Jainism vs Buddhism: did Buddhism borrow from Jainism? I've come across Jainism through looking for texts on Buddhism and I've found there seems a considerable amount of overlap. Did Siddhartha Gautama encounter or study under any Jainist teachers? It seems Jainism predates Buddhism by a lot so were these concepts also predating Siddhartha too?
Jainism: The ultimate goal of Jainism is the liberation of the self (jiva) from rebirth, which is attained through the elimination of accumulated karma (the consequences of previous actions). This occurs through both the disciplined cultivation of knowledge and control of bodily passions. When the passions have been utterly conquered and all karma has been removed, one becomes a Jina ("conqueror"), and is no longer subject to rebirth.
These principles include non-violence in all parts of life (verbal, physical, and mental), speaking truth, sexual monogamy, and the detachment from material things. As part of the disciplined and non-violent lifestyle, Jains typically are strict vegetarians and often adhere to a quite arduous practice of non-violence, which restricts the sorts of occupations they may follow (no farming, for instance, since insects are inadvertently harmed in plowing). Jainism's ethical system is based on the idea that right faith, knowledge, and conduct must be cultivated simultaneously.
Like comparing rules of monks and even the five precepts are identical from what I found.
The five precepts and five vows are identical from what I saw.
This is a list of comparisons and contrasts.
Sounds a whole lot like Buddhism to me! Does anyone know about the Jainism/Buddhism comparison?

There are very strong similarities between Buddhism and Jainism but there are also a number of major differences as well.

It is very true that Buddhism and Jainism use a lot of very similar terminology, but these are mostly terms that were floating around among the Shramanas (ascetics) for some time. Karma, rebirth, the goal as escape from rebirth. etc... were ideas that were not unique to either Buddhism or Jainism but were held by many different groups of ascetics. For example, the Ajivaka school taught very similar things on these points as well. The general terminology of rebirth and karma was a general part of the Indian ascetic tradition as a whole, rather than just Jainism.

However, when you look at how these concepts are actually understood in Jainism and Buddhism you find there are major differences. It seems that the Buddha borrowed existing terminology but gave it radically new meanings. The best example I can think of is in the Buddha's understanding of Karma compared with the Jain understanding of Karma.

The Jains (according to my knowledge) think of Karma as being some sort of subtle substance that sticks to one's Jiva, or soul. The Jiva is bound to a physical body, and as a result becomes loaded up with Karma, which weights it down and interferes with one's spiritual understanding. When one dies the kind of Karma stuck to your Jiva determines your rebirth. Through ethical living you can stop more karma from being accumulated and through ascetic practice you can 'burn up' the karma stuck to your soul, and if you can get rid of all of it, you become enlightened, and will then be reborn into a special heaven without a physical body where you will be just a Jiva and will stay that way forever.

The Buddha rejected the idea that Karma is any sort of substance and rejected any kind of soul or self as well. To the Buddha, Karma refers to an action with mental intention. The Buddha said this in many places, saying "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." and in several Suttas the Buddha spoke out against the Nigantha's (that's what the Jains were called at that time) understanding of Karma.

U must be a orthodox person ...  You are following a enternal religion like buddhism but u belive in physical thing .. Its not great dude ... Now come lets have a time travel In buddist texts there are 28 pichhecca Buddha means previous Buddha .. Actual 12 of them,are Jain thirthankaras ... As vimalnatha, rishbha deva, and many  In buddist text there a system which Buddha called only the one true and fine system .. He gave a name "chaturyaam dharma"  actually that led by 23 third Jain thirthankara ..  Some of great thinker also says that the parents of lord Buddha was also follower of parshvanatha the 23rd thirthankara.. Who was a jina born 280 years before Buddha .. There are a reference that Buddha himself was at vaishali and mahaveer swami got nirvana at pavapuri .. Hearing this Buddha cried a lot ...  Forgot all this things .. Now come with me brothers  Many many thousands years ago before Buddha and mahaveera  People used to live like animals , they don't know their known reality like we also today.. Then there were 14 great man born .. Hindu text and Jain text call them "manu" the last manu was king nabhi raja who was elected by people He gave birth a child named "rishabha" .. I am saying that he is follower of Jain or Hindu etc.  Simply he was the worlds perfect man "arhan","arhat","adim,"Adam",arihant"  he taught 72 arts to man and 64 arts to women that's how the worlds first sytem made up Then he left whole world passesion like Buddha and mahaveera did .. And become monk and finally get nirvana at mount kailash .. Indians also knows him a Shiva  That's how the words first system  "a religious system made up"


How to increase will power? What are some Buddhists techniques by which I can increase my will power? I lack will power which is basic to practice 8fold path. I don't have will power which makes me stray to be consistent on spiritual practices. Please shed light on the ways to increase will power.

Edit: If someone says "You should do AnApan to increase will power" then I need will power to do that consistently AnApan, so such answers doesn't completely help me. Please tell any alternative. Maybe some practice which gradually increases will power.

Will power is very connected with virya - energy. Notice how, when you feel inspired, what they call "on a roll" - you can do things that are normally difficult, easily applying force as needed. In the same vein, when you are depressed and demotivated, doing even the simplest chores requires lots of effort to get going.

So the secret to will power is to develop the faculty of energy (viriyindriya).

Development of energy is not directly emphasized in Pali Suttas but in some Vajrayana schools it is the main practice, esp. in higher tantras.

So, how does one develop energy? In real teacher-student situation, you learn it by watching and imitating the teacher, and from occasional very casual and often sarcastic pithy instructions. To cover all that in a single answer would be impossible, but here is a brief summary of what I was taught:

Vitakka / vicara aka autosuggestion to raise inspiration, e.g. what football/basketball coaches do. It looks silly but it works, esp. if you connect it with emotion.
Wise application of attention - avoid dwelling on "victim-perspective" topics that make you feel hopeless, focus on things you are mastering / have mastered.
Discontinue or minimize activities known to sack energy, e.g. alcohol, masturbation, facebook, arguments.
Mindfulness of the body and overall grace. Learn to always feel comfortable: walk comfortably, sit in comfortable posture, stretch enough, move gracefully etc.
Mental comfort / speed - do not rush yourself, do not beat yourself, give yourself enough respect.
Take responsibility and learn to live on your terms.
Stop seeking outside stimuli (so-called "hunting dog mind"), slow down and find the right practice right where you are, in your everyday activities.
Use Meditation as another chance to stop and get to your senses, as opposed to forcing yourself into something contrived.
Develop stronger core muscles, esp. abdomen.

Out of all these practices, the principal one, and what I will emphasize the most is living on your terms. Maybe because it was the most difficult and eye-opening to me when I learned it.

What weak-willed people do a lot is allowing circumstances or people to rush us or to force us do things we are not Okay with. Instead, we should learn to take responsibility for our lives, take a stance - and methodically live our life on our terms, step after step. If you start on a solid foundation, every subsequent action will build a solid step, and another one and another one. Do not let anyone ever force yourself go against your best judgement, nor go against your judgement because of urgency or time pressure. Do things impeccably to your own standards, look impeccable in your own eyes - and from this will come energy and strong will power.

There are good answers here, but I believe they are missing something. Sometimes obstructions in cultivation (eg: lack of willpower) can be "fixed" by creating merit. So if you know the techniques to develop willpower (eg: meditation) but are unable to do so consistently I recommend you go to your local temple and volunteer regularly; most of the people who do this find that they become able to follow the instructions better.


Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export? I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion  ....

  Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves
  living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living
  in the United States or India.

  Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in
  the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or
  reform it.

There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

While "Buddhism" is already quite a difficult terminus, since there is a host of sects, schools, vehicles and apart from that another host of indigenous practices that infiltrated Buddhism in places it went to, "Hinduism" is even more difficult.

