Difference between Theravada's self and Mahayana's intrinsic essence With reference to this comment:

  An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some
  phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of
  chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic
  or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western
  philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal.

In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too.

Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts.

Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)".

The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs".

So my questions would be:

Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?
If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?
Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?

1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"?

Yes, this is a common expression in Mahayana texts on the topic.

2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)?

I think Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma shunyata" - which can be explained as "sabbe dhamma asvabhavata" and "sabbe dhamma pratityasamutpida". From this it also follows that all dharmas are anicca (ephemeral) and dukkha (here, faulty/unreliable).

If we don't nitpick too much about the meaning of the equal sign, I think I can agree with your statements that "anatta = asvabhava" and "atta = svabhava". More on this in a second.

3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? OR if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?

I think svabhava is a broader concept than atman (atta). To me, atman is only one case of reification, or one case of attributing svabhava to abstractions and observations.

Therefore, Mahayana's emptiness is not redundant. True -- it is not something entirely new that was absent in Theravada, but in my opinion it gives proper emphasis to something that is kind of implicit and not explained enough in the Pali Canon (even if ever-present "between the lines").

An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self.

I said this in one of my answers but was scored down by the same Mahayana who believe in these ideas.

An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some phenomena CANNOT be described as that phenomena's self.

That a rock is 'hard' by nature is not its "self". That Nibbana is "peaceful" is not its "self". Such ideas are crazy. "Self" is "ego" & "possessiveness" ("I-making" & "mine-making").

  “Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
  includes head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
  bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
  solid, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
  is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element and
  the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should be
  truly seen with proper understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
  am not this, this is not my self.’ When you really see with proper
  understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
  the earth element.

  MN 62


Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? A claim which is often heard in connection with Buddhism is that it is not a religion. From a scientific point of view, is it a religion, or is it not?

It really depends which definition of religion you go for. For instance

Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and particularly of
a personal God [..]
Oxford English Dictionary.

Buddhism is not a religion based on this definition

Any specific system belief or worship, often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy
Websters New World Dictionary

Buddhism is a religion based on this definition
(Both quotes are taken from Jared Diamond's the world until yesterday pp 327)
Buddhism certainly is in a grey area with definitions. But then so are other philosophies/religions. Confucianism was considered a religion a few decades ago whereas now it is definitely seen as a philosophy (Jared Diamond again). Shintoism is simliar in the grey area. Going further back then Epicurianism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism all have something about the religious to them but are always (in my reading) spoken about as philosophies.
I would contend that the philosophy/religion divide is a continuum and owes something to the prevailing cultural climate. Nobody would say Marxism is a religion but there is certainly a religious attitude (controversial final point!)
Footnote
Well not quite the final point. Again Jared Diamond - he has 16 definitions for religion on pp 327 of World until Yesterday. It's an interesting exercise to go through them all and see if Buddhism fit's into each definition. It varies quite a bit. For instance just to give one more
Émile_Durkheim

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and
practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church,
all those who adhere to them.

Well maybe, maybe not.

Good question, but I think it doesn't really matter. Only in the west a person can claim to be a religious person and live just like everybody else, like going to the temple and do bad things after it, or even praying to God to punish other people (seems odd). In the east a truly religious person lives his religion day by day, hour by hour, so in this sense I think living the teachings is the only thing that matters. Focus on the dhamma!

Of course there is more to debate if you think in terms of Mahayana and Theravada. One may look more like a traditional religion than the other, but I rather not bring this up.


Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice? With respect to the latter, the Surangama Sutra springs to mind, and its advice for dealing with unusual states during meditation. Similarly, Tientai taught that without understanding we unenlightened people are not yet Buddhas, our faith that we are does not work, and we do not experience sudden enlightenment.

But is it actually bad karma, if we don't claim to others to be?

It is delusion, with all resulting kamma. This case is addressed in MN1:

  They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

It may sound like progress, but it isn't. In fact, the Buddha would say the same about conquerers such as Alexander the Great, who grasped at earth:

  “Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They perceive earth as earth. But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Constrast this with how the Buddha describes a Realized One. Notice that identify view is absent:

  He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

Per MN1, even a trainee "shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? So that they may completely understand it, I say."

Furthermore, per MN1, only "an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones" would "identify as extinguishment."

Therefore, if we can agree that uneducated ordinary persons are entangled in suffering and kamma, we can infer that to think of oneself as enlightened is unskillful, uneducated and ordinary, with all corresponding kamma.

Other suttas reiterate this cautionary point about non-identification with extinguishment in different ways. For example, there is MN44:

  “A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Both MN1 and MN44 stress non-identification even for those with experience of extinguishment such as stream-winners. In our practice, we should note that mind is included in good conduct (DN33). And therefore if we do not speak unskillfully, we should also avoid thinking unskillfully.

  Three ways of performing good conduct: by body, speech, and mind.

"Our faith that we are" is a direct disregard to Chan. Surangama Sutra  supported the Chan school. Looking at Chan there is the question: What is Buddha? The answer follows in a modern sense: " about 5 five pounds of flour."

The faith part is only one pillar. No building can be constructed and to think that you have one is certainly bad karma. It's evidence of a incompetent. To claim it finished will result in great suffering.

Others here will bring about obtainment and this issue also as it's connected. The Zen reflection point, or another sobering point to keep with you is that enlightenment or not doesn't create absolution. You remain a victim of cause and effect. Now a nose arrives before you do so there's value to Chan  (the school of sudden enlightenment.)
Chan generally isn't considered an active school because of the teaching. If you are given it quickly and earned it why would there need to be a school for it?  Karma isn't really a matter of white and black or the basics of justice. That's a western misunderstanding. It's a root of suffering in the senseless observation of other that is only a reflection of yourself that's meaning that was intended to be reflected.


Is our success predestined by our past karma? Some people are more richer other others, some are more intelligent than others, some are more beautiful than others...

Are all these predestined? I heard that one's karma in his/her past life affects his/her present life. So if one is not as intelligent/sucessful in the present life, can we attribute this to his/her bad karma in the past life?

Kamma is volitional or intentional action as Buddha said, “It is volition, bikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech, or mind.” It’s results ripens or takes effect in three ways; to be experienced in this very life, the next rebirth or at some subsequent occasion. Thus, as long as we travel on in the cycle of rebirths, our stockpile of kamma will  yield its due results. We have no escape from kamma so long as we make no effort to make an end to kamma by becoming at least a Stream Winner. Until one gets into the path, as Buddha said, “beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its heirs.”

In this way, the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. This is a universal principle, on which Buddhist morality is based. It does not assert that everything is due to Kamma. If everything were due to Kamma, a man must ever be bad, for it is his Kamma to be bad. One need not consult a physician to be cured of a disease, for if one's Kamma is such one will be cured.

Kamma is only one of the five all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. The other four ‘Niyamas’ which operate in the physical and mental realms other than the Kamma Niyama are… Utu Niyama, Bija Niyama, Citta Niyama, & Dhamma Niyama. Utu Niyama is that of the physical order such as seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. Bija Niyama is the order of germs or seeds. Citta Niyama is the order/power of the mind. Dhamma Niyama is that of those who tread the Path. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five.

It is this doctrine of Kamma that can explain all the inequality of mankind. But it does not mean fate as it is possible to change or reduce the effects of these past actions through present actions. That is why if a person who has much money, but no true, righteous friends should practice sila.  Such people who have no friends, very often single but keep on hoarding wealth have in their past lives given lavishly in generosity as dana but without any sila/morals in them. A person who is very generous but not virtuous (without the any personal virtue like the observance of the five precepts ) would inherit this kind of bad kamma. Even today many rich people are highly generous but the inevitable karmic law is that no degree of generosity can cover up the lack of virtue in personal life. This karmic law cannot be deceived. This is why it has been laid down that "give dana with confidence and always be virtuous" (daanam dadantu saddhaaya - seelam rakkhantu sabbadaa). The two aspects should be complementary to each other.

In some sense yes. Everything is happening for a reason. So do your choices in another incarnation reflect your choices in this incarnation? Yes, because each time it is you that is doing the choosing.

So in a sense you could say. Yes you are affecting yourself.


What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)? What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?
According to Buddhism the teaching of other religions considered views.
However, people who follow those religions think that they have wisdom.
How can we differentiate views from wisdom?

