Days related to Buddhism Growing up in a conservative family, I saw my community elders choose a good day for events or celebrations.

Including, a good day to travel, a good day to start a business, a good day for haircut and much more.

Do they adopt animism?
Or is it related to Buddhism?

According to DN 2, calculating auspicious dates is considered an "animal art" and wrong livelihood. It is prohibited for monks:

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans ... — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

There are plenty more such "animal arts" in the sutta, including astrology, geomancy, palmistry, omen reading, dream interpretation, magic etc.:

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

  "A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.

The things (Sankatha) you see are all products of either collective thoughts or the thoughts of an individual.

  At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all
  was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no
  constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not
  distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no
  male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or
  later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself
  over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin
  that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with
  colour, smell and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and
  it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
  http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2001/edit/docs/aggannasutta.pdf

The above is how the Sakwala (the solar system) we belong came into being. The planets, the moon and the sun are all products of living beings. The collective thoughts of all living beings shape the universe.

All beings emit an aura. The pure white is produced by those who do not have Raga, Dosa or Moha. The ones who have emit an aura in a colour spectrum.

The difference in energy is that makes things spin. Everything, the world, the planets and even molecules spin and rotate. This is why things deteriorate.

Over time people become decadent and excessive with money and no sense of responsibility. This increase the spin and bring an end of Kalpa or a complete overhaul of the planet.

There is an element of truth in things like horoscopes. The vibes you emit get stored in the planets and reflects back on you magnified many times over. This is why people have good and bad times.

What the Buddha said was do not worry about planets or the effects but worry about taking away the causes. The causes are Raga, Dosa and Moha.


Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective? having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent.

This video does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best.

I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.

Sutta show that language and the verbalization of thought are by default with delusion not without delusion.

We say 'an apple', maybe we can point to one like we can point out ourselves in a photograph or otherwise point at our body.

If we analyze the semantics of the word 'apple' we see that it's referent is included in either;

shapes & colors made visible by the eye; or tastes, sounds, smells and tactile sensations of which we think as included in class "apple"
the idea or the class itself of which we can only think, it's invisible to the eye, seen by intellect as ideation.

The idea of an apple is mind-made, one can only think of what the senses present as an apple.

Furthermore we know it's more like a folder on a desktop than a file because when we point at an apple we can be said to be seen pointing at what is rightly described as to carbon molecules or the electro-magnetic process with no apple-element therein.

Like an apple the ideas of self as personal pronouns is great and useful way to communicate as words have proven to be. We just ask for an apple, no need to explain what we need in terms of mathematics and special relativity but mathematics and special relativity systems predict outcomes which are hard to see & grasp.

When going by our name. We know our name is just our name and isn't really a part of the body or mind.

The self is just like that as well, useful in some sense but not really a thing.

If we want to know how senses & intellect work, to predict outcomes by developing understanding, we then have no use for the idea of self because it is never rightly inferred as an apple is never an element of a molecular structure of a fruit, so a self is not among elements which the senses present or what can be known otherwise, it is included as a class of ideas [classed as to object of ideation]. The ideas of apple & self are based on default understanding of what the senses present, this is by default very primitive kind of understanding which is with delusion.

One thinks then in terms of elements known to be true with due inference and one sees that there is no self among them, nor is there a self apart nor are they together taken to be a self.

There are doctrines of self like there is the doctrine of whatnot, doesn't mean it's true.

It's important to grasp that world is delusional, is not without delusion. Therefore delusional ideas are it's basis and are an integral principle of it's description.

Basically if want to be stuck in delusion obv keep wrong ideas and not understanding. If want to end delusion one should develop knowledge and know faulty ideas as faulty ideas.


Once ignorance is removed ,is the cessation of suffering automatic? As per my understanding the only effort I have to make for the cessation of suffering is to realize the Truth as it removes the ignorance. Once I have removed the ignorance rest of the things happen automatically.

With cessation of ignorance comes the automatic cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the automatic cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the automatic cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the automatic cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the automatic cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the automatic cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the automatic cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the automatic cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the automatic cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the automatic cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease automatically.

Are there any other choices(other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering?
Because as per my understanding cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth.

If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? Because realizing the Truth would mean automatic cessation of Consciousness.

Have you met anyone who has realized the Truth but has no intellect consciousness ?

Here is the definition of consciousness :

  "And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness:
  eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness.

Ignorance does not cause consciousness. In your studies of Buddhism, please avoid this materialistic error many Buddhists have. As a beginning student, it is important to learn the right way, from the beginning. The suttas (SN 22.82) say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa).

In reality, dependent origination is describing how ignorance pollutes consciousness, similar to how dirt pollutes pure water or how dust covers a mirror. SN 46.55 provides some good analogies.

This is why there are many suttas that describe how a Buddha has no ignorance but remains conscious, such as SN 22.53, Iti 44 and the end of MN 38.

When ignorance ceases, what occurs to consciousness is it become pure. In other words, what ceases is 'ignorant-consciousness' or ignorant-sense-contact (called avijjāsamphassajena).

  If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
  is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
  not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
  is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
  contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
  totally unbound right within. SN 22.53

The following image comes from this website depicting the twelve links of dependent origination.

What's also nice is that the twelve links have been marked as "past causes", "present effects", "present causes" and "future effects".

According to the third noble truth laid out in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

  "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the
  remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
  release, & letting go of that very craving.

So based on the image below, when craving is ceased, the rest of the "present causes" are terminated, resulting in the "future effects" also being terminated.

However, the "present effects" still persist as long as the Arahant is still alive in the current life.


How can a person realize that a particular thing doesn't bring "happiness" without personal experience? Buddha was, if I'm not mistaken, a privileged prince with money/health/a social life who realized that none of those things make you “happy” (or even content enough).

But how can, for example, somebody who has only known poverty all his life attain a true realization that money won’t make him “happy” without firsthand experience?

Or, how is this poor person to realize that money won't make him content when he is constantly bombarded with "evidence" of the opposite, after all, most people with more than their basic needs covered (I mean people of average economy, not the filthy rich) are content enough to not seek a means to end their "suffering".

The core teachings of the Buddha are universally applicable.

There is suffering. - Everyone knows suffering, rich and poor alike. The suffering of the poor may seem more obvious, but is there any doubt that the wealthy suffer mentally as well, regardless of their resources?
The cause of our suffering is our attachments. - The wealthy have more to be attached to, in fact.
There is a way to end suffering.
The way to end suffering is the practice of the Eightfold Noble Path.

We really only need to know that we suffer and that we seek relief from our own suffering. But it's a long path. If a person is convinced that money will end his or her suffering, they can give it a go; and then eventually realize that making money didn't end their suffering and pick up where they left off. That sort of thing probably happens a lot. My guess would be that many converts to Buddhism have found the teachings of the Buddha to resonate with them after having first tried other ways of finding happiness. It's because we try other ways of finding happiness first, and learn first hand that the things we thought would bring us happiness, didn't, that we can appreciate the wisdom of the Buddha's teaching.

Through practicing insight meditation, one gains the knowledge of the arising and passing away of phenomenon, the suffering latent in all phenomenon, the uncontrollable nature of all phenomenon, and the cessation of phenomenon.


How does a Buddhist survive in a harsh world? The following video got me thinking:

Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys

Machiavelli believes that being kind and compassionate is good, but one often needs to learn to be harsh and ruthless in order to survive so that good may triumph. The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2 - if the Allies had been nice, they'd have been no match for the Axis Powers for their sheer ruthlessness.