Just an overview:

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India, dating back to somewhen between 1800 BC and say 1000 or 800 BC. The Vedic Religion is a religion of sacrifice. These are important in so far as practically all Hindus consider the Vedas as holy scriptures and their religion based on it.
By the end of the Vedic Era, maybe 800 or 700 BC the first Upaniṣads began to appear and with them the ideas of an eternal individual soul (ātman) opposed to an all-encompassing world-soul (brahman), rebirth in an endless cycle (saṃsāra) determined by the deeds of an individual (karman).
From about 700 or 600 BC onwards there was a movement of people who tried on their own, to find a way out of the cycle of rebirth by meditative and ascetic practices, the so-called Śramaṇa-movement. Theoretically this movement was heavily indebted to to the Upaniṣads.

Buddhism ultimately developed out of this heterodox movement (the Śramaṇa-movement) and except for the person of the Buddha and the theory of no-soul/not-the-soul (anātman) shares almost all of the common features of this movement, namely denial of Vedic authority and rejection of the caste-system. The Samañña-phala-sutta gives a good idea of views held in this movement and the relation of Buddhism to these views.

Now, as it comes to Hinduism, "classical Hinduism", if such a thing exists, surely did not exist in that time. In Hinduism there are six orthodox systems of philosophy, the first of which, Sāṃkhya, developed alongside with Buddhism, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later. All the other orthodox systems (Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mimāṃsā, Vedānta) developed later and under more or less heavy influence from Buddhism.

To give just on example: Nyāya is classically the school of logic in Hinduism. It was the theory of Pratītyasamutpāda, that generated a need for a deeper understanding of causation, conditionality and logic, which in turn gave rise to a development in logic in India and ultimately to Nyāya. Similar indebtedness has also been claimed for the Hindu philosopher Śaṃkara to maybe the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna.

Now, Śaṃkara is also responsible for the Hindu renaissance in India and for the final i-dot on the Vedanta-system. What Hindus believe in today is in no mean way shaped by his thinking (although we should always keep in mind, that it is impossible to point to that which "Hindus believe in") and therefore ultimately by Buddhist ideas and developments in refutation of Buddhist arguments.

Getting back to the question. It is very true, that Hinduism cannot or can hardly be exported, it is bound to a priestly class which in turn is bound to India (Brahmins not being allowed to defile themselves by leaving India), it does not or does hardly convert (sects like Hare Krishna disregarded here), the gods reverred are rather local deities without universal appeal and so on. And on top of that: missionary zeal is rather foreign to it.

Buddhism on the other hand had this "missionary zeal", though not to be compared with the Abrahamic religions, right from the beginning, embodied in the Buddha's wish and urge to teach the truth he had found. So what is true in Watts is that Buddhism is much more universal(ly appealing) than Hinduism. But the quote of Watts somehow implies two more things, both of them being wrong:

That Buddhism is some sort of Hinduism. That this is wrong should have been shown by the above historical sketch.
That Buddhism was designed to be exported. This is wrong since Buddhism was not designed.

The equally polemic counter-attitude to Watts would be that Hinduism is just Buddhism flavoured with some archaic elements (reverence of the Vedas) and stripped of anything too hard to understand for common people (like anātman) and anything that might offend a priestly elite (like "equality of men"). Like Watts statement it is basically wrong with a pinch of truth in it.

I agree that Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.

Buddha didn't really invent a religion out of thin air. His philosophy was an extension of and a reaction to Hindu philosophy. He retained a large amount of meta-physics from Hinduism - Dharma, Karma, Samsara.

For both "Liberation" is the ultimate goal and the cause of human condition is delusion. The difference is just in the path to the ultimate goal. It is here that the meta-physics starts to differ.

Hinduism's social structure which was intertwined with its philosophy made it difficult(but not impossible) to export. Before Buddhism, Hinduism did reached South East Asia and recently a 4000 year old Vishnu statue was discovered in Vietnam. Buddhism just made it very easy for export by removing certain aspects of the Hindu social structure.

Buddhism and Hinduism have evolved influencing each other and thus contain elements of each other.

Many practices which Buddha taught was what he learnt from his Hindu masters. Belgian Indologist Dr.Koenraad Elst says this in his essay When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?
:

  He was a late follower of a movement very much in evidence in the
  Upanishads, viz. of spurning rituals (Karmakanda) in favour of
  knowledge (Jnanakanda). After he had done the Hindu thing by going to
  the forest, he tried several methods, including the techniques he
  learned from two masters and which did not fully satisfy him,-- but
  nonetheless enough to include them in his own and the Buddhist
  curriculum. Among other techniques, he practised Anapanasati,
  “attention to the breathing process”, the archetypal yoga practice
  popular in practically all yoga schools till today.

Similarly Adi Sankara whose is known for Advaita philosophy was influenced by Buddhist teachings, especially of Nargarjuna in such a way that his contemporary critics called his Advaita as Buddhism in disguise.

Tantra which is an important part of Tibetan Buddhism was originally considered a Hindu tradition.

It would be unfair to totally isolate Hinduism and Buddhism as being totally unrelated and disconnected.
Many Hindus consider Buddhism as being an Hindu sect only and revere Buddha as being an Avatar.


The meaning v of this phrase in Satipattana Sutta I want to know the proper meaning (a full breakdown) of what this phrase means in Satipanna Sutta. It's in pali.

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati. Samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati. ‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.

Especially I want to know on this as well.

Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.

And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally,
  externally, and both internally and externally.

  Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye
  kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati;

  They meditate observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to
  vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.

  samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā
  kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati.

  Or mindfulness is established that the body exists, to the extent
  necessary for knowledge and mindfulness. They meditate independent,
  not grasping at anything in the world.

  ‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. Yāvadeva
  ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke
  upādiyati.

  That’s how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body.

  Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.

This is according to suttacentral.net. See: https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
Under settings you can activate showing the Pāli.

The terms "sati paccupaṭṭhitā" mean "mindfulness of the present moment", whereas "sati" means mindfulness. This could make a huge difference given the wide range of interpretations of 'mindfulness', especially in the West.


How can we stop overthinking? Many people suffer because of an endless mind-thoughts. What is the simplest way to stop overthinking and make the mind still?

As a person with obsessive thought disorder I might shed some light on this issue.

The very fact that you are overthinking is that you are clinging to resolving an issue you believe is of highest importance at the moment, as Andrei Volkov already wrote.

What you might do is to be mindful of obsessiveness as it comes. Label it "Obsessiveness." and continue with your mindful gate keeping. Don't let scattered thoughts (vicàra) roam freely unnoticed. Try to let only wholesome and directed thoughts (vitakka) free. It is the case of a habit.

It is mostly the issue that such thoughts of overthinking take on subjects that aren't important or even difficult to solve with calm and clear mind, so along with mindfulness of thoughts please add concentrating on breathing. Do not try to tackle such thoughts in the state of confusion, as you will be like a man standing on the deck of the ship in the middle of the sea storm - you don't want to be out in such conditions, it is far better to keep yourself safe inside the ship and wait for better conditions.

No matter how tempting it is to continue inner chatter or how critical it might seem - let go of the need. As what they say: Don't try to talk with the madman - it is not going to work.

Bonus: Ajahn Sumedho - Let Go, Let Go, Let Go

You want my thoughts on that? Sorry I can't show you here. Indulging in my thoughts and opinions on this topic isn't going to be productive, I'm afraid.

I refuse to answer.

Try body-scan or mindful yoga maybe.


Unclarity on Sati-Sampajañña In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca. In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.

Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right? Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.
If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one should know what one is doing. This is confusing. When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?
Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is present?

I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca.

Sure. But you need to understand what the terms really mean.

Mindfulness (sati) means to remember.

Anicca is a wisdom (panna).

Sampajanna means 'situational wisdom', which is applying wisdom to a situation.

Mindfulness must remember to apply wisdom.

Therefore, mindfulness & wisdom always operate together.

There cannot be mindfulness without wisdom.

This is why the term 'sati-sampajanna' is often used, as a compound.

This video might help: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna

This book might help: The Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

  In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.

Not really.

In the 1st part, about "I am walking, "I am standing", etc, the word is "pajānāti", which means to know. Here, knowing with wisdom is not emphasised. This is more about knowing with concentration.

In the 2nd part, about "going forward, looking ahead", etc, the word is "sampajānakārī". This not only means awareness but having wisdom with awareness.