Panna is understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight. Panna is always correct.
Ditthi is simply view. Ditthi can be either right(Samma-ditthi) or wrong(Micca-ditti).
Samma-ditthi has 2 levels:

The right view caused by faith in another's teaching and/or faith in personal feelings,perceptions and reasoning.
ex: having the view that rebirth is true without actually knowing and without knowing the nature of phenomena

The right view caused by Panna
ex: having the view that rebirth is true by direct knowledge and/or by inference(through understanding of how phenomena arise).

Micca-ditthi has nothing to do with Panna. It is caused by ignorance and the faith in someone else's false teachings or the faith in one's own feelings, perceptions and false reasoning.
ex: believing that death is the end regardless of one's mental conditioning

Dhithi means thought, idea. In pali it means dogma; theory; belief.

Panna means wise, endowed with knowledge, insight.

Dhithi is fabricated by the fabricated self.

Panna is not fabricated.

To differentiate dhithi from panna you have to know how dhithi arises, what is its cause and what is its cessation.

Once you know this, dhithi can cease and panna is attained.

Then you can easily differentiate between the two.

FURTHER READING:

Why panna is not fabricated?

When you meditate and perception ceases, and even the state of neither-perception-nor-non-perception ceases, and even that same cessation ceases, and all perception ceases, so that even meditation itself ceases ... that is reality.

When observation of reality arises, that "observation of reality" is a fabrication, a not truth. Nonetheless, even though that "observation of reality" is a fabrication, a not truth, it really is not a fabrication, it is truth, it is panna.

When that "observation of reality" is put into words, these "words" are fabrications, not truths. Nonetheless, even though these "words" are fabrications, not truths, they really are not fabrications, they are truths, they are panna.

When "observation of reality" arises and this "observation of reality" is described with "words", even though this "observation of reality" and the "words describing reality" are fabrications, not truths, they really are not fabrications, they are truth, they are panna.

"Observation of reality" and "words describing reality" can be called "panna". Nonetheless, even though this "panna" is a fabrication, not truth, it really is not a fabrication, it is truth, it is panna.

When a person has panna, what is fabricated is not truth, but since it is being fabricated with panna, that which is fabricated is not a fabrication, it is truth.


What were the source documents of the PTS Sutta Pitaka? The Pali Text Society published editions of the Pali Tipitaka, starting in about 1890.

I assume it was copied (transcribed) from one or more written sources, not from memory, is that so?

From what written documents/sources did the editor[s] of the PTS edition get the text? Were they manuscripts, or printed? And I'm guessing the PTS transcribed the text to Roman script?

Where (in which countries and/or by whom) were those source materials copied? Was it from one source or several?

Would you happen to know whether the source documents still exist today?

This answer says that different editions are more or less the same in every country ...

  With the Pali editions, we inherit a complex manuscript tradition. In each country there are multiple different editions, both modern printed editions and older manuscripts. The ones we have ended up using are more or less random. The problem is that despite the many variations, the reality is that it is a huge amount of work to gather and collate them, and the end result is, “Yep, apart from these few instances, it’s pretty much the same as all the others.”

... still I'm wondering specifically where the text of the PTS edition came from (and where the work was done).

Sources Consulted for the PTS Pali Nikāya Texts

Dīgha Nikāya

Edited by
Vol. 1, 1890: T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter
Vol. 2, 1903: T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter
Vol. 3, 1911: J.E. Carpenter

Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
Bm Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
Br Printed Burmese text, Rangoon
Sm A ms in Sinhalese characters in the possession of Professor Rhys Davids
Sc Sinhalese manuscript belonging to J.E. Carpenter
Sd Sinhalese ms. belonging to T.W. Rhys Davids
St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)
RhDt Rhys Davids' trnscript

Majjhima Nikāya

Edited by
Vol. 1, 1888, V. Trenckner
Vol. 2, 1896, R. Chalmers
Vol. 3, 1899, R. Chalmers

A = - Sk the Copenhagen MS. No. VI (Singh. ch)
Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Bm Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)

Anguttara Nikāya

Edited by
Vol. 1, 1885, R. Morris, 2nd Ed.: A.K. Wrder
Vol. 2, 1888, R. Morris
Vol. 3, 1897, E. Hardy
Vol. 4, 1899, E. Hardy
Vol. 5, 1900, E. Hardy

T = St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Ba No. 2276 (in Sinhalese) of the Oriental Mss. in the Library of the British Museum
Bb No. 2412 (in Sinhalese ch)  of the Oriental Mss. in the Library of the British Museum
Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
Bm #122, #123 Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
S.M. (Sinhalese ch) Morris collection
B.K. Burmese texts
M. #s 125, 130 of the Mandalay collection (Burmese ch), India Office Lib.
M6 Morris Ms. (Sinhalese ch)
M7 Morris Ms. (Sinhalese ch)
M 8 Morris Ms. (Burmese)
S = Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)

2nd Ed:
Ke Siamese editionof the text
Ce Sinhalese edition of the text
ChS Chaṭṭha Sangīti Piṭakaɱ

Saɱyutta Nikāya

Edited by
Vol. 1, 1884, M.L. Feer
Vol. 2, 1888, M.L. Feer
Vol. 3, 1890, M.L. Feer
Vol. 4, 1898, M.L. Feer
Vol. 5, 1890, M.L. Feer

B (Burmese ch) ms of the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris
S1 Copenhagen ms
S2 British Museum ms
S3 Morris ms

Composed as an appendix to the article: On the Importance of the Pali Text Society Translations at

http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/give_ear/ge_015.importance_pts.htm

The Pali PTS Tripitaka was written in Sri Lanka. How it was written is explained here. -> https://qr.ae/TW8x2e


What's the karmic cause for shyness? What did we do in our previous lives to become a shy person in this life?

There are different types of shynesses.

shyness towards doing evil: This is a result of understanding that evil deeds are undignified and demeaning. It's an aspect of wisdom.
stage shyness or shyness to talk to people: This is a result of inferiority complex. It's caused by ignorance and aversion.

Shyness is Coward; prompted.

Some shyness mind is new karma; some is karma's resultant.

The past prompted karma give prompted resultant. And prompted resultant support new prompted karma.

In abhidhamma, minds and mental factor of sasaṅkhārika (prompted) mind is coward. However, there are two main causes of shyness: kamma cause (missaka-pakatūpanissaya-nānakkhaṇikakamma-paccaya), and habit cause (suddha-pakatūpanissaya-paccaya).

Kamma cause is 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, and 4 prompted beautiful wholesome minds, which cause of rebirth. Prompted resultant of
it is the rebirth 4  prompted beautiful resultant minds.
Habit cause is the remote&vanished 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, and 12 prompted beautiful wholesome minds, which is not Kamma cause.
Prompted resultant of it is 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, 4 prompted beautiful wholesome mimds 4
prompted beautiful kiriya minds.

Reference

What is sasaṅkhārika (prompted)? (src)

  Sankhārika-

  This is purely a technical term used in a specific sense in the
  Abhidhamma. It is formed of 'sam', well and Ö 'kar', to do, to
  prepare, to accomplish. Literally, it means accomplishing, preparing,
  arranging.

  Like dhamma, sankhāra also is a multi-significant term. Its precise
  meaning is to be understood according to the context.

  When used as one of the five 'aggregates' (pañcakkhandha), it refers
  to all the mental states, except vedanā and saññā. In the
  paticca-samuppāda it is applied to all moral and immoral activities,
  good and bad thoughts. When sankhāra is used to signify that which is
  subject to change, sorrow, etc., it is invariably applied to all
  conditioned things.

  In this particular instance the term is used with 'sa' = co-; and a =
  un, Sa-sankhārika (lit., with effort) is that which is prompted,
  instigated, or induced by oneself or by another. 'Asankhārika' (lit.,
  without effort) is that which is thus unaffected, but done
  spontaneously.

  If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another, or after much
  deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sa-sankhārika.
  If, on the contrary, one does it instantly without any external or
  internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is asankhārika.

