of Kamma

The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH

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

Karma can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific
  lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right ?

Yes. Only when karma has 0 (zero) chances to produce effects in the future (this lifetime, next, or the next, or the next, or ANY life in the future), it can be said that it's destroyed.

Karma can only be destroyed with attainment of Nibanna. Then, karma will not produce any effects.

If Nibanna is not attained, a potential will remain for karma to produce wholesome, unwholesome or neutral effects.

Unwholesome effects raise the potential for future effects. Wholesome effects lower the potential for future effects. Neutral effects neither raise nor lower the potential for future effects.

When karma is not destroyed, only its potential for future effects can be changed.

The potential of karma to produce effects in the future can be diminished to 0 only with attainment of Nirvana.

If Nirvana is not attained, the potential of karma to produce effects in the future will always be more than 0.

Please note that this does not mean that if one attains Nirvana or Nibanna, the potential for karma to produce effects is impossible to be more than 0. It can become more than 0 again, only it will come from wisdom, not ignorance.

UPDATE:

Here it says:

  Subsequently effective (upapajjavedanya) kamma is kamma which, if it
  is to ripen, must yield its results in the existence immediately
  following that in which it is performed; otherwise it becomes defunct.

  Defunct (ahosi) kamma: This term does not designate a special class of
  kamma, but applies to kamma that was due to ripen in either the
  present existence or the next existence but did not meet conditions
  conducive to its maturation. In the case of Arahants, all their
  accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives
  becomes defunct with their final passing away.

Source: http://www.saraniya.com/books/meditation/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Comprehensive_Manual_of_Abhidhamma.pdf

Above it does not say that defunct kamma means that it is destroyed. The way I see it above, the term 'defunct' is ambiguous - it could mean "the potential for future effects is exactly 0 (zero) (thus karma is destroyed)" or  it could also mean "the potential for future effects is so small that there is almost 0 (zero) chance that it will produce effects in the future (thus karma is not destroyed)". I know it's the latter.

Here it says:

  "Monks, I don't speak of the wiping out of intentional acts that have
  been done & accumulated without [their results] having been
  experienced, either in the here & now or in a further state hereafter.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html

Here it says:

  "An action to be experienced cannot be turned, through striving &
  exertion, into an action not to be experienced.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

And here it says:

  Here, following Norman (1997:166), I use the reading upapajjaṁ or
  uppajjaṁ “in the next life” (rather than the variant uppajje).
  Buddhaghosa “corrects” upapajjaṁ here and else where to be a
  tatpurusha, as upapajje or uppajje. The Commentary explains this
  sentence (wherever it occurs) as referring to “3 kinds of karma” (ti
  kamma), according to the time of their ripening (vipāka) or fruiting
  (phala), thus:

  karma experienced in the present life
  karma experienced in the following life
  karma experienced in a subsequent life

  However useful such an idea may be, it should be noted that it is not
  attested in the early Canon. Discourses such as the Deva, daha Sutta
  (M 101) simply speak only of two kinds of karma in terms of time of
  ripening or fruiting, that is:

  karma “to be experienced here and now,” and
  karma “to be experienced in another life”

Source: http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.9-Sancetanika-S-a10.206-piya.pdf

Thus said, my position remains unchanged.


Generosity in Buddhism - When does giving become unwholesome? Buddha said that generosity is essential for enlightenment.

  O monks, if people knew, as I know, the results of giving and sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would they allow the stain of stinginess to obsess them and take root in their minds. Even if it were their last morsel, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared it, if there were someone to share it with. But, monks, as people do not know, as I know, the result of giving and sharing, they eat without having given, and the stain of stinginess obsesses them and takes root in their minds.”
  – Itivuttaka 26: 18-19 (tr. Ven. Bodhi)

Lets take an example . If there is a material object that I want to donate , and it will be used for a very good cause. However , I really like this material object and I feel I might want it ( definitely don't need it for my survival or anything like that) . The thought of giving this object does not make me happy. If I force myself and give up this object , will my giving (generosity) be unwholesome?

Unwholesome actions are those which are based on the three poisons: greed, anger and delusion. When giving is wholesome it is an act of renunciation and it reduces the three poisons.

Giving becomes unwholesome if it is based on the three poisons. Perhaps you want to be famous for giving money so you are willing to give all your cash to charity; in this case you would effectively be buying fame and it is fueled by greed. This kind of giving is like a trade, you still want money but you've decided that fame is worth more; this type of giving is not renunciation.

