Disenchanted with Buddhism Im nearly 50 years old and so far in my life I have never found a sense of belonging or any sense of purpose. I haven't found a way to work that offers any sense of contribution or meaning. I have worked in low skilled low paid jobs struggling to make ends meet for over 30 years and going nowhere.  Now I'm at a point where I feel I just cannot do what is required of me in this society any longer. It's soul destroying. I have no motivation or desire to get out of bed and go to some mindless crappy job just so that I can eat and pay my bills while other people make billions for doing nothing and live in the lap of luxury. There has to be more to life than this. I have tried to find other things to do that are more rewarding such as creative endeavours but failed to find the confidence and determination to go out and make it happen and so I just end up back in the same crappy jobs.

So how does this relate to Buddhism you might be wondering. Well I guess I turned to Buddhism in desperation. I felt so bored and disenchanted with life that I thought there must be another way to see things. Buddhism seemed to offer that. So I begun meditating and went on some retreats. I begun learning how to watch the mind.

I have had a lot of psychological insight into the how I am the way I am because of my family etc over the years but this is more from reading than from meditating.
I thought that Buddhism would give me some sense of freedom  and help me to push through and change my life in a positive way but after 6 years I haven't really changed much and now I feel disappointed and disenchanted with Buddhism because it seems to promise so much but deliver so little. The only thing I can say is that I have learnt to react a little less. To notice impatience, anger and other difficult feelings and not react to them. Isn't there more to it than this?
I guess right now I am experiencing a range of difficult feelings and Buddhism would say notice how they are impermanent, notice how averse to them you are, notice how they are not self etc. So I do this but it doesn't make it any easier. They still keep arising and they are still really difficult, uncomfortable and painful and I still want to not feel this way. So then what?

Buddhism is not the answer. Buddhism is not the problem, either.

You turned to Buddhism looking for a quick fix to your life, and now that you haven't found that quick fix after 6 years you are lashing out. I get the impression there is a lot of pent up anger in you. Anger at the world, anger at your job, anger at the so-called "better off" people who earn millions for doing nothing, and now anger at Buddhism for not fixing it for you.

Buddhism is not a quick fix. It is not the answer.

Buddhism is merely a toolkit which enables you to fix yourself.

Meditation is not Buddhism. Going on retreats is not Buddhism. Reading the Pali Canon is no Buddhism. You can meditate all day every day for the rest of your life and not find happiness. You can read every Buddhist work ever written and not find happiness.

Turning to any religion or philosophy and expecting it to put right everything that is wrong is not how to make things better. All you are doing is finding a new target to point the finger of blame at when it doesn't "do it for you".

Meditation doesn't create happiness. It merely calms and clears the mind washing away the unimportant cares of the world and allow you to focus it on what really matters. The mind is "like a rampaging elephant". Only when it is calmed and tamed can you sit on its back and make it go where you want. Meditation calms and trains that elephant.

You can read and learn every bit of musical theory you can get your hands on, but it won't make you a concert pianist. Only practice will do that for you. It's like that with Buddhism. You can know all about it, but if you do not practice it (and by that I don't mean meditating every day), Buddhism will not do anything for you.

The majority of people's problems with the world - not finding their place in it, not being happy with their role in life, not liking what they are doing, etc - is not because the world is at fault. It is their view of the world that is wrong. "With our thoughts we shape the world" is one of the truest phrases ever uttered. You cannot change the world. You cannot even change other people. The only thing you can change is yourself, and that starts with changing how you view the world.

No, it's not an easy task. But that's what meditation is for - to help you keep focused on that task.

As an example:

"You have been in a succession of low-paid menial jobs and don't earn enough to make ends meet."

There are two things wrong with that statement, and both highlight the problems of your world view - of your perception of life. You are not in a "menial" job. You have the good fortune to be in a job that is free of stress and responsibility. Do you really want to be paid lots of money for doing next to nothing? No one is paid lots of money for doing next to nothing. They are paid lots of money to take the fall when things go wrong. They are paid lots of money to make the business decisions that affect the lives of thousands of employees. I for one wouldn't want the stress and responsibility that rests on their shoulders, not for all the tea in China.

You don't have a menial job. You have an easy, care free, job.

If you aren't happy with where you are it is through a desire to be something you are not. A desire to be someone else. You are who you are, not who the media says you ought to be. In the words of Crosby, Stills and Nash: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Most misery in life comes from wanting what you can't have - and if/when you get it you then want something more. That wanting, that craving, is, as Buddha taught us, the cause of all suffering in the world. When you let go of that craving for something else and accept who and what you are, that is when peace and happiness begins.

And you can't make ends meet? So move the ends. Some people get a longer piece of string, and you know what happens to long pieces of string: they always end up in a tangled mess. Some steal someone else's string and tie it to their own.

Or you can try tying it around something smaller. Do you really need a new fancy mobile phone? Do you need that pair of earrings?

A Buddhist Monk has nothing except a razor and a spare robe. My favourite teacher, Ajahn Brahm, tells a story (one of many, he does love his stories. You should look him up on Youtube, his way of teaching will open your eyes). I forget if it was actually about himself or another monk, but it basically goes like this (I am no story teller, so forgive me):

A monk, it may have been Ajahn Brahm, or his teacher, Ajahn Chah, or someone else, I forget, had been giving a talk to the lay people. It was a good inspiring talk, and afterwards one of the lay people came up to the monk full of gratitude and wanting to do something in return. Monks aren't allowed to have money, so he said to the monk "I have $100 here for you. I know you can't have it, but if you tell me what you'd like I'll go and buy it for you."

So the monk starts thinking: what would I like? The first thing that comes to mind is "a piece of paper to write a list on". Then he thinks "And a pen to write the list with". It starts to get dark, so he thinks "a torch so I can see at night would be good too". Before long his list has grown and grown and grown, including such things as a cushion to sit on while meditating, a new bowl for the alms round, etc.

The next day the lay person comes back to see what the monk would like him to buy. The monk says to him:

"Don't you ever do anything like that to me again! I was in torment all night, tossing and turning, making a list of things to get. It was hell!"

... Or something to that effect anyway. The point is, when you start becoming attached to the world like that it only breeds more attachment. And that attachment breeds suffering. It leads to a desire to have more, a desire to change who/where you are through the accumulation of "things".

It is only when you start being a Buddhist, instead of learning about Buddhism, that your life will change - and that change will be instantaneous and surprising.

I myself rarely sit and meditate. However I am almost constantly meditating. Meditation isn't just about sitting in the lotus position going "Om". It's about being still within yourself. I am meditating right now whilst writing this. My mind is calm, my thoughts are clear. I'm financially broke. Both Trump and Kim Jong-Un have silly hair. Life is great.

I am sorry to say this @Arturia, but you have so far taken the wrong approach to Dhamma. But it is not late, and you can correct yourself going forward. The problem is not in the teachings, but in you being misled to go the wrong way. It is not your fault though. In the present-day world wrong views have gained widespread currency. These wrong views promote wrong intentions, wrong modes of conduct, and leads us astray.

The good thing is that you seem to have a sense of humility and honesty that will be of immense help to be able to understand the true nature of things. The more that one gets to see this reality the more one’s mind automatically gives up attachments to this world voluntarily.

One who is striving to walk this PATH, should first learn the key fundamentals from one who has gone through at least the first stages of the Path. Finding this person is not easy. Once you do find this person, the first thing that he will tell you is that there is much to be done before you even start on meditation. Before meditating it is important that you learn the true nature of this world (anicca, dikkha, anatta). Not just intellectually but truly. Then you will gradually remove a bulk of defilements. Then you will start to comprehend that it is not possible to achieve and maintain anything to one’s satisfaction. Here it is important to note that you do not have to remove any attachments by force. When one comprehends Dhamma to the level to see not only the unfruitfulness but the dangers of our ‘normal way’ of going about things, you start becoming more and more detached from things. Then your attachment to sense pleasures lessen.

