Soul and Self in buddhism I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?"

Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self?

I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist.
I understand the word atman meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven.

Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

You have to look at which reality you are dealing with.

If you are dealing with sammuti-sacca which is the conventional reality then one can say that a soul, self, spirit, being etc. exists. Why?
Because conventional reality is dealing with concepts. A soul is a concept. A self is a concept. If you try to search for them through the method of insight meditation you will not find a lasting, permanent, indestructible entity anywhere.

Instead you will come to see that the false idea of a self is merely a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate.

If you deal with paramattha-sacca which is ultimate reality then concepts do not exist and there is no problem with a soul/self to begin with.

The thing is that things work fine without the need for a self. By adding a self to the equation one is enforcing and strengthening the suffering by identifying and taking ownership of it.
There is a profound difference in saying "i am angry" and "anger has arisen in the mind".

There is also a build-in problem in the way language is used. We are forced to speak about e.g. consciousness by using nouns which can imply that there is something there. But there is not. Consciousness is not a thing. Its a knowing.

What we normally think is consciousness is really a series of cittas (momentary acts of consciousness) that are happening in rapid succession.

The Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby.

Anatta/Anatman viewed as no existing self or soul is one of the biggest misconceptions of Buddhism. And, the same goes for the view that Buddha believed that the "self" did not exist.
Part of the problem is that the Buddha did try to get his monks to a state of selflessness.
What is Anatta trying to explain:

all things are an aggregation, even those things we think are an essence; and
all things are influenced by causality, even those things we think are an essence.

What does this mean: things are complicated, they will have several component parts, and each part is subject to causality.
Now, What Buddha has been trying to teach his monks was to evolve to the point where "YOU" are Selfless in your thoughts actions, and speech. So, after you have found "your-self", lose "your-self" in all the good you do.
So just do good as "selfless acts", these acts will bring "you" closer and closer to nirvana, a state of total selflessness - in "your" thoughts, actions, and speech.
Oh yes, you do still exist, just not driven by selfishness, to the extent that "you" will not even be driven by self-interest.
And yes, on a gross level, others see you as selfless; but at the subtle levels only you can know when self-centeredness arises in you.


What is meant by unchastity is the taint in a woman? Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 say:

Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ / malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ

This is translated as:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman. (Buddharakkhita)
In a woman, misconduct is an impurity. (Thanissaro)
Misconduct is a woman’s stain. (Sujato)
A woman’s stain is misconduct. (Bodhi)

The above stain specific to women is found among other stains, as follows:

Bhikkhus, there are these eight stains. What eight?
(1) Non-recitation is the stain of the hymns.
(2) The stain of houses is lack of upkeep.
(3) The stain of beauty is laziness.
(4) Heedlessness is the stain of a guard.
(5) A woman’s stain is misconduct.
(6) Miserliness is a donor’s stain.
(7) Bad unwholesome qualities are stains in this world and the next.
(8) A stain graver than this is ignorance, the very worst of stains.
These, bhikkhus, are the eight stains.

Despite this focus on women above, the definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas is addressed to men, as follows:

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
flowers by another man.
AN 10.176

My question is why do Dhammapada 242 and AN 8.15 focus on sexual misconduct as the stain of a woman (when they are so many other stains, such as listed in MN 7)?

IMO "woman's stain" is a mistranslation (or at best gives the wrong impression).
The whole chapter (of the Dhammapada) is about ways in which the audience (e.g. you or me) may be stained (or are stained, were stained).
(It would be applicable to "a woman" only if she were the reader, the subject, the audience of the talk -- but in the AN 8,15 context, at least, the audience was all men, all bhikkhus).
I think that (i.e. that it's the audience's stain, or that the audience would be stained if they were blame-worthy) is evident from the context -- for example from the start of that chapter of the Dhammapada:

One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver.

... through to the end ...

Easily seen is the fault of others, but one's own fault is difficult to see. Like chaff one winnows another's faults, but hides one's own, even as a crafty fowler hides behind sham branches.

He who seeks another's faults, who is ever censorious — his cankers grow. He is far from destruction of the cankers.

It's meant as advice to you ... and is not a statement that's meant to censure "a woman" (itthiyā).
Similarly you may be stained by ...

Your being lazy in the presence of beauty
Your having a house and being negligent (or, possibly, being negligent because you have a house)
Your misconduct with a woman

The Pali (Malitthiyā duccaritaṃ or malaṃ itthiyā duccaritaṃ) doesn't have all the prepositions which translators add to the English (at most the Pali nouns are declined, have a case ... I think itthiyā is declined like jāti, for what that's worth, so the syntax doesn't distinguish whether it's genitive, locative, dative, ablative, or instrumental; there's no verb).
I think the word-order in the Dhammapada is unreliable (it's highly condensed, to make it verse); but that the word-order in AN 8.15 i.e.

malaṃ, bhikkhave, itthiyā duccaritaṃ

... implies that the word itthiyā is there to qualify the type of misconduct, and not there to be the agent, owner, or object of the stain.

I cross-posted this to SuttaCentral -- Questioning the translation of AN 8.15, “Misconduct is a woman’s stain”.
I also wrote there that I think that the translations (or at least the interpretations) of most of the other stains are questionable too.

Women who know only one man sexually and have a reasonably moral husband will instinctually, for the most part, remain fiercely loyal & bonded to that man & particularly to their family. This is why virginity is cherished in basically every major religion and this is why sexual misconduct either by a woman or towards a woman taints a woman. Her natural instinctual bonding can be lost; which also explains why in our current era of sexual liberalism there are so many struggles by women (and men) in maintaining relationships; why so many women are hungry ghosts; why so many women are using antidepressants; and why so many women crucify a man in divorce out of revenge.

AN 6.52 states:

  Women have a man as their ambition. They explore for adornments. They’re committed to their children. They insist on being without a
  co-wife. Their ultimate goal is domination.


Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination? Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

I'm not sure it is omitted: it's listed there as "consciousness":

  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form

I think that the ṣaḍāyatana are sometimes translated or understood as consciousness (which is listed in DN 15):

  More specifically, according to this analysis, the six types of consciousness are eye-consciousness (that is, consciousness based on the eye), ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness

The word used in DN 15 is viññāṇa (the following quote is also from Wikipedia's Vijñāna article):

  Hence, in this context, viññāṇa includes the following characteristics:

  viññāṇa arises as a result of the material sense bases (āyatana)
  there are six types of consciousness, each unique to one of the internal sense organs
  consciousness (viññāṇa) is separate (and arises) from mind (mano)
  here, consciousness cognizes or is aware of its specific sense base (including the mind and mind objects)
  viññāṇa is a prerequisite for the arising of craving (taṇhā)
  hence, for the vanquishing of suffering (dukkha), one should neither identify with nor attach to viññāṇa

I think that glossaries (e.g. here and here and here), and the so-called Viññana Sutta, say that although viññāṇa is a broad term it may include the six kinds of consciousness.

Or see this answer, which I think is saying that viññāṇa is used in two ways: technically as a specific aspect of mind, and colloquially to refer to several aggregates.

In case you want to read more (I'm sorry to post links instead of answering the question here, but they're long), Piya Tan of dharmafarer.org (for example) has written about this at some length.

Here is his analysis and translation of DN 15. The introduction starts with,

  Moreover, its series of conditions omits three factors of the standard version: ignorance,
  volitional activities [saṅkhāra], and the 6 sense-bases. These omissions have led some
  scholars to suggest that the twelvefold formulation may be later augmentation of a shorter original;
  but such suggestions remain purely conjectural, misleading, and objectionable on doctrinal
  and textual grounds. All in all, omissions of the Mahānidāna Sutta are more than compensated
  for by its detailed explanations, interesting digressions, and supplementary sections.