As the video states, 'sampajanna' is of the wisdom faculty & not of the concentration faculty. Awareness without ready wisdom is not sampajanna.

  Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering
  something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

Sati is never present moment awareness. Sati is only remembering or calling something to mind.
Present moment awareness may be a result or outcome of using mindfulness but mindfulness itself is not present moment awareness -- see this answer for a more detailed explanation.

Present moment awareness is simply a clear consciousness (vinnana), called 'anupassi' ('seeing') in the Satipatthana Sutta.

  The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right?

Not really but sort of. Noting is a very subtle thing. Noting does not have to be strong thinking, as the Burmese Mahasi teach. The mind can note very silently, such as knowing it is typing on this website.

  Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note
  something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.

Of course he did, in the Satipatthana Sutta, that you mentioned, where it states: "I am walking", etc. However, this is only beginner's practise.

  If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one
  should know what one is doing.

There are many wisdoms apart from anicca. All sati-sampajanna includes some type of wisdom.

The Buddha did not actually teach to constantly remind oneself of anicca because this would mean the mind is always thinking. Instead, one only reminds oneself of anicca when necessary.

To goal of meditation is to stop thinking so the mind has concentration so it can develop calm and then see anicca directly (rather than reminding oneself about anicca).

  This is confusing.

What is confusing is your views about it. Yes, you are making it confusing for yourself.

  When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?

When required.

  Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all
  the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses
  sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is
  present?

Your questions are like: "How & when & why do I do this turn when surfing and surf inside the wave when surfing?" before you have even learned to paddle a surfboard & catch a wave.

  I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

I think you are thinking too much. When the mind has developed some calmness, it will begin to understand the teachings and what to do. Developing some calmness does not require too many questions & answers.

The question you are asking is well explained in: The Four Sampajanna, VRI

  Maintaining the continuity of the thorough understanding of impermanence based on vedana (sensation)1 is called sampajanna. The Atthakathakara (the commentators) have further explained this term in various ways to clarify its meaning.

  A few of these explanations follow-

    Samma pakarehi aniccadini janati ti sampajannam.

  One who knows in a right way impermanence as well as suffering and egolessness has wisdom, has sampajanna.

    Samantato pakarehi pakattham va savisesam janati ti sampajano.

  One who understands the totality clearly with wisdom from all angles (of whatever is manifesting) or who knows distinctly has sampajanna.

    Samma samantato samanca pajananto sampajano.

  One who knows in a right way, in totality through one's own wisdom is sampajana.
  These definitions convey the same sense as found in the canonical texts of anicca (impermanence), and its continuity. In the commentaries and the subcommentaries, sampajanna is also elaborated in a fourfold way-

  satthaka-sampajanna (purposeful sampajanna),
  sappaya- sampajanna (beneficial sampajanna),
  gocara-sampajanna (domain sampajanna),
  asammoha-sampajanna (non-delusion sampajanna).

  (1) Satthaka-sampajanna (purposeful sampajanna)

  The Pali term satthaka (sa + attha = with meaning) means useful or purposeful. The sense here is in distinguishing between what is useful and what is not. For a meditator who is treading on the path of Dhamma (satthaka), the most useful, purposeful thing is something that can help in the realisation of paramattha sacca (ultimate truth), the cessation of suffering. To attain it, one has to totally eradicate the sankhara, which are the source of all suffering. For this, one has to realize anicca (impermanence), the arising and passing away at the level of sensations. Thus, the usefulness and purposefulness of sampajanna lies only in leading meditators to realize impermanence, which alone is beneficial in the attainment of their life's mission, nibbana. This is the true sense of satthaka sampajanna. The continuity of practice should be maintained in all activities, such as moving forward or backward, going for begging alms, or going to visit a cetiya (shrine) etc.

  (2) Sappaya-sampajannam (beneficial sampajanna)

  The term sappaya means beneficial. Knowing in totality for one's own benefit with wisdom is sappaya sampajannam.5 The most beneficial thing for a meditator is to move on the path which leads to the attainment of nibbana. The experience of anicca based on body sensation is the most beneficial tool, since by mere observation of its arising and passing away, with objectivity and continuity, one goes beyond the sphere of sensations to a state beyond mind and matter.

  (3) Gocara-sampajannam (domain sampajanna)

  The literal term gocara (go + cara) means the field where the cow moves, but here the term refers to domain. Technically, when the term is used in meditation, it has two meanings- (i) while a meditator dwells internally, it means the body is the domain of his meditation; (ii) it also means the external movements of the meditator, eg., going for begging alms etc., (gocara).6
  Thus the significance of gocara sampajanna lies in maintaining constant thorough understanding of impermanence, both while meditating and while performing worldly activities.7

  (4) Asammoha-sampajanna (non-delusion sampajanna)

  The term asammoha means non-delusion or without ignorance. It refers to the non-ignorance of having thorough understanding of what is happening both inside and outside the body. The realisation of impermanence is asammoha (non-delusion). Therefore with the experience of anicca, a meditator will be able to understand through direct experience, three of the four paramattha dhamma-citta (consciousness), cetasika (psychic factors), and rupa (material qualities). All these are samkhata dhamma (conditioned). By observing these dhamma objectively as anicca, one reaches the state where there is no arising and passing away, which is the fourth paramattha dhamma-nibbana.

  Although the Buddha did not mention these four sampajanna in the Canon they are found in the Atthakatha. If we analyse each of them, we find that they are not separate from one another but have the same goal, the realisation of anicca (anicca-bodha). Anicca-bodha is our real purpose (satthaka). It is beneficial (sappaya) for us and is the domain (gocara) of our meditation, leading to right understanding (asammoha), that ultimately results in the final emancipation- nibbana.

Source: The Four Sampajanna, VRI


What can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition? Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question...

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the seeming mind in here. However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process.
Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion.

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so.

Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?

What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

Knowing is not dependent upon the external senses, otherwise, how would you know that you have dropped the senses in 2nd Jhana? How would you know the 3rd and 4th Jhanas? Now to answer your question about what is mind. Mind is created or produced by that-which-flows. That-which-flows is the activity of the unborn. Do not think that the unborn is static. It is not, but mind cannot access it. Knowing of the unborn comes by that-which-flows. A glimpse of that-which-flows is the attainment of Sotopanna. Realizing that-which-flows is the fulfillment of Sotopanna (obtaining the fruits thereof). This realization is often called self-realization (not of the ego self). Self-realization is beyond mind. It is the “turning in consciousness” spoken of in the suttas. Consciousness is changed when this realization happens. The first three fetters are dropped and you are never the same.

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six
  senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the
  seeming mind in here.

There five external senses rather than six.

  However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently
  separate from this process.

There is no knowing apart from the six senses.

  Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen
  through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no
  previous auto-suggestion.

A living organism has a nervous system that functions based on feelings (of pleasure and pain) and underlying tendencies (such as survival instinct & fear). Often "intuition" is based in fear of the unknown; which gives rise to a certain sense of "caution". Since life is full of unpredictable & impermanent events, often the sense of cautious intuition seems valid (even though its validity is actually only due to the probability that most worldly scenarios won't be successful).

  The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing
  that rebirth is so.

There is no evidence for such thing as "rebirth". "Rebirth" ideas arises from the fear I mentioned above; the fear of the "self" or "ego" not wanting to die.

Note: In the Buddhist suttas, the word "rebirth" refers to the future results that occur due to past actions. For example, killing leading to rebirth in "hell" (trauma; prison; regret; etc). "Rebirth" is not the intuition you existed before due to fear of "ego-death".

As I already posted, people practise meditation and then the ego does not want to die. Therefore, the mind, due to fear, starts creating ideas of past & future existence.

  Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?

Ideas of rebirth are mental thoughts and objects. They are known by the 6th sense; similar to how dreams in sleep are known by the 6th sense. Dreams at night show how creative and imaginative the mind can be.

  What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer
  these also!)

The above question falls outside of the scope of Buddhism. Buddhism says there is mind and, to be free from suffering, mind must not be clung to as "I", "me" or "mine". Buddhism is only about ending suffering.


What is worth desiring from the world? What is worth desiring from the world when everything is impermanent ?