On a smaller scale in everyday life, it's the nicer, more helpful people who are constantly taken advantage of.

So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path?

Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path?

I hope this is a false dilemma.

Some of the Buddhist principles that might help you to prosper (rather than "to be eaten") include:

Right livelihood (work for a living, don't cheat people, have fair business dealings)
Have good friends, but avoid bad friends
Be cautious, prudent, avoid being irrational or ignorant, when making decisions about business and family etc.
Save part of your earnings (which will help you to survive thieves and taxes and so on)
Equanimity (be kind but don't be swayed too much, don't be swayed more than is proper, e.g. to help other people with their misfortunes -- remember that each inherits their own karma)
Generosity (if you do benefit someone, don't feel that you suffer that as a loss)

The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2

I'm not sure that's a good example. Buddhism includes doctrine like,

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

I'm not a historian but, for example, perhaps if the "allies" had been more generous at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 at the end of WW1, if the French hadn't wanted to further weaken defeated Germany as much as possible, then the conditions wouldn't have arisen for Germany to want to go to war again 20 years later. Maybe ditto if the USSR hadn't made a secret non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939 (which it did maybe because of its own fear of Germany but also because of its own greed to invade Eastern Europe). Maybe they're all, you know, a bit guilty: could have done better.

If you react harshly, where does that ever stop? And what behaviour do other people learn from you?

Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Well, social cooperation (rather than social aggression) is maybe a winning strategy. For example people respect (and try to help) Buddhist monks, partly because they are intentionally harmless.

In Sri Lankan history there were instances where the monks disrobed an participated in the wars to protect Buddhism.

In this kind of question there is no right answer. In face of invaders trying to destroy Buddhism, if you did not fight back then there would have been no Buddhism by now.

  Buddha knew that both States did have strong armies and that they are needed for the protection of their people. Buddha did not advice minister Vassakara that the concept on 'Army' is against Buddhism and that he should advice the king not to declare war against Vajjis but to desolve the army. Buddha at this instance also brought up important lessons in 'state craft.'

Buddhism & The Soldier by Major General Ananda Weerasekera

  Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten.

There are instances where this also has succeeded. E.g. Mahatma Gandhi's fight for Indian freedom was done on total non violence and also won.

In Sri Lanka there is a saying which says if someone is continuously attacking you when you are compassionate you are a fool. If you keep attacking someone who always compassionate you are a fool. In this light some middle road perhaps might be chosen, and depends on the situation, the opponent, etc.

Also might be of interest: The Buddha and the Four-Limbed Army: The Military in the Pali Canon - Matthew Kosuta Ph.D.


Pleasant feelings/Unpleasant feelings & craving/aversion In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on...

Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?

Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings?

Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving?

It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving,  pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

Short Answer:

When you think "it would be nice to have more(/less) future contact with object X" - then you have craving; when you think "this feeling is (un)pleasant and it came from object X" - then you are creating/sustaining potential for future craving; and when you think "this feeling came from the mind, it is empty, dependently originated, transient, ephemeral, unreliable, like a phantom - therefore craving to have more(less) of it would lead to suffering, and instead I keep training the mind of suchness." - then you don't have craving nor do you create/sustain potential for future craving.

Long Answer:

It is a popular misunderstanding of Dependent Origination -- to assume that it describes a process as it unfolds moment-by-moment. No, it does not. Instead, according to Mahayana (esp. Karma-Kagyu lineage), it describes a logical sequence of stages of development of individual mind.

The "contact" described in D.O. is not the momentary contact of sense organ with an external stimulus. It is a stage of development of individual mind when "contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.

Then, Vedana described in D.O. is a stage when "feeling that comes from contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.

Once this stage is reached, "Craving for feeling that comes from contact with an object" has a basis to develop on.

A more detailed description of this phase (vedana => tanha) is given e.g. in MN 18 as vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.

In other words, as one learns to separate the feeling that comes from contact with an object from the experience of contact itself, one learns to formulate ideas like: "it would be nice to have another contact like that, to bring that feeling again" or "it would be nice to avoid a contact like that, to not bring that feeling again". Eventually, such an idea gets simplified to something like: "It's nice and I want it" or "It's bad and I don't want it".

Then, holding such idea, mulling over it, and pursuing it in practice - making it one's goal and one's mode of operation - is what's known as upadana or grasping.

Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?

As I said, D.O. describes the development of mind in general, not one particular instance. So, most of the time, experience and craving do not follow one another immediately. Instead, most of the time craving occurs on the basis of remembering some past experience.

But generally speaking, when you're eating something or taking massage, and at that moment you experience a pleasant feeling, if you attribute that feeling to the external object, thinking "this food gives me the feeling" or "this massage gives me the feeling" - then, on the basis of this attribution, your thinking about that experience in those terms will fuel and sustain the potential of the future craving towards that object (food or massage).

If on the other hand, you think "this pleasant feeling is born in the mind, is a product of the mind" and you think "this comfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" or "this discomfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" - then on the basis of thinking in these terms you will not fuel and not sustain potential future craving towards the object and will instead develop the mind of sufficiency in suchness.

It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

In my Mahayana understanding, it boils down to your frame of reference, your attribution of experience to an entity. if you attribute pleasant/unpleasant experiences to what you think are "external" objects, then you will develop and sustain future craving to them - and if instead you recognize that all pleasant/unpleasant experiences are mind-made, empty, like phantoms - and learn to control your mind's frame-of-reference, your perspective, your interpretation - then you are not developing craving and are developing the mind of bodhi instead.

As for detecting the presence of craving in the here-and-now, if your mind is leaking to imaginary past or future and grasping onto an imaginary experience (whether positive or negative) - then that's craving/aversion right there. And if your mind is not leaking anywhere but is seeing things as they are, then that's a moment of suchness.

Here, I explained craving (leaking), the root of craving (attribution of experience to external objects), and path to cutting the root of craving (learning to reframe the experience in such a way as to no longer reify it as something real coming from the external objects and to instead think of it in terms of D.O. and 4NT). I explained it according to my understanding and in my own words. Hope it helps.

Yes puthujjanas struggle with the sensitivity to lust, just like sensitivity to sankharas, and they always try to salvage the vedanas of the usual 5 senses, like the puthujjanas who invented mahayana who keep claiming that there can be contact without craving, even for sensuality.
Then some puthujjanas try to express the dependent origination through time, which results in ''models'' with 1 life, 3 lives and a few others, but that's not the point of the DO.
Then they ask what is reborn, is there a state between death and birth. But that's still not the point.
For the DO, there is a famous sutta where the buddha question the Arhat Sariputta https://www.sariputta.com/sutta-pitaka/498-kalara-sutta/english

When it comes to the 5 senses, lust follows from contact and there is always lust as long as you are not in the fourth jhana. Lust is suspended in 4th jhana. most Puthujjanas struggle to get the citta into the samadhi of the 4th jhana, because all they know is sensuality and lack of citta in samadhi, which makes it easy for them to claim that they do not have lust. They claim that they do not have lust for some object they cognize, like some rock or twig in their garden, but they forget to claim that they still lust  over other things that they cognize.
This obsession with caring about individual sensual objects and the individual tastes, likes and dislikes, is what make them claim that ''each person'' has a path to reach nibanna. They think that personal tastes matter, because they completely fail to see the big picture, that there is nothing to salvage when it comes to kama and that the only good relationship with kama to have is the one of upekkha. Kama is 100% dukkha. Vedana is 100% dukkha. There is not a tiny bit of rupa, of vendana, of jati, of karma, of anything conditioned that can be rescued form dukkha and converted into something non-dukkha.

