AN 4.233 what exactly is the relation between kamma, saṅkhārā? AN 4.233 sutta passage here, in Pali, with my translation into English:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-4233-what-exactly-is-relation.html
questions:

what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44, it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence, or if unvocalized thoughts (vitakka & vicara) cause the same karma as vaci-carena (vocal conduct).

is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)?
Is the bodily-volitional-activity mean he just sets an intention to do a bodily action, such as hit someone. Or he actualizes the intention to hit someone, and actually hits someone?
Now the fact that the sutta shows kamma being done, being reborn in hell, must mean it wasn't just a volition or intention to do harm, he actually did harm with the body. But the pali abhi-san-kharoti, and kaya-sankhara, it's hard to actually read and understand what is happening.

'Abhisaṅkharoti' refers to 'generating', 'constructing' or 'concocting' using thought, as follows:

And why do you call them sankhara (mental formations)? Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha?
Sankhara construct conditioned phenomena (sankhatam); that’s why they’re called ‘sankhara’. Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā
‘saṅkhārā’ti  vuccati.
SN 22.79

In AN 4.233, the word 'sankhara' most likely refers to 'sankhara' as the mental formation of 'intention', as follows:

And what are choices?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā?
There are these six classes of intention:
Chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā—
intention regarding sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.
rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā.
These are called choices.
Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
SN 22.56

The above is supported by SN 12.25, which refers to "intention" ("cetana") together with the same genre of terminology, including 'manosankhara':

Ānanda, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāyasañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.
As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. By oneself one instigates the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. SN 12.25

Therefore, AN 4.233 most likely refers to constructing (abhisaṅkharontī) intentions (saṅkhāraṃ) related to the body (kaya), speech (vaci) or thought (mano).
Also, AN 4.233 looks like 'puthujjana dharma'; not to be mixed up with Noble MN 44 Dhamma.
The word 'mano' is about 'thinking', as found in the term 'manokey mind'. Where as 'citta' refers to 'the heart', which is something directly felt & observed in Satipatthana; similar to how kaya-sankhara is an object of Satipatthana.
In the lofty Dependent Origination, the Buddha taught about 'citta sankhara' rather than 'mano sankhara'. The Noble Disciple takes an interest in 'citta sankhara' rather than grasps the banana of 'mano sankhara'.
In conclusion, kaya-vaci-citta sankhara are internal objects of deep Noble meditators. Where as kaya-vaci-mano sankhara are external kammic behaviours of puthujjana. AN 3.233 & MN 44 are as far apart as hell from heaven. MN 117 says:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions?.... There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma).
And what is the right resolve that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, mental fixity, mental transfixion, focused awareness & verbal fabricators (vaci sankhara) in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path.

Therefore, the Noble Kaya Sankhara is breathing (MN 44; MN 117; MN 118; SN 12.2) and the puthujjana kaya sankhara is physical behaviour.
Since physical behaviour is a form of 'becoming' or 'kamma-ripening' (AN 3.76), obviously the kaya sankhara of AN 4.233 is not the kaya sankhara of Dependent Origination because craving or intention in Dependent Origination is required before physical kamma can occur. SN 14.12 clearly explains this:

Mendicants, sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason.
And how do sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason?
The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise
to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions.
Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.
An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of malice gives rise to malicious perceptions. Malicious perceptions give rise to malicious thoughts. … malicious desires …
malicious passions … malicious searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a malicious search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of cruelty gives rise to cruel perceptions. Cruel perceptions give rise to cruel thoughts. … cruel desires … cruel
passions … cruel searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a cruel search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
SN 14.12

Sankhara is the element creating, the created is created by, created by what, created by sankhara.
Sankhara is conjoined with four aggregates, isn't conjoined with form, when there is form, then, sankhara generating form as form can be delineated but when form is stilled then sankhara generating form can not be delineated, then, sankhara generating feeling can still be delineated, feeling is born of contact.
Kamma comes into play due to contact, when contact can be delineated, then consciousness can be delineated, when consciousness can be delineated, it is consciousness which is conjoined with sankhara, so when kamma comes into play sankhara can be delineated.


Has anybody tried meditating forehead to forehead? Or communicated with others via meditation? I have been trying to hunt far and wide to see if anyone in the internet world has attempted meditating with someone else by connecting your foreheads together?

As discussed in a previous thread about the significance of touching foreheads, the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra, etc is a hugely powerful aspect of the body and referred to during prostrations and greetings.

I have only meditated with someone else like this once, in a temple and was certainly aware of the intense connection it could hold before I did it. However, I wasn't sure if anyone else has tried to do this, or does this often, and if so, why? What is your experience? I have also experienced this in dreams, as well as visualised doing this in meditation with someone else who has received it during their own meditation practice too (which I find pretty incredible!). I'd love to hear of any experiences where you have managed to connect with others in meditation too?

To be quite frank, I don't really see much point in this from a Buddhist perspective. What is the purpose in doing this? Maybe you can have some interesting experiences with different sensations, and for all I know, visions or psychic powers, but in the end these things don't lead towards awakening.

At most, these things could lead to a kind of concentration being developed, but there are other ways of developing concentration that can be used as part of the path. For example, one could develop the jhanas and then use them as a basis for examination. Practicing in that way would probably lead to a lot more pleasure than meditating on the chakras with your foreheads together, and it can be used to gain awakening.

I have a sencation in my eyes and fourhead when i touched soneone else is fourhead. If they have alot of energy i noticed the feeling is mire intense. I only noticed it by accident long ago lol. I still do not know why that happens. I recently put my hand on someones head and then felt that sencation. Still i di not know why that is. Maybe im sencative to energys ? I can only suspect.


Are there universal experiences associated with seeing through individual aggregates? To further refine the question: the falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, may leave behind a sense of wholeness, awe and wonder as there is no longer the conditioned interpretation of the world; there is no longer a tree, a cloud or a person in the sense of their words. All divisions thus cease to be and the tree, cloud and person (everything) are seen in their glorious enigmatic depth and wonder. Forms cannot merely be confined to single words - so I've learned!

In another instance, the absence of rūpa (forms) could produce a sense of emptiness or spaciousness where one is intensely conscious of the space around forms but also sees that this same space pervades the very nature of forms themselves. Note: I'm not referring to 'emptiness' in the fullest sense of the Buddhist interpretation but more just generally.

I believe the trick is to see through all aggregates to make the ultimate realisation.

The falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, does not leave behind a sense of wholeness because the falling away of saññā (perception) results in the state of unconsciousness. In Buddhism, this is called "saññāvedayitanirodha".