You can come up with similar examples where the act of giving increases anger or the delusion of self-view, they would all be unwholesome giving.

Well I have always felt that when a person gives you something and at any point in time brings it up as a example it immediately becomes unwholesome because we should give not to get ,but give so that we may live for to with hold is to parish and better yet is there not anything sweeter than to receive and we are all receivers .giving is fulfilling when your receiver sees value in what you have to give ,that's why we must grow and that's what buddha in my opinion teaches. Buddah illuminates the potential within all of us ,so  that you can grow and have something of value to give to the next so that you feel  fulfilled because giving is the secret to living .pay it forward with no strings and with joy having gave when in season because all that you have shall one day be your inheritors.


is the 'magical'/spiritual world another dimension of mind and thus an illusion I have a question. is the 'magical'/spiritual world another dimension of mind and thus an illusion to leave through meditation whether it is obviously part of life and not one men's mind time?
in my experience, I'm very happy and easily, but still straggle with 'the magical/spiritual world (sorry I don't use scholars words, or being careful enough) starts to be clearer and nice. I start to like it after many years. but I still got the feeling - although its my daily reality, and I need to deal with it in the best way I can and learn it - that it might be also a level of illusion, that I have to get out of. I still like the simple life. its easier and lovely enough... so I'm between - 1. maybe that is my ego denying the real truth... should I focus on something special, or just go on with this nice tour. 2. I admit, a lot of that is west of time for me when it comes to others differences: like again and again. ok there is no me, but we know that already, and your angry still, and I'm tiered, or at that point I don't know what to do.... the good side is the 'little monks' (nick name) with them its at home and happy, joy, not u me, and good perspective, wisdom... but because of the duality, pleasant not pleasant... it always like maybe I should stop talking at all - like treat all of that like mind, time - yes not only mine, but still the same, and just let it flow in silence, meditate. is that the answer? it sounds like a good answer. is it to lie, to insist emptiness is the truth, or sort of miss understanding the world.
thank you <3

To insist emptiness is the reality without having realized what the words mean brings no benefit..  in order to become realized one must train in both merit/virtues and wisdom.  Through gathering the two accumulations of merit and wisdom one can arrive at the perfectly awakened state.

What is your question?  The entire world is rather magical!

Sacredness and spiritualism are states of being that we can never fully analyse or rationalise.  It can be felt deep within ones self, but this feeling cannot be captured fully by using words.  The way of the sacred, as Lao Tzu have said “is like a well, used but never used up.  It is like the eternal void, filled with infinite possibilities.  It is hidden but always present.”
One of 20th century eastern philosophers, J. Krishnamurti saw the spiritual nature of solitude. He compares it with aloneness, which is very different to loneliness:

“…This aloneness is not aching, fearsome loneliness.  It is the aloneness of being; it is uncorrupted, rich, and complete. That tamarind tree has no existence other than being itself.  So is this aloneness.  One is alone, like the fire, like the flower, but one is not aware of its purity and of its immensity.  One can truly communicate only when there is aloneness.  Being alone is not the outcome of denial, of self-enclosure.  Aloneness is the purgation of all motives, of all pursuits of desire, of all ends.  Aloneness is not an end product of the mind.  You cannot wish to be alone.  Such a wish is merely an escape from the pain of not being able to commune.
“Loneliness, with its fear and ache, is isolation, the inevitable action of the self.  This process of isolation, whether expansive or narrow, is a product of confusion, conflict, and sorrow. Isolation can never give birth to aloneness; the one has to cease for the other to be. Aloneness is indivisible and loneliness is separation.  That which is alone is pliable and so enduring.  Only the alone can commune with that which is causeless, the immeasurable.  To the alone, life is eternal; to the alone there is no death. The alone can never cease to be.” ( Krishnamurti, p. 17) Krishnamurti, J., Commentaries on Living. The Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Ill. U.S.A. 1967.


what is personality view? inner conversation of mind has reduced now.after a period of had stopped during meditation.is it due to Samadhi which achieved?And what is personality view?