Once you get your citta into  the samadhi of the 4th jhana, you reach for the first time upekkha. This is not upekkha like in sensuality where you do not care about one particular object (again like a rock in your garden or  particular tree in some forest), while still having plenty of lust for other objects (like plenty of other trees in the forest), but upekkha towards all the forest, all that is rupa, vedana and so on.

In terms of cessation the jhanas are expressed thus
Rahogataka Suttaṃ - Alone

  "Then, bhikkhu, I have also taught the successive cessation of
  formations.

  For one who has attained the first jhāna sa eech has ceased.

  For one who has attained the second jhāna hought and examination have
  ceased.

  For one who has attained the third jhāna rapture has ceased.

  For one who has attained the fourth jhāna in-breathing and
  out-breathing have ceased.

  For one who has attained the base of the infinity of space, the
  perception of form has ceased.

  For one who has attained the base of the infinity of consciousness,
  the perception pertaining to the base of the infinity of space has
  ceased.

  For one who has attained the base of nothingness, the perception
  pertaining to the base of the infinity of consciousness has ceased.

  For one who has attained the base of
  neither-perception-nor-nonperception, the perception pertaining to the
  base of nothingness has ceased.

  For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  perception and feeling have ceased.

  For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has ceased, hatred has
  ceased, delusion has ceased.

When the citta is in the samadhi of the 4th jhana, what remains is the famous ''ignorance'', because the puthujjanas who do not have right view, sati, right resolve, and yet who manage to go into this jhana full of upekkha claim easily that this jhana is the end of the path.
This is what happened to the buddha with the famous legend that when he was a child he managed to get his citta into the samadhi of the first jhana. Fortunately, he was not stupid enough to claim he was awaken when his citta got out of this samadhi, but he did nothing with his first jhana.

Only decades later, once he wanted to end dukkha, and once he left all the wrong ways invented by the puthujjanas to get the citta into wrong samadhi (and yet that they claim is nibbana), the thoughts occurred to him that the good manasikharas are the ones of metta and nekkhama.
[at this point people today speculate whether he was a sotapanna, but the only explicit state mentioned is bodhisatta  and what people call today ''buddhahood'' but sometimes he used a phrasing like ''when I was still not fully enlightened'' so perhaps at this point, he was a sotapanna, or just a lucky puthujjana who managed to see what happened when thoughts of nekkhama are cultured to the end, or perhaps what he called bodhisatta in some places include sotapanna...]

Then he says that even with what later on he will call right intention, meaning culturing thoughts of nekkhama and metta, he still failed to get the citta into right samadhi.
After this, he continued the right use of mano which is judging your skills at knowing good states from bad states and he continued to use mano rightly, meaning to see the danger of sensuality. after that he got his citta into samadhi, then his citta knew about karma-rebirth, then how to end dukkha.

Some puthujjanas ask how to ''stop desiring with desire'' and how to make nibanna the object of meditation or contemplation, and ''is it possible to crave nibanna''.

The answer is that it is not possible for puthujjanas to crave nibanna, because puthujjanas do not know what nibanna is and is not (you have to find out, by yourself, the meaning of the various statements of the buddha, because nibanna cannot be experienced vicariously). Even for non-puthujjanas, it is not possible to crave nibanna. Non puthujjanas go mostly by being repulsed by anything conditioned, and more precisely by what is disgusting, so typically kama and they strive for peace.
Puthujjanas always use mano to turn mano into papanca and the unhealthy way for puthujjanas to ''desire nibanna'' always is in fact to cling to what they fantasize as nibanna. It is part of the fantasy of puthujjanas that ''intellectual knowledge'' is indeed knowledge.

The desire to reach nibanna is typically generated by puthujjanas who live around non-puthujjanas, because puthujjanas love to mime, envy, idolize people who are allegedly better than them, and non-puthujjanas brainwash the puthujjanas with healthy statement and activities. But of course, when there is no arhat, it gets difficult for puthujjanas to desire nibanna.

What you still can do is to focus on sensual object that you do not care about and then use the mano properly by wondering if it would be good if you had the same relationship of ''not caring'' with the objects that you love, then with the objects that you hate. Use the mano to see the danger of having lust-hate over sensual objects. Use the mano to see how good you are at not lusting over sensual objects [typically food]. This is what ''guarding the senses'' is all about, having ''sati sampajanna'', ''being mindful''. When you are ''mindful'', you get to be sensitive to future lust and aversion, and with the memory of the statements of the buddha, you strive to keep this sati sampajanna (puthujjanas love to claim that having love and hate is good and not having them is bad).
This is how close puthujjanas can go to desiring and mediating on nibanna.


Is stock trading a wrong livelihood? Does stock trading count as pursuing gain with gain mentioned as wrong view in MN117?

Sure active stock trading is very destructive, especially nowadays it's like trading the weather, but does it count as pursuing gain with gain even for passive stock traders?

Thanks a mil

In my humble opinion, "pursuing gain with gain" refers to any purely speculative business activity that involves creating no added value whatsoever.

This is confirmed by Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain (lābhena lābhaṃ nijigīsanatā)?
  It is when one bent on gain/esteem/renown, one of evil wishes, a prey to wishes
  carries there goods that have been got from here,
  carries here goods that have been got from there,
  fishing out material goods by means of material goods,
  seeking, searching, looking, hunting, trying, sniffing out.

According to commentary, this describes the process of aggressive deliberate speculation, buying low, selling high, with no other mission than making profit.

According to this, and in my own opinion, stock trading is indeed a wrong livelihood, unless it also has a charity element or is used as a way to fund some other constructive enterprise.

I don't see how trading is different to any other bussiness.

As a trader you know your kelly criterion and having established a reasonable roi you manage wealth for yourself and for other people.

It's honest work really.

That being said finance isn't all clean so there is plenty of opportunity for wrong livelihood but i don't think this is applicable to the guys making a few k a month daytrading for work.


Why does my mind naturally wander? Before sitting for meditation I got a few strange questions: why does my mind even wander? What does my mind want, and can it ever be satisfied completely? Can anybody please explain this to me?

Every life form is born in the world due to craving. Within life forms, there are seeds, such as sperm cells, which are propelled by craving. Parents of children engage in sexual intercourse & reproduce new life propelled by craving. New born children are born with craving to eat, craving to be safe, craving for love, craving for pleasure, etc. The mind wanders due to craving. This 'wandering' is called 'samsara'.

It's because of entropy, a natural law of nature which measures disorder (the higher the entropy, the greater the disorder), as physicist Rudolf Clausius stated: "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum". The mind, like all conditioned phenomena, always tends toward scattering, fading away, disorder, decay, and cessation. It'd take effort to control and steady the mind just like proper effort is required to maintain a physical building from disorder and decay.


Difference between buddhasasana and buddhadhamma Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

No.

Sasa = verb (Teach)

Sasana = noun (Discipline&Doctrine;teaching)

Dhamma = Discipline&Doctrine

BuddhaSasana = Discipline&Doctrine of the Buddha

Sutta. Tī. Pā. Udumbarikasuttaṃ:

  Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach (aham-anusāsāmi) and instruct them doctrine (Dhamma). By practicing as instructed they will realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life, in seven years.

  Ahaṃ  pana  nigrodha  evaṃ  vadāmi etu viññū puriso asaṭho amāyāvī   ujujātiko   ahamanusāsāmi   ahaṃ   dhammaṃ  desemi  yathānusiṭṭhaṃ tathāpaṭipajjamāno     yassatthāya    kulaputtā    sammadeva    agārasmā anagāriyaṃ   pabbajanti   tadanuttaraṃ  brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ  diṭṭhe  va  dhamme sayaṃ   abhiññā   sacchikatvā   upasampajja   viharissati   satta  vassāni .