What has fallen away in the experience of "wholeness" referred to above is "thinking" (sankhara) and "themes" (nimitta) rather than "perception". In other words, the sense of "wholeness" is also a "theme" born from "perception". MN 18 says:

  With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.

  MN 18

As for the state of "awe & wonder", this is a delusion or beguilement in Buddhism. In Buddhism, when right seeing occurs of the five aggregates, the result is "disenchantment & dispassion" rather than "awe & wonder"; as follows:

  Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released.

  SN 22.59

When all divisions thus cease to be, in Hinduism, this is called "Advaita" or the "One God".

in a sutta about planes of conciousness.  it seems that some beings with unified in perception. Im not sure if it means same perception or shared perception.

  Ānanda, there are seven planes of consciousness and two dimensions. What seven? There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. This is the first plane of consciousness. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Group through the first absorption. .."

DN15


Is the self an illusion or is it *like* an illusion? Recently, in explaining the relative unimportance of the question whether phenomena lack true existence it was claimed that, "the self is definitely an illusion" and lacked true existence. This seemed to be held up as an important fact that has significance in the pragmatic soteriological aims of Theravada in contrast to the above mentioned question.

A few questions that arise:

First, is the self an illusion or not? Here it was said by the same person above that the self was not an illusion?
If either the self is like an illusion or is literally an illusion, is this synonymous with saying that it lacks true or real existence from the Theravada viewpoint?
Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question? Why can't we just say that the self of persons is real and true like other phenomena, but transient or lacking sara as Chris said was the correct interpretation of SN 22.95
Why does Theravada regard the question of whether the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality an important question? If the self does not truly exist like an illusion, then what does it matter if the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality since the self cannot be found in them?

Some Theravada adherents say that, "the original Pali sutta's" do away with unnecessary speculation or "ontological hamster wheels." :) However, paradoxically it seems some Theravada regard the question of the ontological status of the self to be very important. It's also clear that Sariputra thought it very important to correct Yamaka about this. And the Buddha himself thought it important to instruct how the aggregates and other phenomena were to be regarded as lacking intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality irregardless questions of the self.

Is the self an illusion or is it like an illusion? Well, let's just say that it's not truly existent. The lute analogy in the Vina Sutta explains that very well. Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates. This is in stark contrast with the Hindu view found in Bhagavad Gita 2.20.

Next, why is it so important in the Pali Suttas that the self of persons is not truly existent, but it is not important in the Pali Suttas that the self of phenomena is truly existent or not truly existent?

This is an easy question to answer in my opinion.

The self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering. That's why it is so important in the Pali Suttas. The Cula-Saccaka Sutta (MN 35) explains why the self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering.

On the other hand, the self of chairs is unrelated to the cause of a person's suffering. The self of chairs is also unrelated to the cause of a chair's suffering (or rather, I cannot imagine how a chair would experience suffering). This is why whether a chair has a self of chairs or not, is not important in the Pali Suttas.

In fact, the self of phenomena may even fall into the category of unconjecturables in the Acintita Sutta as follows:

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The point here is that the world may or may not be truly existent. The world may or may not have a self of phenomena. The world may or may not be an illusion.  The world may or may not be like an illusion. But in all these cases, it is not related to the cause of a person's suffering, and hence it is not important to the path to the end of suffering. At least, this, in my opinion, is how Theravada views it according to the Pali Suttas.

And this also shows how the Pali Suttas are extremely pragmatic.

"the self is definitely an illusion" and lacked true existence. This seemed to be held up as an important fact that has significance in the
  pragmatic soteriological aims of Theravada

Indeed. Ideas about rocks & clouds existing or not-existing or neither existing or non-existing is unrelated to  the soteriological aim of the Buddha. The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological purpose.

  First, is the self an illusion or not? Here it was said by the same person above that the self was not an illusion?

Self is an illusion or superstition (fabricated assumption), as said in SN 22.81.

  If either the self is like an illusion or is literally an illusion, is this synonymous with saying that it lacks true or real existence
  from the Theravada viewpoint?

It lacks lacks true or real existence. The Buddha said "self" is a "disease" & the "arising of suffering".

  Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question?

Theravada does not ever mention the word "ontological". Why do you keep using this Western word? Regardless, the question is important for the soteriological aim of the Buddha. The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological purpose.

  Why can't we just say that the self of persons is real and true like
  other phenomena, but transient or lacking sara as Chris said was the
  correct interpretation of SN 22.95

Chris's comment was wrong. Why are you here asking questions from ignorance but then, despite your ignorance, making judgments of what is right & wrong?

Regardless, the "self" is a fabrication that can be observed to not exist for prolonged periods; for a Buddha for their whole life. However, the five aggregates will always exist.

To repeat: When the mental fabrication of "self" ceases to exist in the mind; the mind will continue to exist.

  Why does Theravada regard the question of whether the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality an important
  question?

So craving does not arises towards worthless phenomena.

  If the self does not truly exist like an illusion, then what does it
  matter if the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and
  lasting quality since the self cannot be found in them?

This question is wrong. The self does not truly exist like an illusion for enlightened minds rather than for idiots (puthujjana). Therefore, many aspects of insight are useful for overcoming craving, which is a cause for the illusion of suffering generating suffering.

This is why in his 2nd sermon, the Buddha gave a gradual teaching about: (i) impermanence; (ii) unsatisfactoriness; and (iii) not-self. The Buddha did not start with "not-self".

  Some Theravada adherents say that, "the original Pali sutta's" do away with unnecessary speculation or "ontological hamster wheels."

Please try to no ask questions about "ontological". This word is foreign or alien to Buddhism.

  However, paradoxically it seems some Theravada regard the question
  of the ontological status of the self to be very important.

The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological (liberation) purpose.

  It's also clear that Sariputta thought it very important to correct
  Yamaka about this. And the Buddha himself thought it important to
  instruct how the aggregates and other phenomena were to be regarded as
  lacking intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality
  irregardless questions of the self.

In his 2nd sermon the Buddha explained the Three Characteristics (which per AN 3.136 are inherent or "ontological"). The teaching in the Phena Sutta is related to the 2nd characteristic of "dukkha", namely, the inherent characteristic that conditioned things cannot bring lasting happiness because they are meeaningless & worthless. The Phena Sutta (SN 22.95) does not mention the words "anatta" or "sunnata" because the Phena Sutta is not about the "selflessness of the aggregates".