How can the practitioner comprehends shyness?

the practitioner must comprehends below mind, it's mental factors, and the matters born of those mind&mental factors to comprehend karma of shyness:

4 prompted attachment minds (src)

  Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, connected with
  wrong view,

  Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, disconnected
  with wrong view

  Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by indifference, connected
  with wrong view

  Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  disconnected with wrong view

Mental factors:  Twenty-two factors enter into combination - namely, thirteen aññasamānas, and 3 greed mental factors, 2 boring mental factors, and 4 ignorant mental factors (13 + 3 + 2 + 4 = 22)

1 prompted rudeness minds (src)

  Rudeness mind, prompted, accompanied by displeasure, connected
  with ill-will

Mental factors:  Twenty-two factors enter into combination - namely, twelve aññasamānas, and 4 angry mental factors, 2 boring mental factors, and 4 ignorant mental factors (12 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 22)

12 prompted beautiful minds (src)

  Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, associated
  with knowledge. x3 (wholesome, resultant, kiriyā)

  Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by pleasure,
  dissociated with knowledge, x3

  Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  associated with knowledge,x3

  Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  dissociated with knowledge.x3

Mental factors:  thirty-six factors enter into combination - namely, thirteen aññasamānas, and twenty-five beautiful mental factors (13 + 25 = 38)


How much is the minimal time for practicing Vipassana in daily life for achieving better mindfulness? How much is the minimal time for practicing Vipassana in daily life for achieving better mindfulness? Is 30 minutes enough?

I ask this question because I currently have some trouble being mindful, and (I think) it has become the source of many problems. If 30 minutes is not enough, perhaps you can give some suggestion based on your experience or the suttas.

Geez, ya'll are crazy. 30 minutes?
I'd say WORK up to that maybe after a few months of practice but in the beginning it is best to LIKE MEDITATION and do PRACTICE PROPERLY rather than just loiter around and try to sit tight for 30 minutes thinking about Jane and Bob.

I have had 3-5 minute sessions where you would NOT believe how much baggage I dropped and how refreshed and happy I felt.
And then I've had 30 minute sessions where I came out worse than I went in, because I was obsessing over thoughts instead of taking time to write them out and therapatize myself.

Meditation is NOT the time to therapatize oneself, so make sure not to get stuck in that habit!
If you have 30 minutes, use 20 minutes to understand how to meditate and journal and get rid of your baggage and then 10 minutes to meditate perfectly, dropping all things away and just being mindful of your object (breath, thoughts, or whatever else) the entire time as cohesively as possible. Repeat until you can do that 10 minutes. You will feel an enjoyable buzz and a helpless smile and lightness if you practice correctly.

At my current stage, every session (morning, pre-lunch, evening) I have doing 3 20-minute meditations, each with a different meditation object that I have chosen. I have a 1-5 minute break in between each object.

For beginners I would reccommend 5 to 10 minute sessions. When you ACTUALLY meditate that long... increase it by 5 minutes. When you LONG TO MEDITATE longer, increase. Do not force yourself to sit too long. You will idle.
Instead, put your energies into meditating properly and perfectly for a few minutes. This will increase your mindfulness, because you don't have as much time to fool around."

Nonetheless, don't let what I am saying stop you if you yearn for long periods of time! You will not attain samadhi unless you practice for HOURS at a time. So if you feel like you can actually pay attention that entire time... godspeed!
But above all else, do not scare yourself away from your gradual climb in meditation abilities by making meditation frustrating. Enjoy it and do not underestimate the Power of Less is More.

Let me leave you with this excerpt from a Buddhist book I am reading "Mind Experiment":

  "It is better to meditate often for a shorter time than for a long
  time but infrequently. To make real progress, meditation should become
  a vital part of one’s daily life. Meditation masters recommended to
  their students: “Do it with an aspiration so strong that it will be
  the cause of fulfilling your provisional and final aims. Meditate in
  this way during four sessions: predawn, morning, afternoon, and at
  nightfall. Furthermore, if at first you meditate for a long time, you
  will be readily susceptible to laxity and excitement. If this becomes
  your habit, it will then be difficult to correct your awareness.
  Meditate in many short sessions. If you end your session while still
  wanting to meditate, you will be eager to reenter each future
  session."

One hour in morning and half hour in afternoon and one and half hour in night would be enough at begining.


Are there meditations for forgiveness? I'm having a lot of trouble forgiving someone for something they did quite a little while ago. The repercussions of which I am still dealing with today. I feel a lot of anger and frustration when I think about what this person did, and it's very hard to ignore.

I have already spoken to this person, and told them how I feel about the situation - ultimately forgiving them, but it still troubles me internally.

What can I do to "purge" the thoughts from my mind and the negative connotations that come with them?

EDIT: I do not wish to forget what happened, only learn to better manage the emotions that are felt when recalling the incident.

Well this form of meditation is not well established or part of the more common meditation object but Bhanthe Vimalasiri does teach forgiveness meditation. The instructions are here: http://www.dhammasukha.org/forgiveness-meditation.html

Hey if you want to know why they do meditation So read these full.

Okay, now i will tell you why they meditate

For making themselves internally strong
Also too control there emotions like anger,happiness,etc

It already existed in the Hindu tradition, and the Buddha himself used meditation as a means to enlightenment.

Over the centuries Buddhism has evolved many different techniques: for example, mindfulness; loving-kindness and visualisation. But what Buddhists get from meditation is more than just calm.


Difference between Buddhist and materialist views of no self? This question follows from a discussion on the materialist, scientific reductionist understanding of no self, and was posted in a comment:

  In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the
  discussion of self?

Similarities

Both Buddhist and materialist/scientific-reductionist schools refute the notion of a self, an atman, an eternal, unchanging soul. Both schools understand the most obvious meaning of anatta:

  the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.

Furhermore, Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements, and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. And similarly, a materialist, scientific reductionist understanding posits (quote):

  That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles
  governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary
  and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and
  meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it
  trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent,
  non-unitary, and dependent.

Differences?

It appears Wikipedia tells us that the difference between Buddhist and materialist views on no self lies in karma and rebirth:

  Buddha criticized the materialistic annihilationism view that denied
  rebirth and karma, states Damien Keown.[46] Such beliefs are
  inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because they encourage
  moral irresponsibility and material hedonism.[46] Anatta does not mean
  there is no afterlife, no rebirth or no fruition of karma, and
  Buddhism contrasts itself to annihilationist schools.

But I'm not sure whether this quote is accurate, or a misunderstanding

If Buddhist and materialist schools share the same view on the most obvious meaning of anatta (quoted above),
then what distinguishes the Buddhist view from the materialist view on no self?
Is there a not-so-obvious meaning of anatta which materialist/scientific reductionist schools fail to understand?

Apart from what you have mentioned,  materialists usually think that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. In other words, electrical traces stored in neurons. This is not the case in Buddhism. Brain is a concept according to Buddhism. The reality is fundamentally grouped into 2 categories: the mental(Nama) and the physical(Rupa).

The four noble truths hold true at all times regardless of what one believes. But one is not able to attain enlightenment, if one holds to the view that all mental activities end at death. This belief is called Saggawarana & Maggawarana:  conceals the path to heavens and conceals the path to enlightenment.

Here's a related answer by ven.Yuttadhammo.

There is no such thing as "doctrine of materialism" in the Pali suttas. Therefore, this term "materialism" should be completely ignored.

The Buddha taught all things, including Nibbana, were "elements" (MN 115) and this is a supreme enlightened view in Buddhism.

However, there are some alien doctrines the Buddha criticized that included the doctrine of elements because these these alien doctrines also included the doctrine of the inefficacy of kamma and the non-benefit of giving. These doctrines did not believe in morality, virtue & kammic inheritence, which is why the Buddha criticised them.

As for the doctrine "annihilationism" ("ucchedavāda"), in the Pali, this does not refer to disbelief in kammic inheritence & disbelief in causality (which are called "natthikavādo", "akiriyavādo" and "ahetukavādo"; per MN 60) or the disbelief in life after death. The term "annihilationism" ("ucchedavāda") refers to the view that a "self" ("atta") ends at "death". "Annihilationism" ("ucchedavāda") is a "self-view", which is why it is wrong view. Please refer to DN 1.

  Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda)

  There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views?

  Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material
  form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from
  father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way
  some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.

  DN 1

Please respect the Pali suttas, study Dhamma in the right way and take refuge in the Buddha rather than take refuge in teachers and worldly scholars that teach contrary to the Buddha.