I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it. Here it states that I can not say Nibbana as mine or me  or myself( I can not say I am in state of Nibbana and I can not say Nibbana as mine):

  “He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna
  as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not
  conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from
  Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not
  delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it,
  I say.

( I am asking this question to understand the depths of knowledge... I am trying not to take delight in asking such questions.Buddha says one should not even take delight in Nibbana.)

Let's forget for a moment about "I", and "wanting". Here are some:

Negative things:

Minimise or eliminate "suffering"
Minimise attachment, and craving, associated with suffering
Minimise defilements
Minimise fetters

Positive things:

Maximize wisdom
Maximise perfections
Maximise factors of enlightenment

Learn to practice the noble eightfold path.

Practice good deeds (and speech), and generosity, which are for example "a support for the mind".

I think that, when a monk is dying, another monk may be advised to remind him of his "attainments" -- perhaps it's such "attainments", and "good deeds", that are not (or that are less) impermanent.

As for "I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it" -- that seems like a contradiction, you know.

Imagine "I" is like a drop of water, and "Nibbana" is like an ocean. Then "I desire Nibbana" or "I can't desire Nibbana" is like saying, "I wish this drop of water would be as big as the ocean, as permanent as the ocean, but still be the same individual drop of water."

Then people around you are like, "Dude! Let it go! Put the drop in the ocean, already!" (or, depending on the school of Buddhism, maybe, "That drop of water is already like the ocean").

I think a reason why Buddhism teaches anatta is because it's the characteristics of "I" that are associated with suffering -- craving to have things is associated with suffering; seeing and being attached to (and wanting to be attached to) an impermanent "self" that's going to die is associated with suffering; and so on.

One advice, which I remember from long ago, is to treat your sense of self (or your body) like a wound -- you take care of it, you try to treat it so as to minimize suffering, but you don't love it, you don't become attached to it.  And you don't say "I can't want to be healthy because then this wound (my sense of self) would disappear."

Also there's some middle way, for example this sutta or this sutta imply that some wanting is "right".

Isn't a paradox to say everything is impermanent? Doesn't the view "everything is impermanent" remain in your mind until you die? So, there you have it, you can have something permanent until you die.

You can also permanently (until you die) abstain from killing, abstain from taking what is not given, avoid sexual misconduct, abstain from false speech and refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs. These precepts wouldn't have been given if it not possible to maintain them permanently. So, if you want these you have them permanently until you die.

But don't wish to be strong, rich or healthy permanently (until you die) that may not happen.

Edit: I misunderstood you, I thought you are asking permanence in this life, if you are looking for inherently permanent to be declared before you follow the five precept and the Nobel eightfold then the permanence you are looking is not declared by The Tathagata.

  "In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
  under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
  cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
  nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
  remain undeclared by the Tathagata.


Understanding compassion fatigue from a buddhist point of view For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue).

My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas.

A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors:

an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to
akusala padhana/unwholesome effort.
upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper.

I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework?

(This is a sutta reference request)

I don't know the definition of "compassion fatigue", or who defines it.

The link you posted includes,

  People who experience compassion fatigue can exhibit several symptoms including hopelessness, a decrease in experiences of pleasure, constant stress and anxiety, sleeplessness or nightmares, and a pervasive negative attitude.

Why do you say, "there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas"?

Perhaps there's some traditional Buddhist practice which provides occasion for that experience -- Maraṇasati.

The "fatigue" aspect of the condition may be less than ideal -- maybe let's say, "unenlightened". There are suttas about caring for the sick, as a duty, maybe in the vinaya too, and about being sick.

But mightn't some of the other "symptoms" in that definition -- for example "decrease in experiences of pleasure" -- be to some extent or in some ways promoted by Buddhist doctrine, which might call that "dispassion" or something (depending on how you define "pleasure")

If one names a mental state or "symptom" -- for example anhedonia -- it might be difficult to say in isolation whether that state is pathological. I think that any serious diagnoses might require meeting in person (a Buddhist teacher or, like, a psychiatrist). So far as I know, practicing clinicians have their own mentors.

The answer is simple. What these western academics are studying is not compassion fatigue per se, but rather “EMPATHY fatigue.” And empathy is not even close to the same thing as compassion. In fact, too much empathy can be harmful to oneself and others. This is what these western academics are finding and is also exactly what the Buddha taught.

The whole question reveals that most western culture does lot truly understand what compassion is and rather mistakes or for empathy. The two are not the same.

Here is one western mind who has figured out the difference between compassion and empathy:

The case against empathy --
Why this Yale psychologist thinks you should be compassionate, not empathetic


Are Buddhists against abortion? While other religions seem to have a definition position on abortion I've never come across the Buddhist view on this. From a naive perspective I would imagine that Buddhists would be prolife rather then prochoice - the abstain from killing precept seems to be the relevant one. But I would imagine it would also depend on when Buddhist believe that life begins or becomes sentient.

Is there any pointers to the ethics of abortion in the scriptures (pali canon, mahayana etc..) or perhaps guidance/opinions from more contemporary teachers. I feel that the real position could be quite nuanced.

Many thanks for any/all thoughts

This is one of those questions that is complicated by that in the United States the conversation around abortion looks and feels very different than it does from other countries in the world. It is also made complex by the interaction of the ideology and the "situation on the ground," where things are usually quite complicated.
To quote Karma Lekshe Tsomo's excellent article Prolife, Prochoice: Buddhism and Reproductive Ethics:

In Buddhism, a primary guiding principle for ethical decision-making is the relief of suffering. It is clear that both abortion and restrictive abortion laws can cause great suffering for both mother and fetus. […]
In the end, most Buddhists recognize the incongruity that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while they do not condone the taking of life, do advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a lovingkindness that is nonjudgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

So to start with, we need separate "pro-life" (in the sense of being opposed to abortion) and "pro-choice" (in the sense of believing the state should restrict it). There are certainly Buddhists who are both pro-choice and anti-choice regardless of whether they are also "pro-life."
It is widely recognized in a variety of sources that, in the traditional Buddhist sources, the ensoulment occurs at conception. Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions in the book In the Buddha's Words that consciousness (or perhaps more precisely viññāṇa) begins "from the moment of conception," though I don't know where precisely in the texts this is defined to be the case.
We see that this translates to a "pro-life" and sometimes "anti-choice" attitude in the Theravada countries. Sri Lanka allows abortion to preserve the life of the woman but not for any other reason. Myanmar is similar. Thailand is slightly more permissive–especially since it allows for health of the mother under some circumstances and includes mental health–while still generally banning it.
In Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics we see analysis that indicates that:

It is clear, at the very least, that the great majority of Buddhists agree that abortion is killing a human being, and is an evil that should be avoided, other things being equal. A crucial issue, though, is how evil it is and what 'other things' can come to outweigh this evil, so that abortion comes to be seen as a 'necessary evil' in certain circumstances?

It is important to note that in some cases these laws were only written after contact with European societies (details in links, Peter Harvey indicates as well that, pre-colonial times, Burma/Myanmar "abortion was not liable for punishment"). It is also the case that, even where it is banned, the laws do not appear equivalent to murder.  There's also a great deal of individual variation outside of the state laws, especially in Thailand, where 95% of the population is Buddhist but there's some popular support for more lenient abortion laws.
As far as I can tell, Tibetan Buddhism is similarly strongly opposed to the practice, but there's still some nuance around treating it, with the Dalai Lama saying in an interview with the NYT (from the above BBC article examining Buddhist views on abortion):

Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

In Japan (and Korea per Harvey) it is much, much less restricted and the Japanese Buddhists are much more accepting of it. This was examined in the book Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism and Japan.  It is notable that both US Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists tend to be much less opposed to abortion than other Buddhist groups.
This issue is explored further in Michael G. Barnhart's Buddhism and the Morality of Abortion, which notes that:

However, as Keown points out, (92) the cases dealt with involve women seeking abortions for questionable, perhaps self-serving, reasons including "concealing extramarital affairs, preventing inheritances, and domestic rivalry between co-wives."  In short, if these are the paradigm examples of abortion, then the case is heavily biased against the practice.