Why is there a Miscellaneous chapter in the Dhammapada? Chapter 21 of the Dhammapada is titled Miscellaneous or Varied Verses or similar depending on the exact translation. Why do all the other chapters have descriptive headings and themes such as Flowers and Chapter 21 just has this generic title and generic theme?

I can only speculate. If we examine the preceding & proceeding chapters:

Maggavagga is about the Path and verses 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285 and 289 all include the word "the path", while verses 283, 286, 287 & 288 are about when the path is not practised.

Nirayavagga is about Hell and every verse is related to the chapter title of hell.

As for the Pakinnakavagga: Miscellaneous, I would classify its verses as follows:

Verses 290 to 295 appear related to each other, which appear to be about higher happiness and freedom from cankers, unwholesomeness & suffering.

Verses 296 to 301 appear to be about another collection of related general practices.

Verses 302 appears to be about a separate topic of certain unique difficulties & sufferings.

Verses 303 to 305 appear to be related to the fruits of virtue.

In conclusion, at least unlike the preceding & proceeding chapters, it appears there are four different categories of teachings in the Pakinnakavagga; thus it is called Miscellaneous.
While I do not know the Dhammapada very well, similarly, I always wondered why verses 153 and 154 were included in the Jaravagga about Old Age.
As Ruben2020 said, often sutta titles are not directly related to the sutta subject matter. For example, the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59) is called Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta yet the word "lakkhana" is not found in the sutta or in any related sutta. While the term "Three-Characteristics" is inherently used in Buddhist discussion, this term actually never exists in the suttas. Based in AN 3.136, the "Three-Characteristics" should probably be called the "Three Natural Lawful Elements" (dhammaniyāmatā sā dhātu) or similar.

My person thought maybe also give another smart opinion one could buy in, but then thought maybe just tell that it would be good to have a "Miscellaneous" tag for questions...
Maybe

In those who leave undone what should indeed be done but do what should not be done, who are conceited and unmindful, moral intoxicants increase....

...helps to gain some heartwood from the answer.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding entertainments but for release from this wheel]


Importance of making and sharing merit What are the benefits of transferring karmic fruitfulness and how is this done by Buddhists?

Make merit is the core of the buddhist practice and is done by being resolute and practice deeds (through mind, speach and body) of generosity, renunciation and goodwill. This will gradually lead to the decrease of the defilements (greed, ill-will and delusion) and to the maturation of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Sharing of merit is one of the Ten ways of Making Merit because is a expression of goodwill and generosity and is done by inviting others to rejoice in the merits that you have done (which by itself is also a source of merit) or be intended that they do so. In other words, the more you practice merits, the closer you are to Nibbana. If you hold the intetion that others also make merit by rejoicing with your merits, this means that you are resolved in goodwill and generosity (which is right view/right resolve), thus, this is again a souce of merit.

  May all beings  —  without limit, without end  —  have a share in the
  merit just now made,  and in whatever other merit I have made.

  Those who are dear & kind to me  —    beginning with my mother & father
  —     whom I have seen or never seen;     and others, neutral or hostile;

  If they know of my dedication of merit,   may they themselves rejoice,
    And if they do not know,    may the devas inform them.

  By reason of their rejoicing  in my gift of merit,    may all beings
  always live happily,  free from animosity.

  May they attain the Serene State,     and their radiant hopes be
  fulfilled.

  Dedication of Merit

If someone understands the value of giving, does it out of the kindness, without wishing for anything in return, it is a truly meritorious deed (kusala kamma). This is the highest merit. Thus understanding Dhamma (true nature of the world) leads to spontaneous meritorious actions done with a joyful heart; this leads to saddha (true faith) , citta pasada (joy), and adhimokkha (resolve) to get the maximum impact of it.

“This world” of 31 realms is very complex. Nothing happens due to a single cause and nothing happens just by itself: Multiple causes lead to multiple effects. People are born with different levels of not only wealth, but also different levels of health, physical appearance, capabilities, etc. These are the results of kamma (good and bad) accrued over very long periods in the past.

Due to our past acts, both good and bad, we get into “sansaric relationships” with other beings; this is how we have friends, family, and enemies. These things do not happen by chance. Everything happens due to a cause, a reason; but since results (vipaka) can materialize later, even in future lives, we cannot see this “cause and effect” in most cases. When we do something harmful to another being we become indebted to that being; that debt will have to be paid with interest that is many many times over. When we have such debts, the nature has set up many ways to pay off such debts. The correct way to pay back old debts is when one does a good deed, is by transfering merits of that good deed to old creditors called “pattidana”.

All intentions have kammic energy. You may remember that the Buddha said, “Cetana ham bhikkave kamman vadami”, or “Bhikkhus, I say intention is kamma”. And kamma is the fundamental potential energy for everything in this world. When one is “transferring merits” by sincerely saying that “May so and so receive merits from this good deed that I have done, one is broadcasting one’s intention. It is possible to “give Dhamma” or to “give kusala” too. In fact the Buddha said, “sabba danan Dhamma danan jinati” or, “from all kinds of giving, Dhamma giving is the most meritorious”.


Is there any significance to shaving the head? I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that?  If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.
In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun (a.k.a. Bhikkhu) you have to shave your head.
There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long. It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.
The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

(source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II)
Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:

One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment (source)

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons

By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).

Great answer related to shaved heads, long hair, beards, etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkTheoMwI7c


To debate or not to debate? and When to debate? and How to debate? When we have several people with different understanding of Buddhism, how should we decide who is right? Debate is very tempting in Buddhism, but on the other hand, we must respect other people's views and not create conflicts in the Sangha, so what should we do?

Sometimes Buddhists cannot agree with each other, especially if these Buddhists come from different schools or traditions. An idea that is considered correct in one linage may be considered wrong in another.

Did the Buddha teach how to handle these situations? How were these disagreements handled in the past?

(See also: famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS by @Yeshe Tenley:

Under what conditions is it proper? Under what conditions is it improper? Is it a bad thing? Can it be a good thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful?

Assuming it is desirable to show respect while debating, how should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful debate and how can the line be drawn? What's the difference between debate and proselytizing?

... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

from Kathāvatthu Sutta:

  Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

  Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down (the questioner), crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down (the questioner), doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

  ...

  For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.

  Those who discuss
  when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
  following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
  seeking to expose each other’s faults,
  delight in each other’s
          misspoken word,
  slip, stumble, defeat.
  Noble ones
  don’t speak in that way.

  If wise people, knowing the right time,
  want to speak,
  then, words connected with justice,
  following the ways of the noble ones:
  That’s what the enlightened ones speak,
  without anger or arrogance,
  with a mind not boiling over,
  without vehemence, without spite.
  Without envy
  they speak from right knowledge.
  They would delight in what’s well-said
  and not disparage what’s not.
  They don’t study to find fault,
  don’t grasp at little mistakes.
  don’t put down, don’t crush,
  don’t speak random words.