And on page 156 (page 12 of the PDF):

  In the next section of the sutta, instead of going on to the 6 senses
  and their respective contacts, as in the standard formula, the Buddha reverses his last statement and
  says: “With name-and-form, there is consciousness”. To prevent any misunderstanding, the
  Buddha then, introduces a remarkable passage unique to this Sutta: etc.

It doesn't seem to bother him that this sutta uses an other or a non-standard description. I don't know "why" it is slightly different but I find that unremarkable. It seems to me like asking, "Why is the house described as 'brown' here, whereas there it's described as 'made of stone'? Are they two different houses?" They're two descriptions of the same house.

Furthermore, here is Piya Tan's essay on the meaning and usage of vinnana (which I won't quote).

I'm not sure that it's necessary to put "6 sense bases" as a distinct layer between form and contact -- for example I think it makes as much sense to say that there are 6 types of contact.

For what it's worth, the 6 sense-spheres are omitted from the description of the five aggregates too.

It is omitted because it is obvious the Lord Only Bhante Buddha did not teach DN 15.

DN 15 contradicts the True Dhamma in many ways, namely:

The sense spheres are omitted, which in AN 3.61 are included as a core teaching of the Buddha.
Consciousness is not the six types of consciousness.
Nama-rupa is the Brahmanistic nama-rupa of 'naming-forms' rather than the 'mentality-materiality' of 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, earth, wind, fire & water'.
Birth is not the 'production' (abhinibbatti) of the view of 'beings' ('satta') based on the appearance (pātubhāvo) of the aggregates & seizure (paṭilābho) by the sense spheres.
Aging-&-death is not defined at all, let alone defined as the 'aging-&-death' of the self-identity of a 'being' ('satta').
Ignorance & sankhara are omitted.


Compassion vs the invisible hand and capitalism Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal. How do Buddhists reconcile this today with Adam Smith's invisible hand? I.e., the idea that following our self-interest will lead to the best (economic) results? Was Buddha wrong or was Smith wrong?
Note: It is clear that self-interest and the invisible hand are qualified and moderated in today's capitalist societies. On the other hand, it is still the core of their economic mechanisms and our daily economic behavior. And the communist experiment based on the idea of sharing everything ended up as a large tragedy (not the least for Tibetan Buddhists).
UPDATE:
Thanks for the interesting spectrum of answers so far.
Let me expand:
Buddha empathizes with the whole universe and takes decisions that
benefit the whole universe most. Extreme altruism based on extreme
knowledge leading to the optimal result. While Smith says that
following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic)
results. And no knowledge of the rest of the universe is needed - just
follow your own self-interest. Both are recipes for the behavior
of the masses, but Smith's is much simpler to implement.
Example 1: If I follow my self-interest and buy a product from the
cheapest supplier, I support the most efficient allocation of
resources (in an ideal market), the most talented businessmen and
managers, etc. Others are incentivized to improve or learn another
skill. Should I instead empathize and support them too?
Example 2: Communism/socialism tried to replace Smith by planning
across the whole economy.  An attempt at global empathy and selfless
maximization of the common benefit. But it did not work and the result
was much worse than Smith's approach. The road to hell was paved
with good intentions.
Example 3: Google avoids paying taxes in the EU via the Irish
trick. Eric Schmidt once commented that they are "proud
capitalists". So he/Google believes in doing good via
Smith/self-interest. Many other people (in the EU in particular) think
that using such loopholes is unethical and bad for the EU economy.
What would be the Buddha/Buddhist views in these cases?

I think it is clear that Buddhism does not concern itself with capitalism, or any other economic “ism,” except to the extent that one should occupy oneself with a “right livelihood.”
And I want to point out that modern ‘capitalism’ bears little resemblance to Adam Smith’s use of the word. He had nothing good to say about corporations, and his use of the term “free trade” referred, not to to the ‘right’ of multinational corporations to move their capital freely around the world in search of cheaper labor pools, but rather to the right of each individual to freely move about to ply their trade. This is clearly not the case today.
Modern capitalism cannot survive without captive labor, who necessarily suffer, in order to keep costs as low as possible. This—modern corporatist capitalism—is not “right livelihood” in Buddhist terms, but people today are stuck within a system that is oblivious to the needs of the majority of people, spiritual or economic, or even sustainable in any sense. Capital can move on, after destroying an area, impoverishing the captive populations. Thus, we face the continuing crisis of global ecocide for ‘profit’.
The only “invisible hand” evident in today’s economy is one that pops out to sweep whatever is on the table into some private pocket. Quant-trading firms are only the most recent and efficient example of this, in the financial trading markets.
Compassion towards all sentient beings is more than an “ideal” in Buddhism, it is the path to accomplishing everything else, including our survival as a species.

Update to the OP’s update:
I’d like to correct some of your assertions. I am doing this because you are making assumptions about the Buddha and Buddhism as if they operated under the same understanding as economists, which is not the case.
The Buddha does not ”empathize with” anything. The Buddha manifests what is known as “Great Responsiveness” (Mahakaruna), which is often translated as “great compassion.” It is different though, than the compassion that unrealized humans can manifest, as it is not a feeling of compassion towards the suffering of others.
It is, instead, a mode of being in which all actions are directed spontaneously towards the benefit of all beings in each context (moment). This does not exclude the one manifesting the responsiveness, but includes all, thus it is not altruism—in its normal sense—either. (By that I mean that in Buddhism, “selfless” (Anatta) means something totally different than “selfless” in economic theory.)
Thus, when the Buddha taught, for example, his answers were always slightly different, just as his questioners’ understanding was always slightly different, and just as yours and mine are slightly different. This difference in teachings was not something planned, they arose spontaneously. I want to emphasize that because it is so different from the world we believe we live in, unless you happen to be an engineer who has to deal with the stochastic nature of electronic components on a micro-scale, where the spontaneity is something one has to always design for.
So, think of Mahakaruna as the great Market in the sky, making sure everyone involved goes home comfortable with what transpired, only really, and not just in some abstract, in the best-of-all-worlds, kind of academic hypothesis. Because, while Smith could assert “that following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic) results” he could never prove such a thing, and our experience to date is strongly indicative that no such thing is true.
I’d also like to point out that Smith’s “recipe” is only simple if you exclude the monetary system, banking system, communications technology, shipping capabilities and the infrastructure all that needs, storage facilities, corporate transnational legal structures, blah, blah.
In short, Smith’s “recipe” is only simple because all of the hard work has already been done. Unfortunately, it all got sold at a steep discount by corrupt politicians to greedy—as opposed to just ”self-interested”—people, who have undermined the proposed elegance and positive benefits of such a system, in order to aggrandize their own wealth, no matter how destructive (i.e. costs foisted off on the public) their activities are.
It may be true that communism and socialism (not the same things in theory, just in historical practice) have failed, but corporate capitalism is in the end months of ecocidal destruction of the world.
And whatever corporate capitalism actually is, it is lightyears away from anything Smith ever envisioned—but more to your question, it is anathema to what the Buddha taught.

Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal.

This sounds more like jainism than the dhamma. In buddhism, the ideal is ''Endowed with wisdom and virtue.'' https://suttacentral.net/sn11.16/en/bodhi
With buddhism applied to non ascetics, you just fall back to the five precepts, giving food and so on like https://suttacentral.net/an5.36/en/bodhi and the next sutta. For instance The non-lack of possession is the fruit of giving https://suttacentral.net/tha-ap521/en/walters
and of course the fruit of the gist is best when the receiver is ''Endowed with wisdom and virtue.''


How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community? Is he considered a great leader? an unusual leader? Does he represents Buddhism? Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

The reason I asked is that Osho is (whether you like it or not) very popular in the west, and many people associate him with Buddhism. Once my grandpa came to me saying, "I finally read a book on Buddhism!", showing a book by Osho. So, before giving my personal view I would like to understand the point better. (some of his books are sold in Buddhist libraries!)

