Meditation and being aware in your sleep while dreaming I noticed a reply Andrei made on a post on the results of meditating, that you become aware in your sleep while dreaming, so that your mind knows it's a dream:

Mindfulness during sleep
Do Arhats sleep?

This is a major confirmation sign of correct practice in Ancient Daoism (which i've been reading for years now, not knowing which is correct practice) -- and i would like Andrei's advice (and whoever else would like to share their insight) on practice technique and how you have managed to get to this advanced level.

This is Lucid Dreaming and (AFAIK) it isn't typical practice in most schools of Buddhism, nor should it be used as a gauge for how your meditation practice is going.

With that said, there are some connections.

Dream Yoga.  A set of practices in Tibetan Buddhism for using dreaming (including Lucid Dreaming) to further the path.
Using your improved concentration (thanks to meditation) to enter the hypnagonic state intentionally and from there initiate a Lucid Dream.

If you want to learn about Buddhist techniques, this forum is a resource for all sincerely interested parties. It is also confusing to me when edits are done but I can understand the need for some of them.

This simple exercise can serve as a guide to increase awareness.
Breathing exercise - use normal breathing - do not force.
If you are feeling emotions rising up, want to focus awareness, or just want to calm down, you can try a breathing exercise that takes the attention away from the focus on the personal self with a simple tool of counting breaths.

Find a comfortable position seated or laying down. Begin to relax your breathing. Silently count 1 on the inhale, and two on the exhale. Then silently count 3 on the inhale and 4 on the exhale. Continue up to 10 or until you lose the count then return to one. No judgement. I sometimes end up at 18 then smile and return to 1. The idea is to focus on the breath and the counting and not get sucked into the anxiety or anger trigger. Also works to quiet the mind.

This exercise is designed to increase awareness in this moment of what is here besides the noise of the world.

Another way to learn is to study the teachings of a master. Shunryu Suzuki is an American master of Zen that teaches students to get back to what is already here, beginner's mind. This might be the state that you have pointed to in your question. It is not specific to any sect or religion but is here universally, whether one is aware of it or not. Here is a link to a book by Roshi Suzuki.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf


why is all of Buddhas past lifes referes to times of kings The title says it all.

Why does all the recollections of past lifes of Buddha revolves around times of kings which were similar to the time the Buddha was living.

Why aren't there any mention of times that are similar to the times of what we are living right now ?

does this mean this is the 1st time in the sansara that we are living in a world like this ?

if it is the 1st time, that we are living in a world like this with so many technological advances, that would mean we are living in sansara which is not repeating, which in turns mean that new things can happen in the sansara. then how can we be even sure about enlightenment. if sansara can change what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

then how can we be even sure about enlightenment

I think there are schools of Buddhism which say that enlightenment becomes less possible, as the centuries go by and the Buddha's doctrine becomes distorted.

There are also schools which say that enlightenment is already attained (by the Buddha), therefore enlightenment is certain.

Or that all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent, but that some dhammas (especially nirvana) are unconditioned (and not-self), and "timeless" (or immediate).

People also often say that it (the path to enlightenment) is something you should experience for yourself, i.e. have direct experience of.

if sansara can change

I think that sansara is expected to change: that it's considered "impermanent" in Buddhism.

What seems more-or-less constant about it is a cycle of death and life (perhaps you you'll agree that death and life still exist), and suffering (oceans of tears), and causes of suffering, etc., as described in Dharma.

what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

I think that some schools of Buddhism assert that some relatively-enlightened beings are reborn (see for example "Bodhisatvas" and "tulkus").

But perhaps the statement "beings that achieved nirvana may be reborn" is a nonsense phrase, for example because it assumes that "the same being" may be "reborn" ... whereas, sansara and impermanence posit that anything "reborn" is necessarily a different being.

Also, enlightenment and "being" might be mutually contradictory. It reminds me of this Vajira Sutta:

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

I think that's connected with for example this discussion of 'trackless'.

Beware too that this is (or is nearly) a topic for which it's difficult to get sensible answers: the unanswered questions include questions about whether the Tathagata exists after death, and the four imponderables includes

  The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]

The warning is that speculation on these topics may be counter-productive -- not the right way.

Why Buddha's past lives refers to times of kings

1) Because when Buddha was teaching, the audiences were living at the time of the kings. It's pointless to talk to the audiences ruled by the kings that there were governments governed by universal suffrage president elected by public votes - how could they understand it? Moreover, it's painful to add unnecessary burdens to the audiences introducing a new concept whilst the Dharma such as Anatta and Emptiness was already beyond general mind. The Buddha had nothing to do with his own self - Anatta, all his doings were because of teaching others, so was when talking about his past lives.

2) When Buddha was asked by the Bhikkus to tell them how the "heaven and earth" was formed and what was like in the beginning of time - cosmology, Buddha explaint in the way these Bhikkus could understand: aliens who's faces shaped as square, round, trapezoid (Jambudvīpa, earthlings) and half-moon from 4 corners of the "heaven  and earth" - the universe; galaxies in spiral or odd shapes - worlds like gyroscope, like plate or tilted. And when telling them there were numerous bacteria in the water, he could only name it "worms". We shouldn't use the concept of modern day to wrap around the past. Sutras were recording what Buddha taught 3000 years ago, thus used the terminology understandable to people living at those times.

3) Now Buddha has already enlightened, so he will not return to Samsara at this time for he is already freed from it. If Buddha returned his is doing it for teaching, not for himself, therefore these shouldn't be called his past lives.

4) Although in many circumstances many Sutras mentioned Buddha talked about his past lives, these not the complete record of his past lives. For there is no beginning and no ending of past lives we, Buddha before attaining Buddha-hood, lived, not mentioned doesn't mean not existed. The mentioned past lives were particularly related to certain teachings.

And last

  Samsara now has new things, not repeating itself... technology advances?

Nope. Even the Bible has a glimpse of the truth:

"So there is nothing new under the sun" ~Book of Ecclesiastes 1:9


Is this the same nun in these sutta references? From sutta SA 2.218:

The renunciant Gotama is staying at Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in the
Anāthapiṇḍika Park. And there is the nun Selā who took her robes and
her begging bowl and entered Sāvatthī to beg for food. Having finished
her meal, she cleaned her bowl, gathered her seat and has gone to the
Andhavana forest. I shall disturb her!” Having thought this he changed
into a young man, approached her and spoke a verse:
“Who is it that created beings,
by whom were they made?
Why are they called beings,
from where do they arise?”

That time the nun Selā, having heard the verse thought: “Who is this?
What a cheat! Is he a human or a non-human being?” She entered
concentration and recognized he was King Māra. She answered with a
verse:
“Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’,
saying and believing they actually exist as substantial entities.
Conventional, empty they are but compounded entities
there are in fact no ‘beings.’
Like when causes and various conditions
converge and yield the use of a ‘chariot’.

From sutta SN 5.10:

Then Māra the Wicked, wanting to make the nun Vajirā feel fear,
terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make her fall away from immersion,
went up to her and addressed her in verse:
“Who created this sentient being?
Where is its maker?
Where has the being arisen?
And where does it cease?”

Then the nun Vajirā thought, “Who’s speaking this verse, a human or a
non-human?”
Then she thought, “This is Māra the Wicked, wanting to make me feel
fear, terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make me fall away from
immersion!”
Then Vajirā, knowing that this was Māra the Wicked, replied to him in
verse:
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra, is this your theory?
This is just a pile of conditions,
you won’t find a sentient being here.

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

And from Mil 3.1.1:

Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of “chariot.”
And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned
me about— The thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and
the five constituent elements of being—that I come under the generally
understood term, the designation in common use, of “Nāgasena.” For it
was said, Sire, by our Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed
One:
“Just as it is by the condition precedent
Of the co-existence of its various parts
That the word ‘chariot’ is used,
Just so is it that when the Skandhas
Are there we talk of a ‘being.’”

Most wonderful, Nāgasena, and most strange. Well has the puzzle put
to you, most difficult though it was, been solved. Were the Buddha
himself here he would approve your answer. Well done, well done,
Nāgasena!

Are these verses about the same nun? Is there anything more known about her?

They seem to be two different persons.
Info on Vajira Theri:

Vajirā Therī. The Samyutta Nikāya (S.i.134f) relates that one day, when she was taking her siesta in Adhavana at Sāvatthi, Mārā
questioned her as to the origin of “being" (satta), its creator, its
origin, its destiny. Vajirā answers that there is no such thing as
“being," apart from certain conditioned factors, like a chariot, which
exists only because of its parts. Māra retires discomfited.
Vajirā's verses are often quoted (E.g Kvu. 240, 626; Mil. p.28;
Vsm.ii.593) both in the Canon and in later works, but they are not
included in the Therīgāthā, nor do we know anything else about her.