From AN 5.165:

  All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations.
  Which five?

  One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,1 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly

Sn 4.8 Pasura Sutta:

  "Only here is there purity"
    — that's what they say —
  "No other doctrines are pure"
    — so they say.
  Insisting that what they depend on is good,
  they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths.

  Seeking controversy, they plunge into an assembly,
  regarding one another as fools.
  Relying on others' authority,
  they speak in debate.
  Desiring praise, they claim to be skilled.

  Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
    — anxious, desiring praise —
  the one defeated is
    chagrined.
  Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening.

  He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
    defeated, by those judging the issue:
  He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
    "He beat me," he mourns.

  These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
    In them are         elation,
                dejection.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
    for they have no other goal
    than the gaining of praise.

  He who is praised there
    for expounding his doctrine
    in the midst of the assembly,
  laughs on that account & grows haughty,
    attaining his heart's desire.

  That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation,
    for he'll speak in pride & conceit.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from debates.
  No purity is attained by them, say the skilled.

  Like a strong man nourished on royal food,
  you go about, roaring, searching out an opponent.
  Wherever the battle is,
    go there, strong man.
  As before, there's none here.

  Those who dispute, taking hold of a view,
  saying, "This, and this only, is true,"
    those you can talk to.
  Here there is nothing —
    no confrontation
    at the birth of disputes.

  Among those who live above confrontation
    not pitting view against view,
    whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?

  So here you come,
    conjecturing,
  your mind conjuring
    viewpoints.
  You're paired off with a pure one
    and so cannot proceed.

Most people approach debate as if it was a sword fight. They debate to win, as if losing meant death. They do not make any effort to understand the other person's perspective!

They keep on fighting until they see an opening in the opponent's defense. As soon as they see a little inaccuracy or a logical error, they happily grasp on that -- even if it does not change the main idea the other person is trying to convey.

When the other person gets confused for a moment and says something obviously wrong, they happily make fun of him and keep pushing until the opponent is completely lost.

This kind of people firmly hold their ground, their confidence coming from their limited perspective and narrow view. Having won another debate with aggression and cunning, they are proud of themselves.

But if they see they cannot win, they get very envious of the winner, they get nervous, start changing topics, lie, resort to personal attacks, get angry, and finally go down to rudeness and yelling.

Instead, the noble students do not debate, they have conversations. They discuss things. When they thus sincerely talk they try to see each other's perspective. They understand that each (truthful) perspective is valid from its own side. So they try to see the value of the other perspective, and appreciate the factors and conclusions of the other side. Then, by combining the two perspectives, they come out with a more complete, more thorough understanding of the original problem. Each side lets go of its attachments and delusions as it accepts the other side's point of view, and integrates them together.

Also, see MN18 for an in-depth analysis of the psychology of reification underlying debates and arguments.

I think we should debate following the Lord Buddha's example in MN 35:

Suppose, Aggivessana, there was a person in need of heartwood.
Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a
forest. There they’d see a big banana tree, straight and young and
flawlessly grown. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the top, and
unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much
less heartwood. In the same way, when engaged, pressed, and examined
by me on your own doctrine, you turn out to be void, hollow, and
mistaken. But it was you who stated before the assembly of Vesālī: ‘If
I was to take them on in debate, I don’t see any ascetic or
brahmin—leader of an order or a community, or the teacher of a
community, even one who claims to be a perfected one, a fully awakened
Buddha—who would not shake and rock and tremble, sweating from the
armpits. Even if I took on an insentient post in debate, it would
shake and rock and tremble. How much more than a human being!’ But
sweat is pouring from your forehead; it’s soaked through your robe and
drips on the ground. While I now have no sweat on my body.” So the
Buddha revealed his golden body to the assembly. When this was said,
Saccaka sat silent, embarrassed, shoulders drooping, downcast,
depressed, with nothing to say.
Knowing this, the Licchavi Dummukha said to the Buddha: “A simile
strikes me, Blessed One.”
"Then speak as you feel inspired,” said the
Buddha.
“Sir, suppose there was a lotus pond not far from a town or
village, and a crab lived there. Then several boys or girls would
leave the town or village and go to the pond, where they’d pull out
the crab and put it on dry land. Whenever that crab extended a claw,
those boys or girls would snap, crack, and break it off with a stick
or a stone. And when that crab’s claws had all been snapped, cracked,
and broken off it wouldn’t be able to return down into that lotus
pond. In the same way, sir, the Buddha has snapped, cracked, and
broken off all Saccaka’s tricks, dodges, and evasions. Now he can’t
get near the Buddha again looking for a debate.”


Formal Meditation Laziness I have the intuition, from what I've heard within Buddhism, that formal meditation is rarely ever "wrong", and provides benefit if even slight form is held.

Nevertheless, I am struggling to create a regular schedule. It has been years that I know of meditation, have investigated the techniques, and still I seem to avoid practising formally.

Despite contemplation and walking meditation, I fail to progress to a formal routine.

I wonder:

Is there really any remedy to this types of procrastination and
laziness? I feel it may be pointless to try and seek advice on this
topic, that my capacity is absent despite my present desire.
If they exist, what are the remedies to such a basic and pervasive
laziness?

Perhaps I should specify that the reasons I often tell myself against meditating (or other things) are:

Lack of obvious suffering.
Lack of ultimate goal.
Aversion to the effort.

If you don't have a pull factor (natural inclination), then you need a push factor. These are the two factors of motivation.

Suppose your doctor tells you that you have early stage of lung cancer. He tells you not to worry because it can be easily treated due to early detection, but you must give up smoking for good.

So, what do you do? Give up smoking of course. You tried before and failed, but now you have a push factor.

Unless you have grown up in a Buddhist culture (in which the profound value of meditation is taken for granted), you probably need a psychological understanding of how meditation is actually beneficial. Such an understanding, unfortunately, is hard to come by, simply because it is actually difficult to understand. Take for example how much difficulty the modern scientific community is having while trying to explain Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). I have practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years. I have written a book called How Mindfulness Meditation Works. It may help motivate you.


If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain breaks-up and cease to function? According to the Pali Canon, how are intentions and habits passed on from one existence to another without any material support?
What do the texts tell us about rebirth and the transference of these material phenomena into inmaterial phenomena, and the back to material ones?