Is he considered a great leader?

He isn't.

  Does he represents Buddhism?

He doesn't.

  Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

They aren't.

There's really not much more to say.  Why would you even think Osho was considered a great leader by the Buddhist community? He wasn't even a Buddhist. He lived a luxurious lifestyle and wrote in an eclectic, typically New Age-y way, mixing all kinds of influences and traditions that shouldn't be mixed.

May be after reading The Diamond Sutra: The Buddha Also Said many of the Buddhist's idea about Osho might change.


Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena? Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

Your question is an interesting philosophical investigation, if you can break or crack a concept, it will bring you closer to enlightenment, at least. In fact the Gōng'àn (Jap: Koan) is doing the same thing but in the Eastern style, more intuition, and 觀.

I do not think that I can answer you with a word or few sentences to define what is tathata, or suchness. In fact no one has ever been able to do so, else why we left fumbling it but the Buddha not defined it definitely like he did to the aggregates, karma... or paramita?

But perhaps I can help to unknot the knot in your question.

  Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena?

No. Parted from phenomena there is no tathata existed independently, parted from tathata neither phenomena. It's like, you cannot say the ocean or a droplet existed independently parted from the water, and vice versa.

Therefore you cannot say "something in addition to". Is the water in addition to the ocean that make the ocean an ocean?

  If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g..

I do not know where does this "suchness of phenomena" phrase come from? Perhaps reading some bad writings on Buddhism by Teacher XYZ? At least, in the Chinese text materials this phrase doesn't exist; this phrase construct is invalid and ludicrous.

In Chinese Buddhism, tathata is 如, or 如如. The
Western civilization doesn't have equivalent concept, but I try to bring it closer for contemplation. The English words if, as it is, such as, as... could be close; or thisness/thatness the textbook one but really a bit misleading though. Hence, while your "the qualitative experience of a taste" is just an "as it is", "if", "as"; how more you can say about an "as it is" for giving the qualitative favor?

  But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness.

Again, you cannot put this 'no experience of taste amounts to its "true state"'; same as, is the true taste of the ocean the amount of all the taste of all the water, or just a drop of water? If it's the former, no existing being has ever known the taste of the ocean (perhaps it's sweet with caramel and orange tang? )

  Specifically, when Buddhists say phenomena are empty of own nature, do they always mean phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves?

I can only say, tathata and svabhava are closely related but they are not the same.

Again, you cannot say "phenomena as such and not phenomena considered as themselves", simply phenomena, or anything, cannot have two contradictory qualia(s). You cannot say the rat is in the mammal class also the mammal class is excluding rat.

This last paragraph quoted is clouded with bubbling blurbs perhaps is unhelpful to understand the core teaching. Suggestion, drop it. Sometimes words and the mind's ability to construct syntax is a hindrance.

To answer your real concern,

  I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata means qualia.

This saying is an erroneous error. Tathata does NOT mean qualia. If it is that simple to define, why the Buddha has to spend another 20-30 years to teach the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning Sutras?

noun: qualia; plural noun: qualia

  a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.

'Tathata' refers to how the laws of nature are the laws of nature, regardless of 'qualia'; regardless of if a Buddha arises to awaken to the laws of nature or not.

  Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.

  avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā

  Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
  regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
  principles, specific conditionality.

  uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
  dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.

  A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,

  Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.

  then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
  and reveals it.

  Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
  vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.

  ‘Look,’ he says,

  ‘Passathā’ti cāha:

  ‘Ignorance is a condition for fabricators.’

  ‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’.

  So the fact that this is real, not unreal, not otherwise; the specific
  conditionality of it:

  Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā
  idappaccayatā—

  this is called dependent origination.

  ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo

  SN 12.20

  Now, observe that in the realization of impermanence there is the
  realization of many other things simultaneously. When impermanence is
  truly seen, this characteristic of impermanence is also the
  characteristic of dukkham, namely, it is ugly and unbearable. We will
  see the characteristic of not-self in it, also. Because these things
  are always changing, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and beyond our
  control, we realize anatta, also. Then we will see that they are void
  of selfhood, which is sunnata. We will see that they are just thus
  like that. Impermanence is just thus, just like that, thusness. And
  so, tathata is seen as well

  Bhikkhu Buddhadasa


How to let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up.
So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

In the West, we tend to affirm protest, intervention, resentment, and even revenge. In contrast, the Buddha tells us to let it go. That's quite a contrast to deal with.

AN5.162:6.10: In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and body, and the fact that they don’t get an openness and clarity of heart from time to time, and think of them with nothing but compassion, kindness, and sympathy:  ‘Oh, may this person give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.  Why is that?  So that, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re not reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’

When the behavior of others disturbs us, we must first acknowledge that the perception of disturbance is within us--we see ugliness to which feel aversion and experience a desire to "make it right". Propelled by this aversion and desire, our resulting actions are corrupted by our own aversion and desire. Because of this, we generate suffering for ourselves with delusions of righteousness.
So our first action is to deal with the mess inside, clean it up and let it go. If our feelings are hurt, we let that go. If we feel resentment, we let that go. If we feel anger, we let that go. We have to let all the clinging go. Because if we don't let go, our actions will have an unskillful root. Such actions always lead to more suffering.
Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.
The Buddha discusses the danger of fake friends, and urges us to be wise in the relationships we start and maintain:

DN31:15.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, the spender.

Fake friends aside, we can look to become a good friend worthy of good friends:

DN31:21.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend in good times and bad, the counselor, and the one who’s compassionate.

Let go of bad relationships. Open your heart to good-hearted relationships. And keep your heart open even to people from bad relationships--there may come a time when such a person comes back to you to make amends. Be open to that.

Good time to think about whether ones behaviour is total out of control? What does good householder think: Maybe good to investigate the matter and try to get back on earth and stay mindful?


The four noble truths H.E Tsem Rinpoche says the following on his website.

  "Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.”

  The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering."

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things. This seems to be saying that we shouldn't bother trying to be anything because it's all dukkha, anicca and anatta anyway. Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up. I can't see the point of doing anything creative.  I do creative things because I want to create something great that can inspire  others and that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do what they love for a living everyday. What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something?

Responses quoting scriptures and linking to rambling repetitive suttas will be down voted.

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things.

There's no contradiction between the 4NT vs. great achievements and accomplishments. Matter of fact, the greatest achievements/accomplishments are those driven by a selfless nature:
The polio vaccine - Dr. Jonas Salk

yes toxic people always try salvage desire, to salvage their craving for building fantasies. THe most toxic people even claim that not being selfish leads to the greatest achievement because they fail to understand the path and how the result of the path is way greater than not being selfish. It is part of their toxic dichotomy being selfish-being selfless.

It is easy for those people to claim that whatever actions are done, as long as the people who do those actions think they are being generous and not acting from being selfish, they claim that they are good people. For instance, there are people who use and kill, or use and dispose of animals, like earth worms, mice, dogs, spiders and so on, in order to create drugs, vaccines, new materials, and they always say that they are good people because they use animals only in order to make life more bearable for humans.
Those toxic people even claim that, since they crave with money, if you give them money to support them, you will be a good person too.

THe usual puthujjanas  try to salvage their craving for entertainment, art, creation, philosophy, sensual pleasures and they always claim that they are not bad people for that. As usual with any idea created by puthujjanas, it is completely stupid.
The way to be a good puthujjana is to have sila, which is the result of mindfulness whose sole purpose is to greatly weaken lust. So the puthujjanas who claim that there is nothing wrong with sensuality will never ever be good puthujjanas, let alone a good person like an Arhat...


How do we help people who have wrong views? There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death.

  "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.