This in turn lessens the tendency to do unfruitful and harmful things because of a “covered mind”. For this you need to increase the knowledge of Dhamma.  You are going to come across many a PALI TERMS. All these different terms could be confusing to those who are new to these terms. But one will get used to these terms with time, and it is important to understand what they mean (not just to memorize) in the long term. With usage, they will become familiar.

By comprehending anicca, dukkha, anatta to a certain extent, removes ‘ditthi’ or wrong views. It may seem simple, but it requires lot of effort to discipline the mind to get to that stage, mostly via learning and contemplating Dhamma.  One has by now reduced the strength of attachment to “worldly things” to the extent that one will not do certain immoral actions no matter how much wealth or sense pleasure is at stake.  Only at this stage of practice will you be ready to start practicing meditation.

Many people start meditating without any idea of the goal. Having a road map is necessary to get to an unknown destination. Starting to meditate without having an idea of what to meditate on is like just getting in the car and start driving without having a map showing where the destination is. Finding the map is the hardest and most important part.

We need to examine what is meant by “bhavana” (meditation). The Buddha said that even listening to a discourse is bhavana. When listening attentively, one’s mind gets focused on it, comes to samadhi, and can get to the PATH. This is contemplation on the key Dhamma concepts, in particular anicca, dukkha, anatta.  Also it is to try to get an understanding of the Buddha’s world view. This meditation (bhavana) involves mainly the contemplation and examination of dhamma concepts. Formal meditation techniques are needed mainly after this stage.


Most frequent realms for post-human rebirth I read the following extract from the book "The Workings
of Kamma", produced by the Theravada monastery "Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw"

  Rebirth in the human world is always because of wholesome kamma. None-
  theless, among the great majority, the uneducated ordinary people, conscious-
  ness is rooted predominantly in greed, hatred, and delusion. Only occasionally do
  wholesome consciousnesses arise. And among the uneducated ordinary people,
  delusion is very deep. That is why, when human beings pass away, they are al-
  most always reborn either in hell, the ghost world, or the animal world.

I have several problem accepting these views. Of course, what i am about to say is very subjective and i certainly do not claim to be an enlightened being and know everything.

The first is that i believe that there is a powerful continuity between rebirths. So my personnal and subjective understanding is that when we look at a person, we can easily guess what type of person he was in a previous birth. Most importantly, the level of virtue, intelligence, strong tendencies, evolve very little from life to life for most people as they don't engage in serious self-study or self -improvement and indulge in their pre-existing tendencies. So the current level of consciousness exhibited by ordinary people should reflect their previous level of consciousness in their previous existences. Which means that human birth doesn't require more positive kamma than what most people exhibit. Some of them might have produced better karmas in the past. Some of them might have produced worst karma in the past. But overall, we should grossly be able to determine the level of virtue necessary for human rebirth by observing humans.
Otherwise, this makes no sense, at least to me.

Also, animals are described as experiencing mostly greed, hatred, delusion. I think this is seriously off.
Animals are instinct driven and regularly obey their instincts, but many of them are often peaceful and detached. Would you say a wild horse experiment greed, hatred, fear on a constant basis? Yes they sometimes do and act like animals are supposed to. But this is a minor part of their lives. Many animals are peaceful and worry-free, even though their lives are harsh and short. Turtles are another exemple of a peaceful animal which can live longer than humans.

Would experienced buddhists agree with the passage quoted, and if yes, what arguments would they provide to change my analysis?

Then the Exalted One,
taking up a little dust
on the tip of his finger-nail,
said to the monks:

"Now what think ye, monks?

Which is the greater,
this little dust I have taken up
on the tip of my finger-nail,
or this mighty earth?"

"Greater, lord, is this mighty earth.

Exceeding small
is this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's fingernail:
it cannot be reckoned,
it cannot be compared therewith.

It does not come to the merest fraction
of a part of it
when set beside the mighty earth, -
this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's finger-nail."

"Just so, monks,
few are those beings that are reborn among men:
more numerous are these beings
that are reborn other than men.

What is the cause of that?

It is through not seeing four Ariyan truths.

What four?

The Ariyan truth of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the arising of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the ceasing of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.

Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:

'This is Ill'.

'This is the arising of Ill.'

'This is the ceasing of Ill.'

This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.'"

—http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.56.061-070.wood.pts.htm

and the suttas that follow.

The condition for birth is bhava and the condition for bhava is craving for sensual pleasure, for existence and for non-existence. Puthujjanas and animals have all 3. Plus it would be weird that animals do not have sensual pleasure but humans do. And since nobody has ''only craving for sensual pleasure'', the other 3 cravings must  be there as well for animals.
The only people who do not have craving for sensual pleasure are some enlightened devas and the human anagamins and Arhats.
Unenlightened devas have the 3 cravings.

For the humans and their traits (physical or not ) from past karma, the most famous sutta is https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html


Where does utilitarianism sit with Buddhism and vice versa? My understanding of utilitarianism is that value is the result of an action e.g. which actions provide the most happiness.

There appears to be an overlap between Buddhism and utilitarianism however am unsure how these come together or grow apart in the actions we perform as well as the value of the results.

EDIT

The answer posted to the question is a good candidate for the commonalities as well as differences.

(Theravada) Buddhism is absolutely utilitarian... that's a pun, see, it's both absolute and utilitarian. I guess the more accurate contrast is moral absolutism and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a type).

In Buddhism (again, Theravada, at least), it is certainly the consequences of the action that are important, though only for the actor - the consequences to others (or society, etc.) are, at least technically, discounted:

  Ill done is that action of doing
  which one repents later,
  and the fruit of which
  one, weeping, reaps with tears.

  Well done is that action of doing
  which one repents not later,
  and the fruit of which
  one reaps with delight and happiness.

  -- Dhp. 67-8 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

and

  Let one not neglect one's own welfare
  for the sake of another, however great.
  Clearly understanding one's own welfare,
  let one be intent upon the good.

  -- Dhp. 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Of course, it is also understood that actions that one performs knowing they will harm others are generally not in one's own best interest, as they tend to sully the mind. By helping others, one helps oneself, and vice versa.

At the same time, Buddhism is also clearly absolutist on the level of ultimate reality; whereas it acknowledges that physical and verbal acts are morally variable, the mind states that initiate them are not. Since the acts themselves are merely conventional terms describing a sequence of mental states and their physical consequences, it is the nature of the individual mental states themselves that determine the ethical value of the acts.

  katame dhammā akusalā? yasmiṃ samaye akusalaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ hoti ... tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā — ime dhammā akusalā.

  What dhammas are unwholesome? At whatever time an unwholesome mind has arisen ... at that time, whatever other dependently arisen immaterial dhammas there are - these dhammas are unwholesome.

In brief, acts are only bad because of their consequences, but the consequences are dependent on the nature of the acts (on an ultimate level), so morality is both absolute and utilitarian.

When a person has not yet attained Nirvana, actions of such a person come from a completely utilitarian point of view.

When a person strives on the path towards Nirvana, actions of such a person come from a less and less utilitarian point of view.

When a person attains Nirvana, actions of such a person come from an even less utilitarian point of view.

When a person attains Nirvana, that person acquires immense compassion for other beings. Thus, actions of such a person come from his will to help other beings ease their suffering and attain Nirvana.