More specifically,  how is kamma transmitted from one life to the next. If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transfered from a brain which, as you observed, is destroyed and dissolved after the breakup of the body? Aren't intention and habits a function emerging form the conjuncted activity of brain cells?

Thanks in beforehand.

To understand this you need a complete paradigm shift in the way you are thinking. Stop looking at the world in terms of entities. Drop everything that you think is real involving entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences arising and dying. In this world you have six types of experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling(tactile) and thinking. You have firsthand knowledge that arising of these experiences is real because they can be sensed. Once you make this paradigm shift, you will understand that the brain is not an experience. The brain cannot be sensed. It is nothing more than a concept fabricated in a thought. No direct knowledge can be gained by building theories based on fabrications. So the question of what happens to the mind when the brain is dead does not arise as it doesn't exist in the first place.

Karma is not a thing that is transmitted anywhere. Karma is simply the volitional action involved in each experience. That volitional action dies with the experience. But it can give a result immediately or in the future. You need to do Satipatthana meditation to see this happening. Ex: if a pleasurable experience arises and you get attached to it, suffering follows when it dies. This is the immediate Vipaka(result) of the Karma you just committed. In the future also if you cannot get this experience, suffering will arise. This attachment also creates a habit of doing things to get similar experiences. This gives rise to new experiences involving fresh Karma.

It is impossible to understand the complete dynamics of Karma unless you become a Buddha yourself, but when you start looking at the world through meditation, you will see that this continuous arising of experiences goes on and on until you cut off what is fueling them to arise. I.e. craving. Even though we do not have complete comprehension, this understanding of Karma is enough to work towards ending of suffering.

In this framework, the medical definition of death becomes just another concept involving entities. You will see that as long as there is craving, the arising of new experiences will never stop. Once the thought pattern makes this paradigm shift, questions like how the mind is transferred to a new body after death etc. do not arise as there is no constant thing called the 'mind' and there is no constant thing called the 'body'. The reality is made up continuous arising of experiences. These experiences have a physical aspect and a mental aspect. They arise due to causes. Read the Paticcasamuppada to get an intellectual understanding and do Satipatthana meditation for direct knowledge.

The texts say nothing because "rebirth" in original Buddhism does not mean "reincarnation". "Rebirth" means the "re-arising" of "self-belief" based on acts of kamma and their results.

The original Buddhist scriptures say mind cannot exist without a material body:

  Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form (materiality), from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible.

  SN 22.53

  It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.'

  Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in
  dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as
  eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear
  & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that
  arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as
  nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.
  Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile
  sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified
  simply as intellect-consciousness.

  MN 38

  Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that
  intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said.
  It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
  another. In the same way, from mind-&-body as a requisite condition
  comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  mind-&-body.

  SN 12.67

  The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the body aggregate.... Mind-and-body is the cause and
  condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

  SN 22.82


Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view? I understand in Thailand they can confiscate Buddha statues in the customs unless you have a special permit that takes days to be processed and a lot of paperwork.

It is clear that from a "wordly point of view" it is not a good idea to buy and take it away without permission but from a Buddhist point of view: Is there anything wrong with it? Of course I'm talking about a person that will use the statue to worship and will not treat it with disrespect. (Not an antique of course, just a regular statue)

I think this is because many foreigners buy them to decorate their bathrooms. That has made life difficult for even the genuine foreign Buddhists. But they probably wouldn't stop a monk from taking a statue abroad unless it has antique significance.

Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.


Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill? In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?

Bad Karma are caused by the three evil roots.

Lobha - Craving/Lust
Dosa - Aversion
Moha - Ignorance

Doing something bad without knowing it is bad falls under ignorance. Ignorance is there in all bad Karmas. But in the case of a lion killing a deer, it is stronger compared to a human killing a deer, given that he knows it is wrong. So the lion has strong ignorance on top of strong aversion and craving. That makes the Karma worse. One thing you have to understand about the law of Karma is that it is a law of the nature. It is not a god. So there's never a question of whether it is fair or not. Is it fair for children to get burnt if they touch fire without knowing it burns? Probably not! But the fire doesn't have a conscious to decide whom to burn or not to burn.

By the logic of bad kamma, no animal will evolve into human. How do humans become humans then?

Whenever we are eating a fruit and a vegetable we are killing millions of cells which are alive. When we are breathing we are killing countless viruses, parasites etc. We are constantly gathering bad kamma. But breathing and eating are automatic functions. We are not responsible for it. So how can we be responsible for bad kamma then?

Intention come from mind and animals do not have mind. Only humans do. There is no question of bad kamma when instincts are involved. In-fact even sex if it is driven through instincts has no karmic effect. When it is mind induced which is the case 99% time it has karmic effects. Modern men and women do not have natural sex any more.

In case of animals evolution is automatic. They are unconscious beings. They do not accumulate bad kamma otherwise evolution will stop. But once an animal graduates into human then there is no automatic evolution. Humans need to put conscious efforts to become perfect. Nature will not help. Only through right understanding and right efforts humans progress further.


Might immediate retaliation or reaction inhibit future bad kamma? If someone hits you and you even the score, purely to HELP them avoid future bad kamma           (like if your intention is purely that... you want to neutralize their bad kamma... not an excuse, no anger at all, general concern):

Would it neutralize the bad kamma for the other individual?
Despite necessary force to subdue the assailant and keep things even steven... would it still be good kamma based on intention?

For the first question the answer is NO. In AN 5.57 we can see that Buddha has used this phrase,

  I am my own kamma, I am a heir to my kamma, I am born [in this life]
  from my kamma, I am the kinsman of my kamma, I am protected by my
  kamma. Whatever kamma·s I shall do, kalyāṇa·s or pāpaka·s, I shall
  become their heir.

So you can't neutralize someone else's bad deeds by your actions. He will eventually reap the results of his actions when all the conditions fall into place. I think it's easy to understand this if we consider kamma as a natural law like gravity.

There are four types of kammas with respect to the time of taking effect in abhidhamma.

  Immediately effective kamma (Dhitta dhamma vedaniya) - in the present lifetime
  Subsequently effective kamma (Aparapariya vedaniya) - in the immediately following lifetime
  Indefinitely effective kamma (Upapajja vedaniya) - in lifetimes two or more in the future
  Defunct (Ahosi) - kamma whose effects have ripened already

If I consider your example of hitting back when someone hits you, we can categorize this as a immediately effective kamma for the person you're hitting back. But we can't still say the power of his initial kamma has weakened. In another life, in several other lives or even in this life he may reap the results of this. If the conditions didn't fall the kamma may never function as well.