Info on Sela Theri:

Selā Therī. She was born in Alavi as daughter of the king: therefore
she was also called Alavikā. When she was still unmarried the Buddha
visited Alavī with Alavaka, whom he had converted, carrying his
begging bowl and robe. On that occasion Sela went with her father to
hear the Buddha preach. She became a lay disciple, but later, agitated
in mind, she joined the Order and became an arahant. After that she
lived in Sāvatthi. One day, as she was enjoying her siesta in the
Andhavana under a tree, Māra, in the guise of a stranger, approached
her and tried to tempt her. But she refuted his statements regarding
the attractions of lay life, and Māra had to retire discomfited
(S.i.134; Thig.vss.57-9).
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha Selā was born in the family of a
clansman of Hamsavatī and was given in marriage. After her husband's
death she devoted herself to the quest of good, and went from ārāma to
ārāma and vihāra to vihāra, teaching the Dhamma to followers of the
religion. One day she came to the Bodhi tree of the Buddha and sat
down there thinking, "If a Buddha be peerless among men, may this tree
show the miracle of Enlightenment." Immediately the tree blazed forth,
the branches appeared golden, and the sky was all shining. Inspired by
the sight, she fell down and worshipped the tree, and sat there for
seven days. On the seventh day she performed a great feast of offering
and worship to the Buddha (ThigA.61f). Her Apadāna verses, quoted in
the Therīgāthā Commentary, are, in the Apadāna itself, attributed to a
Therī called Pañcadīpikā, and are twice repeated in these verses
(Ap.ii.519, repeated at 527f), however, she is mentioned as having
attained arahantship at the age of seven, and there is no reference to
her life as daughter of the king of Alavī.

Scriptures contain many repeated teachings and also repeated persons in contradictory contexts. It is likely many suttas are mere compositions rather than real events.
The above said, Selā is found in SN 5.9, which is the prior sutta to SN 5.10 with Vajirā.
In summary, the Agama appear to have mixed up these two suttas.
The Pali SN 5.9 with Sela becomes the Agama SA 2.219  with Vīrā.
The Pali SN 5.10 with Vajirā becomes the Agama SA 2.218 with Sela.


How can Nirvana (Nibbana) be permanent? If everything is impermanent and this is used as a reason why Buddhists do not believe in a creator and eternal God, how can Nirvana be permanent?

Did the Buddha ever explain this point?

There is a famous set of verses of the Buddha that go as follows:

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

  -- Dhp. 277-9 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Do you see the difference?

Nowhere did the Buddha say that everything is impermanent, because it is not true. All things that arise must cease (SN 56.11), and that is the key to answering this question, because nibbaana is unarisen:

  And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans.)

The logical conclusion of not being born is not dying, and so:

  being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- Ibid

One meaning of nirvana is "snuffing out" or extinguishing. Extinguishing what? Whether nirvana is permanent can partially be answered by an explanation given of sunyata, the greatest wisdom, as signifying the "great void", and calmness and extinction. It (sunyata) can be considered as the endpoints of the rising and falling of phenomena. "All existences exhibit void-nature and nirvana-nature. These natures are the reality of all existence." Sunyata (Emptiness) in the Mahayana Context It has been my experience that nirvana is not static and "achieved", otherwise it would/could not dynamically respond to manifestations of phenomena by revealing itself as a transformative "reality". I have found that nirvana is a state closely related to sunyata in that they both exist beyond time/space, but they are nonetheless inherent in its fabric.

However, the essential question being asked in the current exchange is "How can Nirvana (Nibbana) be permanent?" Perhaps discerning between static and non-abiding nirvana can partially answer the question. Here is an excerpt that speaks of non-abiding nirvana..."An important concept of Mahayana Buddhism which is not there in Theravada is that of “non-abiding nirvana” or apraḍiṣṭhita nirvāṇa in Sanskrit. The word ‘apraḍiṣṭhita’ actually means ‘non-stationary’ or ‘not fixed in one place’ or something like that, so the translation as ‘non-abiding’ seems quite appropriate. Many Theravada followers, when they hear about non-abiding nirvana have a hard time understanding what it is really about."

The article goes on to say..."The main difference between static and non-abiding nirvana is that those who attain the latter actually speaking reside neither in samsara or nirvana. For them the distinction between samsara and nirvana breaks down completely. The arhats believe that there is such a distinction and they forever remain on the side of the static nirvana. The Buddhas and highly realized Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, do not remain in this static condition, for they are always motivated by their bodhicitta vows to help ferry sentient beings across to the other shore. So they cannot remain completely still and static."Non-abiding Nirvana


Can buddhists watch horror films/tv shows? I am just a little curious as I do not know. Would they be prohibited for buddhists or would they be allowed to watch?

In short, yes, Buddhists are “allowed” to watch horror films.
The more detailed explanation requires an explanation of Buddhist ethics. In Buddhism there are no “rules,” in the same sense as in other religions. In particular, there is no concept of sin, meaning that one does not commit infractions against a code enforced/created by a divinity or institution. Actions carry a moral weight in and of themselves, but only insofar as they result in certain fruits that either hinder or help liberation. There is no punishment for “breaking” the “moral code.” There are only consequences, so one is encouraged to develop wisdom, to be able to tell apart bad decisions and good decisions. Ultimately, one is responsible for one’s own actions, so one does not ask for permission, nor does one offend an institution or supreme being by breaking the precepts, but one does harm other beings and oneself by performing evil deeds.
So, in general, when approaching any situation in life, Buddhists are encouraged, as the Buddha encouraged his own son, Rāhula, to ask themselves, “Will this action result in harm to myself or others?” So in that line, will watching a horror movie result in harm to myself or others? The answer, depending on one’s tastes and whether one considers being afraid as harmful, is that probably not.

No. You can see it as Chod. Chod is a common practice...
I think if you put your mind into benefiting beings in no matter situation even if you don't do it you can also extract life experience and wisdom to help them anyway.
Sometimes if it's to save the world you should do something wrong no?
Just sharing thoughts
======================================================
If you think it's would benefit all beings "Just Do It".


Inferiority because of failure in meditation I've tried hard to practice meditation - Anapansatti & Vipassana but I just can't concentrate on my breath. Now, I'm feeling inferior as if I can never concentrate my breath or get rid of my inner problems/ sufferings. I feel as if peace or enlightenment or eradication of suffering is not for me.

After proper analysis, I've found that I just simply can't concentrate. So my questions are

What are necessary & sufficient condition to get enlightened? If I don't have those qualities how can I develop those qualities? What I would have to do?
How to concentrate provided I have tried my best to concentrate my breathing but mind wanders away in no time. It is making me sick thinking I don't posses qualities to eradicate my own sufferings. It makes me feel as if I will never be at peace.

Note: I have been into 10 days Vipassana course also.

Anyone help me.

as i see it in OP based solely on content of his post.

  The faculty of conviction - seems to appear
  The faculty of persistence - seems to appear
  The faculty of mindfulness - seems to appear
  The faculty of concentration - self reported weak
  The faculty of discernment - seems to appear

Indriya-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties

On concentration:

  "And what is the faculty of concentration?  There is the case where a
  monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

So it has attainment of singleness of mind as property of mind.

So how to develope it:
https://suttacentral.net/en/ma42

  At that time, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat of repose in the
  afternoon and went to Buddha. He bowed his head at his feet and then
  withdrew to sit at one side. He said: “World Honored One, what is the
  meaning of this: ‘to keep precepts’?”

  The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of keeping the
  precepts is to bring about non-regret. Ānanda, if someone were to keep
  the precepts, he would readily attain non-regret.”

https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.2

  (1)–(2) “Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is
  virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’
  It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose
  behavior is virtuous.

  (3) “For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
  arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.

  (4) “For one who is joyful no volition need be exerted: ‘Let rapture
  arise in me.’ It is natural that rapture arises in one who is joyful.

  (5) “For one with a rapturous mind no volition need be exerted: ‘Let
  my body be tranquil.’ It is natural that the body of one with a
  rapturous mind is tranquil.

  (6) “For one tranquil in body no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me
  feel pleasure.’ It is natural that one tranquil in body feels
  pleasure.

  (7) “For one feeling pleasure no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my
  mind be concentrated.’ It is natural that the mind of one feeling
  pleasure is concentrated.

Later again from Meanings Sutta but it fit here more in this post:

  Again, he asked: “World Honored One, what is the meaning of this:
  ‘concentration’?”