Do actions of such a person arise because he gets something in return from these actions? Yes. In order to help others attain Nirvana, he must survive. Thus, he must get food, water and shelter. In order to help others attain Nirvana, he must develop the wisdom for teaching. Thus, he must learn how to teach and gain experience. There are many things such a person must do to help others. Thus, on this level, in this "reality", there is utilitarianism in Buddhism, but this utilitarianism is only visible to a mind which has not yet attained Nirvana.

To a liberated mind which has attained Nirvana, there is no utilitarianism in his actions, nor in the actions of other minds which attained Nirvana. Why there is no utilitarianism in his actions?
To answer this question, we must answer this question: Why does the will to help other beings in attainment of Nirvana arise in a person who attains Nirvana?
To answer the previous question, we must answer this question: Why does the will arise?
To answer the previous question, we must answer this question: What is the cause of that will arising?

To give an understandable answer to the last question (and to others in the chain of questions) is impossible. The answer must be experienced: "will comes from ignorance". Does this mean that a person who attains Nirvana and helps other beings in attaining Nirvana is ignorant because there is "will" present in his mind? No, he is not ignorant. Such a person clearly sees what he is doing. He sees his ignorance. He understands it. He knows it fully. By seeing, understanding and knowing, he sees, understands and knows his "will". He sees, understands and knows, that there is no utilitarianism in his "will". To see this and understand it fully, it must be experienced. There is no other way.


What should you do when someone teaches false Dharma? I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings.

I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.)

On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone.
On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching.

So, the question is: What should I do?

Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity.

Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma.
******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

You can share with them DN 16's Four Great Referrals:

“Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind.

That religious group will have no ground to criticize you for the above comes straight out of the Buddha's Discourses. Also freely share good Dhamma resources like accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, tipitaka.wikia.com, etc. so that group members can go and find out the truth for themselves.

Since it is a very important topic and need a lot of explaining, Atma has started to prepare a hopefully understandable answer here: How to address wrong view? It will take one day or two and of course a Book could be written and would be not at all of no use. So not finished yet but give it meanwhile the possibility to put further thoughts and questions while being in development into it.. How could it? But here the gist: talk toward a smart

A revised and extended version as well attempt to translate in into German, after blessed approve of firm insider, can be found here: How to address wrong view (preliminary).

Index

The effect of wrong view?
What is wrong view?
What is right view?
Should one react to wrong view?
By which means should one approach wrong views of others?
Conclusion


Meditation and Internal Tremors Happy New Year to you!

I suffer from internal vibrations and PPPD and I've been trying to use meditation to calm my nervous system. Could any of you please suggest what I could do to further this and work on the amygdala too please? I also suffer from chronic fatigue.

Thanking you
Louise

This is not medical advice and you seek a doctor for your condition. The way I understand that Samatha meditation will not help with this condition. Samatha meditation generally suppresses your feelings and awareness. However, Vipassana meditation will help you as it promotes body awareness. Generally in Vipassana meditation, you learn to accept the way you and your body as it is with awareness. Also, make sure that you have good eating habits and a good daily exercise routine.

WEll if you feel dizzy all the time, stay in bed to cultivate samadhi with anapanasati. The best time to calm the kaya-sankharas and Citta-sankharas is precisely at wakeup before there is lots of mental proliferation and loss of physical energy (people who ''meditate'' after 9h of work are just too exhausted to be good at mediation).. And in your case, lying down would be the posture where you feel the least dizzy. IT's all win.


Are eating raw oysters a violation of the first Precept? The first Precept is to abstain from Killing a "living being".

Is there a consistent definition of Living Being that we should not kill to avoid violating the first Precept?

I have heard of a definition such as a Living Being means they have the Five Aggregates, so that Plants / Germs do not count as they do not have all Five and cannot be reincarnated into.... etc. But I don't know if this definition is widely accepted in either Theravada or Mahayana.

If this definition is accepted, how do we know what beings do not have all Five Aggregates? If not, is there any other definitions that we can use?

Would also want to know if Clams, Oysters, Corals...etc... are considered as having all of the Five Aggregates too.

Five Aggregates:
1. form (or matter or body) (rupa),
2. sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana),
3. perceptions (samjna),
4. mental activity or formations (sankhara), and
5. consciousness (vijnana)

The  word 'panatipata'  is  derived  from  two  words: 'pana'  which means  'living  being'  and 'atipata'  which  means  'striking  down', hence  killing  or  destroying.  According  to  the Atthasalini or Expositor, for killing to take place five conditions must be met.

    The being must be alive.
    There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
    There must be intention to cause its death.
    Action must be taken to cause its death.
    Death must result from such action.

      If  all  these  conditions  are  fulfilled,  then  the  precept  has  been broken.

~ Cited from: Five Precepts (Pncasila)

If all the above conditions are not met, the action doesn't become a kammapata (action which gives birth in another existence) but become only a kamma (action which gives its result during the lifetime of a living being in an existence).

Suppose you eat something. But you don't know it's a living being. First precept is not broken for such action.

Suppose you see something on your desk and think of it as a bug. You hit that with your hand with the intention of killing that bug. But later you get to know it's not a bug but something which was not alive. First precept is not broken for such action. But you accumulate bad kamma for such action.

Suppose you see a flying mosquito and you hit that mosquito with a mosquito racket with the intention of killing it. But mosquito is not killed (let's assume the battery in the racket was drained). First precept is not broken for such action. But you accumulate bad kamma for such action.

Suppose you gave medicine to a ill dog with the intention of saving that dog. But then that dog die of that medicine. For such action you don't accumulate bad kamma. Actually you accumulate good kamma for such action.

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


Visualization and visualized meditation I've come here many times for meditation on the breath. I've come to understand this meditation better, but I encounter problems unrelated to meditation.

I've noticed that my memory is rather bad, and that my thought process relies mostly on verbal means. However, I remember being extremely visual at an early age, scoring quite well on visual aptitude tests, and these days I can sometimes visualize complex things. Yet, I fail to use visualization in every day life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication. I am thus very focused on exterior reality, either sensing reality or thinking abstractly.

I'm wondering if visualization meditation would help me with memory and conceptualizing. I must also mention that I have a mood disorder, and though I doubt visualizing could affect this, I am still worried of the possibility. Thus, my questions are:

Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?
Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?
Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?
Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?
Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

I am thankful for any replies.

I'm familiar with visualization meditation, in the context of Tibetan Buddhist meditation.

Those specific meditations were good for my mood as well as a training in concentration. For me it was a very useful start into meditation, though I have stopped doing it for now.

I think it's a mistake to avoid something you're good at, just because you heard that the Buddha is against mental fabrication. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively (though not exhaustively) and I have not heard that one before.

It is a Buddhist truth that thoughts can be misleading, but that should not stop you from thinking. It is merely a useful hint that not all your thoughts are true.

One difference between fantasy and visualization is that in visualization you take control of your mental processes and visualize what YOU want to visualize (or what the instruction is).
Fantasies are basically day-dreams: you let your mind go where it will. Observing those thoughts can also be meditation - but then it becomes mindfulness.

What makes it meditation is that it is deliberate.

So if you are doing visualization meditation - you focus on (in two steps)

making the image clear
concentrating on that image.

If you're doing mindfulness meditation, you will simply note you are fantasizing when you are in fact fantasizing. The noting itself will take you out of the fantasy for a bit, by the way.

There is also Buddhist analytical meditation: it means analyzing a Buddhist truth from all sides. It does go back all the way to the Buddha. And if that is a good thing, then surely ordinary analysis ought to be OK too. It falls under the heading of seeking wisdom.

More about Buddhist meditation: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/thought.htm

I can't answer but (in case you don't already know this, and in case it helps you to research further if you want to) there are some forms of Buddhist visualization meditation, from different schools, including kasiṇa and  mandalas.