  "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

  "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

Before proceeding further, we should note that miracles should not play any role in convincing intelligent and rational people. Devadatta, the monk who tried to injure the Buddha and cause a schism in the monastic order, was reportedly able to perform miraculous feats. Buddhism does not teach that miracles are any kind of proof of correctness or enlightenment.

When you see people around you, you may think some of them hold wrong views and some of them hold right views, and you want to help them.

Of the people whom you think hold wrong views, I think we should separate them into two categories.

The first category are people who act in obviously unvirtuous ways, causing harm to themselves and others. For e.g. people who kill sentient beings, intentionally harm others, steal from others, deceive others etc. These are people who need urgent help, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.

If these people are close to you, like your friends or family members, you can try to help them. After all, sharing of Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) is considered the greatest type of sharing according to Itivuttaka 100.

You could gently influence them to think in this way (according to AN 5.57):

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

The second category would be those who you think do not understand the teachings of the Buddha, as well as you do. I think we should tread carefully on this, because it might lead to some Buddhists pointing fingers at other Buddhists, creating a culture of accusing others of heresy and having hostile debates, as we have seen even right here on Buddhism.SE.

According to MN 28, to understand dependent origination, is to understand the Dhamma fully. Also see this answer.

According to DN 15:

  There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's
  astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its
  appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."

  [The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this
  dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not
  understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is
  like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and
  reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of
  deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Dependent origination or dependent co-arising is not a simple topic and many people who think they understand it, may not fully understand it. Without understanding dependent origination completely, it may not be possible to have complete and unblemished Right View.

But to gain a complete understanding of dependent origination and the Dhamma is a long journey that involves studying the Dhamma, practising the Dhamma and gaining insight into the nature of things. An afternoon of reading or discussion may not be sufficient.

With regards to the topic of rebirth, you can direct others to read the essays "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and "Rebirth" and "Does Rebirth Make Sense?" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think they are clear enough. Also this answer on Buddhism.SE is pretty concise and accurate.

How do we help people with wrong view? This is very difficult due to their clinging to the (animal survival) self instinct. However, we can begin as follows:

Define the Dhamma Refuge to them, which is: "seen here & now, immediate, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves".
Explain the "annihilationist view" to them, which is believing a "self" ("atta") ends at the ending of life, as follows:

  ... since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point
  the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being."
  (DN 1)

Explain the Pali language to them, such as: "paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next word"; the "world" arises within these five aggregates (AN 4.45); "opapatika" means "spontaneously arisen" rather than "reborn"; a "being" is a "view" and "verbal designation" (SN 5.10, MN 98, SN 23.2).
Explain to them an "asava" is a "dirty filthy pollution" and an "acquisition" is "slavery & bondage" and, even though MN 117 refers to a "right view" for "puthujanna" that sides with "merit"; this worldly right view is dirty, filthy, polluting, enslaving bondage that does not lead to liberation and is not a factor of the Noble Path.


Do we need to believe in Buddhist stories to be a real Buddhist? Some suttas and the dhammapada contain stories with things not very easy to verify, such as people flying, living 8.000 years, teletransportation, etc.

Some of those are related to the psychic powers of the Buddha and that is easier to believe as he was an enlightened being; however some are not related to that.

Buddha always encouraged us to verify and contemplate things. Will having doubt about Buddhist stories and legends interfere with Buddhist practice?

You should not believe all the stories to become a Buddhist dear friend. Instead you should believe Noble Eightfold Path and taking refuge in the triple Gems (Load Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). Taking refuge doesn't mean that the person has to pray for them or looking forward until they do something for you. We have to believe Lord Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha then we have to follow the path which is showed by them. They are guides and helpers so followers have to follow the path.

If someone loose their courage to follow the path due to the stories that is the best enmity one can do for him/her self. First clarify everything about Noble Eightfold Path and follow it. Then when you gaining wisdom due to the follower, you will be able to identify whether the stories are true or false.

when talking about teleportation, we are in a era of quantum teleportation. even now with the existing technology we can perform teleportation on quantum particles like photons. but the problem is on the communication channels. if we divide our body into quantum particles and begin to teleport them, it will take millions of years to complete. If scientists develop a mechanism to build high speed communication channel with using quantum entanglement, we will have a teleportation era in near future. So don't categorize stories just as fairy tails or believe at once. Remember stories and follow the path then you will find facts do decide.

Faith is for fools and advanced practitioners. That sort of practice is called "guru yoga" in Tibetan Buddhism. There they require you be an advanced practitioner before initiating you into that practice. And, in the past for the monastics, the guru then was responsible to provide food, shelter, and teachings for the person taking the vow. There is nothing wrong with being a "fool" for a particular religion (or more probably a particular teacher) but,if one is going to do that, one had better make sure that one is placing one's faith in the right teacher. I don't find "blind faith" useful in my practice. If Buddhism has truth (as I think it does), I don't think it needs its practitioners to practice blind faith. If blind faith is necessary, I will probably wander off somewhere else.

Trust is built on verifiable statements or personal experience. The "Western" students seem to respond better to examples of holiness, rather than descriptions of holiness. (If this method really works, then there ought to be examples existing today. And there are. Just really hard to find, for some reason.) Actual meditation practice, like fitness, seems to follow the "you get out of it what you put into it" policy. "Personal Experience" is only applicable to the one having the experience, but is no less useful. Ultimately, it's all about what works for you. Buddhism has quite a few traditions (and sub-schools). One of them may be for you.


Annatta and taking responsibility I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening? For example if you're an alcoholic part of the process of healing if you go down the AA route is the importance of admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"

But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?

Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life.  How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"

How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening?
A medical doctor has more than one medicine, for example one to make you vomit and another to stop you vomiting, one to make blood clot and another to stop blood clotting, and so on.
With various medicines which they can use, the point of being a doctor is knowing when to use them, how to use them skillfully, what (purpose and symptoms) to use them for.
Similarly I think there are several Buddhist doctrines, some maybe seem contradictory, and it's good to know when to use them.
Firstly I guess in Buddhism there's the notion of doing things "skillfully" -- see for example Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'?
I assume that, broadly speaking, a "skillful" action (or view) is one which tends towards the cessation of suffering, whereas unskillful is the opposite (tends towards suffering).
If you were an alcoholic then I think you might think you have (cling to) several reasons for being alcoholic, for example:

I like alcohol
I am not alcoholic
I am an alcoholic
My mother and father were alcoholic
My friends are alcoholic
My being alcoholic hurts no-one but myself, it's my personal right to drink like this
Nobody else cares about me, I might as well drink like this
It makes me feel good

I think that any or all of these could be considered "views" or "self-views" (and/or possibly conceits).
If views like this are a reason why you're alcoholic (remain attached to alcohol), then Buddhist doctrine such as,

This is not mine,
This is not me,
This is not my self

... could be a helpful remedy (perhaps a prescription to take whenever you find views like the ones listed above).
More generally I think that Buddhism teaches than any "view of self" at all is a cause of dukkha -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
Conversely though there's a lot of Buddhist doctrine which encourages "taking responsibility":

Everyone seems to recommend sila (virtuous behaviour) as the basis or first part of the Threefold Training (and, possibly, the only part of the training that's essential for laypeople).

The Buddhist doctrine of kamma teaches that each person is "heir to their own action":

I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'.

Schools of Buddhism tend to emphasise personal responsibility, in contrast with (for example) the notion of a saviour deity (some forms of Christianity, for example, might teach that people are "saved" by God and not by their own efforts).