Dhamma in your context is a part of Buddhasasana. To consider abot it, the  Buddha taught in Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

  'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All conditioners are inconstant. All phenomena (Dhamma) are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."

  rūpaṃ  bhikkhave aniccaṃ   vedanā   aniccā  saññā  aniccā  saṅkhārā  aniccā  viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ   rūpaṃ   bhikkhave   anattā   vedanā   anattā   saññā  anattā saṅkhārā    anattā   viññāṇaṃ   anattā   sabbe   saṅkhārā   anattā sabbe   dhammā  anattāti  evaṃ  kho  ahaṃ  aggivessana  sāvake  vinemi evaṃbhāgā ca pana me sāvakesu anusāsanī bahulā pavattatīti.

By above Sutta:

All aggregates are conditioners (each others) because they are same inconstant.
All aggregates are Dhamma because both of them are same not-self.
So some Dhamma, Nibbāna and Sammati, is not conditioned and not inconstant.

-Nibbana is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is reality which never arising, no aggregates at all. It's real because it is the opposite of all aggregates, not based on any aggregates. People can access Nibbana by the complete Vipassana, Magga.

-Conception, Sammati, is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is unreal and never arise, just imagination based on aggregates. Every people can access Sammati. Some people can use Sammati in meditating Lokiya-Jhāna to avoid craving in aggregates, but it is impermanent avoidance because minds create Sammati from thinking of aggregates, therefore it is possible to crave aggregates again in the future, so Sammati is not the perfect opposite of aggregates. However Lokiya-Jhāna is still important for Vipassanā meditation.

Cool question

  buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

As i see it, yes it would be an agreeable expression and would be with sutta support as something like this.
* When Alara Kalama & Uddaka Ramaputa speak of their Dhamma, to be directly realized, they are speaking of their highest concentration attainments, this is not a point of controversy afaik, people agree that that is the meaning.

  "I thought: 'It wasn't through mere conviction alone that Rama declared, "I have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge." Certainly he dwelled knowing & seeing this Dhamma.' So I went to Uddaka and said, 'To what extent did Rama declare that he had entered & dwelled in this Dhamma?' When this was said, Uddaka declared the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

Further Buddha says;

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. [3] But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

  "Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to me:

  'Enough now with teaching
      what
      only with difficulty
      I reached.
  This Dhamma is not easily realized
  by those overcome
  with aversion & passion.

  What is abstruse, subtle,
      deep,
      hard to see,
  going against the flow —
  those delighting in passion,
  cloaked in the mass of darkness,
      won't see.'
  "As I reflected thus, my mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

Imo here Buddha speaks of the Dhamma as meditative attainment to be attained, to known and seen, surpassing all other, which is the unconditioned element. Also as a teaching to the extent of unconditioned.

Based on this direct knowledge he proclaims that there are two elements; conditioned and the unconditioned (many elements sutta mn115). Also referred to as 'a quality' mn 43;

  "One knows a quality that can be known with the eye of discernment."

I skip the part equating these so dont take my word for it

So there are two contexts he speaks of teaching the Dhamma and the Dhamma to be realized to the extent of the unconditioned.

Given that the referent for 'unconditioned' is a single element it would not include what is thought or taught about the element it would follow that Buddhasasana is impermanent and the Dhamma he realized is unconditioned.

Dhamma is also refered to as 'Akalika~ timeless' but there are several fitting interpretations for this afaik.


What is the difference between Karma and Sanskara Karma and Sanskara seam to be very much related. How are they related and how are they different.

Saṅkhāra refer to all conditioned phenomena. That means everything else apart from Nibbana. Karma refers to volitional acts which is only a subset of Saṅkhāra. All Saṅkhāras come under the first noble truth, i.e. Dukkha. All Saṅkhāras are impermanent. All Saṅkhāras are non-self.

The two words share the same root and similar senses. Both kamma and saṅkhāra are widely used in everyday sense to mean "work", "activity", "procedure", and especially "ritual".
In Buddhist doctrinal senses they both have the meaning "intentional action (that leads to consequences both in this life and the next)."
The difference is that kamma is used in moral contexts. It is about choosing to do the right thing. Saṅkhāra tends to be used in existential contexts like dependent origination: whatever choice you make, even a good one, it leads to suffering.
In addition, saṅkhāra is also used in a broader sense to refer to "all conditioned phenomena", i.e. everything we experience (except Nibbana).


Is homosexuality a sin? "Homosexuality" is a hot topic everywhere in the world now. But is it a sin according to Buddhism? Does it cause a breaking of the third precept? I have heard in a sermon that people are born gay because of breaking the third precept severely in previous births and people are born as females for also breaking the third precept (not as severely I suppose). I know that where I come from if the government accepts gay marriages the monks will be the first to protest even before the church does! Is it because it is a sin?
(PS: I am totally fine with someone being gay)

It is not a sin.

Lust is born out of desire. Desire is one of the root defilements (kilesas).
It can manifest itself in different ways, e.g. sexual preference, body type preferences etc.

Lust is still lust, no matter what object its involved with.

Sex is not sin. Only for monks its forbidden. Householders are supposed to have sex irrespevtive of body type. Homosexuality is a byproduct of unnatural living. Scientists claim its genetic. Religion says its because of unnatural living these defects are creeping in. Also it might be due to unnatural lifestyle.
Therefore lifestyle correction which includes meditation is required. If homosexuality is lifestyle induced it will go sway on its own. Still my answer is it is not sin at all. Its just a choice.


Is "anupassi" translated as "focused" accurate? I read the following on the internet:

If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between
"staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to
accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly.

From the Pali suttas, the word "anupassi" is translated as follows:

On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
with reference to the world. Thanissaro
on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body,
ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and
grief for the world. Bodhi
That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by observing an
aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and
aversion for the world. Sujato
a monk lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world,
covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera
a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this
world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera
a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body, ardent,
clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the
covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner
that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly contemplating body
in bodies, strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily, and
is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the
world... Buddhadasa
in regard to the body a monk abides contemplating the body, diligent,
clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in
regard to the world. Analayo
Contemplates the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati,
eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world...
Payutto
These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of
these feeling is vedananupassana, contemplation of feeling...
Mahasi Sayadaw

It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused".
Questions:

Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc?

Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Anupassi is watching (by understanding) continuously.
You can translate into many words because when mind arising, there are many mind factors arising together with each mind.
However, according to each Sutta's context, the selected words are the most proper words for that Sutta.
For the example, Anupassi in DN22 MahasatipatthanaSutta.
Anupassi in that Sutta has many situations, many objects, etc., so Anupassi is the conclusion, Uddeso, of the whole  comprehension styles in DN22.
Anupasī is including Viharati, Ātāpī, Sampajañño, Satimā, Vineyya, Pajānāti, SatiPaccupatthitā, Nāna, PatisatiMattāya,Anissito, Na Upādiyati, SampajānaKārī, Paccavekkhati,  Upasanharati, Ariyo Atthangika Maggo, Sammāditthi, SammāSankappo, SammāVācā, SammāKammanto, SammāĀjīvo, SammāVāyāmo, SammāSati, SammāSamādhi, and every word in it's explanation such as Vitaka, Vicāra, pīti, concentration (focusing), etc.
You can see that if you want to translate Anupassī in DN22, you need to translate all of those words together, however you can't. So in this case the translation which is same as in Pāli is better, except you are the Tipitaka Memorizer who teaching one who is going to enlighten immediately. In this case, the proper words for that enlightening person are allowed. However, they need to get back to the original version in Pāli after enlightened to keep Buddha's teaching to 5000th B.E.

Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Yes, garanted (being Brahman Element's firm gained agati). At least because it's total lack of anupassi used toward Samanupassati, the aim, liberation. Crasping after sañña and garanted fail to get the meaning even on conventional level, caught in a forest of view and bound by conceit.
No need to speak of the many other demerits around the appearance of improper attention and putting strew-mans around for ones lossy gains...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-bindin trades... but for an escape from this wheel]


The five incurable actions "There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."
AN 5.129

If someone tries to kill an arahant, Buddha or their parents but they don’t get hurt even a little bit, do you still go to hell for “attempting” to kill them? Or is it only incurable if you have succeeded in killing them?

From SN 42.3:

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already
low, degraded, and misdirected as they think:
Yo so, gāmaṇi,
yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ
dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:
‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed,
or annihilated!’
His foes kill him and finish him off, and  when his
body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The
Fallen’.

From the sutta quote above, we see that the warrior who strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) in battle, is already deep in the low, degraded and misdirected mindset of killing.
Similarly, just having the fleeting thought of hurting the Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's mother, killing one's father or causing a schism in the Buddha's sangha, is not sufficient to be considered an incurable action.
It's an incurable action only when one strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) to commit those heinous acts, regardless of whether he has actually been successful or not, just as in the case of the warrior in battle.
So, yes, even an unsuccessful intentional and deliberate attempt to perform these wicked acts would be incurable.

The OP asked in the comments to the effect of: What about Angulimala who killed many humans and attempted to kill the Buddha, but eventually became an arahant?
When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.
So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.
Please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect." - AN 6.63

Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.


How could we have so many past lives without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment? While I do have a personal and intimate belief in reincarnation, I really struggle with the Buddhist belief that we have innumerably many past lives.

A monk I listened to explained that all the beings we meet everyday were once our parents in a specific past life, as well as our enemies.
Honestly, i find this perspective quite hard to believe.
It seems to me that if had so many past lives, we should have reached wisdom and Buddhahood at some point already.

How (according to Buddhism) is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience, without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

Infinities can be one-way. Consider the negative numbers.

What the Buddha said is that there is no "first point".

  SN15.19:1.3: No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

And with the ending of ignorance, one does not return.

  AN2.36:4.7: When they pass away from there, they are non-returners, not coming back to this state of existence.

Non-returners (anāgāmi) and arahants do not return. They have left behind the negative infinity of suffering.

It seems to me if had an infinity of past lives we should have
reached wisdom and buddahood at some point.

Indeed.
The Buddha himself did not teach about "past lives". The words commonly translated as "past lives" in the original scriptures are "pubbe nivasa". The word "nivasa" means "homes", "abodes" or even "adherences" (in the related word "nivesa").
A "nivasa" is when one or more of the five aggregates (body, feelings, perception, mental formations & sense consciousness) are attached to as "self".
Therefore, in this life, each mind has clung to aggregates as "self" infinite times. The relevant scripture, properly translated, says:

At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect
their manifold past abodes (pubbe nivasa) all recollect the five aggregates subject
to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it
is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of
feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does
not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.
And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He
dismantles form and does not build it up. He dismantles feeling …
perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not build
it up.
And what is it that he abandons and does not cling to? He abandons
form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling … perception …
volitional formations … consciousness and does not cling to it.
And what is it that he scatters and does not amass? He scatters form
and does not amass it. He scatters feeling … perception … volitional
formations … consciousness and does not amass it.
And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? He
extinguishes form and does not kindle it. He extinguishes feeling …
perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not kindle
it.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi

It is clearly noticeable how the answers provided to your question by the common Buddhist are contrary to what is written above. The common Buddhist refers to infinite past lives yet the above says the Noble Disciple "dismantles, does not build up, does not amass, does not kindle".

Other common false translations found in this type of topic are "sentient beings" and "transmigration".
The Pali word falsely translated as "sentient being" is "satta". "Satta" merely means "a being" and, similar to "nivasa", refers merely to an attachment or a view, as explained in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10.
The Pali word falsely translated as "transmigration" is "saṃsāra". "Saṃsāra" merely means "continuance" and, similar to "nivasa", refers merely to the continuance of attachment, as explained in SN 22.99, 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.

Why false translations occur was explained by the renowned Thai Buddhist monk Bhikkhu 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.
People who are blind to the true reality (Dhamma) can speak only
people language, the conventional language of ordinary people. On the
other hand, people who have genuinely realized the ultimate truth
(Dhamma) can speak either language.  They can handle people language
quite well and are also comfortable using Dhamma language, especially
when speaking among those who know reality, who have already realized
the truth (Dhamma).  Amongst those with profound understanding, Dhamma
language is used almost exclusively, unfortunately, ordinary people
can't understand a word.  Dhamma language is understood only by those
who are in the know.  What is more, in Dhamma language it isn't even
necessary to make a sound.  For example, a finger is pointed or an
eyebrow raised and the ultimate meaning of reality is understood. So,
please take interest in these two kinds of language--people language
and Dhamma language.
No Religion

More can be read, here: Two Kinds of Language


Buddha's relation to Hinduism Q:

  Did the Buddha copy Hinduism and add his own stuff? Why is Buddhism
  connected to thoughts in Hinduism if he didn't do so?

'Hinduism' did not exist when the Buddha was alive, as follows from Wikipedia:

  This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300
  CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 to 500 BCE), and
  flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in
  India

  Wkipedia: Hinduism

When Buddha was alive, the religion of the Brahmin priests we call 'Brahmanism', which was far more limited in scope than Hinduism, per the stock description from the Pali suttas below:

  Now at that time the brahmin...had mastered the Three Vedas, together
  with their vocabularies, ritual, phonology and etymology and the
  testament as fifth. He knew philology and grammar, and was well versed
  in cosmology and the marks of a great man.

  MN 91

The Three Vedas are explained in Wikipedia as follows:

  The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold (turīya) viz.,

  Rigveda (RV)
  Yajurveda (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
  Samaveda (SV)
  Atharvaveda (AV)

  Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also
  called "trayī vidyā"; that is, "the triple science" of reciting hymns
  (Rigveda), performing sacrifices (Yajurveda) and chanting songs
  (Samaveda). The Rigveda is the oldest work, which Witzel
  states are probably from the period of 1900 to 1100 BCE. Witzel, also
  notes that it is the Vedic period itself, where incipient lists divide
  the Vedic texts into three (trayī) or four branches: Rig, Yajur, Sama
  and Atharva

  Wiki

If you read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, there was no Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism, as inferred by Wikipedia (in the 1st quote above), probably copied from Buddhism.

For example (while I am happy to be corrected), I do not recall reading in the Pali suttas any detailed discussion/debate between the Brahmins & the Buddha about respective theories/doctrines of karma & reincarnation. In the little I researched, I found no systematic doctrine of karma & reincarnation in the Three Vedas. Even when I browsed some later 'Upanishads', I found no mature systematic doctrine about karma & reincarnation (apart from the ideas of one certain individual philosopher).

Again, if we read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, we find the Brahmins were similar to the Hebrews (and probably many other tribal groups), where their belief system was about how they were 'God's chosen people' or 'born from Brahma's mouth/breath' (while the other castes were born from lesser parts of Brahma's body).