  The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of concentration
  is to bring about seeing according to reality and knowing according to
  reality. Ānanda, if someone were to be concentrated, he would readily
  attain the seeing that is according to reality and the knowing that is
  according to reality.”

Else?

For developing  of non-distractiveness association with people collected in mind, avoiding restless people and mindfulness of arising and ceasing of phenomena in general according to Buddhagosa s commentary

I think this is it for your concentration problem OP, dont think i have to state the seemingly obvious in regards to your leaks:)

In regards to feeling inferior,

  there is no competition in search for peace

i heard that

Also this

Sarakaani Sutta:

  "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata
  are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to
  the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to
  states of woe.

  "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection
  for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe.

On Vi:

When training Satipatthana it is not the objective to get well-concentrated, the concentration comes in succession and has its role and appropriate function. IE it also is involved as a causal condition for people attaching to certain states and that hinders progress.

Sati as a factor of Enlightenment, translated as mindfuless has function of remembering or keeping in mind, re-cognizing. Mindfulness of physical and mental states arising of and within a body is a single theme for the mind, which will develope concentration faculty no problem.

It seems to me that you could try paying more attention to arising and passing of states of "disliking", "wanting/liking", "sadness/despair", "judging/evaluating", "doubting" and "thinking/wondering" as well as "knowing", knowing ie when your concentration is low you can know it as "my concentration is weak", then maybe "disliking?;)" or "wanting" for it to be better or "evaluating" that it makes you a bad meditator, should note that your are thinking at this point and see where it goes from there. You see it will keep you within the theme of mindfulness of the body, conditioning victory.

Many Westerners market meditation as a cure-all & easy path so they can make money. In Asia, meditation is generally not taught to lay people. Meditation is not an easy path; relatively few Buddhists attain profound results; therefore, you should not judge yourself against meditation results. For example, according to the monks Vinaya, jhana concentration is a "supernormal" state of mind. Therefore, comparing yourself to 'jhana' is like comparing yourself to Michael Jordan. It will only lead to suffering over what is rare; like girls who have psychological disorders because they believe they should look like a certain movie star or supermodel.

As for hindrances to concentration, there are five, namely: (i) sensual desire; (ii) ill-will; (iii) restlessness & remorse; (iv) sloth & torpor; and (v) doubt/fear.

The two major obstacles to concentration are sensual desire & fear. For example, many men become monks but cannot develop samadhi or abide in emptiness because fear arises in the mind if ego or self is abandoned. Such monks spend their life scolding & bullying laypeople & praying for a better reincarnation (they believe will exist).

As for sensual desire, to dissolve this requires wisdom about sex. If a person cannot discern the incredible harm that is caused by heedless & uncommitted sex, including what occurs in the 'entertainment industry', it is unlikely they can develop samadhi.

As for ill-will, remorse, etc, such hindrances generally require spiritual friendship & discussion about past issues, so some genuine understanding can arise about past relationship issues.


Is there a concept of after life in Buddhism? I know that Nirvana is not like heaven the one they have in Christianity and Islam, but rather just a state of mind in the present world. Then what happens to someone who dies after becoming the enlightened one or becoming a Buddha? Where does he/she go?

There are 2 types of Nibbana which are:

sopadhishesa-nirvana (nibbana with a remainder) - while alive
parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana (nibbana without remainder, or final nirvana) - after death

Nibbana is being blown out. So once you die for a person who has attained Nibbana does not go any where. The person is extinguished. This is like when you blow out the candle the flame does not go any where. The conditions for combustion are not there hence it extinguishers. This is similar to Nirvana. Conditions for future rebirths are no longer present hence you get extinguished.

I start answering these things and I want to pull out a bunch of references and quote books etc.... Then I think "thats just ego if I dont need it to answer". So let's try it this way.

Yes, most definitely an after-life exists in Buddhism. We are not really this body. We are the drivers inside it. NOT the brain though, thats physical. That preserves memories and identifies patterns. We are the actual feeling part of the emotions.

So we have this shell of a body that dies. It doesn't come back. Inside we have the driver, our consciousness, and it doesn't die. Truthfully it was never an individual. Our consciousness is part of the consciousness whole ... which is subject to all of the feelings of the universe and not just our crappy little 5 senses. Our awareness is limited to this vessel right now. A limitation that goes away as we return to the whole.

Once our bodies die we just keep doing this same cycle of crap until we ascend dimensionally.


Can this Buddhist do this job? At my university I and my group were offered a case of opinion on Buddhism.

Neither I nor my colleagues are Buddhists so we have done a lot of research in the last few days, but we are afraid of misinterpreted this religion.

The case given to us is about a Buddhist who works in an investment fund and basically his job is to recommend investments to clients.

Right now, the best investment he can recommend is related to the manufacture and exchange of automatic weapons.

We found that having a job that causes suffering to other creatures is against buddhism and for that reason, since weapons are something that is created to cause suffering the worker is in doubt...

Can he recommend this investment on weapon to his clients because recommending this investment is really far from causing suffering to other creature with a gun or it doesn't matter and it is against the buddhism and he should leave this job ?

Thank you,

Tiago from Portugal

It may not be necessary to be a Buddhist to realize that doing harm to others by selling weapons, is not a wholesome act.

I think the opinions will split;

  He trades in weapons
  He doesn't trade in weapons, he is just doing his job informing of an investment opportunity, here he is akin to a phone-book in that a phone book has no intention of people calling the ads within, it merely provides a general service function. Much like a hunter's wife might perform her duties cleaning the traps and such without blame of killing.

I won't give my opinion on who is correct but it would have to be classed as the latter for it not to be 'wrong livelihood' which is an immense obstacle to development, a wrong way.


Stephen Batchelor's current meditation practice I recently saw a remark that implied that Stephen Batchelor no longer meditates or at least not very regularly.

If true, this seems important. Batchelor is prominent, even central, in the contemporary, so-called Secular Buddhism movement. He has a long history of different phases of belief and practice, from Tibetan, to Zen, to a form of agnostic/secular "Buddhism" that he has almost come to define on his own.

Can anyone supply a pointer to that assertion or related material? I did not capture it at the time.

Found it! (Admins -- should I delete this now superfluous question?)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/does-buddhism-give-us-answers-or-questions/

  Batchelor said [in 2003] he no longer meditated every day. "I am a meditation
  teacher who doesn’t meditate any more," he said, smiling sheepishly.
  Although he once found meditation "extraordinarily valuable," over
  time it came to seem like "a kind of evasion, really. It was a cutting
  off from experience, rather than a full-blooded engagement with all of
  its ambiguities and messiness." He tried to cultivate his existential
  awareness through writing now more than through meditation. "I write
  and think and struggle with questions. That’s my practice.

I cannot quite agree on his reasoning. Meditation is best done while being secluded, however, it does not mean that one escapes from the world. When we meditate we "become" more and more our aim of meditation (bhavana). If one practises friendliness then one becomes slowly and gradually more friendlier. If one does not cultivate in seclusion the past cultivations will atrophy and then it's more or less random in which direction one is cultivating. I find his direction quite unsatisfying but to each their own. He twisted dhamma as he liked and is subject to western materialism which is undoubtedly also with its drawbacks


Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in? Does one take refuge into the concept of Buddhahood or refuge into Gautama Buddha?  What about Vairocana Buddha or Amitābha Buddha for that matter? I've heard various things from taking refuge in a cosmic Buddha principal to the actual Gautama Buddha over the years from various Buddhist teachers.   Perhaps taking refuge into the Buddha is a relative subjective experience.  Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in?

I think both interpretations should be somewhat intertwined and doesn't need to be clearly distinguished. See, you'll not say 'I only take refuge in Gautama Buddha, but not Buddhahood', or 'I will take refuge only in Buddhahood, but not Gautama Buddha', both of these sounds weird. Buddha Gautama represents Buddhahood, so we can not separate Him from Buddhahood.

Abhidharmakosa-bhasya of Vasubandhu explains taking refuge in Buddha like this:

  They who take refuge in the Buddha, take refuge in the factors
  (dharma) of the perfected being (arhat) that constitute a Buddha
  (buddhakāraka), the factors that are the causes of the designation
  “Buddha” [buddhaprajñaptihetūn], i.e., the factors due to which, as a
  principal cause, a certain person is called Buddha; or else the
  factors through the acquisition of which a certain person,
  understanding all entities, is called Buddha. These factors are (1)
  the cognition of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), (2) the cognition of
  non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and (4) right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) (vi. 50,
  67), (4) with the factors that accompany (parivāra) these cognitions
  (jñāna), i.e., with the five pure aggregates (skandha).