In conclusion: We can say that, in general, Buddhism is opposed to abortion and believes that it incurs a significant karmic burden, especially Theravadan and Tibetan practice. Individuals and subgroups, meanwhile, especially in Japan and the United States, fall all along the spectrum with respect to:

The degree of problem.
What factors help to balance and to what extent they balance.
What precisely the state should do about it.

Regardless, the person who has had an abortion should be treated with compassion–not moral judgement–and it should be understood that the decision is pretty much universally a difficult one with a lot of complications and nuances.

"I am only mentioning the Theravada belief here"

As Buddhism teaches birth happens far before physical birth.It happens when the Semen finds the egg and start the process of growing.so not only abortion,Taking a pill is a violation of the first (not killing and never supporting killing).

Buddhism is against any sort of killing

Murder

Hiring for murder

Assisting murder

Praising murder

killing unborn

suicide

telling others to kill

approving the act of killing

Female rights for abortion is a medical and a social issue and it has nothing to do with  Karma!

"Please note that there is no instruction on anything described as bad Karma
to be done in a acceptable way.Buddhism is a straight religion it does not take back what it says and it does not open back doors to people to get away with things.What you choose to do is yours to decide but you will have to take it with you from life to life."


Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training? I wish to master my mind, one reason is I'm so mentally weak. Like anything you want to master you have to work at it. Drill it into you. But practicing on my own hasn't work. I need a far away place that will force me to master meditation. If I get off track they will make sure I get back on track. Where is a monastery like this where I a foreigner can join for a year?

Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html
http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/
https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/
https://forestsangha.org/

With regard to the 1st 2 links, there are 10-day courses. In the case of the 1st link, you can progress to longer courses up to 60 days. 3rd link lists many other monasteries and centres which some may allow you to stay up to a year. 4th links gives meditation centres in the Pa Auk tradition which is the best if you are looking to master Jhana. 5th link gives monasteries in the Thai Forrest tradition.

A lame horse if whipped will not run faster. Based on your approach it may take you a long time to form discipline. In fact what does it have to do with a monastery? If you're having trouble concentrating that could be adult adhd I recommend: 3 months of a basic counseling and/ or medication might help you prepare for religious approach. It's cheaper that a flight and you'll introspective work towards the same goal. In fact you can do both together. You reached a point where your aware of a limitation. This is valuable so don't think nothing isn't progress. As eager student will you not listen to this reasonable advice?


Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation? Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom".
Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment.

If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter?

why would nature be so cruel

"Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that.

So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent.

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation

I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom.

They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self".

To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya.

why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones
  again?

There is no evidence for "reincarnation". Your question is unrelated to "reality". What you have called "ignorance" (of the Four Noble Truths) and "lust" ("raga") are related to reproductive & survival instincts. This things exists because nature creates 'raga"; which is probably related to the energy of chemical reactions & heat that propel physical creation.

The fact that there is no evidence of wisdom passing from life to life is evidence against reincarnation.


Is there is anything which is not a phenomena? Is there is anything existing in the past,present or future which is not a phenomena ?

Is it correct to say that all phenomena must be impermanent?
If yes then how we know this?

I think the dharma says,

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"

So not "all phenomena", but specifically "all saṅkhārās" -- see Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

This might be paraphrased like, "Everything that has a cause (or, 'has a beginning' or 'arises') has an end".

It's especially relevant for sensual phenomena -- i.e. sights, sounds, thoughts, and so on -- because these are conditioned by contact.

There may be some "phenomena" which are not saṅkhārās and not impermanent -- nibbana for example is said to be not-impermanent. I suppose reasons for that include its being unconditioned (it doesn't depend on something for its existence, in fact it's explicitly independent), and timeless.

I think that some schools of Buddhism identify other not-impermanent (unconditioned) phenomena too: for example, "space" and others (see Two unconditioned dhammas?); and possibly Buddha-nature or Dharmakaya (see Ignorant mind and Buddha nature).

Dhammesu dhammanupassi viharati=practitioner must use daily life to see causes (dhammanupassi) of phenomena (dhammesu=whole lokiya aggregates=suffering).

Loka-uttara such as magga/phala/nibbana, excluded from mahasatipatthana, because the uddesa of mahasatipatthana sutta  said "vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam" .


Where is careless attention (ayonisomanasikāro) in Dependent Origination? AN 10.61 says:

Thus not associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up not
hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full,
fills up lack of faith. Lack of faith, becoming full, fills up
careless attention (ayonisomanasikāro). Careless attention, becoming full, fills up lack
of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear
comprehension, becoming full, fills up non-restraint of the sense
faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, becoming full, fills
up the three kinds of misconduct.
AN 10.61

Since careless or improper attention (ayonisomanasikāro) results in non-restraint of the sense faculties, it appears this ayonisomanasikāro arises before sense contact in Dependent Origination. Is this true?
If the above is true, where do we think careless or improper attention (ayonisomanasikāro) should be placed within the standard teaching of the twelve conditions of Dependent Origination?

MN 148 (my emphasis added) ...

  Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for what is felt as pleasant, painful, or neutral. When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you don’t approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it, the underlying tendency to greed does not underlie that. When you experience a painful feeling, if you don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion, the underlying tendency to repulsion does not underlie that. When you experience a neutral feeling, if you truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, the underlying tendency to ignorance does not underlie that. Mendicants, after giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, after dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, after eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, after giving up ignorance and giving rise to knowledge, it’s totally possible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

... so maybe unwise attention happens at the "feeling" stage (and the converse is "guarding the senses").

You could probably say it's associated with other nidanas too, e.g. ignorance (which is arguably the "root"); and/or namarupa (per the definition you referenced here, i.e. that nama includes "Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention").

Also MN 2 says that the "thicket of views" associated with self-views arises when attending inappropriately -- and MN 148 (quoted above) also says it's possible (but wrong) to identify with eye, eye-object, eye-consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, etc. -- so maybe that would be some inappropriate attention associated with all of these nidanas.

But because AN 10.6 says it results in "restraint of the sense faculties" I think that's talking about "guarding the senses" and therefore e.g. not delighting in feeling.

Maybe not "before" sense contact though -- before and after. I think the DO relationship is more complicated than strictly chronological e.g. "once around the clock, clockwise".

I think the first link ignorance and the eight link Thanha (craving) is the result of Ayoniso Manasikara.


Why is Nanavira considered controversial? Why is Nanavira considered controversial?
I've overheard conversations about Nanavira Thera, and people seem to be in three groups:

1) He's a heretic.

2) He's a genius sotapanna.

3) Nyana-who?

But I've never heard why group 1 consider him to be a heretic. I know he claimed to be a stream-enterer in a letter after he committed suicide... Super controversial, but there has to be more to it than that?

If I had to speculate I would suggest that he was very intellectual.
That can be intimidating.

From the site Nanavira.org:

  Notes on Dhamma has been variously described as "arrogant, scathing, and condescending", as "a fantastic system", and as "the most important book to be written in this century". The Ven. Ñānavīra Thera himself remarked of the book that "it is vain to hope that it is going to win general approval... but I do allow myself to hope that a few individuals... will have private transformations of their way of thinking as a result of reading them".

1) He's a heretic.

He viewed 'birth' & 'death' in Dependent Origination as the self-views of 'my birth' and 'my death' (which makes him a heretic to the cultural Buddhism of the world; which believes in Buddhaghosa's three-life-time idea).