Why don't teachers just tell us the answers? 'Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak.' (Zen aphorism)

Lots of posts on SE Buddhism seem to hover around the question 'what is your original face', or 'what is Buddha' etc. It shouldn't be so difficult to answer these questions straightforwardly with a sentence or two, so why is it that teachers (who supposedly know) tend not to?

Because the question is supposed to "point directly at your mind" like the finger pointing at the moon. The answer could not do better. In fact, you learn more from trying to solve an apparent contradiction. If anything, you learn at least that you are frustrated over not getting it. What matters most is not the object (a koan, a hua tou) but how you hold it in mind, what it does to your mind, how you try to make sense of it, etc.

The funny thing is that we are so habituated to run after external objects and dive into them that it is difficult to look inward. A proof is that we are more concerned with the object (the koan) than we are with our mind. We forget to pay attention to what our experience tells us, not of the object we experience, but our mind that experiences. Because of this, we know little of the mind, including our own. It is easy to recognize a tree when we see one; it is way more difficult to recognize attachment, anger, belligerence, spite, etc. when they arise in our continuum because we seldom look inward, we are not familiarized with it.

As far I understand, the point with Hua tou and Koan is rather to stay with it and learn from how you relate to it. For instance, why is it that contradictions make you unsettled? How do you relate to frustration? Does frustration even arise when you try to solve a case? What makes you think it has to be solved? How do you try to make sense of things?

In Vipassana, some do what they call "meditation with an anchor" (the anchor often being the breath). Here, it is quiet similar. You learn a great deal by trying to stay with an object such as a Hua Tou. You learn why it is difficult to stay with it, why you lose it over and over again, etc. So it is not the answer that matter much.

Kazuaki Tanahashi 's introduction to Dogen's Shobogenzo is quiet informative and very enjoyable. But then, I am not that qualified when it comes to anything different from Tibetan Buddhism.

Because, human can only gain WISDOM by tackling problems, having experience and getting answers afterwards.

Getting answers is useless for many questions without having experience.

Tell me a single teacher who is teaching without being a student.


Is rebirth a delusional belief? I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'.

Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real:

Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs"
Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics
Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions"
The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?
If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?
This web site (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" in this life.

I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about this life."

Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?

And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint?

The article Two Main Schools of Buddhism says,

  The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows:

  Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
  The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
  The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
  The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
  Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
  Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list.

I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief.

I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn.

I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

"Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs""

A little context: I assume the 62's mentioned above are the same as found in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta) translated as "The sixty-two kinds of wrong views" by Walshe (MN 102 also develops on these wrong views).

Now, "wrong view" is understood as either "not according to the damma" or simply "not in accordance with reality". In this sutta, we read the Buddha say:

  There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, having fixed views about the past, and who put forward various speculative theories about the past, in eighteen different ways [...]

And he proceeds explaining the many ways in which a person may mislead him/herself into concluding something false about the past. The first, for example, is this:

  Here, monks, a certain ascetic or Brahmin has by means of effort, extortion, application, earnestness and right attention attained to such a state of mental concentration that he thereby recalls past existences -- one birth, two births, ... ten births, a hundred births, a thousand births [...] Thus he remembers various past lives, their conditions and details. And he says "the self and the world are eternal, barren like a mountain-peal, set firmly as a post. There beings rush round, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. Why so? I have by means of effort, extortion, attained to such a state of mental concentration that I have thereby recalled various past existences...That is how I know the self and the world are eternal"

Above he is denouncing the fragile leap of conclusion: a person remembered many past lives [and contractions and expansions of the universe] and without identifying an origin, he/she concludes there is none, "so it is eternal". Now, the buddha, when confronted with this particular question, simply declares there is no discernible beginning (SN 15:3) -- something very different from "it is eternal" and "it is not eternal".

Another example of misleading conclusion:

  Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: "The self and the world are eternal"

In these ways, he alerts about the delicate trap of drawing wrong conclusions based on what one believes to be careful examinations (either by some experience or by some abstract reasoning) but that weren't careful enough. Moreover, he illustrates flaws using as example contemporary theories (eternalism, annihilationism, and the spectrum in between) pushed by other sects.

With these things in mind, he did not claim rebirth or views/knowledge of past existence to be false. Quite the opposite, he declares himself to have the ability to recall his past existences (and often describes episodes from them). Finally, exploring this ability is also part of an often-repeated formula for arahantship (and arahants are also described developing this ability). In MN 39, after exposing the Fourth Jhana:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, [...], many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance

Furthermore, he used to announce the rebirth of disciples who have died -- though not of the ones who reached the supreme goal (SN 44.9).

"Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions""

Yes. But it is important to emphasize it is "unanswered"; not a negative or positive. Even if we put aside the fact that this is a question about a Buddha, it is hard to use this to develop a trust on either view.

"The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?"

As far as I can tell, in the [pali] canon it is not said "there is no self". Rather, mostly we read instructions to observe several [conditioned] things in order to directly see "this [the thing] is not self". Additionally, we read declarations such as "All phenomena are non-self" ("sabbe dhammā anattā" -- AN 3.134).

An important point to consider is that it appears something very particular is meant by "self" which does not fit well with our common understanding of this word. In SN 22:59:

  Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

And:

  Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself? -- No, venerable sir.

Often times, when a challenger debates with the buddha claiming a self/eternalist view, he is debunked with questions such as "if that is so, can you change your form?". Therefore, I guess we need to, first, understand what is meant by "self" from propositions extracted from such discourses.

As for "birth" instead of "rebirth", though it's not clear to our reasoning "what re-borns" (all things above considered), the minimum takeaway of the use of this word in the discourses is that it denotes continuity.

"If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience"

Difficult indeed. But the texts support the possibility of personally testify it.

"is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)?"

I guess it depends on what you mean by faith. I find it difficult to recall important claims made by the buddha that weren't suppose to be verified by one's effort in this lifetime -- so, as far as my knowledge goes, yes it would be unusual. From the canon alone, I wouldn't say this is a matter of faith in the devotional or "Belief" way, where one just take it as it is and assign a special value to it, often developing an emotional dependency towards it -- the clinging buddha frequently alerted about.

But faith as in a trust we give to something or someone while we are applying ourselves to personally verify it, I think it fits pretty well with everything else.

"Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?"

I honestly don't know how I would proceed to scrutinize an experience of recalling my past lives.

"is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?"

One thing we can see explicitly in the texts is that he discouraged speculations, and this subject draws speculations easily, giving its such a puzzle for reasoning and concerns the mystery of our future. Having said that, I think its safe to say it wouldn't make much sense for him to require listeners to believe and internalize "the fact of rebirth", to consider it something central to the training (if it was that important, he could have made an extra noble truth out of it :).

There are a lot of aspects of the Dhamma that receive special attention and frequent emphasis. Urging people to believe rebirth as some sort of requirement or at face value is not something I've seen (MN 60 illustrates how the buddha approached this specific matter).

Now to the specific question: from the canon alone, rebirth is important (though, arguably not an urgent concern in the most practical sense). And, to say the least, the Buddha apparently considered worth talking about, so widespread this subject appears in the suttas, fulfilling roles therein, either as an aspect of the Dhamma, providing a broader exposition of our condition, or simply used to inspire and help us take the road to do something about it, etc. In the case of Dhamma, and this is significant, "no rebirth" does feature in wrong view.

But again, one thing is saying rebirth is important in buddhism. Other is saying (the belief of) rebirth is important to the practice. Other is saying rebirth is important to some buddhists ...

Edited to include a few more references (thank you @Unrul3r) and provide more direct answers to the questions

Just like an apple falls from a tree to the ground because of gravity, in the same way beings are born because of ignorance.

And what ignorance?

Not knowing the cause of suffering.

By not knowing the cause, beings search an end to suffering.

While searching for an end, beings do activities. Activities like:

"This is me."

"This is mine."

"I am this and that and that."

"When I die, I'll go to heaven."

"When I die, I'll be reborn."

"I wish I had a better life."

"I want that!"

"That is what would make me happy."

"Oh I'm miserable! Let me be better."

etc.

These same activities in the moment of our death are the cause of rebirth.

Activities is karma. Karma in the present, which defines our future. Karma from the past, which defines our present. Karma which gives us form over and over again. Which propels our births.

In most beings activities arise because of not knowing an end to suffering.