  As for the material body (rūpakāya) of the Buddha, it is not
  subject to modification through the acquisition of the status of
  Buddha. Thus, one does not take refuge in the material body of the
  Buddha, which is, in fact, the material body of the Bodhisattva.

  [Question:] – Does one take refuge in all the Buddhas or in one
  Buddha? [Answer:] – According to the nature of entities [lakṣaṇatas],
  and in the absence of an explicit declaration (kaṇṭhokti), [one takes
  refuge] in all the Buddhas, for the Buddhas have always followed the
  same path, (1) a mundane (laukika) path and (2) a supramundane
  (lokottara) path (vii. 34).  [Lodrö Sangpo translation.]

None whatsoever. As Thanissaro says, any real insight is always a surprise.


Any advice on leg numbing during sitting? It happens at about 20 minutes every time lately... either in half lotus (a traditional position that i would like to honor), or with one leg laying in front of the other, or indian style... doesnt matter, my left leg goes numb. sitting up in a chair doesn't seem conducive to a meditative state and laying down i just fall asleep. id really like to do some intensive and very long blocks of meditation (advice on this would be appreciated also) but im not sure how to approach this severe distraction and get past it.

I feel your pain!  That was a huge problem for me for years!  There is a cure, thankfully.  There is some trial and error involved, but if you persist, you'll figure it out.  First, some background.  What you are experiencing usually has to do with how your butt is making contact with the cushion.  There is a big nerve center in either of your two butt cheeks.  They are located just slightly below where the bone pokes out.  When you press on that place for long periods of time, it causes the "pins and needles" feeling.  In fact, your entire leg will usually go numb first - the tingly feeling is the nerve "waking" back up.

There are a couple of ways to overcome this problem.  The take away from any of these methods is that you want to take pressure off that area:

One way people do it is by using a higher cushion.  The idea here is that if you are off the ground a bit more, you are less likely to sink back and onto that nerve center.  You also create a natural incline with your legs.  Your thighs slope up to meet your hips.  Of course, while this will help relieve the nerve pressure in your butt, it will also eventually result in knee pain as your legs are taking more of your weight.  I tried this for a while by stacking two cushions sort of like this  ->  o\  (if that graphic makes any sense).
Another way is to lean back a bit.  Actually, you should be doing this anyway (it helps eliminate back pain as you are less likely to lean forward).  Leaning back helps shift the weight more onto your coccyx.  You are going to feel a little weird at first - almost like you are falling backwards.  I think this is because there is a tendency for your chin to raise.  Just make sure you are keeping your neck straight.
The method that worked for me had to do with how I was setting up on the cushion.  A lot of people plop down right in the middle of the zafu.  This is a bad idea.  You are throwing all of your weight down right on those nerves.  Personally, I set up right at the very edge of the zafu with just my coccyx coming down on the cushion.  Those bothersome nerve centers don't even make contact with the cushion at all.  I also incorporate points 1 & 2.  My cushion is a little higher (maybe about five inches) and I do lean back just a bit to keep my weight coming straight down into the cushion.

Hope this helps!  I know how annoying it can be!!!

I'm just shaking my head. Tradition goes too far with this sitting cross legged thing.

Excruciating Sitting Zazen is for people that want to take the long way around to Zen.  Some people have circulatory problems and whine their leg falls asleep its a sign of trouble.  You should not IGNORE it in the sake of aesthetic values lol.

Alan Watts is considered a great man to teach Zen and he said there was no absolute need for sitting lotus. I think Lotus is great because its very easy to forget yourself in that balanced position, however, it isn't for everyone.  Asian people and healthy people take to it easier.

To act like some part of Zen is denied to you because you cant sit lotus or full lotus is stinking of religion.

If you want to meditate, meditate.  If your legs hurt too much, don't ignore them.

I challenge any man to tell me I am not a practitioner of zen because i dont sit for extended periods of time in a certain position.

Watts said when a cat is tired of sitting it gets up and walks away.  And so he did.  And the eastern teachers of Buddhism/Zen have never forgiven him for it.  Saying he failed a koan.

Even buddhism is stinking with pride apparently


How & why can sexual intentions be harmful to others? MN 19 says:

  And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
  with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to
  the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nibbana.'

While I gain the impression the macho blokey male Buddhist internet scene appears to have men hoping to score jhana or Nibbana, which they imagine is a higher form of pornographic sexual orgasm, in this respect, it seems MN 19 is clear when it says sensuality is harmful to "oneself", in that sensual & sexual thoughts hinder jhana & Nibbana.

But why are sensual or sexual thoughts & intentions harmful to "others", as stated on MN 19?

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a sensual thought arose. I understood: ‘This sensual thought has arisen in me. It leads to hurting myself, hurting others, and hurting both. It blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment.’ When I reflected that it leads to hurting myself, it went away. When I reflected that it leads to hurting others, it went away.

If one has a sensual thought about another person, one feels an attraction, a craving, a grasping. And as one acts upon that sensual thought, that other person becomes a sense-object, an object of craving. We objectify them, reducing them to mere objects of satisfaction. This is harmful to others in that it diminishes them.

And although the person to whom we are attracted may delight in our attention, they may come to crave that attention and seek it again. This is harmful to others in that we lead them astray, tempting them to seek attention.

If the person to whom we are attracted has an unattractive friend, we ignore that unattractive friend in our pursuit of the attractive friend. This is harmful to others in that we treat them with aversion.

These are only some of the ways sensual thoughts can hurt others and why they are unskillful.

well purely logically with the usual classical logic with the usual meaning of ''or'', he says ''my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both.'' so he uses ''or'' not ''and'' and the personal affliction is ''obstructs discernment, promotes vexation'' so ''thinking imbued with sensuality''  indeed leads to ''my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both.''

here is the sutta which lists what " one who lives the celibate life impurely, tied to the fetter of sex" means.
https://suttacentral.net/an7.50/en/sujato


Where can I find the "10 merits of life liberation" in the Tripitaka? I searched, but I couldn't find, where these "10 merits of life liberation" are included in the Tripitaka.

Here you can find the "10 merits" I mentioned: Why do Buddhists practise life liberation?

There is also a Pali verse I found about this, but it's not in English, and also I don't study Buddhism in English normally -- so'll be thankful if anyone can point out where it is in the tripitaka.

I guess it may be in the therapadana part, according to that Pali verse -- I can't write it clearly in English letters as I found it only in Sinhala letters, but nearly it's like this:

  abhayadanan dhatwana - jaththuno bhayajjite
  dasanisanse anubhomi - kammanuchchawike mama

This is a bit delicate, because the list of ten you have mentioned includes statements such as:

  One will have abundant offsprings for future generations.
  One will easily attain what one wishes.

With #4, since monastics are generally celibate as part of the Vinaya, there would be no "abundant offspring" in the literal sense. Perhaps in the spiritual sense would might have "offspring", but with the wording, that would be a bit of a stretch.

With #5, this also a bit in contradiction with all the suttas such as SN12.23 that clearly state that craving leads to suffering. Wishing is a tricky word to use. One might wish for a Ferrari or one might wish for a spiritual path.

Compare your referenced list of ten with a list of ten from the DN33 sutta:

  A mendicant has given up five factors, possesses six factors, has a single guard, has four supports, has eliminated idiosyncratic interpretations of the truth, has totally given up searching, has unsullied intentions, has stilled the physical process, and is well freed in mind and well freed by wisdom.

Indeed, why would a Liberated One wish for anything? Grasping a wish, one searches for the fulfillment of that wish. And above we have clearly stated that there is no more searching.

Note, that one might argue that the list you've quoted is a list for lay practitioners. However even here, we have AN8.61 with Ugga the Householder happily choosing celibacy:

  I’ve undertaken the five training rules with celibacy as fifth

I would recommend reading AN8.61 yourself to understand how far the list you have linked differs from what the Pali Canon shows in the suttas.

When lay instructions differ from monastic instructions it is always good to understand the differences so that we our practice progress rather than regresses.

Advantage #5 is very close to the following quote from DN33. Yet the following quote provides more context. One must be ethical and pure.

  The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

This is a very important consideration. When we live by violence, that is impure. WHen we give fearlessness, we are being ethical. So item #5 should be read in the context of being ethical. It does not stand alone.

DN33 goes on to say:

  If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of well-to-do aristocrats or brahmins or householders!