For the second question the answer is also NO. You may not have have anger at the point you hit him, but your intention is filled with delusion. You are purposefully hurting someone with a wrong view in your mind.

Buddhism is about suffering. And suffering is about attachment. And you question is pretty attached. So you suffer from your imagines. ;)
If you don't create karma, your action is clear. If your mind is unclean, your action is unclean too.
Thinking doesn't help here. No common solution for your question doesn't exist. Every situation is unique. Like this one.


What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? I keep on long wondered the difference between wisdom and knowledge. I do not understand why the Buddha refers only to the intellect without talking to intellectuals?

Knowledge is conceptual, it is information, opinions and views read from books or spoken by others, whereas wisdom is the truth within the experience. Experience can not be conceptualized,  for example....try to explain what water is, then go drink some water or stand in the rain, the conceptualization and the experience are completely different, this is the difference between knowledge and wisdom!!
I hope this has helped.
Metta.

"For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them."

~ Thich Nhat Hanh

There is a difference between Information and Knowledge. Information means something we read from the books or somebody passed his knowledge to somebody else.

But after testing that information whether is true or not we get something i.e. Knowledge.

For Example- Water- H2O is a equation. Hydrogen 2 + Oxygen 1 = Water. This is given in Books which we learnt but i.e. just an information but when we actually experiment it in laboratory and we test that equation in reality we found that this H2O equation is true. Then that becomes our knowledge.

Buddha says: Knowledge is useless if it is not in our daily life action.


Why are they called "old kamma"? The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma.
Why are these called old kamma (purāṇakammā)?
Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons?
If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple.
From SN 35.146:

And what is old kamma?
The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and
intentions, as something to be felt.
The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen
as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
This is called old kamma.
And what is new kamma?
The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind.
This is called new kamma.

(I replaced "action" with "kamma")

Piya Tan says, though I'm not sure this is clear,

“Old karma”
here refers to the six senses. The theme of “old karma” (purana,kamma) is applied to the body (synonymous with the six senses) in the (Kaya) Na Tumha Sutta (S 12.37/2:64 f), where the Anguttara Commentary explains that the body is not “old karma” but because it arises from old karma, it is referred to in
terms of its conditions. It is seen as “put together” (abhisankhata) since it is created by conditions. It is
“thought out” (abhisañcetayita) because it is based on volition (the will), rooted in volition. It is “to be
felt” (vedaniya) because it is basis for what is to be felt [ie the basis and object for feeling] (SA 2:70,
402).

Perhaps the idea is that people are born of (heir to) their kamma.
The summary on this page (I'm not sure who's the author, perhaps Ven Sujato) summarises this sutta as,

The six interior sense fields are not yours, but are old kamma, generated by choices in past lives. This is explained in terms of the four noble truths.

Chris has given the answer the way I expected. However, I thought I look into it from a different angle. You can look at this in a Dependent Origination model as well.
Vinnana paccay Namarupa : Due to old Kamma (Sankhara) vinnana create the Namarupa of this life. (say fetus) Then the fetus grows into six senses base. (as Chris noted) With the aid of six sens base (old Kamma), we create new Kamma.(ie: Namarupa Paccaya Vinnana) In a nutshell the whole Dependent Origination explains how the old Kamma become new Kamma.


How to avoid subtle biases and inclinations to influence phenomena when doing vipassana? In other words, how do I know if I'm really being objective?

Find out the difference between what are concepts and what is.

Follow the sensation of the breath not the idea of the breath.

Follow the sensation of the feet as they move exactly in the present moment and don't follow the idea of the feet.

Notice thoughts as they happen or as they are remembered but don't make an effort to notice or not notice the content of the thoughts.

Notice what mental content is being reacted to, notice intentions.

When you merely witness what is in attention and realize that it is what it is then there cannot be any bias in that moment. Bias comes with consepts.

As i see it
When mindfully observing the arising, persistence and the cessation of phenomena one hopes to be rewarded with increase in mindfulness and or a pleasant abiding.
There is a case to be made for paying attention to inclinations and biases, taking note and adjusting by directing the mind accordingly. If one fails to take note and is just noting whatever there is it is compared to a cook not taking note of the master's preferances and inclinations.

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of[1] his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.[4]
Sn47.8

There are teachers who tell students; just note everything... when sleepy and nodding; keep noting and you wil either wake up or fall asleep right there. This instruction is fwiw contradictory  to the teaching given to Maha Moggalanna in Capala Sutta. Therein as soon as the hindrance is know to be present, effort is made for it's eradication and this approach is repeated for other hindrances in the sutta and is called directed development.


Be like water - but what if i fail Be like water - but what if i fail

i really like the quote "be like water"  and wanted to live by it  -  but the problems was what happenes when i fail - when i cant meditate or more truly too lazy to meditate - and always take a few days break no matter what ?

because water don't fail - they don't take a break -  so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water"    theory doesn't work cause water don't stop and get back up

can someone here help me find some explanation to make the "be like water" quote reasonable to failing as well

This is not a buddhist connected idea directly - but i ask this to help my practice - and its very very important for me if i get a good reply  - very wholsome kamma    +++  plus its more related to the practice than   other questions ive seen here before

If "be like water" is Buddhist, it sounds to me like an Eastern form of it (i.e. Chan or Zen).

One view/aspect of Chan or Zen is that it's the result of Buddhism's mixing with Taoism.

If you want to know more about "be like water", one place to find that might be in the (Taoist, not Buddhist) Tao Te Ching, for example,

  The supreme good is like water,
  which nourishes all things without trying to.
  It is content with the low places that people disdain.
  Thus it is like the Tao.

  In dwelling, live close to the ground.
  In thinking, keep to the simple.
  In conflict, be fair and generous.
  In governing, don't try to control.
  In work, do what you enjoy.
  In family life, be completely present.

  When you are content to be simply yourself
  and don't compare or compete,
  everybody will respect you.

For example, you wrote,

  because water dont fail - they dont take a break - so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water" theory dosnt work cause water dont stop and get back up

The Tao Te Ching has imagery of water occupying the low places, the valleys:

  All streams flow to the sea
  because it is lower than they are.
  Humility gives it its power.

I'm not sure I understood your question, but if you find yourself in a low place, maybe that (where you are, in the low, in the place) is where you meditate: without self-striving to get back up before you do.

Also, water has three states: vapour rises, water flows, ice is more solid. When you wrote, when I read, "I fail", I thought of that as being more like ice than being like water: because it sounds like a fixed/solid view of "I" ... instead of a natural/flowing view (I'm not sure how water could be said to fail).

Also I think that Zen meditation posture includes being solidly planted/rooted on/with the ground.