And how to see all this for yourself?

Close your eyes and let go.

Let go even of the perception of the object of meditation.

Let go even of the perception that you let go of the object of meditation.

Let go of everything.

...

In this very same "state" truth can be realized by asking yourself the question "who am I?"

By doing this, and asking yourself the question "who am I" a path will be entered.

"Who am I?", observe and let go.

Observe. Let go.

Learning will occur. New knowledge will be gained.

Many questions will be asked.

Many answered.

One will lead to the next naturally.

Just like an experienced detective drills to the motive of a murder, in the same way you will drill to the cause of suffering.

This path will lead you to the end of suffering. Along it, the truth about reincarnation will be realized too.


Can Buddhism lead to eternal happiness? Does Buddhism propose the possibility of any state of consciousness which feels better than neutral?

Many buddhist teachings I have heard so far (mostly by Alan Watts) seem to point to an "ideal" state of consciousness which feels neutral or maybe even not at all, as there is no conscious.

Does Buddhism claim to have some path to "eternal happiness" and more than "non-suffering"?

That's a very common misunderstanding of what Buddhism is after.  Western authors (especially some of the early dabblers in Buddhism like Watts) had a very difficult time expressing Buddhist ideas in the parlance with which they and their audience would be familiar.  Consistently, concepts like "voidness" (e.g. shunyata) get mistaken for ideas like nihilism, inertness, or Stoicism.  You'd half expect the Buddhist ideal to more resemble Mr. Spock than Shakyamuni!   I think this is even further compounded by the Pali and Sanskrit languages which often use prefixed negations to express positive qualities (e.g. ahimsa or non-harming).  Based on that linguistic trope, it's very easy to think that Buddhism is only interested in a state in which negative qualities are absent.

Not to get caught in the weeds over what Buddhism is after (and you might want to stay away from words like "eternal" on a Buddhism Q&A site!), but let me assure your that liberation is anything but neutral.  There are positive states like the seven factors of enlightenment (of which "joy" is one!), the compassion, equanimity, etc. of the Brahmaviharas, the sweetness of meditative absorption, among many, many others that are of paramount importance and have to be cultivated with just as much zeal as one uses to overcome their negative views and behaviors.

Buddha taught everything, included better feeling consciousness, is suffering (dukkha).

Those teaching disclaim  "consciousness which feels better".

But the the path (magga), to abandon that whole suffering, has arise with better feeling, in every step.

So someone think wrong that "Buddhism lead to eternal happiness". Because if buddha taught about "consciousness which feels better", so he shouldn't taught that "better feeling consciousness, is suffering".

P.S. In commentary said that magga happy feeling and phala happy feeling  are suffering, too. But tanha can't desire them, so the practitioners have not to vipassana in magga and phala.


Why does Mahasi Method have the points on the Body to attend to? What is the reason? It seems to be to train concentration while avoiding one pointedness?
Might the lack of one pointedness be counter productive at some point?

Any type of meditation that is worth the name will increase concentration in a beginner.

The body is a good first object of vipassana meditation because it is inescapable and we identify with it so strongly, so automatically all kinds of thoughts also get faced.

The goal of the Mahasi method is 'vipassana', namely, seeing the arising & passing of phenomena. Therefore, beginners watch the rising & falling of the breath at the abdomen.

Often unskilled meditators force or suppress the mind when trying to practise Anapanasati (awareness of breathing), which results in a 'wrong one-pointedness', which blinds the mind & makes the mind sleepy & foggy.

Genuine or right one-pointedness occurs in jhana, which only meditators skilled in letting-go can genuinely reach.

Jhana cannot be reached by suppression or force, even though many Buddhists claim it can.

Such Buddhists are over-estimating their meditation because a suppressed/forced mind can generate calm & rapture but such momentary rapture is not the true rapture of true jhana.

Therefore, the Mahasi method aims for beginners to keep the mind 'open & awake' rather than 'suppressed, sleepy & foggy', which more closely represents the path taught by the Buddha.

In conclusion, it is forced/wrong 'one-pointedness' that is counter productive.


Does downvoting an answer qualify as divisive and harsh speech? In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this:

To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is
extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh
speech.

Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means...
Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.
A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.
Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.
Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!
In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.
Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.
From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.
I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.
As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.
Then again, I think this falls into the territory of "the right timing and a sense of tact". Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.
Just my 2 cents.

Yes it is. It's hardly to assume that any here isn't lead by unskilful mind using it and what ever system is build to serve common people successfully requires to make use of greed, aversion and ignorance. Well, and people here are foremost devoted and feel obligated to serve Mara. At least lazyness to write, and fear to get rebuked or different punished by system-servers, will lead one to make use of it either and so, in best common way, mixed kamma will be always the peak of skillful use of vote.
At least, to do not fall into other foolish views, it's totally not generally that dispraise and rebuke is wrong speech, but leads even to heaven if right and proper investigated, but as for the ordinary person, not arrived at the Dhamma, naturally corrupt, either praise, blame and equanimity will be in 95% of cases akusala.
"Dhammo have rakkhati dammacāriṁ"
Hard would it be, if even searching for, to appear in good companionship...
(and sure, one is free to up- downvote here, or confused just walk on, or gain conviction by catching proper attention, watching foremost the frames of reference)


What is happening to Lord Buddha after "parinirvana"? We all know that after Lord Buddha's parinirvana, he will never be born again. So my question is, if Lord Buddha does not have a rebirth after parinirvana, what is actually happening to him (after death)?

Nothing

Because there is no person to happen anything, and there is no samsara. So that's The End. When a person achieves nirvana , there is no person anymore. Death is not the end of a person, nirvana is. After achieving nirvana, 'he' can help others to achieve nirvana , and just wait for the physical death.

People should stop this type of questions. I am no expert but unless you experience the thing they call nirvana or anything close to that, you'll never understand anything about that. People here can give you all their interpretations but that would only they can give you that much.


What was the historical Buddha's ethnicity? Gautama Buddha is traditionally regarded as having a noble body with 32 signs of a Great Man and one of those signs are deep blue eyes.

I came across many online discussions about Buddha's ethnicity where some stated that Buddha's family - Sakya - was from Scythian descent. I also met some Ukrainians claiming that Sakyas were precisely from the land that now belongs to Ukraine.

Can someone answer the question providing reliable sources or evidence?

The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama was probably Indo-Aryan.
He lived in what is today the Democratic Republic of Nepal. Nepal's ethnicity today comprise mixed race people of Indo-Aryan & East Asian ethnicities.

It is believed He spoke old Magadhi language. He belonged to the Ksyhtriya Varna of the Solar or Ikshvaku dynasty and Gautama Gotra. Before his enlightenment he was a practitioner of what is today called Hinduism.

Sakhya is derived from the Sanskrit word śakya which means capable, able [1]. Sakhyamuni just means a muni(renunciate) from the Sakhya tribe.

From Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, 2 of the meaning out of many others for the word sakya:

  śākya m.   Name of a tribe of landowners and kṣatriya - s in kapila
  -vastu - (from whom gautama - , the founder of Buddhism, was descended)

  śākya mfn.     derived or descended from the śaka - s (= śakā abhijano 'sya - )    gaRa śaṇḍikādi

Here the tribe of the Buddha is not given as decedents of Sakas(Scythians) since a distinction is made between Buddha's tribe and the Sakas.

The theory that Sanskrit speaking Aryans came from Southern Russia has been controversial and is disputed.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya

Skythians / Sakia Saka Sakyans (different ways to write it in English), and Sarmatians and Taurian Tavry - are synonyms for the same indo-european (arian) ethnicity scattered on a vast territory, and therefore living under different names in space and history. Of course they were a bit mixed with other ethnicities in the bordering regions, sometimes with other indo-european tribes or non-indo european.

Buddha Sakia muni was no doubt a Wiseman of the Saki tribe, because the whole Buddhist knowledge and scripts is using sanskrit/ arian words immensely close to slavic languages. Sanskrit is the closest to sanskrit among the whole indo-european family of languages. Buddha comes from budit'(see sansrit and Russian or any slavic language) to wake up - the awake one. When indian sanskritologists come to Russian villages, they do not need translator.