So yes, in the context of Right View, one will easily attain what one wishes simply because what one wishes for is Right. This is where the precepts come in for lay practitioners:

  It’s when a noble disciple doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence
  --an5.179

The following warning from DN33 also indicates that being rich, young and healthy and having abundant offspring is a temporary condition with uncertain outcome. One must focus on Right View:

  It is not because of endowment with family, wealth, or health that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
  It is because of endowment with ethics or view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

The list of 10 therefore does have concrete roots in the suttas. The suttas mostly deal with monastic study. They do also have instruction for lay practitioners. The lay instructions are usually quite terse and somewhat restrictive. Indeed, many lay practitioners would have trouble following the first five precepts (e.g., avoid alchohol?). Because of this, one might list out the advantages of following the first five precepts. I believe the list you have referenced is one such list. It is a list of advantages to be gained from following the path of:

Right View
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Immersion

Well the merit 10 is about Pureland, which is an idea invented by puthujjanas, and you will not find it in the pali cannon.

Anyway, merit 9 is ''9. One will experience joy and peacefulness in all seasons.'' that's typically what the result of what people today call mindfulness

  [3] "He is resistant to cold, heat, hunger, thirst, the touch of
  gadflies & mosquitoes, wind & sun & creeping things; to abusive,
  hurtful language; he is the sort that can endure bodily feelings that,
  when they arise, are painful, sharp, stabbing, fierce, distasteful,
  disagreeable, deadly.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html

merit 4 ''3. One will be unharmed by natural disasters and accidents.'' is typically what people say is the result of getting the citta into the samma samadhi. For instance, ajahn brahm loves to tell the story of a bikkhu who was not burned by a fire, when the citta was in samadhi.

the other listed merits are about daily life of humans and karma, which is what puthujjanas crave to know,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.043.than.html


Why is Kwan Yin riding a sea turtle? And maybe to save two related questions, why does Samantabhadra ride an elephant and Majursri ride a lion?

I was meditating with Kwan Yin statute and that was the main distraction, I had no idea why Kwan Yin is on a sea turtle.

Okay, I did my own research and here is what I've come up with so far. Interestingly, the artist is making a reference to this Pali suttra:

  "Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water,
  and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from
  the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east.
  A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would
  push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would
  come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you
  think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every
  one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"
  "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle,
  coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his
  neck into the yoke with a single hole."

  "It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
  It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly
  self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence
  that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the
  world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy &
  rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine &
  discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

  "Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is
  the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is
  the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

http://uwf.edu/wmikulas/webpage/leaves/website/canon/samyutta/sn56-48.html

Other Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are often described as riding a particular animal.

Samantabhadra is explicitly described as riding an elephant in his sutra. Samantabhadra's elephant appears to be another awe inspiring flourish. (At least from my reading of the excerpt of Samantabhadra Meditation Sūtra in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says of Manjusri and his lion: "Mañjuśrī is often depicted as riding on a blue lion, or sitting on the skin of a lion. This represents the use of wisdom to tame the mind, which is compared to riding or subduing a ferocious lion." Wikipedia doesn't explain why the lions, but elsewhere it's suggested that lions were sort a family symbol of the Sakyas, or it's just a reference to the pali sutra about "The lions Roar", ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakyasimha

These are parts of later concepts and cultural development. To understand true Buddhism you have to try to develop understanding in the original Suttas and then put them to practice. This has little relevance to Buddhists than it being part of a cultural significance.

Higher understanding will come through your practice. Practice of the Dhamma and self realisation is the main aspect of Buddhism. So it would be best to set aside some of the question you might have for a while and than later revisit them through deeper knowledge you would have gained through meditation. As for the above these are cultural and later theological developments which have not weighting in the core practice and also some what difficult to answer in a definite way. So these kind of questions should be left aside for a while.


How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it? A meditation teacher I once had said that access concentration (the stage before the jhanas) is the same level of concentration that one has when reading a good book or when fully engaged in conversation. However when I've read about it in other places it makes it seem like it is a more special level of concentration, perhaps one that you wouldn't ordinarily experience in your day to day life. Which point of view is more correct? How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it?

The Visuddhimmagga defines upacāra samadhi in IV 32-34:

  Now concentration is of two kinds [access and absorption]. [...] The difference between the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. [...] just as when a young child is lifted up and stood on its feet , it repeatedly falls down on the ground. [...] The arousing of the counterpart sign, which arises together with access concentration, is very difficult.

The process of concentration as described in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (IX 17, 18):

  When that sign has been throughly aprehended and enters into range of the mind door just as if it were seen by the eye, then it is called the learning sign, and that meditation becomes concentrated. When one is thus concentrated, one then applies oneself to meditation by means of that preliminary [parikamma] concentration  based on the learning sign. As one does so, an object which is the counterpart of that (learning sign) becomes well established and fixed in the mind -- (an object) which is freed of the flaws of the original object, reckoned as a concept, born of meditation. Then it is said that the counterpart sign has arisen.

  Thereafter, access [upacāra] development is accomplished, consisting in concentration of the sense sphere in which the obstacles have been abandoned.

Fast forward to our current century:

  Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of jhāna factors. [...] It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator's continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and "bright". [...] In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna.

  -- Stephen Snyder & Tina Rasmussen (Practicing the Jhānas)

or more broadly speaking:

  The Buddhist tradition has introduced the term upacāra samadhi [...] to refer to a non absorptive experience of concentration that begins with the arising of the counterpart sign and endures until consciousness enters into full absorption. Upacāra samadhi implies concentration that is in the vicinity of jhāna [...] and describes the experiences that precede absorption, but it does not necessarily leads to jhāna. It may refer to the conditions that precede jhāna; it may refer to experiences that are reminiscent of first jhāna mental factors, but without the seclusion of absorption; and it may describe the mature concentration that accompanies those meditation objects (such as discernment of the body parts, and various recollections) that do not have the potential to reach full absorption. [...] Some meditators use the term upacāra samādhi so loosely that it merely describes the feeling of being concentrated and a mind that is stable and happy during meditation.

  -- Shaila Catherine (Wisdom Wide and Deep)

When you see nama-rupa and sees thought as thoughts then the 1. samatha jhana is present as well, independently your eyes are open or during your daily avtivities.


What is the root condition for (each of the) unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)? Would it be helpful, wholesome, skillful and wise to investigate the root condition of (each of) the three poisons/unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)? [Why these three and not some random qualities like baseball, terpenes and a Farm Aid concert?]

And why do vast amounts of beings seem to tend more towards lust, ill-will and ignorance instead of wisdom, wholesomeness and skillfulness? Why is our true nature still mostly obscured?

All Buddhist teachings revolve around the same core, Dependent Co-Arising, usually described as the Twelve Nidanas.

Dependent Co-Arising refers to the process of development of informational (representational, semiotic) reality, starting with unconscious causational/informational tendencies, to basic inclings of rudimentary representation, to development of mind, to emergence of representational "entities", culminating in an idea of Self as Subject of experience and Agent of action.

This process grows hand-in-hand with (co-develops in conjunction with) development of behavioral tendencies for attraction, repulsion, and judgement in general (of things as "good" and "bad"). When these two things - the representational reality made up of entities and self - and the judgement-based attraction/repulsion - come to maturity, we end up having something that thinks of itself as a sentient being acting in a world of good and bad entities, trying to acquire the good, and get rid of the bad. But because the fundamental assumption this is all based on is false - because in fact the world is not made of fixed entities, and they are not inherently good (desirable) or bad (undesirable), this situation leads to all kinds of turbulence, that to these so-called "sentient beings" looks like a valid struggle against trouble and suffering, towards some imagined idealized happy state. The funny thing though is, the more each of these "sentient beings" acts to obtain happiness for itself, the more trouble they (us) create for each other, and therefore for all of them (us). So to them (us) it looks like they (we) are trying hard to make things better, but in fact they (we) end up perpetuating this confusion and struggle.

This situation is the core condition of the vast amount of uninstructed worldlings. They (we) think their (our) subjective idea of the world is what the world is, and they (we) seriously try to act within it, only causing more trouble, endlessly.

The Three Roots are a distilation of the above to three basic tendencies in the minds of sentient beings. A tendency for assuming something as desirable, a tendency for assuming something as undesirable, and a tendency for taking subjective (representational) things at the face value as if they were objective.

It's kinda sad, if you think about it.  Even tragic, if you ask me. Out of this vast field of energy develop formations capable of representation, and then these formations seriously think they need a new cell phone or a bigger breast. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.

It's because not seeing, not knowing, Dukkha, e.g. lack of recognising Dukkha, that the roots of Dukkha arise. Is because not hearing/remembering the good Dhamma with proper attention, that lobha, dosa and moha penetrates the mind. And what is the lack of Dukkha, as a cause of Saddhā/Saddha (sacrifice) arising? Birth is the cause of Dukkha. So it's by taking birth, by coming into being at auspicious conditions and hearing/remembering the Dhamma at proper time, that path and fruit, the way beyond is obtained, conditions for further becoming uprooted, abound.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]


Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why? My preference would be a Theravada based answer to the following question:

Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and
why?