Also, on topic, a different example of being like water, here is one story: Great Waves. I'm not sure what "bashful" means in the story, I suppose it's a harmful or confused or ignorant form of being 'self-conscious'.

Be fluid water.
Grab it stab it unchanging.
Resilient rock.


Dependent Origination and Impermanence in Buddhism 1 question: I just started learning about Buddhism and I read about the 3 marks of existence. When Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included and considered impermanent. As I understood it impermanence is a key Buddhist principle. How does Buddhism describe time according to this impermanence doctrine and what is impermanence relationship and connection with time. I have seen a few answers here on a similar question/topic but not really this one so I hope I will get a few answers that can help me understand it.

2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ??

Impermanence includes everything. For the record, Buddhism only uses the references like inside and outside as compromises with unenlightened way of thinking. In the strict sense, these notions of Inner and Outer arise as result of Dependent Origination. When you go out of subjective frame of reference and speak about Mind Processes at large, everything is unfolding all the time, with some patterns emerging as seeming Inner and Outer.

Technically, this Unfolding IS Being IS Time, as explained by Dogen in his famous lecture on the topic. In other words, it's not that Time is a container for Everything. It is identical with Being or Unfolding, but we sentient beings like to delineate certain aspects, because our minds are reification machines that work in terms of entities and their background. So for us it's only natural to think of time as background or container of events.

Dependent Origination unfolds over time, just like everything else. However, it would be incorrect to talk about concrete time scale, because DO talks about high-level principles in terms of functional relationship. Yes, the seedling comes from the seed and this happens over time, but we don't have to talk about a specific seed, we talk about the principle at large.

Most of the people thinks the impermanence is the heart of the Buddhism. But the real heart is insatiability. People always try to be happy and running after pleasure but the nature of the world is "everything is insatiable". Just because when we can't get satisfied, we just get upset, angry or even this leads to killing people. And also the important part is when we get satisfied we think it's because of the outside world and we get attached to that out side world. (eg: when you find your partner you get attached to her thinking you are happy now because of her (outside world). And you feel you are satisfied, as almost everything is as expected - But the truth is, no matter what you think, it happened because that's how it supposed to happen (The nature of the world - Hethu Pala). To understand this, is up to you. Keeping this aside if I answer your question as below which is general to both impermanence and insatiability,

  Buddhism speaks about impermanence does impermanence only refer to our experience (the 5 skhandas) or is outisde world phenomena included
  and considered impermanent.

Whether it's impermanence or insatiability, The answer to this is, it's not only for the 5 skandas, it applies for the outside world as well. But there are only 6 places, where we can connect to the outside world through these 5-skandas, which are; eye, year, nose, tongue, body and mind.

2 question: Is a dependently arising cycle considered happening in a split second or how fast is it considered happening and what is its relationship and connection with time ??

In this cycle, the 10th Nidana called Bhava has two types, One is which causes to another birth and the other one which causes to Karma (The reference can be found in Wibhanga-1 -> Paticca-samuppada-vibhangaya).

So the Karma cycle is happening in a fraction of a second. More details has to be taken from Abhidaharma section. It explains about time which takes to create one thought in the mind (Chittakshana, Chitta witi). So in simple Karma-dependently-arising-cycle runs every time we see things, we smell things, we tastes things and so on. The cycle regarding the birth, will happened on the moment of death.

About the time, generally buddha has mentioned to maintain the past, present and future as it's needed to explain things. But mainly the time dimension is something human has built just to explain things. When there are hethu (reasons / causes) it will generate a pala (result) as a result.


Where does it say 'You Are Already Enlightened'? I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it.

Many thanks as always

It's a basic Mahayana doctrine, important in other schools as well as Zen.

  Hongaku is an East Asian Buddhist doctrine often translated as
  "inherent", "innate", "intrinsic" or "original" enlightenment... It is
  first mentioned in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku

Wikipedia also says it can be traced back to sayings of the Buddha in the Anguttara Nikaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Earliest_sources

It is not zen, but the famous puthujjana called Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje has a short exposition on the doctrine that they created http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm

   “All beings are Buddhas,
         But obscured by incidental stains.
         When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
         That is a quotation from a Tantra.

he says that the characteristic of his doctrine is more about the nature of his attainment

The mind that has the absence of the three obscurations
Is “(the wisdom of) equality” and it is “peace.”
Due to having love and great compassion (for beings)
The sambhoga(kaya), etc., appears to them.
This is stated in order to refute those who say
That the attainment of Buddhahood is the same as the Hinayana (attainment).

Wisdom is the three permanences:
Permanence of nature is the dharmakaya;
Permanence of continuity is the sambhogakaya;
Uninterruptedness is the nirmanakaya.

There are three impermanences:
Mentally fabricated emptiness is impermanent;
The mind of moving thoughts is impermanent;
The composite six consciousnesses are impermanent.

However, the three permanences are present.
The three impermanences are stains.
The three permanences are wisdom.

This is not the same as the Tirthika “self,”
Because that is a mental fabrication and (Buddha nature) is not.
This is not the same as the nirvana of the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas
Because (in that) all the qualities of the form kayas are not manifested.
This is not the same as the body of an (ordinary) being
Because it is not created due to the defilements.


Momentariness, but birth and death? If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible?
I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

I would say there were two ways of looking at this.

You can't exist "for" an instant but you can exist "at" this instant.
You are not living five minutes ago, or two hours in the future.
You are living at this precise moment.
"You" are living in this instant and this "you"
is different to the "you" of last week or last year or five mins ago.  As you experience things, you change and become a different person.  You don't die or become a different being.

“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” ✦
[Note that this isn't dedicated for stacks, exchange and what ever world-binding trade but for release from this wheel]


How we collect bad karma? I'm a student, and I'm getting weird instant bad thoughts to hurt my mom without any reason coz of my anxiety. they are not delibarete by any means.but I have never hurt her verbally or physically. But this anxious thoughts annoy me a lot coz I love my mom a lot. She is the best. I try my best to avoid them. Does this collect bad karma? Please help me I feel so guilty without any reason as I never want to hurt my dear mom even with a thought. At times I feel like I overthink about it even. She doesn't know that those things exist even.

Random thoughts don't collect much bad karma. Intentional and deliberate thoughts generate karma. Habitual intentional thoughts accumulate karma.
Now, you are feeling remorse because you had those thoughts.
What you should do is acknowledge that those are random thoughts. Acknowledge that you don't have the intention to harm her.
And now you should disassociate from those thoughts using mindfulness. Just watch those thoughts as they appear but understand that they are not related to you or anything. Just watch and acknowledge it, then let it go.
Watch this video talk on YouTube on the scientific research done in this area.
From a canonical perspective, the Lonaphala Sutta explains that a trifling evil act has significant consequences for an undeveloped person but hardly any effect for a developed person.
Your remorse is part of that unintended significant consequence. But if you learn to let go, then you would have developed your mind to detach from such trifling negative thoughts.