Another example of a harmless (perhaps even recommended) form of "visualization" might be the wheel of life. Apparently the pictorial representation of it isn't used in Theravada (I don't know why). I think it's an example of a picture being worth a thousand words (i.e. learning the picture and its symbolism is a way to memorize those doctrines).

I think the suttas mention other forms of meditation too, which involve visualization or imagination. Devices in Meditation says,

  In kammattana, it is permissible to use certain devices, such as the earth or color kasina, as focal points for the attention. A candle flame, a hole in the wall, or some metal object can also be used, and the method of using them is found in the Pali texts and the Visuddhi-magga. In the texts themselves it is to be noted that the Buddha gave objects of meditation to disciples in accordance with their individual characteristics, and his unerring knowledge of the right technique for each came from his insight into their previous births. Similarly with recursive meditation, a subject would be given which was easily comprehensible to the pupil, or which served to counteract some strong, unwholesome tendency in his nature. Thus, to one attracted by sensual indulgence, the Buddha would recommend meditation on the impurity of the body, or the "cemetery meditation." Here the object is to counterbalance attraction by repulsion, but it is only a "skillful means" to reach the final state, in which attraction and repulsion both cease to exist. In the arahant there is neither liking nor disliking: he regards all things with perfect equanimity, as did Thera Maha Moggallana when he accepted a handful of rice from a leper.

The Visuddhimagga has about 300 pages on various "objects of meditation": including kasinas. They're categorized as Samadhi (Concentration) meditations. Another example is Metta-Bhavana, which can involve your visualizing various types of person (e.g. people who are dear to you).


Is it possible to exercise Metta to all or is Metta only a mental state only? If so how does one act to remain dispassionate? Love, I mean the common one which cares only to the beloved and is indifferent to others, is accessible to many, but as I understand it this is the near enemy of Metta, not truly Metta. My question is the true Metta, which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception.

How does one wish goodwill to all in this world where nature itself works by compromise, where one's goodwill is another's misfortune? To give crude examples a lion eating am unborn calf or you frying unborn chick to feed you loving child.

I know the idea of Metta is not limited to Buddhism Laozi also has it in his gradation of the world we live in, he set the lover below the saint who champion a kind of universal love, which is Metta, but Laozi higher goal is even to abandon Metta and let go of everything to run as is...in a sense a lion eating a calf is part of the process of Tao so not evil.

How's Metta seen in the ultimate sense in Buddhism, and how does one practice goodwill for the entire cosmos and
cultivate a limitless heart in everyday life?

"Practise yourself, for heavens sake in little things, thence proceed to greater". Epictetus (Roman Stoic Philosopher)

You have to use wisdom in order to make metta stronger and you have to practise metta formaly and informaly.

With wisdom I mean perceptions you have to reflect upon many many many times:

• No one can escape aging, sickness, death as well as mental and physical suffering

• Everyone is heir of his/her thoughts, actions and emotions. If one acts badly it's because of the causes and conditions that are meeting then and there

Unlimited mettā-mind.

Unlimited target people.

But limited by situation.

The practitioner meditating unlimited mettā-mind by using unlimited target people as object.

The practitioner doesn't meditating the sitution such as target people's resultant, target people's kamma, etc.


Is it possible to describe nibbana? This Dhamma Wiki article, Nibbana, says that "Nibbana (Pali), nirvana (Sanskrit), is the highest spiritual state and the ultimate goal of Buddhism."

Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana?

How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?

It is possible to describe the nibbana, but non ariya practitioner can't understand the description.

In abhidhamma taught that the non ariya practitioner can't know the real nibbana, until he will be ariya. Because he has not enough ability.

How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death??>

You experience Nibbana while you are alive. What you experience after death will be the same. Obviously, there is no rebirth and there is no physical body or consciousness to experience it.


Jobs indirectly related to the meat business According to the Vanijja Sutta on Right Livelihood:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business
  in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

The first precept forbids taking of a life.

The ability to freeze, store, transport and sell meat later was not possible in the time of the Buddha.

Questions:

Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to be a frozen meat retailer, supplier or importer selling frozen meat sourced from elsewhere (but is not involved with the actual farming and slaughter of animals)?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a cashier or general worker in a supermarket or hypermarket (e.g. Tesco, Target or Aldi) that sells many things including frozen meat?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as an employee in a logistics company (like FedEx) that stores and transports all types of products including frozen meat?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a chef or waiter in a restaurant that serves meat dishes, using only frozen meat (no live animals)?

The reason the Buddha suggested we abstain from certain things is not because of the morality of the actions themselves, but because of the effect these actions have on our minds.

The fact that you are even asking this question illustrates there is some sort of mental suffering/inner conflict that has arrisen. This is the suffering we are attempting to avoid by abstaining from specific actions. This is what the Buddha warned us of.

You are always free to do whatever you wish! I would just suggest you not do something that brings you suffering.

Not OK because you are profiting from the bulk slaughter of animals (rather than using meat for occasionally personal nutriment).
OK because you are merely an employee rather than business owner.
OK because you are merely an employee rather than business owner.
OK because you are merely an employee rather than business owner.


Can somebody remove their bad karma by believing that it doesn't exist? If somebody does sin or bad karma, harms other living beings, but that person doesn't believe in karma and believes that karma is just an illusion. then how does his bad actions will harm him? For example, if I kill a mouse but I totally believe that nothing will happen, karma or religion is just people's belief, then will I ever be punished for that karma and such believe? Because there is also one saying that everything is just our belief?

And also if I later ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas then will my bad karmas be forgiven?

You are expressing the stock definition of 'wrong view':

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong
view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what
is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There
is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no
spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after
having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong
view... MN117

More graphically, it is described as:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit. MN60

You may choose not to believe in cosmic Karma, as in Hinduism, but kamma in Buddhism is only accrued due to intentional actions. Denying intention is denying agency, in one way or another. AN 3.61 deals with that issue, and with respect to God and kamma's place if God is to be believed in.
The Buddha did say:

Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
people. AN 2.21

So confession is understood as wise, and acceptance of such is also, but this confession is to a human being.

After you killed mosquito, these cases will happen without believing:

Most of mosquito's family hate you.
Most of anti-killing-people hate  you, too.
Your memory will memorized that killing consciousness, then everytime you listen about the bad result of that killing conscioueness, you will feel bad.
Etc.

No need believing.


Among 9 jhanas which is deep sleep? Please provide suttas
I plan to do a meditation until I can achieve the same experience as my deep sleep but I don't know whether it's the first jhana or even cessation of feeling and perception or even nibbana hence my question
After that kind of meditation I won't sleep forever because I think that meditation is enough that meditation itself is deep sleep
I am inspired by dipa ma who did meditation for 2 days non stop and buddha Siddhartha(7 weeks non stop)
I think my meditation should be more sublime than my deep sleep if it's not then it's a shame it just doesn't make sense that my deep sleep gives me more peace than my meditation
Because bhikku thanissaro states that even during 4 rupa jhanas you can still hear sound while during my deep sleep I can't hear any sound I assume the deep sleep experience can be attained after the 4th jhana but I am not sure which
I think it's not cessation of feeling stage either because during cessation your upper brain won't function (flat zero brainwave) while deep sleep still gives you delta brainwave but I am not sure
Thanks
May you all be happy my friends,
Sorry for my bad english I am still learning friends

I've got a simple answer for you: Sleep is not a jhāna. The Buddha never says, not in Pāli not in Chinese not in Sanskrit, that sleep is a jhāna. Sleep is also not nibbāna. Sleep is also not nirodha. You just forget your dreams when you wake up and it seems like you were up to "nothing," but your mind was quite active despite you not remembering it.