Buddhism has Right Intention and Right Effort as factors of the Noble Eightfold Path

Suttas teach that one should "be islands unto yourselves":

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"?
Obviously a teacher might help. I find it extremely helpful to interact with (to see and converse with, learn from) people who set a good example.
Without my being a teacher though, to try to begin to answer your question here and now, I think that Buddhist doctrine can be summarised as:

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

It's important to know that things cease ("things" including views, causes, and effects).
They arise and cease. Cease, and maybe arise again. Things arise because of causes, conditions. If that's a recurrent pattern (see also samsara) then you may want to change that by controlling the causes.
One of my friends had PTSD after (among other things) having been attacked, and bleeding in the shower. She subsequently had "flashbacks" (i.e. vivid unwanted memories, reliving the traumatic event), maybe dissociative disorders, and so on. The (non-Buddhist) therapy which she reported as having been most effective (antidote to flashbacks) was "mindfulness": e.g. when in the shower, remain conscious of being presently in the shower, of what you could see and feel now, and so on.
I mention that as an illustrative example because "mindfulness" (albeit maybe a different kind of mindfulness) is a feature of Buddhist "therapy" too.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?
Maybe?
I think my view is that if it's pathological, if it causes suffering, then you ought to (it's your responsibility to) do something about it if you can -- and so to seek help perhaps (as well as taking responsibility).
I think there's some dichotomy in the doctrine: on the one hand, Buddhism attempts the salvation of sentient beings, on the other hand an enlightened view avoids attachment to the view that there is "a being".
admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"
I think "I'm an alcoholic", meaning that I can view myself as a habit-forming creature. My view (my summary of my experience) is that if I start to drink alcohol then I'll tend to do the same (drink alcohol) again and then again; ditto if I start to smoke, start to read, start to bicycle, etc. (most any other activity).
Being alcoholic isn't "who I am" though: it's not essential, it's a habit I can change or get rid of, grow out of, be and do without, drop, put aside, or (hopefully) "make like a palmyra stump" as the suttas put it.
It's maybe part of "what I am" though (if I resumed the activity I expect I might find it habit-forming again): so when the occasion to think about it arises, then I now try to avoid it (and to the extent that that avoidance is now a "skillful virtue" that is maybe no longer a cause for remorse).

"No self, anattā", ultimate reality in chapter 1st - 1/2 of 8th of abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, not deny "myself/yourselves word", reality in communication, vijjamāna sadda paññatti. Because buddha and ariya still use ahaṃ/mamṃ/me word, after their enlightenment. So, "No self, anattā" deny just ultimate unreality, avijjamāna attha paññatti (attā arising of wrong view) and avijjamāna sadda paññatti (attā word of wrong view).

Definitely perfect description, this is the reason that why commentary said that abhidhamma is vipassanā focusing point, object. Because abhidhamma describing the whole reality and unreality whiteout any lacking to doubt, if the reader recited tipitaka much enough. But suttanta focusing on each personal knowledge of person who listening that sutta in front of buddha/ariyasāvaka, in the past.


Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering? While describing Dhamma Buddha asks "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" to which Ananda replies "suffering".

My question is : Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

It's not. The cause of suffering is your Identification with the Impermanent.

Always because what is impermanent that is subject to change, change is uncontrollable, inevitable, not under ones domain to stop,
That which is uncontrollable and impermanent is stressful to that extent.
Endowed with three marks of impremanence, not ones own and stressful, that is the extent and that is the suffering there.


Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"? I read the following in the internet:

All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the
Dhamma...'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a
feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure
nor pain.,,,Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One:
"Whatever is felt comes under stress (yaṃ kiñci
vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmin)"

Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"?
If all feelings are unpleasant, why are some feelings called "pleasant"?

This is what it says in MN 44 sutta.

"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing,
friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in
changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in
occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without
knowledge."

Because there is a difference between categorical and a relative qualified classification in reasoning and language.
Ie take the range of colors considered to be 'dark'. They are all categorically classed as dark, but their relative differences qualify them to be classed as to 'lightness'.
Another example is of a sick person who may one day be experiencing fewer bad symptoms than expected and says that he on that account feels good. He is still sick but is less sick than otherwise and therefore in a relatively qualified sense he classifies his state as good because it qualifies to be called good on basis of being better than.
There is a definitive sense and a qualified sense of classification, this is evident in Sutta texts, ie here;

In This Very Life
“Reverend, they speak of ‘a teaching visible in this very life’. In what way did the Buddha speak of a teaching visible in this very life?”
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the teaching visible in this very life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the teaching visible in this very life in a definitive sense.”

In the Dhamma all feeling is unpleasant in a definitive sense and feelings are also classed as pleasant, unpleasant and  neither pleasant nor unpleasant in a qualified sense. This is evident in sutta such as;

"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering. What three? Suffering caused by pain, suffering caused by the formations (Sankhaara-dukkhataa), suffering due to change. It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..."

"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge."

"If someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure?
Here, by completely surmounting the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, a monk enters upon and abides in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.[3]
"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"

"Excellent, monk. Excellent. These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said: 'Whatever is felt comes under stress.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change.

In the Dhamma cessation of perception & feeling is pleasant and everything else is dukkha in a definitive sense but the dukkha can be classed as to pleasantness in a qualified relative sense.


Past life regression techniques Is there anyone knows and has experience in past life regression? How can I do to recall my past life memory? Thank you.

There are two methods for seeing past lives:

Through phenomena, and
Through time (or chronologically)

The 'through phenomena' method is not exactly a method. It is more of a chance thing, but it is also easier. In this case, a sight (or other sense-stimulation) occurs and one has a deja vu experience ("I've done this before"), but without the doubt. At this time bending down the mind (or focusing on, or concentrating on) the feeling and the phenomena, a previous occasion when this phenomena occured will come to mind. If pressed further details will appear.

Then you will have to fight your programming and half the other Buddhists in the world who tell you that there is no such thing as rebirth and that you are just imagining things. Would that I had a mind with such an imaginative power!

The chronological method is by way of a yonisomanisikaro=like tracing back of the events of this life from the present moment back to birth, back through one's time in the womb, the time of one's conception, to the previous life. This is rightly an aspect of your setting up of mind (satipatthana). It is also exactly similar to Casteneda's Don Juan's 'recapitulation' method where you start in the present moment, and review every detail to extract yourself from all attachments found there and then move back in time.

More or less unrestricted chronological viewing Past Lives is one of three 'visions' that are obtained by the Arahant, but anyone can experience awareness of past life events through phenomena.

In Buddhist studies you will find that viewing past lives is to be accomplished from the fourth jhāna. But this is just the optimal method.

The formula for the Buddhist seeing past lives can be found in multiple suttas worded similarly to:

He recollects a variety of former habitations,
that is to say

One birth,
two births,
three births,
four births,
five births,
ten births,
twenty births,
thirty births,
forty births,
fifty births,
a hundred births,
a thousand births,
a hundred thousand births,
and many an eon of integration
and many an eon of disintegration
and many an eon of integration-disintegration:

'Such a one was I by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I came to be in another state
where I was such a one by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.

Passing from this,
I arose here.'

Thus he recollects divers former habitations
in all their modes and detail.

A helpful and cautionary Sutta which discusses the method for this and other powers is AN 9.35 (Hare's translation linked-to here:)
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.035.hare.pts.htm

In original Pali Buddhism, there is no such thing as "recollecting past lives". The Pali term wrongly translated as "past lives" is "pubbenivāsa", which literally means "past dwellings" or "past abodes".

Therefore, in original Buddhism, "recollecting past abodes" literally means recollecting in the past when the mind mistakenly or ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".

In original Buddhism, the word "birth" ("jati") means to create the idea of a "self" or "a being", either internally or externally. When the Buddha recollected his myriad past abodes & births, he recollected each time in the past the wrong view of "self" arose in his formerly ignorant mind.

In conclusion, the Buddhist practise of "recollecting past abodes" is literally explained & described in the sutta SN 22.79 (as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi). It literally means recollecting in the past when the mind mistakenly or ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".