He also questioned the common intepretation of the sankhara link, below:

  5. Let us now consider sankhārā, which we shall make no attempt to translate for the moment so as not to beg the question. We may turn to Nidāna/Abhisamaya Samy. i,2  for a definition of sankhārā in the context of the paticcasamuppāda formulation. Katame ca bhikkhave sankhārā. Tayo'me bhikkhave sankhārā, kāyasankhāro vacīsankhāro cittasankhāro. Ime vuccanti bhikkhave sankhārā. ('And which, monks, are determinations? There are, monks, these three determinations: body-determination, speech-determination, mind-determination. These, monks, are called determinations.') But what are kāyasankhāra, vacīsankhāra, and cittasankhāra? The Cūlavedallasutta (Majjhima v,4  & cf. Citta Samy. 6 ) will tell us. Kati pan'ayye sankhārā ti. Tayo'me āvuso Visākha sankhārā, kāyasankhāro vacīsankhāro cittasankhāro ti. Katamo pan'ayye kāyasankhāro, katamo vacīsankhāro, katamo cittasankhāro ti. Assāsapassāsā kho āvuso Visākha kāyasankhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsankhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasankhāro ti. Kasmā pan'ayye assāsapassāsā kāyasankhāro, kasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsankhāro, kasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasankhāro ti. Assāsapassāsā kho āvuso Visākha kāyikā, ete dhammā kāyapatibaddhā, tasmā assāsapassāsā kāyasankhāro. Pubbe kho āvuso Visākha vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācam bhindati, tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsankhāro. Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā, ete dhammā cittapatibaddhā, tasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasankhāro ti. ('But, lady, how many determinations are there?—There are, friend Vis&aacuute;kha, these three determinations: body-determination, speech-determination, mind-determination.—But which, lady, is body-determination, which is speech-determination, which is mind-determination?—The in-&-out-breaths, friend Visākha, are body-determination, thinking-&-pondering are speech-determination, perception and feeling are mind-determination.—But why, lady, are the in-&-out-breaths body-determination, why are thinking-&-pondering speech-determination, why are perception and feeling mind-determination?—The in-&-out-breaths, friend Visākha, are bodily, these things are bound up with the body; that is why the in-&-out-breaths are body-determination. First, friend Visākha, having thought and pondered, afterwards one breaks into speech; that is why thinking-&-pondering are speech-determination. Perception and feeling are mental, these things are bound up with the mind; that is why perception and feeling are mind-determination.') Now the traditional interpretation says that sankhārā in the paticcasamuppāda context are kamma, being cetanā. Are we therefore obliged to understand in-&-out-breaths, thinking-&-pondering, and perception and feeling, respectively, as bodily, verbal, and mental kamma (or cetanā)? Is my present existence the result of my breathing in the preceding existence? Is thinking-&-pondering verbal action? Must we regard perception and feeling as intention, when the Suttas distinguish between them (Phuttho bhikkhave vedeti, phuttho ceteti, phuttho sañjānāti... ('Contacted, monks, one feels; contacted, one intends; contacted, one perceives;...') [Salāyatana Samy. ix,10 ])? Certainly, sankhārā may, upon occasion, be cetanā (e.g. Khandha Samy. vi,4 [3]); but this is by no means always so. The Cūlavedallasutta tells us clearly in what sense in-&-out-breaths, thinking-&-pondering, and perception and feeling, are sankhārā (i.e. in that body, speech, and mind [citta], are intimately connected with them, and do not occur without them); and it would do violence to the Sutta to interpret sankhārā here as cetanā.

  6. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to suppose from the foregoing that sankhārā in the paticcasamuppāda context cannot mean cetanā. One Sutta (Nidāna/Abhisamaya Samy. vi,1 ) gives sankhārā in this context as puññābhisankhāra, apuññābhisankhāra, and āneñjābhisankhāra, and it is clear enough that we must understand sankhārā here as some kind of cetanā. Indeed, it is upon this very Sutta that the traditional interpretation relies to justify its conception of sankhārā in the context of the paticcasamuppāda formulation. It might be wondered how the traditional interpretation gets round the difficulty of explaining assāsapassāsā, vitakkavicārā, and saññā and vedanā, as cetanā, in defiance of the Cūlavedallasutta passage. The answer is simple: the traditional interpretation, choosing to identify cittasankhāra with manosankhāra, roundly asserts (in the Visuddhimagga) that kāyasankhāra, vacīsankhāra, and cittasankhāra, are kāyasañcetanā, vacīsañcetanā, and manosañcetanā,—see §16 --, and altogether ignores the Cūlavedallasutta. The difficulty is thus, discreetly, not permitted to arise.

  2) He's a genius sotapanna.

It seems he still believed in reincarnation (which appeared to influence his suicide) thus unlikely was a sotapanna. He appeared to believe "I" have seven more lifetimes; which most bona fide sotapanna would consider to be sakkaya ditthi.

Also, he seemed to express doubt about whether his interpretation of the 'sankhara' link was correct. If he was a sotapanna, he would have no doubts at all that his interpretation was correct and the interpretation of the establishment was wrong. As the Buddha taught (MN 56), as a sotapanna, he would be completely independent in his understanding of the Dhamma.

An individual with a keen intellect can read the suttas and conclude 'birth' & 'death' in Dependent Origination are the arising of the self-views of 'my birth' and 'my death'. However, such a keen intellect does not mean this individual has had the clear inner experience of Emptiness (Sunnata) to destroy sakkaya ditthi.

  3) Nyana-who?

Yes. I only learned about him from the internet. I think for serious students and practitioners, Nanavira was too confused, despite his excellent attempt at understanding the Buddha-Dhamma. His "notes" are like a "search" rather than a conclusive view. Admirably, he had many insightful views about Dependent Origination but the incompleteness of his search would invalidate him as an authoritative guide or object of veneration in the mind of most Noble Practitioners.


What are the similarities between quantum physics and buddism? What are the similarities between modern physics/quantum physics and Buddism?
Although i know little about this, like Budha said that conciousness creates everything, emptyness and dependent origination kind of things. What are other things that matches with what modern science is saying?

As far as I know quantum physics does not teach four noble truths, dependent origination and consciousness. So there are no similarities.However quantum physics can be used as examples to explain Buddha's teaching.

In quantum physics states every atom is impermanent. Same is taught by Buddha.

Apart from that there is quantum entanglement which means if two atom or particles are entangled than it doesn't matter how far they are if you make any changes to one another changes automatically, Buddhism teaches this in Mettā Meditation.

Buddha was able to see every atom of his body was continuously coming to existence and dying at the same time, giving you the illusion that we are alive.

He told (10 to the power 21) times an atom is coming to existence every second, which is very similar to quantum physics.

The actual question should be about the difference, Which we need to understand is Panya (Pragya in Hindi, Maybe experiential knowledge in English) When one find's the Quantum truth by Physics one would still remain as same person, but if one reaches to same truth by Mind, one become Buddha.(Buddha is a person who has his Bodhi(Realization), Which means you will become self realized).


Re-orientation in my practice from Advaita to Buddhism I have been studying Advaita Vedanta for some time now. I never really understood that Everything was conciousness and that consciousness is not a by product of my brain nor inside my mind and could not get it, I had doubts all the time. When I found out about the Buddhist principle of consciousness arising dependently I directly said yes this is how it is. Now to my question as a new Buddhist practitioner, I have been hearing Rupert spira saying " Time and space are ilusions existing only from the point of view of the observer observing changes in other words it is a kind of metaphysical idealism where the "I" is ultimately true and everything else including time,space,objects (even time and space of physics is considered mind made and not really existing in the universe) which to me also was hard to believe. I asked my self how can the world depend on me? (even though I may not witness something happening outside my house it does not mean that it didnt happen) (while writing this I saw Nagarjunas theory which seems to be idealism like Advaita??? (he says that time and space of physics does not have independent existence of our mind and that everything is mind???)  Do you agree that the time and space of physics is an ilusion ? If not could you elaborate what the logic behind the Buddhist position of time and space is (both in regards to mental time and the time oh physics, I will change my view to the view of Buddhism which I found really helpful and logical with "Conciousness arising dependently".

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

Amazing! I have a similar background.

I too was once upon a time leaning towards Advaita. I initially thought this idea of a Cosmic Consciousness where everyone has the same "I" is interesting. This Cosmic Consciousness is the Self (Atman) in Advaita, which is identical with Brahman, the unchanging substratum of the universe, the Transcendental Ultimate Reality. The Atman is an eternal indestructible core of one's being.

However, when I read the Buddha's explanation of consciousness being dependent on the six sense media, I realized that this is the only explanation that matched my experience. There was never a time when consciousness was cognizant of anything, except through the six sense media (eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aroma, tongue and taste, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas).