Alright I will answer this since we have ruled out the jhana that only leaves the realm of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither perception nor non perception and cessation of feeling and perception
But we need to rule out the realm of nothingness and lower because there still exists desire there while in deep sleep none of even desire exists
“

And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’
Sāriputta entered & remained in the dimension of nothingness. Whatever
qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness—the perception of
the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling,
perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision,
persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention—he ferreted them out
one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they became
established, known to him they subsided. He discerned, ‘So this is how
these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they
vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those
qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an
awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘There is a further
escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There is.’
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN111.html

We also need to rule out cessation of perception and feeling since a person of no integrity can't enter that while they can still enter deep sleep

And further, a person of no integrity… enters & remains in the
second jhāna… the third jhāna… the fourth jhāna… the dimension of the
infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness…
the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception
nor non-perception. He notices, ‘I have gained the attainment of the
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, but these other
monks have not gained the attainment of the dimension of neither
perception nor non-perception.’ He exalts himself for the attainment
of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and
disparages others. This is the quality of a person of no integrity.
“A person of integrity notices, ‘The Blessed One has spoken of
non-fashioning even with regard to the attainment of the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception, for by whatever means they
suppose it, it becomes otherwise from that.’ So, giving priority to
non-fashioning, he neither exalts himself for the attainment of the
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception nor disparages
others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.
“A person of integrity, completely transcending the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the
cessation of perception & feeling. When he sees with discernment,
his effluents are ended. This is a monk who does not suppose anything,
does not suppose anywhere, does not suppose in any way.”

That leaves on the realm of neither perception nor non perception as deep sleep which means every single day we enter the realm of neither perception nor non perception without we even realize every single day we do deep samatha meditation without we even realize
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN113.html


Does speed of body movements affect the calmness of mind? Does speed of body movements affects the mind? Do we have to slow down our actions to have a better sati? It feels it does affects. But are there any sutta about this? How that works?

The ordinary speed of ordinary body movements does not adversely affect the mind. In my experience, the ultra-slow methods of walking meditation do not enhance mindfulness and, in my opinion, hinder mindfulness, because it takes far more unnatural activity of mind to maintain a very slow unnatural walking pace.
The original Buddhist scriptures are silent on the speed of walking meditation, which means walking meditation was most probably done at a natural pace; which is why it is described as "walking back & forth (caṅkama)".
I know from intensive personal practice that natural ordinary body movements are the optimal for mindfulness.
In fact, the what most do not understand is how to practice mindfulness. In higher practise, mindfulness is maintaining the mind is a state of letting go. Therefore, in the state of letting go, body movements are natural rather than contrived and controlling.

It's not that fast body movements reduce the calmness of the mind.
Rather, it's the mind that has to be agitated to generate deliberate body movements which are fast.
From Dhammapada 1:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
follows him like his never-departing shadow.


How does Buddhism deal with psychopaths & serial killer What do the suttas say about such people? Surely they're acting on their ignorance (dependent origination), but can't they make use of restraint/self control?

Is there no penalization in such cases according to the Dhamma? If murderers show no regret, then they aren't even born in hell right now.

By letting law enforcement do their thing?

Regret is not needed for the consequences of your actions to happen.

I think the suttas have two or three messages, addressed to each of us as individuals:

Don't be harmful (e.g. keep the precepts)
Don't suffer from harm (e.g parable of the saw)
Don't perpetuate harm (e.g. first verses of Dhammapada)

Sometimes a counter-argument to doing something is, "but what if everybody did that?" For example maybe it's not very harmful if one person cuts down a tree, but what if everybody does?
But these rules, I think they generalise -- i.e. if everyone was like that it would still be no problem, no harm.
I think that the Buddhism of the suttas though isn't primarily laws about how to govern lay society.
There's one more thing, I read that the Buddha never approved killing -- ever -- except killing anger (and therefore wouldn't approve of executing serial killers).
Getting the Message

When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

"Even if bandits were to carve you up etc.

I think that Buddhist countries (like Tibet) tended to impose non-lethal punishments on criminals.


Which Living Ajahns are considered to be Arahants today? After the era of the well known Thai Bhikkhus like Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Tate, Ajahn Maha Boowa, Ajahn Waen and Ajahn Chah; Which Ajahns are considered as Arahants or Highly developed Meditators,in these days? (I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks).

I'm asking this not to arouse curiosity of others, but to find good monks' Dhamma talks

An accomplished practitioner may not be a good teacher and a good teacher may not be an accomplished practitioner. In some cases teachers maybe both.

So ideally you should look for teachers who teach well, both theory and mediation.

Also the Buddhist should follow: pariyatti (theory), patipatti (practice), pativedha (experience). Whereas learning / listening to the Dhamma is just the 1st of these 3 parts. So a person should teach the theory he should teach the practice also well. Theory without practice is like an unused boat. You should row (patice) the boat (theory or tool) to get to see the other show (experience).

Also accomplished masters may not say so and also some who are not accomplished may claim to be so. Hence it is best not to look at this aspect in deciding who to listen to. Also see if the teaching sounds right, is logical and put it into practice and see if it is beneficial.

As always go to the source. The Tipitaka a the primary source and commentaries and sub commentaries as secondary and tertiary sources.

In reading the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search – MN 26  one come across the group of five monks (Kondanna, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji) who attended to Buddha when He was resolute in exertion, before Buddhahood. They were far more intelligent than any of us in the present day. Even they could not identify the Buddha as an Arahant. So what would make one think that a present day monk can identify an Arahant? Only after a monk leaves this existence can one identify that he is someone special (an Arahant ) in observing the dead body. Such an incident took place in Sri Lanka, a couple of months ago.


Death according to various schools of buddism How is death perceived in various schools of Buddhism? Are they all same ? What is death according to Buddhist monk and lay Buddhist? Are there references / materials by monks on death bed about death?

In the ancient Pali scriptures, the word 'death' has two meanings: (i) conventional; & (ii) ultimate. In the language of ultimate truth, 'death' refers to the psychological idea that "I" or a "person" or a "being" ("satta") dies (SN 12.2).

The Buddha taught a 'self', 'person' or 'being' ('satta') is only a mental state of craving & attachment (SN 23.2); that in reality, there is no 'being' ('satta') to be found (SN 5.10).

'Death' only happens when there is unenlightened 'self-view'. This is why the Buddha called enlightened selfless nirvana: 'The Deathless'.

  He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow.
  And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a
  sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?
  'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
  construing. 'I shall not be'is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing
  is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing,
  he is said to be a sage at peace.

  A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die,
  is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he
  would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die?
  Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he
  long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been
  stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the
  currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

  Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

In enlightenment, all that occurs at what is conventionally regarded as 'death' is the five aggregates come to an end, that is all.

  Form is impermanent... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications...
  Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent is
  unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to
  its end.

  Very good, my friend Yamaka, very good.

  Yamaka Sutta

All life is suffering. The transition to death is an escape from the sufferings we bear when we are in life. This is the teachings which the Buddha made about life and we should not have any attachments to this. There are many precepts which teach about these things and death comes when we have had enough experience.


I feel uncomfortable about jury duty I have been asked to do jury duty. As I follow a Buddhist philosophy of Ahimsa, no-harm, I feel conflicted. If I vote guilty, and the defendant is not, I would feel guilty myself. If he/she is guilty, and I vote to acquit, likewise I would feel guilty. So I will be asked to be excused on religious grounds. Is this a valid reason for me to be excused?

Thank you,
Thomas Ramsay.