Thank you. :)

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the five most important texts within KN are:

Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")
Theragata & Therigata
Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")

The Dhammapada is hardcore and to the point.
The Itivuttaka is easy to read, heartwood and contains some important explanatory teachings that appear not found elsewhere (eg. Iti 44, Iti 49, Iti 96); even though these teachings are related to the core teachings of the suttas.
The Udana is fun but appears to contain some probably belated, miraculous yet amusing texts (such as new born children talking dhamma). It also contains lots of hardcore illuminating wisdom teachings.
The Theragata & Therigata are mature.
I listed Sutta Nipata on the bottom because, due to its nature of often being in "verse" (vs "prose"), the language is often more archaic thus vague. Also, it contains what appear to be belated texts, such as Metta & Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The other texts are best avoided, appearing to be belated texts loaded with superstition & wrong views, such as Jataka, other past lives books & Milindapanha. These texts do show however how quickly the Buddha-Dhamma degenerated. The Paṭisambhidāmagga commentary was obviously not composed by Venerable Sariputta and is often inaccurate.

In a hurry, or afraid to waste 'precious' time?
If, good householder, wishes to get the most important first, so as it was used to traditional (by the elders, not the market and consumers preferences), actually, if investigating, careful and with broader understanding, the collection of the Tipitaka is actually sorted, 1, 2...
If generally searching for inspiration, getting the right words at the right time for release, random selection is possible the best way, if still outside. Food and preferences are very different and if wishing to get the whole for an enter required, there is the requirement of a teacher, knowing which is good at certain time.
There are also many parts in this Nikaya which aren't really avaliable and also somehow "mobbed" in western, modern world. So not easy to find them anywhere promoted.
Most importand, in regard of having actually benefit, is getting the teaching as a real gift, not even demanded, and to come to such point, most importand: Better to Give than to Consume & Respect, Confidence and Patient
Since the Tipitaka isn't really thought as a common literature, but a collection for insider, this Nikaya's first Sutta starts with the right approach:
I go to the Buddha for refuge.
I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A second time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A second time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A second time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

A third time I go to the Buddha for refuge.
A third time I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
A third time I go to the Sangha for refuge.

And continues with the The Ten Training Rules of a novice, someone serious with the huge gift.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


Infinity, eternity, countlessness in Buddhism I'm interested in concepts of infinity, eternity, countlessness, etc. in Buddhist thought.

Could you please help me out with sources, both primary and secondary, where these concepts are used?

I know that there are countless beings, that the world existed forever, that Buddha's knowledge is limitless, that there are countless Buddhas, countless universes. But it is extremely hard to pin down exact scriptures where these concepts are elaborated and to find secondary sources where the issues of infinity and eternity are discussed.

Will be grateful for any help.

Thanks!

Questions regarding eternity are considered to lack an answer:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/avyakrita
According to the sutta quoted below, Buddha refrained from answering that type of questions. The reason for this comes from the buddhist notion of anatta, also mentioned below. The concepts are a bit hard to untangle, but this is the gist of it:

How is it, Master Gotama, is the world eternal?”… as above …
“What, Master Gotama, is the cause and reason why, when wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ And what is the cause and reason why, when Master Gotama is asked such questions, he does not give such answers?”
“Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. They regard feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ But, Vaccha, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, does not regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.8/en/bodhi

From the Pali suttas, the first that came to mind is "Assusutta (SN 15.3) -- Tears".

It's translated variously:

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

  From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration.

By Ven. Sujato

  Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.

By Piya Tan:

  this cycle of life and rebirth is without a knowable beginning

The word in question is anamataggoyaṃ about which, I don't know, there's a blog article here: Anamatagga

  Translators’ renderings

  Translators render it in the following ways:

  • ‘The journeying-on as being without beginning and end’
  ☸ saṃsāraṃ anamataggato (Norman, Thī.v.496).

  • ‘This saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning’
  ☸ anamataggoyaṃ bhikkhave saṃsāro (Bodhi, S.5.441).

  Thus anamatagga potentially means:

  endless
  beginningless
  without discoverable beginning

  We will now show the problem of these terms, and we will show why we follow PED’s ‘whose beginning and end are alike unthinkable,’ and the commentary’s (ad S.2.178) aparicchinnapubbāparakoṭikoti attho (‘first and last point cannot be determined’).

The translation "without a knowable beginning" is close to my (trained in modern maths) definition/understanding of "infinite" though that may be just a coincidence -- i.e. "infinite" meaning something like "unbounded".

Another reference I think of is SN 44.7 and SN 44.8 (as mentioned in Erik's answer) -- the word translated "eternal" there is sasatta:

  Master Gotama, is this right: ‘the world is eternal’?”
  “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, sassato  loko”ti?

See for example Introduction to the Avyakata Samyutta for more about that.

Another sutta, which describes something not literally infinite but pretty large/small, is SN 56.48.

There are also definitions or metaphors of what a kalpa (i.e. an "(aeon)"), is, defined somewhere -- I'm not sure how that's important, though.


Are the Skandhas reborn from moment-to-moment? Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms.

Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?

Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?

How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

Imagine a camp fire that started in 1982. The original fuel has burned down but new fuel is regularly added. The overall shape and configuration of the fire in 2020 is somewhat reminiscent of the original 1982 fire but of course none of the material is the same.

Now if we were to analytically separate the fire into several categories (skandhas) we would find wood, ash, heat, light, oxygen, and smoke - all playing their roles in the maintenance (upadana) of fire.

Is it the same fire staying or is the fire "reborn" moment to moment? It's neither and both, these are just concepts to explain the working of causal continuity.

One important mistake in the worldview underlying your original question:  it assumes that "the fire" starts when a new human is born. But this is not so. The fire has been continuously burning through generations. "The beginning point is not evident". A new human is just another tongue of flame.

Rebirth requires craving.

  SN12.23:4.6: I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Continued existence.’ I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Grasping.’ I say that grasping has a vital condition. And what is it?  You should say: ‘Craving.’

If Melinda wishes to be called Abigail, then after some time she gradually becomes known as Abigail. Then Abigail dies. Oddly, others will eventually also wish to name and be named "Abigail." The wish perpetuates, but who is Abigail?

Stepping back from wishes, we can also understand that there are conditions that are connected in arising.

  SN12.21:1.8: When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.

And we can understand that there are conditions connected in cessation.

  SN12.21:1.9: When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.

So if Melinda wishes to be Abigail, Abigail arises. Then Abigail dies. Or Melinda could study the Noble Eightfold Path and be done with rebirth. Wishes are conditioned. And so is the Noble Eightfold Path. Perhaps Melinda should consider what Melinda wishes for...

  SN12.21:1.13: When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.  When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …  That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”


Is it only possible to pay attention to one thing at a time? I once was at a (theravada) mini-retreat where the teacher insisted that if one really watched carefully, one would recognize that it is not possible for the mind to pay attention to more than one thing at a time.  I commented that in my experience it is possible to experience a lot of stimuli simultaneously. to see "whole picture" in one glimpse, just like listening to many instruments at the same time, but he kept insisting that this was due to the fact that attention shifted at a very fast pace between objects. And that if I kept practicing I would realize this.  Is what he said in accordance with buddhist teaching?  I have never heard it mentioned from any teacher other than him (but I remember it from some old perception psychology which I don't know if is out dated), and it really interferes with my mindfulness when I come to think of what he said.

The teacher is correct.

It is only possible for the mind to hold a single object at a time. Thinking that the mind is able to hold multiple objects at the same time is merely an illusion of continuity. It is just the mind shifting very rapidly between objects and mindfulness is not yet strong enough to register/discern that.

As mindfulness, concentration and insight matures that fact will gradually become more apparent.

By practicing Vipassana meditation one can come to clearly experience this fact.

Your speaker (not "teacher") is incorrect.

What the speaker (not "teacher") said was unnecessary non-sense and unrelated to Buddhism (which is about ending the causes of suffering).

For the speaker (not "teacher") to be correct, the speaker (not "teacher") must 1st define what an object or "thing" is. Since potential "objects" become infinitesimally smaller, it is impossible to define what a single object is.

For example, to perceive a "long breath" or "agitated long breath" or "smooth long breath moving from nose thru chest to abdomen" includes many different yet collective perceptions. It is impossible to perceive each of the above aspects of these perceptions individually.

For example, how can "agitated" or "smooth" be perceived independently from "breath"?

For example, to perceive a picture of a flower on a green wall can be done with one ordinary act of eye consciousness. To believe the mind is shifting extremely fast between objects of "picture", "flower", "green" and "wall" is superstition (maybe a worse more primitive superstition than reincarnation).