Some useful links from Sutta Central, with lots of links, books & research, are:

The early Upanishads: a nice introduction to the pre-Buddhist tradition
Rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahman Vedas

Note: While the Pali suttas never mention the 'Upanishads', the reincarnation orientated leader of Sutta Central, namely, Bhikkhu Sujato, appears intent to follow conventional historians rather than follow the Pali suttas, in his efforts to back-date the Upanishads to prior to Buddhism. If we place our trust in the Pali suttas, we find what existed prior to the Buddha was the Three Vedas & their accompaniments.

An answer about this topic by Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo is here: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

Lastly, if you wish to be a real Buddhist, it is not possible to believe the Buddha copied any of his core teachings from Brahmanism/Hinduism because the suttas say what the Buddha taught he "never heard before". "A Buddha" cannot copy other doctrines otherwise he/she cannot be called "A Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha" ("Sammasambuddha").

  'Arising, arising!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light.

  'Cessation, cessation!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light."

  SN 12.10

  Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:

  Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Buddhism is not what you can see today. Once the real dhamma is translated and written in Sanskrit, the real meaning has disapeared.
Due to this when reading dhamma today, people get a closer meaning to hindunism. (Since they know hindunisn) Which is not the case. Buddha had advised not to translate dhamma to sanskrit, but someone has done. That's how it is.
So just because it seems like the same thing, it is not what budhha taught...!


Non Buddhist can say Hello to Buddha or Monk? I understand this hand sign is to respect and say hello to Buddha or greeting to monks.
Ques 1: Where is this written in Sutta exactly what the hand sign means?
Ques 2: Can non Buddhist bow to Buddha when they visit temple? Most articles says no.
If no, then what other hand sign more standard or more acceptable widely to greet Buddha or Monk from Buddhism perspective?
Post note: Buddha is not for Worship

Then the monks, delighting in & approving of the Blessed One's words, rose from their seats and — bowing down to the Blessed One and circumambulating him, keeping him to their right — went to Ven. Sariputta. On arrival, they exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.002.than.html
Perhaps it was a very old tradition to respect the elders and worthy people or even people with power.

He's just a sattva standing there falling all over himself... either kick his butt and tell him to renounce his sattva vow or prostrate yourself before him and say have a step or a seat.
If he tames you like an ox he wins if not off to sit under another tree.
Is that a plum under your butt or are you just happy to see me? Would make a nice meme :) I've met another incarnation of him in this very life; I wonder if they know about each other?


Buddhism and economics In the present context of the world, the chain of economics and happiness as I see it is, money is necessary to fulfill one's basic necessities (even if not luxuries), to earn money we need jobs, to make jobs we need to manufacture things, to sell things that have been manufactured, they have to be marketed and people have to be eventually 'desire' to buy these items and feel that they are happy to keep the chain alive.

But because of this chain, for example the automobile industry, we have more cars on road, more pollution, more environmental and health issues and so on.

So I was thinking if there is a better economic model which we can learn and devise from the teachings of the Buddha. Is there some other method we can adopt to reinvent this chain and relation between economics, happiness and consumerism? I do understand that real 'happiness' as taught by the Buddha and the happiness that one obtains by practising meditation is the way ahead to limit our desires and achieve a balance in the world. On these lines, I read something on 'Sufficiency Economics' briefly and felt it was a good topic.

I wish to ask if anyone can provide references to any other topics or books that relate economics, consumerism and Buddhism that offer a practical solution to a really happy world.

This is not directly related to economics but Buddha's Ten Royal Qualities (Dasa Raja Dharma) is an excellent guidance to handle a country and thereby the economy as well.

Check this link to get an idea: THE CURRENT RELEVANCE OF
DASA RAJA DHARMA

Here's a very brief extract/summary from that article:

  The promise of dasa raja dharma (ten principles
  of Buddhist governance) has been a
  trademark emotional appeal that our rulers
  have used to win elections.

  Dana -- Liberality, generosity, charity.
  Sila -- a moral character.
  Pariccaga -- sacrificing everything for the good of the people.
  Ajjava -- honesty and integrity.
  Maddava -- kindness and gentleness.
  Tapa -- austerity of habits.
  Akkodha -- freedom from envy, ill-will, enmity.
  Khanti -- patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding.
  Avihimsa -- non-violence, which means not only that he should harm nobody, but that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
  Avirodha (non-opposition; nonconfrontation) as they are related though not the same.

Buddhas aren't in the business of teaching how to be happy. Sorry.

The real deal is concerned with freedom from circumstances, including the ones you're particularly worried about. As it just so happens, this freedom typically brings a kind of happiness but it's only the perfume of the main game.

Work on yourself. This will help others immeasurably.


What are the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation? I would like to have a detailed list of the steps in Mindfulness of Breathing meditation.

What is a good suggested duration?

Steps differ by every teaching lineage. But a basic outline would look like this:

Focus on the breath and recognize it as breath, without the thought, this is me, this is mine, this is what I am, this is good, this is bad, etc.
If the mind wanders from the breath, acknowledge the thought in some system of categorizing objects that arise in the experience. The Satipatthana Sutta outlines a neat and tidy system for categorizing such objects.
Return to focusing on the breath.
Repeat 1-3 for duration of practice.

As for duration of practice, do what your body and mind can handle, and work upwards from there. Start with 5 minutes, and if that's easy, try 10 or 15. Try 30 or 60 minutes. But there's no substitute for having a teacher.

On a meditation course, my teacher had me practice 50 minutes of walking meditation, then 50 minutes of sitting meditation, repeating indefinitely. Back in the ordinary world I tend to keep it at 30 minutes (15 walking, 15 sitting).

If you study under a teacher, you will find that every teaching lineage has their own specific steps. For example in the Mahasi Sayadaw school we don't just focus on the breath. We start with rising and falling of the abdomen, and then as skill develops we include recognition of sitting, and then recognition of various points on the body. Out of respect for the teachers I don't want to go into too much detail as I am not a meditation teacher, just a practitioner.

theravadasatipatthanamahasibreathing

Close your eyes, and breathe. Think about waves or palm trees. Think about your day, and how to make it better. Think about the negatives things in your life then think about letting it go, and all the positive comments, well say it to yourself! breathe in, blow out. Blue skies in, gray skies out. Try it, become less stress and be a new person that is always his/her self, and become a person who is refreshed, and ready to go. Look for that sunset behind the mountains.


Escaping alone is not enough I am attached to my parents, children and other close family members quite heavily. Me alone escaping the suffering is not enough. I want to make sure they are on track to escape suffering as well. What are my options?

I don't have a complete knowledge in Buddhist teachings.

There is a quote which says,

'No one can save us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.'

So we can just help them show the path, but they have to walk their own path.

No options. No need to become attached to some Buddhist ideal that a very small percentage of Buddhists, let alone people in general, achieve.


Do arhats exist after death? I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said

Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer

I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats.

If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

This is one of questions left unanswered by the Buddha.

Read here

All of the following are amongst incorrect views.

A Buddha (read Arahant or Enlightened being) does exist after death.
A Buddha does not exist after death.
A Buddha both exists and doesn't exist after death.
A Buddha neither exists nor doesn't exists after death.

In my opinion, the problem being whatever happens to the energy/consciousness/entropy/field of the Buddha must be such that it cannot be expressed in words and not even be able to be grasped as an idea or any kind of mental construct. So the Buddha left it unanswered.

Yes, Arhats exist after death. Yes, the Buddha exists after death.

Or more appropriately, the continuity of mental consciousness - that was associated with the being that is an Arhat/Buddha - upon which the mere I is designated will continue to exist conventionally after death in this very life. That's still an imperfect description, but hopefully people will be able to grok the gist.