Just follow the laws that are there. If you are unsure about guilt or innocence say so. Even monks and nuns stand in judgement over one another when they commit an offense and there is a consequence for it. If you find the person broke law but are uncomfortable with the consequences i.e., sentence, ask to be excused. But even senior monks have a responsibility to judge monks who broke the rules and generally speaking citizens have the same responsibility.

yes it is not easy to deal with all the moronic rules invented by puthujjanas. Generally those puthujjanas hate that people do not follow their rules, they will claim that the only way that your refusal will comply with their ways is to follow the various punishments applied when they think there is an infringement to their rules.

You can try to see what punishment they have prepared when you do not follow what they call ''jury duty'' and if you think you can handle it, by being mindful as usual like when you are bullied and hurt https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html , just take their ways. this way you refusal will comply to their rules and those puthujjanas will say that the suffering they inflicted upon you paid for the offense you caused them by not doing what they want you to do. [puthujjanas love to make people suffer when they think people do not follow their rules]

if you still are on the jury try to follow their rules as much as you can while never lying. Be honest that you do not know if the person is guilty of infringement or not.

You can ask them ''why does it matter if this person is guilty of infringement or not'? what is the point of judging this person? what is achieved by punishing this person if this person you found this person guilty of infringing you rules?'' but puthujjanas hate to question their ways, especially the judges, policemen and lawmakers, since they already think they are righteous, so be careful with that.

here is the story of a ''tibetan buddhist'' about his jury duty https://tricycle.org/magazine/called-jury-duty/

There is a good comment here too https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/4yluel/jury_duty/

  Be honest with them during the selection process about your
  reservations and how your beliefs might influence your decision in a
  case. Your admitted hesitance in even convicting someone you believe
  is guilty is, at the very least, something they deserve to know. The
  fact that your religious convictions come before "justice" could very
  well disqualify you anyway.


The Noble Eightfold Path for monks and for lay disciples? Namo Buddhaya
Being well aware of the different posts about this topics, I wished to know how it came to be that the Noble eightfold path presented by Bhikkhu Bodhi would specify that Right action is to refrain only from sexual misconduct :

(3) Abstaining from sexual misconduct (kamesu miccha-cara veramani)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html
While in the Magga-vibhanga Sutta it is refraining from unchastity, as stated here :

"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life,
abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is
called right action.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
I have also stumbled upon this sutta where the translations between Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi and Venerable Ajahn Sujato differ from "refraining from sexual misconduct" to "refraining from sexual activity", while the pali version does state "abrahmacarya" which does suggest chastity as right action within the noble eightfold path, which seems like an undeniably substantial difference.
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8
Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in translation?
May you all be well.

OP: Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold
path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in
translation?

Yes, it is true that there is indeed a separation of the path for lay followers and for monks. The former is the version with defilements, and the latter is the noble version without defilements i.e. the full-fledged Noble Eightfold Path for monks (and nuns) only.
The path of the lay follower who practises Right Action, Right Speech, Right Thought and Right Livelihood as applicable to lay persons, is a valid path in Buddhism, even if it is not THE noble path that leads to the complete end of suffering. I speculate that the lay follower path may not go beyond stream entry, due to lack of renunciation.
From MN 117 (translated by Ven. Sujato) regarding Right Action:

And what is wrong action? Killing living creatures, stealing, and
sexual misconduct. This is wrong action.
And what is right action? Right action is twofold, I say. There is
right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of
good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right action that
is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? Refraining from
killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct
(kāmesu micchācārā). This is
right action that is accompanied by defilements.
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and
refraining from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble
mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the
noble path. This is right action that is noble.

The word "abrahmacariya" is not used above.
This sutta contains similar dual versions for Right Speech and Right Livelihood. Interestingly, there's also Right Thought (with two versions).

After writing the above answer, I found that a wise lay follower can become an Arahant on his death bed in SN 55.54:

If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the
Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”

Ven. Thanissaro's commentary to SN 55.54 indicates that a wise or discerning lay follower in this sutta, actually refers to a lay follower who has at least achieved stream entry.

It's not possible to follow the path outside the Brahmacaria, good householder. Practice for beyond starts with the Uposatha-observance.
And yes, this Ariya-magga, isn't one of on-house (stand)-holder, holder of the world, seekers of refuge in the senses, and requires to leave home to develop.
In regard of how deep "sex" actually goes to fit really into Brahmacaria, one may investigate and reflect the Methuna Sutta: The Discourse on Coupling (May one be aware that Upasaka Piya Tan couldn't let go of first and so the exolainings related to him are corrupt while else if fine, first version was actually better, before his total going back...)
And one cut's oneself totally off if revil the Tathagate, downvotes the truth of Dhamma and has no regard toward recluses... so it's total not the path for ordinary householder, consumer, used to wish, demand and go after the low first.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from it]


A seeming contradicion in meditation In Buddhism I have often heard the idea that there is nothing wrong with what you are feeling, thinking and sensing, it is only our relation to those things that define/judge them to be bad.
Well this has me thinking. If there is such a thing as a "wrong relation" to our thoughts, that relation is itself a thought, which would mean that suddenly there is "something wrong" with our thoughts.
So to me this is an apparent contradiction. Either there is something wrong with your thoughts that can be fixed by sitting, or there is not.
If there is nothing wrong with your thoughts, feelings, senses, then why sit at all?
If there IS something wrong with your thoughts or your relation to your thoughts, that seems to go against the whole non-judgemental awareness idea.
In other words, in meditation we say that we are not trying to achieve anything and get anywhere outside the current moment. But getting to that state of mind DOES take effort and training. It IS trying to achieve something. It is moving towards something. It is applying effort in some direction.
I can't seem to reconsile these two thoughts.
It has been bugging me for a while now, I hope you all can help.
Cheers!

Excellent question. You're definitely onto something.
As everyone here said, wrong thoughts are real, these are thoughts that have a nature of conflict: thoughts of wanting more, thoughts of not wanting anymore, thoughts like "it's not supposed to be like this".
Our tactical goal is Peace, a state of mind when there's no inner conflict, no conflicting thoughts. (Our strategic goal, at least in Mahayana, is Enlightenment and full Liberation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves).
To attain that tactical goal, you need to eradicate the conflicting thoughts (of both craving and aversion types). Now, if you were to judge your thoughts as "wrong", you would only create more conflict right then and there. So the trick is to eradicate conflict without creating even more conflict. How is that to be done?
Instead of sitting there and hating yourself or hating your bad thoughts or blaming them or suppressing them - we just don't feed them and let them dissolve. We let our attention naturally move on to other thoughts. Or, if attention keeps getting stuck, we gently move it onto other topics, deliberately.
Depending on where you are in your practice this may require less or more effort. When you are very advanced, you just watch them and they dissolve like the writing on water. When you are a beginner, you may have to speak out loud on some positive topic in order to distract your attention. And everything in between.

It appears you got some misinformation. Buddha taught that there are wholesome and unwholesome pursuits performed by body, speech, and mind.
=============
Then King Yama says, 'My good man, through heedlessness you did not do what is good with body, speech, & mind. And of course, my good man, they will deal with you in accordance with your heedlessness. For that evil kamma [2] of yours was neither done by your mother, nor done by your father, nor done by your brother, nor done by your sister, nor done by your friends & companions, nor done by your kinsmen & relatives, nor done by the devas. That evil kamma was done by you yourself, and you yourself will experience its result.'
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html


Is ignorance eradicated after breakup of the physical body? Suppose an ignorant person dies in a car accident. Has ignorance come to an end for that person?

We don't know. The Buddha would in each case know if a person possible got rid of ignorance by death, would know the destiny of certain being.