Inner conversation will greatly decrease in the second jhana, I'm happy you have experienced this. Yes, this is a development of Samadhi and you are on the right track. A lack of personality view basically speaking, means that you know deeply within yourself that you are simply body, feeling, mental formation, consciousness and perception. That's all, no matter how hard you look that's all you can find. and that's fine. The more developed Samadhi becomes the more the concept of personality fades. It must fade for Samadhi to arise. Keep in mind that until fully awakened you will still have a concept of personality, you need one to survive, however and any time you can turn inwards and try to look for the self or personality and find nothing, it is a very pleasant and peaceful feeling. In that moment you understand that you are everything and nothing simulatiously and nothing can touch you. The fully awakened arahant would reside continuously in this nothingness of self which would, unless he/she retreated to a forest for the lifetime, would find existing in society quite difficult. This is the final fetter of conceit the Buddha talks about. Furthermore, when one understands how personality and personality traits occur one understands them as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. Additionally, this is underscored and affirmed by recollecting past lives and seeing how much of a different person you were depending on different circumstances, this helps you to let go of attachment to the personality traits you have. Everything changes.

Personality view is seen things as internal (five aggregate) and external (five aggregate).
You perceive internal as I,me and myself and external as not me, not mine and not myself.


Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition as its source? SN 12.66 says:

  The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source,
  acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition.
  When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is
  no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.

Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition (upadhi) as its source? Why doesn't SN 22.66 say aging-and-death has cancer or heart disease as its source?

This, of course, refers to Dependent Origination, with upadhi used synonymously with upādāna.

Pali Text Society's dictionary equates it with taṇhā:

  Upadhi, (fr. upa + dhā, cp. upadahati & BSk. upadhi Divy 50, 224, 534) 1. putting down or under, foundation, basis, ground, substratum (of rebirth) S. I, 117, 124, 134, 186; A. II, 24 (°saṅkhaya); III, 382 (id.); IV, 150 (°kkhaya); It. 21, 69; Sn. 364, 728 (upadhī-nidānā dukkha = vaṭṭa-dukkhaṃ SnA 505), 789, 992; Nd1 27, 141; Nd2 157; Vbh. 338; Nett 29; DhA. IV, 33.—(2) clinging to rebirth (as impeding spiritual progress), attachment (almost syn. with kilesa or taṇhā, cp. nirupadhi & anupadhi); S A. = pañcakkhandhā, S. II, 108. At M I 162 (cp. Sn. 33 = S. I, 6 = I. 107) wife and children, flocks and herds, silver and gold are called upadhayo. upadhi is the root of sorrow ib. 454; S. II, 108; Sn. 728 = 1051 = Th. I, 152 and the rejection of all upadhis is Nibbāna D. II, 36. (cp. S. I, 136; III, 133; V, 226; A. I, 80; M. I, 107 = II. 93; Vin. I, 5, 36 = J. I, 83 = Mvst II. 444; It. 46, 62); D. III, 112 calls that which has upadhi ignoble (= non-Aryan). At S. I, 117 = Divy 224 upadhi is called a bond (saṃgo). Cp. opadhika.—The upadhis were later systematized into a set of 10, which are given at Nd2 157 as follows: 5 taṇh’upadhis (taṇhā, diṭṭhi, kilesa, kamma, duccarita), āhār-upadhi, paṭigh°, catasso upādinnā dhātuyo u. (viz. kāma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata, attavāda; see D. III, 230), cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni u. , cha viññāṇa-kāyā u. Another modified classification see at Brethren p. 398. (Page 142)

In my understanding, the idea here is that the pursuit of acquisitions has a semiotic effect of cementing the notion of self as an agent of action and enjoyer of its results. And so craving for an object, setting one's mind onto the object, making the object one's target, pursuing the object, acquiring the object, and then enjoying the contact with the object is exactly the semiotic sequence that leads to bhava - becoming (=identifying self as) a sentient being.

While experience of "contact" with an "object" marks the point when the spatial sense of self has fully matured, it is pursuit and acquisition is what helps the temporal sense of self to come to fruition.

Once self-identification as sentient being has fully matured both spatially and temporally, the self imputed  onto the aggregates becomes subject to change of the aggregates, hence "aging-and-death".

I don’t think aging has cancer as it’s source. There are many people who are healthy but getting old. So aging has birth as its source. If there were no brith then there would be no aging. If there were no aging then there would be no death. I think “acquisition” is a confusing translation. In other suttas, the Buddha said that aging has birth as its source.