Buddha's tribe was just one of the aryan tribes that migrated down to India. In Vedas there are scriptures describing where they came from. Many river names or places are still in the north of Russia. Vedas is a Sanskrit and Russian Word for Knowledge. The words wissen or wisdom all come from the word vedat, meaning "to know". The words knowledge, cognition, kenntniss and znat (from russian) are words of the same root. Every linguist knows it.

Ayurveda is the folk modification of the word aryaveda - arian knowledge. That is why the most ancient and well known clinic of ayurveda in Kottakkal has the name Arya Vaidya Sala, and not Ayurveda Sala.

Every indian knows that aryans came from the north to Industan. They were tall white-skinned blonds with blue eyes, and they brought the Vedas to Hindustan. Every linguist and also every genetic specialists knows about the split of the R1 haplogroup 4500 years BC. That's when this single ethnicity of protoindoeuropeans (=aryans) got split in the north of Russia, and started migrating in different directions to the West to form the west European tribes (Celtic, Germanic, Romanic, ancestors of some Greeks tribes, or R1B haplogroup today).

The second haplogroup R1a are protoslavic tribes which are the same ethnicity known under the names as follows: Taurian, (Th)Frakian, Skythian, Sakian, and Sarmatian (migrated to spread and settle from Elba (Laba) to Japan). Some of their tribes spread further southwards to India and also to the Arabic world to Egypt, and even reached China. That's why Pharaos had blue eyes and belonged to R1a. Persians of aryan type are also R1a. That's where the world Iran comes from. Pharsi is an indo-european language. In Tibet and China there are not only excavations with R1a mummified bodies of ancient tribes, but also the cultural symbolism and texts hold many traces.

Protoindoeuropeans or Aryans everywhere spread their knowledge with them and the lifestyle where ever it matched. Tibetan Buddhist Tantra (Journey to Daikini Land) says it was inherited from Ishvara- That is Shiva or Siva or Svarog or Zeus, or Jahveh or Saboath, Savaof or Sevas- an Aryan name for God.

The protoindoeuropean tribes R1 split into R1a and R1b split and started their migration downwards from the North of Russia most probably due to the climate change. Buddha Sakia Muni was just one of them. Saki or Sakian word for scythian (ancient slavic or Russian) ancestry places and culture is known for example in the Crimea (Tavrida) - Saki - Lake for example. The same tribes you see in the North of Pakistan, or Afganistan, Kashmir, Tajikistan.

If you travel from China to Pakistan you will see plenty of white European blue-eyed and blond or fair-hair people. Looking absolutely Russian. Their language is indoeuropean, close to Russian. You will confuse them with slavic looking Russians and they will take slavic looking Russians travelling there for their own, if they get dressed typical of these places. These tribes have million different names there. But it is the same ethnicity with some linguistic and of course cultural modifications throughout history. But everywhere you find the same main elements.


If Theravada doesn't posit the selflessness of phenomena, then how to interpret SN 22.95? This question is closely related to this question and this question and this question.

There is a Sutta in the Pali Canon that seems to explicitly reject that any of the aggregates is real or substantially existent, but instead likening them to a lump of foam, a water bubble, a mirage, a plantain trunk, or an illusion:

  “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception
  is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk, And consciousness
  like an illusion, So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.

  “However one may ponder it And carefully investigate it, It appears
  but hollow and void When one views it carefully.

  “With reference to this body The One of Broad Wisdom has taught That
  with the abandoning of three things One sees this form discarded.

  “When vitality, heat, and consciousness Depart from this physical
  body, Then it lies there cast away: Food for others, without volition.

  “Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools. It is
  taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found.

  “A bhikkhu with energy aroused Should look upon the aggregates thus,
  Whether by day or at night, Comprehending, ever mindful.

  “He should discard all the fetters And make a refuge for himself; Let
  him fare as with head ablaze, Yearning for the imperishable state.”

Depending upon the answers to the previous questions I'd be very interested in how Theravada interprets this Sutta. Generally, I'm confused how Theravada interprets these Suttas into a coherent and non-contradictory whole:

SN 22.85 seems to say that regarding a Realized One as real or genuine is incorrect.
Itivuttaka 44 seems to say that (as per Ruben2020's answer here) the body is real and genuine.
SN 22.95 seems to reject that and say the body is to be considered like foam as "void, hollow, insubstantial."

Finally, Mahayana monastics train believing that the substantial difference between Theravada views of anatta and Mahayana views of shunyata is that Theravada regards the aggregates and all external phenomena as real and possessing intrinsic nature or essence.

How do Theravada proponents reconcile all of this?

Piya Tan in his commentary on the lump of foam sutta, quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary below:

  This sutta is one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature
  of conditioned phenomena; its imagery (especially the similes of the
  mirage and the magical illusion) has been taken up by later Buddhist
  thinkers, most persistently by the Madhyamikas. Some of the images are
  found  elsewhere in the Pali Canon, eg at Dh 46, 170. In the context
  of early Buddhist thought, these similes have to be handled with care.
  They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view of the world but
  to show that our conceptions of the world, and of our own existence,
  are largely distorted by the processes of cognition. Just as the
  mirage and magical illusion are based on real existents — the sand of
  the desert, the magician’s appurtenances — so these false conceptions
  arise from a base that objectively exists, namely, the five
  aggregates; but when seen through a mind subject to conceptual
  distortion, the aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their
  actual nature. Instead of being seen as transient and selfless, they
  appear as substantial and as a self. (Bodhi S:B 1085 n188)

I think the above commentary discusses the Theravada view accurately. The sutta does not talk of an illusionist view of the world. It does not imply that the five aggregates are not real. It simply points towards the five aggregates as being transient and without a self.

Also, please see the Suñña Sutta, which explains this more literally, as the five aggregates being empty of a self.

The sutta does not explicitly reject that any of the aggregates is real or substantially existent (atthi vs natthi). The sutta does not deny there is a lump of foam, bubbles, mirages, hollow thoughts & the magical quality of consciousness. The sutta merely says the aggregates have no intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality. The relevant Pali adjectives are ritta, tuccha and asāra. The sutta is unrelated to existent Mahayana obsessions about existence & non-existence.


How do animals attain enlightenment? The Wikipedia article on animals in Buddhism states that animals have Buddha nature, and therefore have potential for enlightenment. I do not dispute this as I sit here petting my cat, but wonder - what are the actual mechanics of how they might go about this? For humans, the path is laid out for us in the teachings of the Buddha. But how can an animal achieve the same final goal?

In short they get reborn as a human being sometime in the future and practice.

You could help by reading some dhamma(suttas) to your cat if you wish.

There is a precedence in a sutta where a frog was listening to a Buddha's discourse and got killed because someone accidentally impaled it with a walking stick. It was then reborn as a deva.

"Dog tries to save fish with water"
http://youtu.be/Mx_X6hmhwrs

Watch it and it inspires.


Cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction DN2 talks of many aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction.

What does this mean in Buddhist cosmology?

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

What does "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" mean in Buddhist cosmology?

Quoting from Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative
By Alf Hiltebeitel:

An "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" is a translation of saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa:

  vivaṭṭakappa
  masculine
  an ascending aeon

and/or:

  Vivaṭṭa, (m. & nt.) (vi+vaṭṭa1) 1. “rolling back, ” with ref. to the development of the world (or the aeons, kappa) used to denote a devolving cycle (“devolution”), whereas vaṭṭa alone or saṃvaṭṭa denote the involving cycle (both either with or without kappa). Thus as “periods” of the world they practically mean the same thing & may both be interpreted in the sense of a new beginning. As redupl. -inter. cpds. they express only the idea of constant change. We sometimes find vivaṭṭa in the sense of “renewal” & saṃvaṭṭa in the sense of “destruction, ” where we should expect the opposite meaning for each. See also vaṭṭa & saṃvaṭta. Dogmatically vivaṭṭa is used as “absence of vaṭṭa, ” i.e. nibbāna or salvation from saṃsāra (see vaṭṭa & cp. citta-vivaṭṭa, ceto°, ñāṇa°, vimokkha° at Ps. I, 108 & II. 70).—Fig. in kamma° “the rolling back of k. ” i.e. devolution or course of kamma at S. I, 85.—Abs. & combd with saṃvaṭṭa (i.e. devolution combd with evolution) e.g. at D. I, 14, 16 sq.; III, 109; A. II, 142 (where read vivaṭṭe for vivaṭṭo); Pug. 60; Vism. 419 (here as m. vivaṭṭo, compared with saṃvaṭṭo), 420 (°ṭṭhāyin). In cpd. °kappa (i.e. descending aeon) at D.