What are the Four Noble Truths? What are they?  Where are they found in the literature?  Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

Here is a version from the Triratna site

All existence is dukkha
The cause of dukkha is craving
The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving
There is a path that leads from dukkha - (The path most commonly associated with this is the eightfold path).

Dukkha is commonly translated as suffering but the translation that I find more useful is unsatisfactoriness. The original meaning comes from an ill fitting chariot wheel. A bumpy ride if you will.

The formulation is related to a medical diagnosis e.g.

The illness
The etiology (cause)
The prognosis
The cure

As far as I am aware the 4 Noble Truths are a central teaching in Buddhism perhaps comparable to the divinity of Christ for Christian's (controversial comparison maybe). I have not heard of any significant variations. I would be very interested to hear if they were any.

The way I explain the Four Noble Truths to non-Buddhists is:

The Four Noble Truths

Life means suffering
The origin of suffering is attachment
It is possible to end suffering through...
...The Eightfold Path


Do artists/entertainers accumulate positive merit when people enjoy their craft? A painter whose painting hangs in a public museum, a writer that has their works checked out of the library frequently,  a singer with melodies that calm the mind, and a comedian that gets people laughing are some cases I have in mind.

A harder case would be a rapper. Say their song offends a few people, but doesn't actually hurt anyone. Further let's say that their target audience gets some value from their craft, be it enjoyment, being able to relax, or some other beneficial state. Get creative, feel free to discuss cases not listed here. I only list them to help clarify what I am asking.

However impermanent and fleeting the benefit they provide to others is, when they provide it to thosands or millions of people how does it end up stacking out?

We can also consider the two cases of the artist being, or not being, a Buddhist.

According to the Talaputra Sutta, one time an actor approached the Buddha and asked him if he would go to heaven with the devas because he made people happy and forget their worries.
The Buddha tried to dodge answering, but at the actor's insistence, he had to tell him that he'd probably go to hell or the animal realms.

See also:

This question: Will actors really go to hell?
My answer to Are actions in computer games bad for karma?

It seems to me that this is akin to selling drugs to people. It is of no real benefit to them, and only cultivates in them craving for this pleasure. If anything, I would go as far as to say that such a profession is BORDERLINE on wrong livelihood; Business in intoxicants: manufacturing or selling intoxicating drinks or addictive drugs. Music elicits such a response in the form of hormones released that it is possible to become addicted to music.


What is meant by "possessed by spirits" in Buddhism? In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part

  only when one is possessed by non-human beings

In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44.

  State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he
  makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count.

My question is, who or what is doing the possessing? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible?

How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

In my tradition, the Shambhala line of teachings by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, ascending to Jamgon Kongtrul and ultimately Milarepa, the "spiritual" and the "material" phenomena are understood to be two narrative explanations of the same underlying reality. So when we talk about supernatural stuff like spirits etc. we always refer to phenomena that actually happen in everyday life but lack adequate representation in the mainstream narrative.

In modern language, spirits are semi-stable configurations of information-causation that inhabit the noosphere and sustain themselves through behavioral patterns mediated by sentient beings.

To give an example you can relate to, you send your child to a summer camp and they come back intoxicated by the camp spirit. They act funny, and when you point it out, they say we don't get it and insist their gestures and attitude are their own, while you clearly see they've picked it up. After several days home the camp spirit rubs off.

...In the adult world there may be a spirit of organization that influences all employees in certain ways etc...

Another example is campaign spirit - your teen daughter goes to a Greenpeace lecture and comes back possessed by the Greenpeace spirit. She donates her money to the ecological causes, spends her summer washing the birds caught in the oil spill etc.

If you look at it this way, you will see the world full of spirits, large and small. Your husband purchases a new camera, and feels obliged to spend his weekend taking pictures - he is possessed by the camera spirit.

These all seem harmless, until you remember all harm and violence incurred by religious and political fanatics - possessed by their respective spirits.

I don't know why late Theravada's Pratimoksha discounts misdeeds done while possessed by the spirits. From my perspective, guarding the doors of the senses is responsibility of the practitioner, and it is due to incorrectly applied attention that possession by spirit occurs. In the highly competitive world, where we are constantly bombarded by ads, campaigns and other forms of spirits, we must be very selective when it comes to which ones we give our attention to. As said in that Native American folktale, whichever wolf we feed is getting stronger. So is with spirits.

We can let ourselves be driven by spirits that correlate with greed, hatred, and confused values -- or we can feed useful spirits, conducive to health, peace, harmony, and informed, educated, strategic attitudes.

Buddhism itself can be seen as a spirit, and as any spirit can only take us this far until we become its pawns. So in the advanced stages of Vajrayana practice, our game becomes to liberate ourselves from the spirit of Buddhism, just like we've worked to come out of influence of worldly spirits. Once we are past that phase, having awakened (bodhi) from the spirit dream, we can use spirits as tools to pay our student dues forward and save the rest of sentient beings from the matrix into the real world.

Mara will sometimes disturb or harm you when you are having certain good progress in meditation. You may hear some stories about people who become mentally ill after they practiced meditation for a long period time. This is one of the reasons.


Dwelling Upon Seeming Levels of Emptiness? Note: the term sunyata here is being used from the Mahayana context.
Not too long ago, I asked this question about concentration and openness where I suggested that concentration was a hindrance to my practice. I received an answer which informed my intuitive understanding by @Andrei Volkov, in which he recommended a book called The Relaxed Mind by Dza Kilung Rinpoche. This changed my practice and opened up a new discernment concerning space, time and consciousness - essentially the aggregates and their ever subtle perceptions. It also led me to the Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa who also adopts this same openness method.
Thus, shifting my practice to openness (as opposed to strict focus on a single object) I've been noticing a different kind of "not-there-ness". To put this another way: the perception of body as it is normally known is no longer there, but I am still able to function perfectly fine - actually better in terms of how worldly things normally affect me.
It's most noticeable when sitting with people and when they are talking to me. There's a part of my mind that thinks, "who is this person talking to?" because, even though they are looking at me, it is like they are speaking into empty space, like they are in the room by themselves.
Please be clear: what I have described above is NOT the negation of suffering which should become clearer from the following.
I'm not able to reference the aggregates as they usually operate, but I discern that there is the perception of "not-there-ness" which presents as an extremely fine notion of space. However, that space-perception seems to have a definitive location situated where the body was previously and conventionally seen as solid matter giving rise to some sort of here-ness, and thus it's opposite: there-ness.
The form aggregate has taken another blow, but the feeling/perception aggregate has just dropped into a more refined level and thus is still able to create clinging to the idea of "space-body" because space-body has a very subtle pleasantness. In Theravada this might be known as arūpa-rāga: craving for immaterial existence thus perpetuating the consciousness aggregate in its entirety. It took me a while to see this, and I could only see it by opening my practice from where I was able to gain situational understanding or a bigger picture.
Here in these regions, it seems the motions of samsara cleverly uses indirect methods to sustain the samsaric body. I guess it can only operate at its current level of awareness, and if that level of awareness is largely formless then its movements should naturally reflect the subtleties of formlessness. Therefore, from a Mahayana perspective, I cannot see this as form is emptiness and emptiness is form. I cannot see this as sunyata. However, it may offer promise, but in ways that are now counter-intuitive.
My question is a little obscure, but I think it has some relevance:

Having studied sutta after sutta and read various works of the
masters, I'm making a reasoned observation that the enlightened mind
knows it is liberated, that it knows sunyata, but to what extent is that knowing not of the self such that one can know sunyata?
There always appears to be a claimant to the ever emerging subtleties
of emptiness rendering the idea of ending suffering a fallacy.