The Lord Buddha, who knows & sees, defined "perception" as follows:

  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.

  SN 22.79

If the mind only could pay attention to one thing at one time then there would be no "contrast" (perception of difference) between different colours because the mind could only perceive one colour at one time.

For example, if the mind could only perceive one thing at one time then reading this forum would be impossible because the mind could not perceive the difference between the black colored letters and white colored background. The mind could not perceive the "vertical" line of the letter "T" and the horizontal line of the letter "T". The letter "T" could not be perceived.

The more one attempts to analyse this question (as I am attempting to do), the more speculative, theoretical and insane it becomes. Sheer madness & insanity. Utter adhamma.

The Lord Buddha, who knows & sees, described the vipassana required for complete enlightenment and the ending of the asava (defilements) as follows:

  There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form,
  such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its
  origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its
  origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their
  origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its
  origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of
  concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of
  the effluents.

  AN 4.41

If the mind could only be aware of one "thing" at one time then it could not perceive "arising" and "passing" of "aggregate". Without a sense of continuity, there would not be a contrast between "arising" and "passing". For "passing" to give rise to the disenchantment of "dispassion", there must remain some recollection or memory of the prior perceived "arising".

As mindfulness and concentration deepens that fact will gradually become more apparent.

As mindfulness and concentration deepens, superstition & deliberate false speech about things not truly experienced will be abandoned.

Thus the Buddha taught:

  Discernment & 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. Therefore these
  qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
  separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between
  them.

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

  MN 43


How does Shambhala differ from traditional Vajrayana Buddhism as it is practiced in Asia? How is Shambhala Buddhism as founded by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and continued by folks like Pema Chodron different from traditional Tantric Buddhism such as that practiced by the Dalai Lama?  Does Shambhala rely on the same texts as Tibetan Buddhism?

In the editor's preface of my copy of Trungpa's 'Shambhala - The Sacred Path of the Warrior' it is claimed (and I do well agree with that), that the Shambhala teaching is "a major departure" from Trungpa's earlier, popular but quite orthodox Tibetan Buddhist books. This is further elaborated, saying that the outlook is rather secular than religious and in the broadest possible way universally-human.

This fits quite well with my personal impression of the teaching, that it tries to avoid anything too specifically buddhist, too 'sectarian', too foreign (for westerners), too 'exotic', but rather attempts to - if I may say so - lead westerners (that unmistakably are the audience talked to) back to a common human source of dignity rather than providing yet another foreign source of 'spirituality' to draw from.

This also means, that it does not rely on any scriptural source, rather - in a rather unimportant and personal way - it relies on the tradition of the Shambhala kingdom.

Shambhala is one expression of buddhism with the Kalachakra at it's roots.  It addresses hineyana and mahayana teachings as most things are taught in buddhism - symbolically.  It pulls from Kagyu and Dzogchen traditions, where the Dalai Lama is from the Gelug tradition.  Trungpa Rinpoche worked closely with Suzuki Roshi and was in spiritual agreement with Gerald Red Elk, the Lakota Sioux shaman.  His son, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, is teacher to Taoist lineage holder Eva Wong.  This speaks to the universality of true and direct spiritual 'attainment'.  The teachings themselves are historic - read The Epic of Gesar - yet are considered new and "terma" because the direct experience of a master must be taught to an entirely new culture.  No monks or nuns in "the west."  Look at Tibetan iconography and it won't make much sense, but those raised in such a culture see it filled with meaning.  Westerners just automatically think "cult."  In Eastern culture, especially Japanese (my Ikebana teacher shared this, as well as stories from Eva Wong's empowered qigong teachers), one NEVER questions a teacher.  In the West, we question everything!

In a nutshell:
Shambhala is an expression of buddhism;
Theravada is an expression of buddhism;
Galupa is an expression of buddhism;
Zen is an expression of buddhism;
Chan is an expression of buddhism;
etc.

And - buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy and a meditative path of direct experience, not study.

Hope that helps a super complicated question!


Is overthinking violate third precept? I have noticed most of the time third precept is interpreted as sexual misconduct or adultery. But third precept emphasize all the misbehavior and misconduct using all six sensual spheres. "Kamesumichchara" in here kama means involvement of all six sensual spheres.

E.g in this answer;  One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.

My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery?

Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?

In my (Mahayana) interpretation, Kamesu-micha-cara means "Behavior incorrectly motivated by desire of sensual pleasure". This pertains to any pleasure associated with any of the senses.

The core idea of the precept IMO is that "desire of pleasure" is "wrong motivation". It is not that sensual pleasure in and of itself is bad. It is that receiving pleasure is an invalid goal. Instead, behavior should be motivated by a valid goal, such as health, well-being, harmony, peace, and Liberation.

Since mind counts as one of the senses, any activity "motivated by desire of MENTAL pleasure" should count as violation of the precept. This would pertain to indulging in all types of mental pleasures such as idle conversations, games, fantasies, philosophizing and others.

There is a fine line here though. An activity would only be a violation of precept, if its sole motivation was receiving (mental) pleasure. If activity has benefits such as development of mental faculties, reduction of pathological mind states, and increase of wholesome mind states, then it should count as constructive activity of useful nature.

For example, if someone is depressed, and is engaging in meditation aimed at increasing motivation and generating positive mind states, this should not count as indulging in mental pleasure - even though it involves deliberate generation of joyful mind states.

So I think the main criteria here is, whether we are indulging for pure pleasure, or doing it deliberately with a wholesome goal in mind.

And yes, in this interpretation "overthinking" or more precisely "indulging in thinking and philosophizing for the pure pleasure of it" would count as violation of third precept.

No it doesn't! And it's certainly not about doing something too much. It's about having a sexual relationship with someone else's wife, husband etc. Otherwise getting addicted to music, cakes, chocolates etc. would break the 3rd precept too.


What is right view regarding rebirth? What is right view regarding rebirth according to the Buddha? Is it:

a) Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body for all even if
craving is not eradicated
b) Rebirth continues eternally after
breakup of physical body for all even if craving is eradicated
c)
Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body if craving is eradicated. Rebirth continues after
breakup of physical body if craving is not eradicated.
d) Other?

If possible, please provide sutta references.

Householders, what if just taking A Safe Bet?

The right view regarding 'rebirth' (upapannā) according to the Buddha is:

a) Reappearance (upapannā) continues after breakup of the kaya (group; collection) for all if craving is not eradicated

b) Reappearance (upapannā) does not continue eternally at the breakup of the kaya if craving is eradicated because the end of craving is The Deathless.

c) Reappearance (upapannā) stops at the breakup of the kaya if craving is eradicated. Reappearance (upapannā) continues after breakup of the kaya if craving is not eradicated.

The word 'kaya' does not mean 'physical body'. The physical body is called 'rupa'. The 'kaya' means the 'collection' of the five aggregates. It is best to not misrepresent or slander the Buddha.

If the word 'death' ('marana') referred to physical death then it would not be a wrong view to say the Buddha ceases to exist after death. But, in Buddhism, it is wrong view to say a Buddha does not exist after death (marana) because a Buddha does not experience 'death'.

  Friend Yamaka, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One
  would not speak thus: ‘A bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is
  annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death.’ SN 22.85

  Dhammapada 21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.


Can we apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs of Dependent Origination? "Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. "

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/sujato

Can we apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs of Dependent Origination?

Yes, this is correct. This is why it's called "pratitya-samutpada" or "dependent-co-arising" ("stepwise-mutual-production")

The sequence represents progressive development of dualistic thinking (dualistic hardening) down the chain that creates the concept of one's own death. You see, dualistic thinking is thinking based on discrimination between left and right, top and down etc. - it's a type of thinking that involves defining a reference point (the zero point, e.g. between up and down) and some sort of quality or criteria for separation (up/down, inside/outside, beautiful/ugly etc.).

In pratitya-samutpada each pair of adjacent steps represents one act of dualistic separation or co-definition. Each pair splits the world in two, along one dimension and creates foundation for the next split. We are talking about developmental psychology of mind here.

Samskara is a cohesive collection of memories or imprints that are accumulated one-by-one in such a way as to be logically consistent, in such way as to create some sort of consistent interpretation or experience of what's going on.

This collection of observations supports emergence of Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation) of new observations in terms of internalized old observations. This act of recognition or interpretation makes it possible for the new observation to be added to the pile, consistently with what's there already. Therefore Samskara enables Vijanana and Vijnana enables Samskara.