... in other words, according to the book quoted above, "a period in which the world is created and destroyed".

The word kappa is usually translated as an aeon. The PTS dictionary says,

  -- 2．（temporal） a “fixed” time，time with ref．to individual and cosmic life．As āyu at DA．I，103 （cp．kappaṁ）； as a cycle of time=saṁsāra at Sn．521，535，860 （na eti kappaṁ）； as a measure of time：an age of the world Vin．III，109； Miln．108； Sdhp．256，257； PvA．21； It．17=Bdhd 87=S．II，185．There are 3 principal cycles or aeons：mahā°，asaṅkheyya°，antara°； each mahā° consists of 4 asaṅkheyya-kappas，viz．saṁvaṭṭa° saṁvaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° vivaṭṭa° vivaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° A．II，142； often abbreviated to saṁvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭa° D．I，14； It．15； freq．in formula ekampijātiṁ，etc．Vin．III，4=D．III，51，111= It．99．On pubbanta° & aparanta°，past & future kappas see D．I，12 sq．paṭhama-kappe at the beginning of the world，once upon a time （cp．atīte） J．I，207．When kappa stands by itself，a Mahā-kappa is understood：DA．I，162．A whole，complete kappa is designated by kevala° Sn．pp．18=46~125； Sn．517； also dīgha° S．II，181； Sdhp．257．For similes as to the enormous length of a kappa see S．II，181 & DA．I，164=PvA．254．-- Acc．kappaṁ adv．：for a long time D．II，103=115= Ud．62，quot．at DA．I，103； Vin．II，198； It．17； Miln．108； mayi āyukappaṁ J．I，119，cp．Miln．141．Cp．saṅkappa．

When used, the word kappa may have a prefix which qualifies it (as in saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa above), which describes what kind of kappa it is. If it doesn't have a prefix it's assumed to be a Maha-kappa (a great kappa, a world kappa, an aeon). Maybe for that reason it's translated "aeon". I'm unsure whether kappa always definitely means long time periods (i.e. longer than a human life).

Even if it does imply a long, long time (which it seems to, both, in general, and in context in this sutta), I don't want to accuse the Buddha of exaggerating or false speech, but people do sometimes describe subjective time loosely or figuratively (e.g. "the bus took ages to arrive").

Anyway, it appears to mean some kind of time period, especially related to life, maybe the life-time of something.

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

I doubt it; and generally I presume that nothing in Buddhist phenomenology is similar to physics.

Contrary to the translations of Thanissaro & Bodhi, the word 'loka' ('world'; 'cosmos') is not found in the Pali. The Pali is:

anekepi saṃvaṭṭakappe anekepi vivaṭṭakappe anekepi saṃvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe:

anekepi = numerous; countless
kappe = period of time
saṃ = forward
vi = back
vatta = to cycle or circle, as follows:

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

The above is a view of materialism, as explained by the Thai monk Buddhadasa, as follows:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language.
No Religion

The Pali words materialistically believed to be the "Big Physical Bounce" are about 'monkey-mind', as follows:

Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that,
it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. SN
12.61


Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance? I read the following on the internet:

  According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya).
  This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore,
  non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal
  substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections
  of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are
  experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?

Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?

Also, are all things "mere names"?

From this page, according to Nagarjuna's MMK, XXIV, 18 - 19:

  Whatever is relativity, we proclaim that emptiness. It is dependent designation. It is also the central way.
  Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty.

A fish spends all its time in water, but may not understand what water means, unless it leaves it momentarily.

Similarly, from my understanding of Nagarjuna, if you have no samsara, then no one would understand what Nirvana means. Nirvana is identified only to contrast it with samsara. Hence, Nirvana is empty of an intrinsic essence, because its definition is relativistic i.e. relative to samsara.

Also, from this page:

  Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic
  reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of
  things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert
  that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the
  way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena
  (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).

This means Nagarjuna does not say that Nirvana does not exist or is nothing. Rather he says that it depends on something else. Nirvana does not substantially depend on samsara i.e. it is not conditioned or compounded by anything. However, it depends on samsara for its relativistic definition i.e. Nirvana depends on samsara semantically, rather than substantially.

Another analogy is this - if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to listen to it, does it still make a sound? The sound of a tree falling is only defined relative to a listener. If there is no listener, then it does not make sense to identify sound as such. But it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, in the case of Nirvana, it is defined relative to samsara.

Nagarjuna is really discussing the mental concept of Nirvana, rather than Nirvana itself.

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?
Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?
Also, are all things "mere names"?

Well, to be able to answer all 3 questions with guaranteed certainty, the obvious assumption and prerequisite is that the one who provides the answer's already truly had first-hand direct experience of Nibbana AND penetrated "all things"! While waiting for that precious enlightened being to show up here on buddhism.stackexchange.com, it might be a good idea to go with those definitions as taught in the suttas, and I'm sure you already knew a thing or two more than the average forum participants here on BSE when it comes to suttas knowledge.


Does the lifespan get shorter or longer ? Maybe i misread this but i read again now that in buddhist view life span will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span

did i misunderstand somehthing ?  it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter

In Buddha's time the life span is said to have been 100 years and there were several theras who touched even 120 years e.g. Ananda and Maha Kassapa. In fact Bakkula thera is said to have lived 160 years, he had ordained when he was 80. But we rarely hear anyone passing 100 at present.

A well-respected monk in Sri Lanka (late Ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma) has mentioned that the life span reduces by 10 years in each millennium. Judging from that, the 10 year period should occur roughly in 7500 years from now. Who knows what can happen within this period.

The causes of illnesses and therefore, the reduction in life span according to Buddhism is mentioned in Cakkavatthi sutta.

  Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grew rife; from poverty growing rife stealing increased, from the spread of stealing violence grew apace, from the growth of violence the destruction of life became common, from the frequency of murder lying grew common, from lying growing common, evil speaking grew abundant, from evil speaking growing abundant, adultery grew common, from adultery growing common abusive and idle talk grew common, from abusive and idle talk growing common, covetousness and ill-will grew common, from covetousness and ill-will growing common, false opinions grew common, from false opinions growing common, incest, wanton greed and perverted lust grew common, finally from incest, wanton greed and perverted lust growing common lack of filial and religious piety and lack of regard for the head of the clan grew great.

  From these things growing, the life-span of those beings and the
  comeliness of them wasted, so that, of humans whose span of life was
  two and a half centuries, the sons lived but one century.
  DN 26

The essence of this is that for the life span to increase, human qualities also have to improve, advances in medication and increase in the standard of living alone will not be enough.

The statement, "Lifespan of human is growing and will become 100 years" needs extensive research and proof. Honestly, I didn't read it in anywhere so far yet. But how about what we see everyday; the condolence columns in newspapers, tombstones in cemeteries, all is saying that we lived only around 70-80 years. I rarely see someone lived for 90 years and over on them. Now people usually says "you are very long live" when we see someone who is over 90.

The idea of "Human lifespan is growing" might come from Mathematical estimation. We experienced wars in our history. Young people died in Europe and many other areas. Mathematically lifespan may be lower in past centuries due to these events. Comparatively, now the lifespan is higher than that but it will not be over 100 years.


What might be the long therm effects of ignoring ones duties? There are those who not only deny one's faults as a "Dhammic" approach, but  also are very anti-social (absence of gratitude and dutyfullness), with tendencies found in "I don't like people but I like buddhism" and certain answers. This attitude seem common given modern consumerism and individualism, yet ignores the fact that material goods have no goodness but are dependent on people's voluntary or forced sacrifices.

So is it with some "Buddhists". There is no Buddhism without gratitude for people who sacrificed a lot that is not possible to repay. How can such an attitude of "I don't like people but I like 'food'" ever justify itself?

What might be the long term effects for people of such wrong views and trained to consumerism/householder-equanimity?

What will be the bill to pay, sooner or later, for grave wrong view?