The Buddha made it very clear that consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. Just as a flowing river appearing as one stream, but in reality is constantly changing in content, similarly, consciousness too may appear like one constant permanent thing, when it isn't.

It is very clear that Buddhism and Advaita are completely far apart.

There's no Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. In all phenomena, there's no such thing as a self, as in something like an eternal core of being - in Buddhism. And therefore, no Eternal God. There is no Transcendental Ultimate Reality, which is a substratum for the cosmos in Buddhism. Everything is impermanent except Nirvana. Nirvana is not any kind of reality or self. Nirvana is simply the highest bliss and peace that is cognized with complete liberation from suffering.

There's more - the Bhagavad Gita 2.17 says that the eternal soul pervades the body while Buddhism says that all phenomena is not self, and the self is simply an impermanent mental idea that arises from the inter-operation of the five aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness). How they inter-operate is described by Dependent Origination.

This will be clear to you, if you dig deep into (what I consider to be) the Buddha's original teachings in the Sutta Pitaka, of the Pali Canon, which belongs to Theravada. Mahayana preserves these same teachings in the Sanskrit Agamas.

Mahayana, at first glance, appears to look more like Advaita than Theravada. But as I dug deeper into Mahayana, I found that it overdoses on metaphors and poetic language, making it appear to look like Advaita, but in reality it's not. For e.g. Mahayana has the Eternal Buddha that sounds like Eternal Brahman. But actually, this refers to the Buddha's Dharmakaya (body of teachings) that originates from his statement that when you see his teachings, you see him, and vice versa (i.e. pay attention to his teachings and not his form or personality, to know what's special about him). In my opinion, Mahayana is a victim of its own poetic genius, resulting in its historical disappearance from the land of its birth.

Now back to your question ...

Advaita seems similar to objective idealism, while Mahayana seems similar to subjective idealism, if we were to compare them to ideas in western philosophy. Both ideas are subset of idealism.

Is Mahayana really subjective idealism?

Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs.

What does that mean? And how is it related to the mind?

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.

When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.

Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.

These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence given to it by the mind.

What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.

What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.

This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.

So, in my opinion, Mahayana and Theravada are very much the same in spirit although different in form, while Advaita appears similar in form to Mahayana but is completely different in spirit.

It may be prudent to respond to this question through the medium of Quantum Physics (energies) and the Higher Doctrine(Abhidhamma). Firstly, we may need to research on whether everything in the universe is ultimately energy and not matter. The 'String Theory' of quantum physics (utube) goes even beyond this to demonstrate that fundamentally energy is information. Information in the universe is stored somewhat like the zero's and one's that go to form the fundamental building blocks of all the wonderful things we see through the internet on our computer screen. The Dhammas of Buddhism (see pdf version "Dhamma Theory' by Prof. Y. Karunadasa) also appear to be the fundamental building blocks, utilized by consciousness, to construct this wonderful world we see around us.                                                                             The famous 'Double Slit Experiment' (utube) in Quantum Physics, demonstrates that indeed human consciousness converts energy to matter (energy is information). We need to note that the consciousness demonstrated in this experiment is mundane. The consciousness referred to in the doctrine of dependent origination is also mundane. The Buddha employed this doctrine to explain that mundane consciousness leads only to suffering. He gave us the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to rise above the mundane level to reach the supramundane level of consciousness i.e. Nibbana. Therefore, a state of consciousness which rises above the mundane duality of subject and object needs to exist. If not, how does one experience or cognize Nibbana?                                                              The mundane consciousness is able to exercise volition through the five senses and the mind. A Nibbanic State of Mind, can exercise volition at all levels of consciousness and is not limited to the subject and object (Dual) level of consciousness, in which we human beings operate. NIbbana is therefore Non Dual. Hope this helps.


Has anyone seen any meditation master demonstrating abhinna or supernatural powers? Has anyone seen any meditation master demonstrating abhinna or supernatural powers stated in various suttas and in Visuddhi Magga? I know, most will suggest me to keep practicing meditation to see or experience it by myself. But I would like to hear from modern day people about their practical experiences, not from the suttas and texts.
PS: It's not about starting a debate. Basically it's just yes/no answer based on practical experiences. I would love to hear it.

It is not desirable to answer such questions because inevitably some smart cookie will debate every example by offering counter examples of parlor magicians who can do the same.

As the Kevatta Sutta states, the real magic is in the bringing of peace, happiness and goodness to the hearts and minds of people.

It is a magic that cannot be argued against.

I just looked up "Abhinna" in Google, and eventually found this page. I'm the American from Florida that has the Jhana8.com site. My name is Vern Lovic. I am not Buddhist or any other religion. I have no agenda, except to further the idea that meditation without religion can lead to Jhana states and possibly Abhinna...

I won't go through a huge history about what happened with me. In short, I read some meditation books in the late 1990's. I wasn't looking for a religion to be attached to the meditation, so I thought - why not just pull the essence from the Vipassana and other books? Pull out all the religious fluff and sit and look at the breath... and see what happened.

What happened was that Jhanas came without me having known in advance about them. I had no idea what a first Jhana was, and then there it was... I had no idea what to do when the amazing light grew in my mind... I had no teacher, I had no authority. So, I just did what I did with everything - note it, and let it go. When it didn't go - I watched it. It was the same with all the Jhanas, which occurred in sequence one after another exactly as the Buddha described.

If it was an incredible state, I was sometimes attached to it, and couldn't let it go. It disappeared until another time when it arose, and I could let it happen, observe with the mind until it either disappeared, moved into something else (another Jhana or experience), or I somehow lost focus and snapped out of the Jhanas.

Anyway, there is a lot of information about my experience at the jhana8.com site. I chose .com because everyone chooses .com, not for any specific reason. I sell my two meditation books on the site. I also mention that if someone doesn't have the money, I will send it to them for free.

Abhinna seemed to occur to me in a few different ways. I was already experiencing the fourth Jhana regularly during sitting meditation, and then on a few occasions some weird things happened that appeared to be the Divine Eye, and mind-penetrating knowledge.

Here is one experience that I am open to believing it could be the Divine Eye Abhinna... http://www.jhana8.com/what-is-abhinna/my-divine-eye-experience/

I understand people disbelieving a person can get into and through the Jhanas in under a year. I think it is available to so many more people than are currently experiencing it. I think that because I didn't know what the Jhanas were, and that they were important to Buddhists - and not being Buddhist - they were not important to me, I could let them go so easily - as if they were nothing. They really were nothing more than just another experience as I meditated. There were many strange things that went on prior to Jhanas, so to me they were just another bunch of experiences. They were cool, they were amazing, but so too were some other experiences.

I think that Buddhist monks, and other Buddhist practitioners have a much more difficult time of ever stumbling upon Jhana because they are aiming for them. They are so strongly attached to the idea of experiencing Jhana that they make it the main goal. As you may know, when you are attached to something, to some experience, during meditation, it just goes... it doesn't stay any longer. The experience stops, and you're left looking at yourself like - oops!

So, when monks first creep up on Jhana, they are already ecstatic about it. Emotion, attachment engages, and there goes Jhana - bye-bye! lol.

Anyway, so, I just wanted to comment a bit about Jhana and Abhinnas because I saw a reference to me above in the comments. I have lived in Thailand now for 12 yrs. I have reached a point where I don't meditate at all... but some changes have taken place even after I stopped meditating. It seems to me that once the process really starts - say, maybe by the time you start experiencing the fourth Jhana - it kind of keeps going, regardless whether you're going to keep meditating, or not. I like to say, it has its way with you...

There are 2 audio files you can listen to to hear about my path - I think they are on the about page on that jhana8 site.

Ok, cheers, and best of life to everyone... VJL


What is the difference between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya? Within the Trikāya doctrine (the bodies of the Buddha) I've never felt very clear about the differences between the Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya. I believe that the  Nirmanakaya is the physicality of the Buddha (happy to be corrected on this) but I'm vague about what Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya are and how they relate to each other.

I'd appreciate if anyone can summarise the differences and the relations between them. I'm interested in answers from all traditions - I'm unsure if there are variations in interpretations of the doctrines across Buddhist schools and traditions to be honest.