The break up of the body does not end the existence of the mere I. What is important to understand is how it can be said that Arhats and Buddhas and sentient beings exist after the break up of the body. The answer is they exist in precisely the same way as before the break up of the body: they exist relatively and conventionally and without any inherent existence.

Another way of putting it... The question could be restated, “Does the Arhat who exists in moment A continue to exist in moments subsequent to A?” Death and the break up of the body is nothing special. It is just another moment in the continuum of existence. What is important to understand is how that continuum of existence exists... it exists as mere convention without the slightest shred of inherent or real existence.

The reason the Buddha refused to answer the question is because sentient beings come preloaded with the utterly false assumption that the Buddha exists inherently. Even before death. That is not so. But death is not some special state that leads to annihilation of the self. If it were then it would be true that a substantially existent person existed before death. Which is entirely contrary to the doctrine of anatman.

There is no sutta which records the Buddha answering this explicit question, but nevertheless the answer can be known through reason and logic.


Not remembering past life(s)? I wanted to ask how Buddhism explains why we don't remember our past lives?
Why bother with the Buddhist path when we will not remember this temporary life in our next? I heard that for example contrary to rebirth in the human realm, beings who are reborn in the Pureland of Amitabha can remember their past life. Why bother practice other methods and not only just focus on reaching Sukhavati?
If I won't remember the temporary "me" of this life in the next, why bother practicing at all? Isn't it better to know about my continuity in the next life for progression?

Do you remember what you had for lunch yesterday? We remember only if we are interested in that thing or it is extremely important for us. We continually become because we are not happy with the past or present. The time of the arrow goes only forward.

I wanted to ask how Buddhism explains why we don't remember our past lives?

Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Memory is not me, mine or myself. If so, how do you expect to remember past lives?

Why bother with the Buddhist path when we will not remember this
temporary life in our next?

We do not wish to return. No more rebirths. We wish that this is the last birth of me. Why do we wish so? Because birth leads to suffering. How do we ensure we do not return? By following the noble 8 fold path (or the Buddhist path).


How can I respond to Christians' unpleasant feedback on Buddhism? I have some friends who are Christian that I can't avoid the subject with. We used to see each other very often for some events. Normally those are friends of friends. Examples of the unpleasant feedback I commonly receive include things like "Buddha is Satan", "Buddha is in hell" and "All Buddhist shall go to hell". There are many other examples and by - for example - searching YouTube, you'll find more than enough examples.
I am looking for some efficient and effective response to avoid this unfruitful conversation and prevent more unpleasant conversation that won't benefit anyone. It's better to have a compassionate discussions instead.
Below are some responses that I came up with:

Oh my God? So far Buddha didn't do me any harm me yet. I will be taking extra precautions for this. Thanks for the concern.

Oh my God? My understanding, based on personally hearing the story from both sides, is that roughly 80% of the teachings of Christianity have a counterpart in Buddhism which has a similar interpretation. How come Satan is teaching the same morals as God?

Oh my God? Where in the Bible is it written so?

I felt hurt that you say Buddha is Satan. In a few cases they will insist to talk on this and ignore my feeling. Not sure they feel righteous to say so on their side?

Oh my God. Can I excuse myself to wash room for some emergency? If talk again and go again.

Post notes:
Thanks guys, there is a chat discussion regarding this with another Christian. If you are interested, let me know and I will add you. I do respect Jesus and Buddha a lot and I hope there is no comment that leads to a battlefield. I will keep my sincere prayers for forgiveness from Jesus and others too if there is unpleasant feeling to others too due to this questions. Really sorry folks.

Just tell them:

I am not a Christian, and I'm not interested in becoming one.
My interest in Buddhism or any other religion is my own business.
Let's not discuss religion.

This answer would be in line with keeping the precept of abstaining from incorrect speech (including lying and speaking harsh words).

Ask him if he really believes that.
Next ask if he takes it on faith that there is a god-creator and that Buddha is satan.
When he says yes, then you ask him; 'Friend, what is the difference between seeind & knowing (verified confidence) and taking something on faith?'.
Try to get him to admit that things taken on faith can turn out to be baseless & false.
If he admits that then ask him; 'Friend, is appropriate for one who takes something on faith to  come to a definitive conclusion saying "only this is true and everything else is worthless"?'
Then ask if he thinks it's appropriate for him to be making definitive statements like 'You are wrong, Buddha is satan, only this is true and everything else is worthless' when he doesn't know this to be true, has not come to definitive conclusion and when his faith in these things can turn out to be false & baseless.
Should shut him up.


Does one need to make amends for a bad-action done accidentally? Note: Originally I wrote "unintentionally" and not just "accidentally" but I have realized that even the "accidental" action described in the example below involves the person's intentions of their movements and thus even if the person's intention wasn't to break the vase they still broke the vase through their intentional action and I believe they would necessarily suffer for breaking the vase.

Example:

A person is walking through a friend's house and accidentally knocks a vase and causes it to fall and break. The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses.

Does the person necessarily suffer for refusing to buy their friend a new vase?

You say "unintentionally" but your friend might see it as "negligence".

I didn't mean to break it!
Yes but you should have looked where you were going! No one else broke it...

I suspect that Buddhism might classify negligence too as volitional, karmically active, and a cause of suffering.

Anyway, I think that arguing about it with the friend probably counts as intentional.

FWIW a civil court might try to apportion blame e.g. based on where the vase was placed. Who knows, maybe it would be appropriate to share the blame.

The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses.

Well, intentional or not, the damage's already been done to the host's property and the guest cannot say that s/he's completely free from the responsibility. So even if the host did not request for payment, it should be the right thing for the guest to offer some payment to cover for the host's lost property. In terms of kamma, since the cause was unintentional, the fruit will certainly be of a different degree of severity than that of an intentional one. But that doesn't mean it'll guarantee that the guest will 100% be free in the future. Who knows, maybe in some near future, this guest might invite some of his own guests over, and his own guest in turns, will unintentionally break some property in his house! In short, if in doubt, try to play it safe and try one's best to be reasonable and responsible for one's own actions.


Is this a statue of a six-armed wooden Buddha? Please help me identify this statue. Thank you!

"Buddha statues generally show a particular Mudra (a Sanskrit word) or hand gesture."

~ Cited from: Buddha Statue Mudras

Bhumi Sparsha Mudra
Samadhi / Dhyana Mudra
Abhaya Mudra
Dharma Chakra Mudra
Vitarka Mudra
Vajira Mudra
Uttara Bodhi Mudra

Apart from the above listed Mudras there can be a combination of two Mudras or a variation of a Mudra depicted in a statue of Lord Buddha. For example the below statue of Lord Buddha depicts a variation of Abhaya Mudra.

~ Image source: Wikipedia

Since the statue you've shown doesn't depict any of the known Mudras, there is a high possibility of being that is not a statue of Lord Buddha.

Basically in all south Asian countries Buddhism & Hinduism are the same, which is why Buddhism & Hinduism do not coexist as major religions in any Asian country. At a time in history, the ruling classes chose one of them. Each religion shares the same ideas & images in the social or cultural contexrt. Thus multi-armed deities (e.g., Brahma & Vishnu), bodhisattva and Buddhas can be found in many places and will generally have the same meaning.

As for the picture, it looks Indonesian, possibly Balinese (but I could be wrong).