After nearly five years of intensive lay practice I'm getting quite tired of it all and find myself practising less and less. Although this is more helpful than a hindrance.
NOTE: I'm not sure if the term space-body is associated with any school. I've just used it spontaneously and completely impromptu. If it does have such an association, it may not share the same conceptual understanding with regard to the context of this question.

Impermanence is unsatisfactory. Chasing impermanence leads to suffering. What then should be known as known?
To this point, the Venerable Sariputta teaches:

DN34:1.3.23: What two things should be produced?
DN34:1.3.24: Two knowledges:
DN34:1.3.25: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
DN34:1.3.27: What two things should be directly known?
DN34:1.3.28: Two elements:
DN34:1.3.29: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

The conditioned and unconditioned elements are known by their characteristics:

AN3.47:0.3: 47. Characteristics of the Conditioned
AN3.47:1.1: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:1.2: What three?
AN3.47:1.3: Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:1.4: These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN3.47:2.0: Characteristics of the Unconditioned
AN3.47:2.1: “Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:2.2: What three?
AN3.47:2.3: No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:2.4: These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

These characteristics guide the knowing.
Knowing is informed by perception. Perceiving the form of a cup, one perceives simultaneously the emptiness within. They are one and the same. By relinquishing form, emptiness necessarily grows as described in MN121:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

self is a thought
emptiness begins to be known by consciousness when the self thought is dissolved by openness samadhi
knowing emptiness is wisdom
consciousness knows emptiness with wisdom

Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
MN 43


If teacher punishing student is also supposed bad karma? Either school teacher or Buddhist teacher in monastery, if they would punish their students is also supposed bad karma even if it cause of bad behavior of students?

Buddha did not do any violence. The suttas say:

  it is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.

Once a general asked buddha shouldnt criminals be punished
The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put do death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it."


What is required to achieve Nirvana in Buddhism? Nirvana is considered by many religions the pinnacle to strive for.  What do I need to do to achieve Nirvana?  Are there different perceptions of the requirements held by different sects?

To answer your question let me draw an analogy. What is required to become a professor?
According to Wikipedia, "A professor is a highly accomplished and recognized academic, and the title is in most cases awarded only after decades of scholarly work to senior academics". Being a professor is not a concrete state, it is a label they put on years of hard work, culminating in professional realization.

Similarly, Nirvana is not a concrete state, it is a common name for the condition of a highly accomplished spiritual practitioner. This condition is not something you can contrive knowing the requirements, it is a result of years of personal transformation.

Nirvana can be characterized as condition of having transcended suffering & death. The requirement for this is said to be a complete cessation of Attraction (obsessing over something as desirable), Rejection (obsessing over something as undesirable), and Ignorance (mistaken understanding of how everything works). One of the key components of Ignorance is a deeply lying conviction in existence of substantial self and a tangle of reflexes that grow around that. Much of Mahayana practice is targeted at destroying this belief, not just at conceptual level, but at the level of basic day-to-day instincts.

If we could simplify the requirement for becoming a professor to "complete cessation of ignorance in the field of study one specializes in", we could perhaps make a stretch and define Nirvana as "complete cessation of ego complex, along with negative experiences and behavioral tendencies it generates". As any simplification, this is not entirely accurate: just as becoming a professor requires tons of practical skill and experience outside of the primary field of study, attaining Nirvana requires cessation of all mental and emotional obscurations, a tendency to get stuck on anything, not just on self.

Now, for the purposes of this discussion I'm equating Nirvana with Enlightenment, which depending on a school may or may not be the right thing to do. Specifically in Mahayana, Nirvana is considered a conceptual projection (a shadow of ego so to speak) that has to be transcended as part of awakening to Self-Existing Buddha Nature (=Enlightenment).

I would believe not even one answer unless one makes the experience for oneself. Be even skeptical that Nirvana exists, for there is no real evidence unless one is experiencing it. Just because the Buddha said it "exists" doesn't make it so. All people answer as if they are enlightened or made the experience .. hell as if they are expert on this field but they are not. If nirvana really exists it must be possible to see it under a fmri. Why? If one really abandoned greed, hatred and delusion one can expose the "enlightened" person with evocative material to see whether any greed, hatred or delusion appears in the brain. I'm positive that there will.


How to develop compassion while avoiding attachment? The Buddha stressed compassion in his teachings. It seems that the more one tries to be compassionate towards people, a natural tendency of attachment develops. For example, it seems that if I try to practice compassion towards my close family (and focus my mind on helping them), then I develop more attachment for them, and I feel closer to them and the pain of separation increases. Is it wrong that I want to feel closer to them? Did the Buddha have any advice about developing compassion while avoiding attachment (and other side effects like pride) ?

I am personally not aware of any direct advice the Buddha gave about developing compassion without attachment since the majority of the Buddha's teachings are about developing non-attachment & the minority of teachings are about developing compassion. In general, the compassion teachings are generally related to cultivating non-harming, non-hatred & non-cruelty and also about teaching the dhamma to others. In other words, the compassion teachings are generally not about how to help others in more worldly or mundane ways.

The teachings of the Buddha are generally separated as: (1) teachings for monks; and (2) teachings for laypeople. The teachings for monks focus on non-attachment where as the teachings for laypeople rarely mention non-attachment.

In general, the Buddha encouraged laypeople to do good so they develop personal pride or self-respect in relation to their good actions (eg. Anana Sutta & Samajivina Sutta).

For example, in With Brahma (Itivuttaka 4.7) and in the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha discusses the compassionate role & duties of parents & family members but does not mention non-attachment. In the Piyajatika Sutta, the Buddha says to a man his grief towards his dead son comes from his love but does not teach non-attachment.

In SN 42.12, the Buddha eventually refers to a man who uses his wealth to help his family without being attached to it, "seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape" but does not go into any details. That said, "seeing the danger & understanding the escape" are a stock teaching for monks in the suttas, where the "danger" (ādīnava) is attachment & the "escape" (nissaraṇa) is the non-attachment of the eightfold path.

Therefore, I think non-attachment can be developed by comprehending the danger or suffering of attachment. As the Buddha taught about the 1st noble truth: "This suffering (of attaching to the five aggregates) is to be comprehended".

In the Udayi Sutta, it is mentioned teaching others with compassion & without harming oneself.

In the Attavagga in the Dhammapada, it is again mentioned doing good without hurting oneself.

The Attavagga holds the principle that each individual must help themself. The Maggavagga has the phrase: " You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way".

These accord with the practise of equanimity (upeka), where it is reflected each individual is the owner of their actions.

Compassion (karuna) is one of the 4 brahma vihara, which also include metta, mudita & equanimity (upeka). Here, helping others (compassion) is balanced with the understanding (upeka) that we try to help others to help themselves; thus ultimately, others are responsible for their lives.

This old booklet may be helpful for you:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/4sublime_states.pdf
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html

Compassion and creativity are by-product of consciousness. The more you are aware of metaphysical nature of your being more compassionate you will be.  For example if you witness your past births you will understand that people are transient phenomenon.

The problem is compassion is being cultivated in all religions of the world including Buddhism. It is not an intellectual affair. It is experience of higher states of being which brings in compassion. You cannot preach/teach compassion.

Karuna meditation helps in attaining compassion but to become truly compassionate one needs to be enlightened. Otherwise there will always be some element of attachment.


Concentrating on Breathing I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels,  even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it? I have stopped meditation for fear of something wrong might have happened.
Thank you.

According to my experience in meditation, first time it was happened to me. Do not fear to do the mediation.

These are the steps for Anapana-sathi meditation.

1.Concentrate your mind into breathing process.

2.In that time,try to think about only breathing patterns.

After you do it more times you feel relax in your mind.
It gives you to easily concentrate for your work.

Obviously, your mind is concentrating in the wrong way, causing stress to your temples & brain.