Chogyam Trungpa explained dharmakaya as the experience of the ultimate, nirmanakaya as coming at peace with the relative, and sambhogakaya as an ability of practitioner-turning-teacher to skilfully join together the ultimate and the relative, to keep a foot in both worlds and facilitate communication between the two:

1. Dharmakaya

  "Dharmakaya has no categories; dharmakaya is simply being awake. It is the first achievement of a buddha; the first glimpse of vajra-like samadhi. Vajra-like samadhi means cutting through everything, completely and thoroughly. You cut through psychological and spiritual materialism and you cut through the notion of perfectionism as well."

  "[At this stage] there maybe uncertainty as to how perceive things, and you don't know how to make a particular situation graspable. Our reaction to the world is uncertain and bewildered, and strategies and planning have not yet formed."

  "The dharmakaya aspect is basic openness or ambiguity. We could say that a buddha actually sees the world from a nonreference point of view. They see that the world can exist without a reference point, that reference points are no longer applicable. When you possess such an enlightened view, you attain dharmakaya, the body of nonreference point. Dharma means "the highest norm of the universe", which is nonreference point. Kaya refers to the achievement of that particular experience."

  "With no praise and no blame, we accept and realize our thought process as it is -- but with a touch of nonfixation and without holding on to thoughts."

2. Nirmanakaya

  "In the niramanakaya aspect, the second stage of this process, there is clarity. You develop a clear idea of the situation and how to organize things. According to my tradition, that is the realistic way of looking at things. Even if you are a great teacher or a buddha, you still have a body and that body behaves more or less the same as other people's bodies. The necessities of eating, shitting, wearing clothes, and combing your hair are basically the same as anybody else's."

  "It is in that acceptance of the universe, within that particular frame of reference, that the nirmanakaya buddha functions."

3. Sambhogakaya

  "Third, you begin to make a relationship between the two. In order to make a link between the openness and clarity, we have the third aspect, or sambhogakaya. The sambhogakaya bridges the gap between the basic openness or ambiguity of dharmakaya and the very specific organized clarity of nirmanakaya. So the three kayas are the subtle world, the direct world, and that which goes back and forth between the subtle and direct worlds in order to survive on earth."

  "Sambhogakaya means 'complete joy', it is beyond any kind of inhibition. Having gone through constant struggle and discipline of practicing the bodhisattva's work of compassion, whatever you feel can be communicated or taught. There is a need for articulation... You have to do something, you have to proclaim."

  "[However, ] you can't just say, 'Come and look at me'. You have to be very skillful, particularly if you proclaim yourself as an enlightened person, for then you have a heavier burden. So the sambhogakaya involves a sense of relationship (as in, being able to relate -- AV). You know the place, you know what kind of crowd you're going to get, and you know what you are going to say."

  "This communication between your non-manifested and manifested levels ... includes all forms of communication, such as physical gestures, facial expressions, and how you present yourself in all kinds of ways."

4. Svabhavikakaya

  "The fourth kaya, svabhavikakaya, is the whole thing, the total panoramic experience. When we realize the link between the three kayas, that totality is known as svabhavikakaya. The svabhavikakaya is a state of mind that is known as transcending birth, cessation, and dwelling."

  "Since you have no fear, you seem to know everything in the very highest sense. You know how to handle things."

I am concerned that Mahayana has been sold short; Zen even holds certain aspects of mantrayana/tantrayana as well. There appears to be a remnant  of secularism ringing in my ears.

If I recall correctly, Buddhism was established in far east Asia before Songtsen called for its establishment in Tibet. Recent archaeological findings along the Silk Road confirm that Tibet was well aware of this, yet sent to India for teachers, teachings, and texts leaving a perfectly able, completely qualified, and fully willing, swarthy, furry Buddha Dharma to stare at a wall for nine years).

The Inconceivable with the Eight
Are a fish with a bicycle
Brown M&M's, Blue M&M's
Chikpa, chik khyang

Taste like Dharma
Smell like Dharma
Sound like Dharma
Look like Dharma

Sit and Walk like Dharma
Dream and Wake like Dharma
It is probably Dharma
Probably perfectly good Dharma

Buddha Dharma in any culture
Is Gone, Gone Far Beyond
Unlike the internet
Suchness is unbreakable


Observing hindrances & seeing impermanence vs right effort I'm not sure whether it has been poorly taught by a monk but as far as I know the Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances, right? The sixth factor of the N8P is right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the impermanence, the unstability (non self) and the unsatisfactory nature of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?

Val, hindrences have to be overcome by right effort and phenomenas, as they really are, can then be observed on a more refined level, a level that is then not so much subject of defilements. Right effort is required to build upon the foundations to errect the whole path and serves as entrance upon the Samadhi section and at the same time connects the other single elements of wheel so that it might beginn to roll for an end of suffering.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117

There is no such as right concentration if there is not also the factor of right effort involved:

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."
— MN 117

The single factors are not to be seen as being abound once reaching a certain but as a coming together of all, like the single supports of a wooden wheel.
Of what is finally right effort on even the most subtile levels on knows after the gain of path and fruit.
Just this right effort, in simply ways taught by the Buddha to his son will bring one to the final liberation and to develope all needed factors.

"Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."...

So get up, dreamer, and go for an initiative!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
  Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
  The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
  Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
  And by opposing end them?

So what is the Buddha's teaching? To be, or not to be? In my opinion, Buddha is dubbed "The Victor", not "The Loser", for a reason ;)

As I understand, Siddhartha was on the quest for a permanent solution to death and, generally, life's perpetual troublesomeness. What he found instead was the realization that the universe's very nature is characterized by invariable Impermanence, Dukkha, and Nothing-is-ours-ness. Think about it! He was looking for deathless peace and found Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta! In some sense he had lost, he'd realized his quest was absolutely and utterly impossible!

As he thus gave up on the quest - or ceased all efforts - I imagine he suddenly and with great surprise realized that his entire drive - the aversion to the world, the longing for Beyond, the hoping for permanent bliss, the suffering of not yet having achieved it - were due to his silly attachment to a set of abstract ideas... The ideas of Self, Permanence, Happiness. The ideas of Victory, of Success, of Transcendental Realization. The idea of Escape... This pain and this longing for That - turned out to be coemergent. This longing and this aversion to This - turned out to be coemergent!

He then realized that attachment to and longing for any idea of "that" and aversion/suffering in regards to "this" are always dependently-coarisen and lead to pain. As he dropped his longing, he dropped his pain.

He discovered that our perception of everything is our own interpretation or projection based on our assumptions and attachments. This means that our hell and our heaven is our own creation. In other words, suffering and happiness are conditional, and therefore can be controlled and manipulated. We can stop suffering and generate our own happiness. Finally, he found that by going beyond all assumptions and attachments, by relinquishing all positions, our experience loses all ground and becomes conditionless - so suffering has nowhere to stand - which makes us immune to all trouble, completely and 100% imperturbable!

So at the end of the day, the resulting suchness - the experience of living in baseless, selfless state of total acceptance and total understanding - does look somewhat similar to simply surrendering to our powerlessness in this uncompromisingly transient, painful, and uncontrollable world. However, by taking control of our mind, of our narrative, of our interpretation, by dropping all attachments and all ground of suffering - we have fooled the ever transient/painfull/uncontrollable world and solved the unsolvable problem!

Now, to directly answer your "to be or not to be" question: "Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances", "Noble eightfold path includes the right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the [(hopelessly immutable) Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta]? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?"

Correctly seeing Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta is part of The Right Effort. Like I said above, the idea is to skilfully control our attention and our interpretation. My teacher explained it like this: When you completely accept Anicca - you attain the deathless. When you completely accept Dukkha - you attain the painless. When you completely accept Anatta, you attain freedom. When you completely accept Samsara - you attain Nirvana. -- All of this works when you no longer hold on to a certain conceptual ground that coemerges with its negative counterpart.

So it's not really "observe" vs "right effort". They are not in opposition to each other. Observing Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta is right effort. Correctly seeing them in a positive way is called "right attention", or seeing things skilfully.