How can I become less affected by politics? since I started my buddhist practice some five years ago, I have made great advancements. I think I've become much more accepting and loving towards others. I used to be cynical and arrogant and I suppose I've since reached a point where I can claim to be free of both. All in all I am quite happy with my life nowadays. I feel no hatred anymore and have become tolerant towards more or less everybody and every aspect of life.

There is one exception however that is really nagging on me: I am an avid follower of politics and can get stirred up by political events, decisions or politicians themselves that are opposed to my own political convictions. Sometimes it is enough for me to see a certain politician to become filled with - I don't know if you might call it hatred - but at least a feeling of great antipathy, even disgust. I know that the person behind the political façade might very well be likable and live a normal life with her or his own needs and worries, personal shortcomings and qualities, just like anybody else.

I am not even talking about today's great "evildoers" like Kim Jong-un  or even less contested politicians like Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán. It's mostly politicians on a national or even regional level that are able to cause those bad feelings in me.

My wish is on the one hand to see and accept those people as being regular living beings like you and me that need to be loved and understood just like everybody else. Something that I nowadays don't find hard to see in virtually everybody else, even (bad) criminals. In some ways I even find it easier to feel compassion for somebody like Kim Jong-un than for some of Germany's or France's politicians, i.e. the countries that I feel most closely connected to. To be quite frank, I don't have the slightest idea why I find this so hard to achieve.

On the other hand I would like to be less affected by political issues in general. I know that it might not be the wisest stance to take, but I sometimes think I wouldn't mind losing interest in the local and international political scene altogether because I have the impression that I can't distance myself from it and that it is in some way poisoning my thoughts.

Has anybody else on here made similar experiences or has got some advice on how I can "fix" this strange condition? I already practise metta meditation and it does have a very positive effect on me, like I described above. It just does not seem to achieve much in this regard.

Thanks!

This is an easy one. Stop looking at the media so much. The media is not reality. It's a small negatively skewed snippet of it. There is so much more to life than the perpetual negativity we see in the media.

It's only in recent times that the media has become way more invasive.
We now have 24/7 news cycles and people walk around addicted to and staring at devises all day. All that negativity is going into your mind and colouring your world view. It pretty much works the same way as porn. People are addicted to the dopamine/adrenaline hit they get when something in the media fires them up.

The politicians thrive on dividing people. Refuse to play into their game. Stop watcing it just for a few days and notice how much calmer you feel.   It's good to stay informed about important world issues but that but does not mean habitually checking the media every 5 minutes or even everyday. If Kim Jung is about to launch another missile what can I do about it?? Nothing!! So why do I need to know about it? So I can go on Facebook and rant? I don't need to know. It's pointless. Far better to use your energy in effecting real change where you can.

You will need to break the habit. It's the only way. If you continue to look at that stuff on a daily basis it will continue to colour your mind in that divisive angry way that only politics can do.  Let go of it. You don't need it.

Try watching a documentary about the Illuminati, "The American Dream" cartoon on Youtube for instance.
It will disillusion you from the left-right paradigm which is designed to make us combat each other rather than the establishment itself.

Politics literally means the study of the people.
As such, doing something truly good through politics is what a bodhisattva would do.
On the other hand, most of our minds are too clouded to make a change in the right place and time.

It would be good to go to a protest, help fund an actually anti-establishment politician (like Ron Paul)... but it gets tricky. Trump claimed to be anti-establishment but here he is completely bought out.

After you learn more about the system at its core, including fractional reserve banking... you will see how it is doomed for failure and maybe make preparations.

To be forcibly un-involved from politics is to hide under a rock--but definitely do not get mired in the details.


Anatta & Atman the same thing? I read that atman is pure bliss
I read that anatta is pure bliss

-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?
-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why?
-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom.

As for 'Atman', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state.

  The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on
  this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the
  pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united
  and the ultimate sentient principle.

This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'.

It is vey possible that anatta and atman are the same thing.
In Buddhism, Anatta means "non-self." However if the self doesn't exist, what travels from birth-to-birth? According to Lord Buddha the "stream of consciousness" which is essentially karmic energy, travels to different life forms.
In Hinduism the Atman is energy. It is considered the soul. The "karmic energy" in Buddhism is identical to the concept of energy as the Atman.
The difference is that Hindus attribute Atman to the self, whereas Buddhists say that the stream of consciousness is everchanging because of the 5 aggregates  therefore it cannot be attributed to the self. So Buddhists do not cling to the stream of consciousness because of this.


Depersonalization phenomenon as described in the Pali Canon According to the gentleman in this video ...

Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void ~ Shinzen Young
Shinzen talks about the empowering facets of enlightenment and compares this to "enlightenments evil twin" DP/DR. He talks about the rare occasions that he's encountered a meditator moving in the direction of DP/DR and the strategy he used to "cure" it using mindfulness methods.

... the phenomenon of "depersonalization" is described in the Pali Canon. Could anyone provide the source(s) of this?
As a secondary question- could anyone share their personal experience with/knowledge of depersonalization occurring as a result of meditation?
Thank you

It's hard to be sure what he's talking about, because obviously the Pali canon doesn't use the modern definition of DP/DR.

In the video he says a few things to describe what he's talking about:

That it's "DP/DR"
That it's very rare (so very rare that it shouldn't be used as a reason for not meditating)
That whereas enlightenment is liberating and makes your life bigger or fear-free, the "Falling into the Pit of the Void" experience/phenomenon that he's talking is the exact opposite of that
That it might even be the same (the usual) realization (of emptiness) as enlightenment/liberation, however in these (allegedly rare) cases the person reacts to it differently
That he (as a teacher) treats it by saying to such a student, "That's good! Now that you know emptiness you can rebuild yourself better than before" and then (like a physiotherapist would with an injured person) forces them to exercise (e.g. to concentrate on positive virtues)
He uses the word "nihilism"

I suspect that the description in the Pali canon (of derealization if not of depersonalization) might be of bhanga, see for example the descriptions in this answer.

I find it difficult to think of any place in the suttas where the results of meditation are described as pathological -- but one place might be the Vesali Sutta (which might be a description of nihlism).

The video doesn't say so but I wonder whether pathology/disorder might be understood as some imbalance (see for example, Balancing the spiritual faculties).

On the subject of "mindfulness" as a possible antidote, according to modern psychology "feelings of unreality (depersonalization or derealization)" can be among the symptoms of "panic disorder" and "acute stress reaction" ... and (to some extent Westernized) "mindfulness based stress reduction programs" is one of the clinical techniques that psychological therapists use to help to treat that.

The 9 'successive extinctions'( as it is said in A. IX, 31) :
In the step 7 it says "..., the perception ... consciousness is extinguished".

  "In him who has entered the 1st absorption, the sensuous perceptions
  (kāma-saññā) are extinguished.

  Having entered the 2nd absorption, thought-conception and discursive
  thinking (vitakkavicāra, q.v.) are extinguished.

  Having entered the 3rd absorption, rapture (pīti, q.v.) is
  extinguished.

  Having entered the 4th absorption, in-and-out breathing
  (assāsa-passāsa, q.v.) are extinguished.

  Having entered the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana), the
  corporeality perceptions (rūpa-saññā) are extinguished.

  Having entered the sphere of boundless consciousness
  (viññānañcāyatana), the perception of the sphere of boundless space is
  extinguished.

  Having entered the sphere of nothingness (ākiñcaññāyatana), the
  perception of the sphere of boundless consciousness is extinguished.

  Having entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
  (neva-saññā-nāsaññāyatana) the perception of the sphere of nothingness
  is extinguished.

  Having entered the extinction of perception and feeling
  (saññāvedayitanirodha) perception and feeling are extinguished."