(note that this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or nourishing bonds to the world but for liberation)

In AN6.54 there was an ungrateful monk Dhammika, who craved solitude and was not hospitable to visiting monks. Eventually his kamma caught up with him and:

  Then the local lay followers went up to Venerable Dhammika and said to him:
  “Sir, please leave all seven monasteries in our native land.”
  Then Venerable Dhammika thought:
  “I’ve been banished by the local lay followers from all seven monasteries in my native land.

Because of his lack of gratitude and sense of duty, Dhammika was forsaken by all.

Distressed and woeful, Dhammika went to the Buddha, who scolded him:

  “When someone abuses, annoys, or argues with an ascetic, the ascetic doesn’t abuse, annoy, or argue back at them. That’s how an ascetic stands by an ascetic’s duty.”

And Dhammika acknowledged his fault:

  “I was not standing by an ascetic’s duty when the local lay followers banished me from all seven of the monasteries in my native land.”

The Buddha then directed:

  But someone who abuses and insults a single person accomplished in view with malicious intent makes even more bad karma. Why is that? Brahmin Dhammika, I say that any injury done by those outside of the Buddhist community does not compare with what is done to one’s own spiritual companions. So you should train like this: ‘We will have no malicious intent for those who we want to have as our spiritual companions.’ That is how you should train.

These are some of the long term effects of ignoring ones duties.

Although the question goes actually further, it seems that most are not aware of their duties at first place. Corrupt minded, poisoned by modern ideas and corrupt teacher which did them lot of favors for their own belly's sake, people are caught in the illusion that claiming and calling for rights may be the way out and so they focus on others rather then on their own, yet others might be actually already far beyond. Since the mode of communists or pseudo-liberalists is that destruction of all sublime might bring them freedom, it's hard that they will ever start to work. How ever, for those having possible Nissaya toward those who having left any Nissaya, a reminder and may you have the possibility to get the "snake" Dhamma not caught on its tail again and again:

A selection of duties for good dwelling in the world and to come near borderlands to the Noble domain:

  "In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith:

  (i) by lovable deeds,
  (ii) by lovable words,
  (iii) by lovable thoughts,
  (iv) by keeping open house to them,
  (v) by supplying their material needs.

  "The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

  (i) they restrain him from evil,
  (ii) they persuade him to do good,
  (iii) they love him with a kind heart,
  (iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
  (v) they clarify what he has already heard,
  (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.

  "In these six ways do ascetics and brahmans show their compassion towards a householder who ministers to them as the Zenith.

For those seeking after refuge in the Three Gems, again as told here:

  ‘We will have no malicious intent for those who we want to have as our spiritual companions.’

No one can help you out i you are neither see all the debts and also not willing to work for what you desire eagerly, falling for Mara and his host again and again.


Difference between Sampajanna and Vipassana If Sampajanna is clear comprehension and Vipassana is clearly seeing how or are they distinguishable?

Sampajanna is a prerequisite for right concentration. Vipassana is a result of right concentration.
Mindfulness > sampajanna > concentration > vipassana > liberation > nibbana
Sampajanna is a product of active volition & mindfulness; what is called 'wise or careful attention' (yonisomanasikāro); as described in AN 10.61:

Mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careful attention (yonisomanasikāro). AN 10.61

Vipassana is the automatic seeing of ultimate truth that occurs when the mind is clear & concentrated, as described in AN 11.2.

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are. AN 11.2

Sampajanna (applied wisdom) is the preliminary wisdom that mindfulness (remembering; recollection) brings to mind to establish meditation. Again, to quote AN 10.61:

The four establishments of mindfulness, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the four establishments of mindfulness? It should be said: ... mindfulness and clear comprehension. AN 10.61

For example, when meditation is established, sampajanna applies the types of wisdoms listed below, when required:

observing breathing brings peace therefore it is beneficial to observe the breathing

craving & attachment cause suffering & disturbances therefore I should meditate without craving & attachment

this hindrance harms myself & harms another therefore it should be abandoned

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa has explained 'sampajanna' & 'vipassana' below:

sampajanna, wisdom-in-action, ready comprehension, clear comprehension: the specific application of  panna as required in a
given situation.
vipassana, insight: literally, "clear seeing," to see clearly, distinctly, directly into the true nature of  things, into
aniccam-dukkham-anatta. Vipassana is popularly used for mental
development practiced for the sake of true insight. In such cases, the
physical posture, theory, and method of such practices must not be
confused with true realization of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness,
and not-self. Vipassana cannot be taught.
SAMPAJAÑÑA
Sampajanna is wisdom as it meets up with and immediately confronts a problem, as it deals with and wipes
out that problem -- this is wisdom-in-action. It is only that wisdom
specifically related and applied to a particular situation or event.
The word "wisdom" (paññä) encompasses many
meanings and understandings, we can't even begin to estimate its
content. However, the word "sampajanna" is far more limited in its
meaning. It is exactly that wisdom directly needed for the problem
that confronts us. Active wisdom isn't general, it is a matter of
particulars.
We can compare wisdom (paññä) with the medicine chest in our house. In it we store a wide variety of drugs, pills, capsules, ointments, powders,
and syrups for possible use. When we're actually sick, we must choose
from among the many the one drug which will be effective in treating
our ailment. We can't take them all; we take just what is needed to
cure our illness here and now. The same is true for wisdom. Understand
that there's an incredible amount of what we call paññä,
but that we only apply a little bit at a time. We apply just that
portion which can take care of the immediate situation. Know how to
use the Dhamma, the paññä, which is exactly relevant to our situation
and problem. The Dhamma or wisdom which controls that situation and
problem is what we call "sampajanna."
The Scientific Cure of Spiritual Disease

In short Sati with Sampajanna is Samma Sati which is Vipassana.

  From this it becomes evident that according to the Buddha, whenever there is sammasati or satipatthana, it is always with sampajanna. That means it is with panna (wisdom). Otherwise it is mere sati, which is mere remembrance or awareness.

Source: Sampajanna-the Constant Thorough Understanding of Impermanence by VRI


Does MN9 imply a cyclic causation? How does it work? The Nanamoli and Bodhi translation of MN9 states in 2 excerpts:

  With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With
  the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. .....

  With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints.
  With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints.

The same 2 excerpts from the Thanissaro translation of MN9 reads:

  From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....

  From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

When I took a look at the Pali version of Sammaditthi Sutta (MN9), I'm guessing that these phrases refer to:

  Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo, āsavanirodhā avijjānirodho .....

  Avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo, avijjānirodhā āsavanirodho

How does this logic work?

When A arises, B arises. When A ceases, B ceases.

When B arises, A arises. When B ceases, A ceases.

Does this imply a cyclic causation (similar to chicken and egg)? Why is this the case? How does it work? How can the cycle be broken?

Yup, it's a vicious circle. On one side we have Ignorance/Confusion/Delusion and on the other Stress, Negative Emotions, and Bad Karma.

It is like being born in a poor uneducated family: because you are poor, you can't get education, and because you can't get education you are poor.

When you are stressed, you don't have time to stop and seek solution, you keep rolling day after day, never acting as per your plan, but only reacting to your issues. Because you keep rolling uncontrollably, very stressed, your head is not clear, your will is damaged, your perspective is skewed, so you keep sowing seeds for future trouble.

This is called "bewilderment", or as my teacher said:

  One misstep begets another, begets another, and on, and on.

Imagine someone walking on a trail of rocks in the middle of a swamp, carrying a heavy backpack. Once you lose your balance and misstep off a rock, you're at a danger of falling in the swamp, so you have to compensate by making another sharp step sideways, but it does not end there - the inertia of the heavy backpack keeps carrying you on, so you have to keep making these sharp steps. You are lucky if you can stabilize yourself, but very often you end up running out of rocks and falling in the swamp.

The opposite of this, as often portrayed in suttas, is the good cycle of Sila/Samatha/Vipashyana. The more you fix your karma, the calmer you get, the more clearly you see, which allows you to further optimize your physical and mental action, which leads to even more peace, and even more clarity of vision and so on.

It's not a cyclic causation, rather a linear regression leading to a much thicker ignorance. If you act following the taints, for example, sensual desire, a much thicker ignorance will arise. So, it's  When A  arise, B arise and when B arises then C arise. C is a much heavier ignorance that A.

As the Sutta you quoted explains the Noble Eightfold Path is the cessation of both ignorance and the taints.

  The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
  right concentration.

  The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and
  right concentration.