This question appears to believe there is a lasting "person" or "self". It is not Buddhist but, instead, 'Eternalism', as follows:

And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. Iti 49

In Buddhism, this question is considered the question of the Evil One Mara (Satan), as follows:

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and
terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from
concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
SN 5.10

MN 2 says this question is inappropriate increasing suffering, as follows:

Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not
attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations
arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
stress.
MN 2

In Buddhism, "the person" ("puggalo") is merely a "name" (nāmo) that attaches itself conventionally to five aggregates. The Buddhist view is it is five aggregates that end in a fatal car accident rather than "a person".
"Death" ("marana") occurs not to those perished five aggregates but to the surviving loved ones (the "clan"; "gotto") of those perished five aggregates deceased in the accident because the survivors grieve over their loss to the idea of "a being" or "self" or "person" their minds have manufactured though ignorance.

At Savatthi…. There the Blessed One said this:
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the
taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to
that….
And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five
aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject
to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception
aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate
subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.
This is called the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
the person (puggalo), this venerable one of such a name (nāmo) and clan (gotto). This is called the carrier of the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving
that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust,
seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving the be, craving not to be. This is called the
taking up of the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the
remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the
giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on
it. This is called the laying down of the burden.
SN 22.22


Why is Buddhahood attained only by males? Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender?

I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.

The question is a bit unclear, so here's an answer to what I think your question is.

I believe anyone -- regardless of gender -- can reap the same fruits of the path.  It's all about diligence in practice; gender has nothing to do with it.

Now I recall some misogynistic passages and early injunctions against nuns, but I ignore all that.  I don't think Buddhist scriptures or personalities (including The Buddha) are unerring.  I think that despite having some profound things to say, Buddhism still was a product of its time and place and often failed to transcend those prejudices.

Fortunately, since Buddhist practice pays off in short order, there's no need for faith, so I don't have to rely on The Buddha being this or that, or claims that a transmission was preserved or any other claim that strains credibility.  I simply see what works and use it.

With that said, Buddhism has some strong females.  The one that comes to mind is Quan Yin (Guanyin), the archetype of compassion.  My local Buddhist Temple gave more prominence to her than to the Buddha, even to the point of stressing her ideal (Bodhisattva) as the goal of practice. Furthermore, in all the Buddhist temples I attended, the Quan Yin statues were much more prominent than the Buddha ones; in fact, there's a nearby Buddhist Temple with a 50 foot tall statue that dominates the grounds.  Who's on that statue? Quan Yin.

There are reasons that explain why it is convenient for a Buddha to be male.

Namely that, for bad and for good, humans tend to form patriarchal societies. The good is unfortunately forgotten so often in modern times, that it seems strange, at first sight, that it is more likely that a Buddha is male. Men tend to be more charismatic, strong and respected. And women know by experience that they have to double their efforts to be as charismatic, strong and respected. And it's not just cultural because there is an unnavoidable biological component to human existence. We evolved from mostly patriarchal societies of apes. So there is a tendency to behave in the ways we inherited from our biological ancestors.

But if the future Buddha arises in a matriarchal human society, it's more likely that it will be a female Buddha. In the end it's just skillful means to teach. I don't think beings with this level of direct knowledge pay much attention to gender anyway. So I strongly doubt there is something inherently male about a Buddha.


Buddhist attitude towards prostitution and non-procreative sexual activity I would like to ask a question from a Theravada Buddhism perspective.

In the Sutta it's said having sex with particular people is considered as sexual misconduct:

He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls.

My question is, why prostitute does not include in the prohibited person? Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual misconduct?

Second question is, from my understanding for married people having sex with their partner is not an offense but how about having oral sex or sodomy with your own wife or husband?
Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an animal?

Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual
  misconduct?

It does not break the 3rd precept, if both parties are proper(not belonging to the 20 kinds of improper partners). However, not breaking the 3rd precept does not mean you are not committing unwholesome Kamma. All sexual activities are unwholesome regardless of if you are not breaking the 3rd precept. Because the root causes are always lust and delusion.

The five precepts are given as the minimal moral standard that is required for spiritual development. A person who keeps to the 5 precepts can still commit many unwholesome Kammas. But doing it with your spouse can potentially be less unwholesome compared to doing it with a prostitute. Because the relationship with your spouse can involve wholesome feelings as well. With your spouse you are not trying to have pleasure regardless of if she/he is enjoying it. You are usually more gentle and if she/he isn't ready or finds a certain method uncomfortable, you get to practice self restraint. That comes from Metta & Karuna. So it's not all lust. But with a prostitute, you are mostly trying to get your money's worth. Usually you don't care much for the other person. The focus is on extracting the maximum enjoyment you can, in whichever way you so desire during the time you get. The lust involved here can be much more stronger. So it can cause greater unwholesome Kamma. Also, there are other disadvantages to consider like your reputation being sullied and the higher possibility of catching STDs.

  Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an
  animal?

Any kind of sexual activity has the potential to give you a unfavorable birth, if it comes forward at the time of your death. Read more about how the mind works at the of death. However, engaging in unorthodox sexual activities usually requires a greater degree of lust and delusion. So the said methods can potentially cause stronger unwholesome Kamma.

I'm an authorised Buddhist teacher and I don't know of anywhere in the texts where it is said or implied that sex or wanting sex is bad, that fornication is wrong, that homosexuality or being transexual are wrong, or that prostitution is wrong - in fact the quote mentioned above suggests that it is seen as being like any other business- or that anal or oral sex are wrong.  The Dalai Lama himself has said he is not able to discover any such thing in the texts.  The above answers are cultural myths only, and if you ask Theravada teachers to point out the relevant passages in the texts, they cannot.

Neither will normal desire, which is natural to humans, lead to a bad rebirth.  Only very serious acts like killing your father or mother automatically lead to a bad rebirth.  The word 'tanha', which is translated as craving, actually means a very unhealthy, obsessive desire, a real stalker mentality.  The Victorian translators understood 'craving' as the nearest equivalent to a quite horrible word.

During the Buddha's life, many laypeople both married and unmarried became Enlightened, some of whom it seems implied in the texts, led an active sexual life.


Does sottapana have perfect morality (sila)? Someone told me the other day that a Sotapanna has perfect morality, particularly five precepts. I think I did read somewhere a Sotapanna has perfect morality but I forget the source. Can someone refer me to any source that says a Sotapanna has perfect sila?

No, just an Arahat has such. But a Streamwinner has what is called "virtue pleasing and praised by the wise". Not capable to make grave faults and lead deliberate misconduct. In affect he/she is still able to conduct unskillful deeds, but would not hide it and leave them covered, would confess them quick, be ashamed and intent to correct.

(You may find the wish after resources, there where you lead the discussion and try to argue on other place.)

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Since a Sotapanna does not have perfect mindfulness & wisdom, it is impossible a Sotapanna has perfect morality. However, a Sotapanna has intimate deep insight into the nature of craving & attachment, therefore a Sotapanna fully abides by the precepts via wisdom but may occasionally lapse in relation to trifling deeds, such as killing a mosquito or lacking perfect speech suitable for each situation.


Eating meat and buying meat Buddha said to his disciples (monks), meat can be eaten if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. Eating meat is different from killing animal, it's clear.

Lay people on the other side do not obtain meat like monks do, lay people buy meat. The money then goes to meat seller and abattoir. Is this the same as "Causing another to kill"?

Buddhist ethics is the basis to develop wisdom and mastery over the mind. If there are no unwholesome Karmic results you cannot collect your mind to develop concentration as wholesome results give present experiences than unpleasant which is more distracting in meditation.

In the above case through you can argue that you remote form of indirectly kill in buying meat you do not create the type unwholesome roots associated with killing in the mind which results in unpleasant experiences later. Making others kills which has Karmic repercussion would be instead of you killing you order someone else to kill or bring hims to such a state that he will kill intending that he would kill.