Recognition involves recognizing patterns like objects and situations, or generalizing significant features into identities. Therefore by its very nature Recognition is reification of entities. We define objects and give them names. This is called Namarupa. Recognizing objects (and places, situations) supports further development of Vijnana. So at this stage too, Vijnana supports Namarupa and Namarupa supports Vijnana.

The notion of objects arises co-dependently with the notion of their background or space in which they exist. Because there are six types of objects, there are correspondingly six types of space. This is Salayatana. So Namarupa and Six Spaces support each other, fall out from each other.  The world, once again, is split in two: object and its background.

Karmapa's Dream Flag is an illustration of this principle of the object and background mutually-co-defining each other. Are these blue waves on the yellow background or yellow waves on the blue background? That depends on the observer's interpretation. The object and its background are mutually co-dependent. As soon as we designate the object - the background co-emerges and vice versa.

By this point the dualistic process progressed far enough to have a pretty rich differentiation of the external ("world" with "objects"), but there is pretty much nothing differentiated on the inside yet. There is also no experience of Time yet. But now that there are six spaces with corresponding sets of objects, there can be experience of a known object re-appearing after a period of being absent. This experience is called Contact. It is made possible by everything that happened until this point, but particularly by the notion of space as the background on which the object appears. The world is split along the dimension of time, into the time without the object and time with the object. This notion of Contact (having the object) makes the absence of object event more noticeable, thereby re-supporting the Six Spaces.

Now that we have identified the time when object is with us as significant, we notice the Feeling we have when the object is present. We attribute this feeling to the Contact with the object. This feeling in its turn re-enforces experience of Contact as something real and significant.

This Feeling at the time of Contact makes for a striking contrast with the time of No Contact. Obsessively remembering the Feeling of Contact during the time when the object is not with us, because the impression it left on us was so strong and fit so well with the pile of Samskara, is called Tanha or craving. This craving re-enforces the feeling we have when the object comes back.

Obsessive craving for Feeling/Contact/Object leads to obsessive thinking and fantasizing about it, Upadana. We tell ourselves a never-ending narrative, we replay situation over and over again, we make a little movie in our head about the Contact. We develop a plan of action to get what we want. This narrative/movie/plan is nothing but re-constructing a possible sequence of events from our pile of Samskara, events that could lead to the desirable Contact again. This process of obsessing over the object of our desire serves to re-enforce Craving.

Fantasizing about the contact leads to an idea of ourselves existing in different points in time. First we exist here-now, without the object. Then we will exist there-then, hopefully with the object. This splits the world into the background of Time and the Self-Identity (Bhava) traveling from past to future over time. It also re-enforces the entire experience of the World with Objects that we have thus constructed. The concept of "I" is the mirror reflection of the entire world that we have created, and thinking about one side reinforces the other.

This notion of I as something that solid, something that exists, comes in contact with objects, experiences feelings, sets the goals and achieves them -- something that lives -- leads to conclusion that I am the sentient being. I am this organism that exists just like another object of the world. This is called Jati or birth. This notion of "I am this person" reinforces the notion of "I" created on the previous step.

Finally, as soon as we have defined a part of the world as something separate and concrete, an object living in this specific form - the change of form is seen by us as destruction. And since we identify with this object as "I", its destruction is seen as our Death, and anything that disturbs our idea of life-as-it-should-be is seen as this sentient being's suffering.

This entire structure is possible because of the fundamental Ignorance of how all this works. This ignorance permeates and supports the 11 nidanas, while the personal drama that comes out of it reinforces Ignorance, supporting the process of accumulation of observations, interpretation, and reification that leads to arising of the world and I, living and dying.

For more information, see Nanavira Thera's Notes on Dhamma and Buddhadasa's book "Practical Dependent Origination" a short summary of which can be found here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm

No, because for the other nidanas in paticcasamuppada, one factor is dependent upon the one prior for its arising.

Nama-rupa & vinnana are the exception to this rule, for they are actually co-dependent upon one another for its arising... hence the simile.

That Nama-rupa & vinnana are actually co-dependent upon one another for their arising is another fact showing why paticcasamuppada is not about reincarnation.


Allow myself to rock or sway while meditating? I have noticed that sometimes, almost unconsciously, my body begins to sway forward and backward ever so slightly when I'm sitting in meditation (actually, kneeling - I sit zazen on a bench). It does not seem to be in phase with any of my rhythmic body functions (e.g. heartbeat, breathing).

There are times when I consciously cease the swaying, but other times when I allow it to continue. Or even help it a little bit. It seems to add somewhat to the depth of my meditative state and is mildly pleasant.

My question is thus: should I just let it be (after noting it)? Should I help it? Should I put a stop to it? I do not have enough familiarity with The Official Rules & Regulations Of Practicing Buddhists to know, and I do not have an instructor/advisor to pose this question to. Hence my post here.

I found this related question, but this person seems to be doing it intentionally and in response to physical pain. One of the answers here also notes that it may be in response to conditioning, but I don't feel that's the case here. A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness

Let me try to approach this from 2 different angles.

I'm a physiotherapist and first I would like to approach this from an anatomical and physiological standpoint.

It sounds to me like you might be lacking some core strength and that resulting in you swaying in your meditation. It could also be that you have some tight muscles around your pelvis and back which is creating muscular imbalances. The balances can cause pulling and tightening in different directions when standing, sitting or lying in certain postures. Muscular imbalances are quite common and not dangerous although if they are allowed to persist over long durations of time they can lead to more serious problems such as limited range of motion, body pain, mal-alignment which again can lead to other diagnoses. Let's not get into this here.

If it's relevant now or becomes relevant you are welcome to contact me on my mail: harshani85@gmail.com and I will take a look at you either via Skype or you can sent me a video. I will give further instructions about that if you need it.

For now I will give you some strengthening exercises for your lower back and core muscles + some stretching exercises for your hip flexors  (m. iliopsoas) since they are often a problem because of too much sitting down. If they are or become tight they can limit range of motion in the spine and external rotation in the hip by creating an increased internal rotation in your upper legs which again will lead to mal-alighment in your spine which will affect your standing, sitting and lying posture.

As you might have heard before the core is our force-generating center. It is very important to have a strong core in almost all activities that one do in ones everyday. A strong core means that one is physically centered. The standing, sitting and lying postures will improve greatly as will many other activities in ones daily life.

The core consists of the following muscles; m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques, lumbal portion of m. erector spinae. Some people count also mm. gluteus, m. quadratus lumborum and m. iliopsas. I will not give exercises for these muscles but only the most important muscles which is m. erector spinae, m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus and mm. internal/external obliques.

I would like to give you these exercises. They can be a bit difficult to understand when only viewing a photo so I have found this video for you that goes through some of the exercises. I want you to try them all out and find the ones that work best for you. Try to pick 3-4 exercises.

I want you to do 1-3 sets with 10-15 repetitions in each exercise. 1-3 sets meaning that if you have a good day you can do 3 sets and if you are tired or not in the mood you can do 1-2 sets. That way you can regulate it yourself.
You should train these exercises 3-4 times a week. Keep 1 day between sessions for rest.

That was the strengthening exercises now to the stretching exercise for the hip flexor muscles, m. iliopsoas. See this photo. If you cannot do that I want you to do like this instead. You should do 3 sets of 60 seconds on both legs. You can do longer and more sets if you like but this is minimum. This exercise you can do everyday.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my mail or write here and I will try to help out.

Now I would like to approach this from a theravada buddhist perspective with basis in vipassana meditation practice.

In vipassana practice we want things to come forth so we can study them. We do not want to interfere with them since that can create attachment or aversion towards the phenomena. By trying to help the swaying or stop the swaying you are really masking/camouflaging the impermanent, unsatisfactory, oppressive and insubstantial nature of the 1st aggregate, the form aggregate.

I believe it's best to just let the swaying be. Observe it. Note it. Observe that you have really no control over the body. The body is oppressive and ungovernable. It is not subject to ones will and by realizing that you can see both impermance, dukkha and not-self.

So in short. Don't interfere with the phenomena. Just observe them diligently and you will come to realize the 3 signs of existence.

As Mahasi Sayadaw has said; "the yogi (the meditator) will come to realize that there is just an object arising and mind arising to that object and no third besides. Third besides is here meaning a self".

Unfortunately I cannot remember where he says that so I cannot quote it.

The Real Reason your Body Rocks During Mediation
Your body is rocking because the energy that is used to go out from you and observe the exterior world in now being concentrated within yourself, this will typically create a spiral motion in the body. If you place your hands on your knees, this current intensifies from the energy leaving your hands.
Let the current flow, if it becomes too disruptive, you can consciously bring it down.
This is 100% to do with the energy in your etheric body and is a normal positive sigh of spiritual growth.