Buddhism does not teach to concentrate on breathing. Buddhism teaches to give up craving. When you can give up craving, your mind will be quiet, silent & still. When your mind is quiet, silent & still, your mind will naturally, without any effort or intention, feel & know the breathing.

The meditation in Buddhism is called 'Mindfulness With Breathing' rather than 'Mindfulness of Breathing'. 'Mindfulness' means 'to govern' the mind & 'keep it' free from craving.

If you practise the right way, you will get the right results.


Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead One of the four lowest realms of the 31 planes of existence is the realm of the hungry ghosts or hungry shades or petas or pretas.

These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls.

On this page, it is described as:

  peta yoni — here the beings have deformed bodies and are usually
  consumed by hunger and thirst

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas. Those who offer this, would not go unrewarded for their generosity, according to the sutta. This appears to be the practice described in the Tirokudda Kanda.

Ven. Nanda Mahathera writes here:

  Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid
  of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They possess
  deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to
  the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live in forests,
  dirty surroundings, etc.

Ven. Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo describes them here as:

  Hungry shades come in all different shapes and sizes — really
  entertaining, the hungry shades. Some of them have heads as big as
  large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle:
  that's all, no bigger than the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs
  six yards long, but hands only half a foot. They're amazing to watch,
  just like a cartoon. Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips,
  some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth
  exposed all the time. There are all kinds of hungry shades. Some of
  them have big, bulging eyes, the size of coconuts, others have
  fingernails as long as palm leaves. You really ought to see them. Some
  of them are so fat they can't move, others so thin that they're
  nothing but bones. And sometimes the different groups get into
  battles, biting each other, hitting each other.

Based on all the descriptions above, it sounds to me like hungry ghosts or hungry shades are microorganisms. It also makes sense that when food offerings are made to the dead, they would be consumed by microorganisms.

Questions:

What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?
Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?
Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?
Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.
Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

Interesting question...

  What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?

Likely no one can really explain in words so to make you understand unless you reach the 4th Dhyana/Jhana and see them yourselves ;). Because only by reaching 4th Dhyana you can have Rddhi/Iddhi (psychic power) - to see other dimensions. Yet unlikely meditator if do complete the 4th Dhyana will go around proclaiming he/she achieved 4th Jhana! Imagine an Arhat/Arahant going around town telling everybody he achieved Arahant-hood?!

However, some hints from the Sutras/Suttas. Hungry-shades are related to one of the Five Hinderances: Greed. In your quoted Ven. A. L. Dhammadharo's, the summerized characteristic is they can't have the way to consume food even they wanted to.

heads as big as large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle: Can't swallow food
Some of them have legs six yards long, but hands only half a foot: Can't reach food or break their bodies
Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips, some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth exposed all the time: Can't eat/chew food

When one contemplate the Hinderance of Greed: Greed is always unsatisfiable, not because of lack, it's the unsatisfiable-ness, wanting more that we called greed, so even there's plenty, to the greed it still means lack, needs more. This unsatifiable-ness backfires caused actualizing their lack-ness: needle mouth, over-short hands, no lips. When this mental state becomes the dominate it will manifest as a physical form that match such mental state. All forms are the manifestation of corresponding consciousness (consciousness is not really an exact term but can't think up better one yet). Animal form is animal consciousness, human form human consciousness. Beware and condemn those Neo-Buddhism followers those have an apetite for twisting the Dharma/Dhamma and fitting it into their self-invented "self-views". If an animal mental state is a self-view of a human how does the existence of animal realm exist in our world? It's ludicrous for those clever men taking a literal term "mental state" treating like a real Buddhist doctrine.

  Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?

That's very insightful. I would agree partly with this. Yes, as far as I know there is one Chinese Buddhist teacher Nan Hui-chin said so. I would say this realm some take it as also include the microorganisms, or, mcgms are in-between realms of animals and Hungry-shades. I think the realms should not be read as rigid territories. Like we say rainbows have 7 colours, but we know we can't really exactly say that is red, that is orange in the rainbow. The realms are like this too.

  Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?

I think in Asian countries most likely, in occasions, like during Qhingming Festival, but many are cultural traditions, not Buddhist tradition. Monasteries may do this too - but for Hungry-shades, as part of their daily practice of sending merits and blessings to all the sentient beings. In Mahayana Monasteries, they usually also throw 7 grains to the courtyards for the Garudas. Because when the Garuda King converted to the Buddha and promised not to kill, however he mentioned there was a difficulty, for the karmic effect all Garudas must eat Nagas as food, or die. Thus the Buddha promised him from then and to the future his Bhikhus will feed them with the grains, so they wouldn't die even didn't eat Nagas. Just read about this story haven't been bother to find any Sutra/Sutta reference yet, but that's what the monasteries do. Would be interested to know if it also practiced by the Theravada monasteries :).

  Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.

Personal opinion, I don't think it should be recommended. The Hungry-shades won't be able to consume the food. Unless it's on a specific day or with specific blessing by an accomplished Buddhist/Bhikhus, Bodhisattva or Buddha. If also included the mcgms, it's bad to the hygiene, and mcgms have their way already in natural environment.

  Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

As far as I study, I think the general principles are same but may vary in practice.

These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls.

They are people or "beings", as the sutta states:

  There is the case, brahman, where a certain person... With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears...

'A being' ('satta') is defined in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 as a state of 'clinging' & 'a view'.

  satta 1 hanging, clinging or attached to

  PTS Pali English
  Dictionary

  In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as
  human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the
  dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts
  or petas.

The sutta also states an offering will not accrue to a human or god. This is because a human or god does not need the gift, which is why the gift does not accrue to them. For example, a virtuous (human) parent gains merit from giving to its children. When a child gives a gift to its parents, this gift is only a trivial or amusing thing to the parent (rather than something that changes the parent's merit). Or when a rich person (a god) is given a gift, it does not change the rich person. For example, my rich friend returned home from overseas recently and when I visited him after many years I sensed I was not really appreciated by him because he has become very important & rich. But 15 years ago when he was having relationship problems & I helped him, he appreciated me because he was a hungry ghost then, wanting a successful relationship.

Similarly, for beings trapped in hell or animal mind, a gift does not accrue to them because of their chronic state. For example, when people are chronically depressed due to a deep loss (which is 'hell'), giving a gift does not help them. Similarly, an animal, such as a sexual predator, does not respond to gifts because they do not have the disposition for loving others. For example, I know a man who is a sexual predator, who is bitter & twisted. I helped him once for many hours set up & learn to use his new computer but he is never friendly when he sees me. He hates everyone. He is incapable of gratitude because his mind is animal mind, every morning & every afternoon on the same beat looking for tourist women to have sex with.

But for a hungry ghost, a person who is lonely or searching for love, a gift accrues to them because the hungry ghost is searching for love or gifts. The hungry ghost wants to be reborn in a human relationship & they respond very positively to receiving gifts.

In the same way, a family member who has not done enough merit to be human (enlightened) or a god & is also not an animal or hell being but is separated from their family & misses their family will accrue from a gift from their family. This is what the hungry ghost is here, namely, the needy & unenlightened family member who misses their family.

Its like my mother, who I see for one or two weeks per year. My giving gifts to her does not change the enormous merit she has made as a mother. Therefore, my gifts to her are essentially worthless, apart from a token gesture to show I think about her. This is the small but important 'hungry ghost' element in my mother; her need to know her children think about her on her birthday, mothers day, Xmas, etc. Just a small gift of phone call is enough to keep this hungry ghost element satisfied.

The above analysis is supported by the traditional depiction of the Wheel of Life (below), where the antidote, solution or practice for each realm given by the Buddha is depicted as follows:

humane - renunciation
godly - beauty
animal - morality
hungry ghost - generosity
hell - 'the book' - the Four Noble Truths