Leaving aside killing, if you take ethics too far then you cannot live. E.g. your food and drinks do have microbes. Antibiotics kill microbes. I have heard once a monk with supernormal powers, after filtering water, saw that there were beings too small to be seen by the naked eye still in the water hence if you are strictly not to harm the you cannot ever eat or drink. The advice received was do not use your Jhanic powers to see if there are microbes in the water.

If you are vegetarian well and good, but if you are not, this is not a hindrance to develop mastery over the mind or wisdom and such action does not have karmic repercussions.

Eating meat is same as eating curd which has countless bacterias. All percepts are for laymen. Buddhas do not define do's and dont's. They simply state principles. The answer to your question is that if you indulge in meat eating or get habituated to it then desire take over. All fulfillment of desires have Karmic repercussions. If you eat meat to satisfy your hunger no problem. But if you eat meat because of its taste be ready for nasty consequences.
When I went to Thailand I was bit surprised to find that Thais prefer meat over vegetarian stuff. Thailand has tropical weather and abundant fruits, vegetables, and cereals. They indulge in meat eating because of taste not because its better. In Ladakh where people pratice Buddhism people have little choice but to eat meat because nothing grows there.
Infact for meditators light diet is a must which is vegetarian.


Is mindfulness for quick enlightenment being exaggerated in the Sutta MN10? I was reading about mindfulness here.  At the end I found this paragraph

  Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of
  mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four
  years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months
  … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month …
  a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four
  kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect
  one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s
  something left over, non-return.

Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or
  it's true?

The translation is fine, but the reader must know the environment and situation of that sutta, before read it. If the reader read it without the pre-required knowledge, it is the reader's fail.

The explanation

In atthakathā of MN 10 wrote:

  Why Buddha taught mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta to Kuru-people? Because they had enough ability to study the advance teaching. It's told that Kuru-people, such as bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, lay men, and lay women,  always had the potential body and the potential mind because Kuru-country had the richness of temperature, etc. Their potential body and potential mind supported their wisdom power, so they can studied  the advance teaching.

So, most Kuru-people were diṭṭhi-cārita, who have little dust in their eyes, according to netti desanāhāravibhaṅga.

The diṭṭhi-cārita people can attain jhāna easily. So they don't have to meditate jhāna because of their pure mind. They can enlighten at the listening moment. That's why in the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta's atthakathā wrote:

  30,000 people enlightened as arahanta at the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta was taught.

therefore, the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta wrote:

  Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month … a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

But for taṇhā-carita people,who have much dust in their eyes, they have to meditate jhāna, first. After they attained jhāna, they can count down for enlightenment like what buddha taught in the end of  mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. Because jhāna can pause their five hindrances, then their "dust in eyes" state will be same little  dust as diṭṭhi-carita and they are able to count down for enlightenment.

MN 10 is a fake sutta that includes the five hindrances in the 4th satipatthana. Therefore, if the meditator practises for seven days: ‘I have sensual desire in me’; they obviously will not make any progress because there cannot be any progress when the five hindrances exist.

This said, if proper satipatthana (such as described in MN 118) is practised continuously for seven days, i.e., without any hindrances for seven days and with proper samadhi based in 'letting go' (per SN 48.10 and the end of MN 118), then, yes, certainly that meditator will be a stream-enterer and certainly they can expect one of two results in their life: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

It is important to distinguish between 'actually practising satipatthana without hindrances' and 'attempting to practise satipatthana with hindrances'.

If a meditator sits one or many 10-day Goenka, Mahasi or IMS satipatthana meditation retreats but continues to have hindrances or uses a wrong method, then this is not actually practising satipatthana.

In order to develop these Four Kinds of Mindfulness over 7 days, one needs to have perfectly balanced faculties for the entire 7 days (which depends on one single moment of Right View).

Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

  As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
  isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
  non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
  samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
  sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
  of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
  perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
  correct samadhi.

  Heart-wood from the Bo Tree


Methods for reaching Jhana I have read some books and web resources that deal with reaching access concentration and from there the first Jhana. They all used mindfulness of breathing and mentioned but never described 'other methods'.
Methods I have found mentioned were body scanning and metta/loving-kindness meditation.

Now for the question: What other methods are there? And even more important: How to practice them?

The Theravada tradition recognizes forty meditation types for obtaining at least access concentration, found scattered throughout the Tipitaka and organized in the commentaries, as follows:

1-10: The Kasinas

These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practiced by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space

11-20: Foulness

These lead to the first jhāna; they are practiced by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay

11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton

21-30: Recollections

Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"

21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace

31-34: The Divine Abidings

The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"

31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity

35-38: The Immaterial States

These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object

35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception

39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.

40. Defining of The Elements

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.

All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?

Jhanas are mental states of purity, clarity & extreme sensitivity. Jhanas, being mental states of purity, also have an 'other-worldly' bliss, which the Buddha called far superior to sensual pleasure and even superior to "divine sensual pleasures" (MN 75).

Jhana brings freedom from enslavement to having to purse or need sensual pleasures. If the mind has jhana, it no longer needs a wife for sex, children for a sense of purpose, money to buy TVs, cars, movies, music and other sensual pleasures.

Jhana, being so pure & sensitive, also provides a foundation for insight (vipassana) because, in the contrast of the purity of jhana can be seen the disturbing (suffering) nature of the smallest defiled arising.

Similarly to using a microscope, using jhana, only a tiny amount of impure defilement is required to discern its suffering nature and thus develop dispassion towards defilement (greed, lust, hatred, anger, delusion, etc).

  2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?

To reach jhana, the mind must be as pure as possible. Complete celibacy is ideal. Then the mind must establish itself free from unwholesome thoughts, free from judgments, which includes being free from desire for jhana. The suttas (SN 48.10; MN 118) say jhana is reached by making "letting go" ("vossagga") the object of meditation.

  3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth?

In jhana, the mind abides in unmoving bliss and then equanimity for many hours. The sign of jhana is "cittaṃ ekaggaṃ" ("one-pointedness of mind"). The suttas say:

  With excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is
  strained, it is far from concentration.’ So I steadied my mind
  internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness (cittaṃ ekaggaṃ), and concentrated it.
  Why is that? So that my mind should not be strained.

  MN 19

Jhana manifests (by itself) when the breathing & associated physical body are completely calmed of stress. What occurs, simultaneously, is: (i) the mind can no longer feel the breathing & physical body; (ii) the mind creates a mental image to use as a meditation object; (iii) the mind locks unmoving onto that mental image; (iv) rapture arises (due to the calming & stopping of knowing of the physical body); (v) as the mind remains unmoving, the rapture of the 1st & 2nd jhana calms; resulting in the 3rd jhana of only happiness; (vi) as the mind remains unmoving, the happiness of the 3rd jhana calms, resulting the pure feeling of equanimity of the 4th jhana.

  4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

To a newcomer of the Dhamma, jhana should be explained as follows:

Jhana does not occur due to suppression or forceful effort.
Jhana is the manifestation of letting go or non-attachment.
Jhana is a "sign" the practitioner has perfected letting go of craving and other unwholesome states and is progressing on the Path.
Jhanas are other-worldly or "heavenly" states of supernormal happiness; abided in for many hours; even days.
Jhanas are serene. They cannot and should not be compared to sexual orgasm.
The attainment of jhana is rare.
Jhana should not be craved or even regarded as a "goal" because, to reach jhana, the mind must be free from craving and absolutely in the present moment.
Jhana is not 'dhamma-porn'; to be lusted over and obsessively posted about on the internet.