Yes, your bad thoughts about your mother obviously collect bad karma. In Buddhism, to actually hurt your parents is the most serious bad kamma. If you have thoughts to hurt your parents then obviously there is a serious problem occurring in your life. The impression is you are blaming your mother for something, for example, such as if your mother is making you feel pressure to achieve as a student.
You should investigate and precisely identify the specific issues causing you to have anxiety and to have bad thoughts about your mother.
It is OK to disagree with the wishes of your mother. If your mother wants you to achieve something but you do no want to achieve this thing or you are not capable of achieving this thing then it is OK to say to your mother you do not want to and cannot fulfil her wish.
You must be clear in your mind about the reasons why you are angry at your mother.
In summary, it is OK to disagree with your mother and it is even OK to be angry at her. But it is not OK to have thoughts about hurting her.


Is this nibbana or god? There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Sutta pitaka , khuddaka nikaya , udana 8:3)

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.

I quote from this answer below. Please see that answer for details.

  So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
  not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
  feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
  conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
  arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
  can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
  it.

  Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
  encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
  encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
  But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
  when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.

That Sutta afaik is about the unconditioned element in dependence on which occur the attainments of cessation of perception & feeling and that seeing with wisdom by which taints are destroyed.


Questions to deniers of traditional view on Rebirth 1.

If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?

2.

Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.

a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?

b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?

3.

Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.

If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.

How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?

4.

From experience (one salient example is fate of many Nazi war criminals) it's known that retribution for deeds both evil and good often doesn't occur in the current life (yet the law of kamma somehow needs to operate), it's also unlikely that aranantship will be achieved in the current existence.

Without afterlife and no arahantship in sight, what then should be  incentive to do good and deterrent against doing evil?

5.

If a person doesn't attain nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?

Thank you for your time

1.
  If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?

Life continues all the time. New lives inherit some characteristics from previous lives. Information is rarely lost completely. Influences carry on. They are not necessarily linear 1:1, but due to grasping some people may identify with a previous life.

  2.
  Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.
  a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?

Nope. Some are latent until a following life or lives. The question is, whose life?

  b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?

N/A

  3.
  Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.

Not correct. This is an eternalistic view. There are influences from the past sure, but the experience of current existence is primarily an interpretation we make in the here and now.

  If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.

Previous lives did contribute. Not necessarily your lives.

  How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?

N/A

  4.
  If a person doesn't attain Nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?

For them? Sure there's hope for them. But not for the dead John Smith, right?

To summarize, there are past and future lives, OUR lives. There's karmic influence that carries on. There's identification with a living organism in this life, or with a story from a past life. There's hope for and fear of a future life, due to craving.

There's no entity or identity that carries on from life to life, only disjointed influences. In fact, even in this life it is the same, the assemblage of disjointed influences into a bundle is a magic trick performed by the grasping mind.

Disclaimer: I'm in fact not sure where you stand on rebirth, whether you deny it or just dismiss as unimportant.

I consider 'birth' ('jati') to refer to the production of the view ('ditthi') of 'a being' ('satta'), per SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, SN 22.81, etc. Therefore, I do not deny 're-birth', which is the re-production of this self-view or self-identity (MN 44) of 'a being', both internally & externally. My personal research on 're-birth' can be read at this link.

  1. If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?

'Death' ('marana'), similar to 'birth' ('jati'), is a self-view about the death of 'a being', per SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, etc.

The sutta says arahants are not only not subject to 'birth' but they are also not subject to death (per MN 140; SN 22.85). The Dhammapada states arahants do not die but non-arahants are dead already.

Given the questioner is also a student of Xianism, they should understand 'birth' (per Nicodemus) & 'death' do not always have a physical meaning.

Therefore, the minds of non-arahants are subject to birth & death of self-views & self-identities.

As for a new life ('jiva') after the termination of life, this idea or speculation arises in minds that cling to & crave for life. It is a natural instinct that people do not want to die and wish for new life or eternal life, which is why religion is very popular.

  2. Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.

Absolutely. MN 117 states kamma & results ('rebirth') is a mundane teaching siding with merit & attachment. What this means is the results of kamma is always taken personally, such as "I did good", "I did bad", "I am happy", "I am unhappy". Kamma has self-view, unless it is noble kamma that ends kamma (per AN 6.63).

  a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?

Noble practitioners have ended kamma. However, result of kamma can only be observed in this life. SN 12.25; AN 6.63, etc, state there can be no kamma without contact.

  b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?

All kamma produces a result in the present & also future. For example, if my mind gets angry or annoyed, my body & mind become stressed. This stress is a result of kamma. The most small act of clinging produces a result of dukkha, which is why MN 140 & elsewhere states conceiving 'self' is a dart, a tumour, a cancer. In the 1st noble truth, the Buddha summarised 100% of dukkha as 'upadana' ('attachment'). But in MN 26, Buddha said this generation that delights in attachment cannot see attachment is dukkha. That is why this generation believes attachment to a wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, child, etc, is happiness.

  3. Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.

No. I do not believe a Buddha can teach this. It is only a view of those who reject the Dhamma is visible here & now.

The sutta (SN 35.145) about "old kamma" refers to the sense organs (not the aggregates) and says they "ought to be viewed as old kamma", which means the noble practitioner should not let the mind drift back to the past, thinking about old kamma but, instead, focus on the sense organs.

  If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.

This question is irrational because we know life comes from the sperm & ovum of our parents & we know the kammic or otherwise random events that have lead to our fortune & misfortune in life. Kamma is intention. A new born child is only born with very primal instincts. Please refer to MN 64 about a new born child.

  How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?

MN 12, SN 14.15, etc, say the difference among people occur due to the 'elements' ('dhatu'), just as the modern science of nature (genetics) vs nurture. AN 3.61 states present life experience is not due to past kamma.

There is no evidence the Buddha spoke MN 135, considering its views are only found in two suttas. Also, MN 135 refers to worldly conditions rather than to happiness & suffering, which the other kamma teachings are about. Also, the worldly conditions in MN 135 are found in many other suttas as states of mind, such as spiritual beauty, spiritual wealth, etc. Also, if MN 135 referred to physical conditions, it is obviously false, since the most wealthy people in the world have acquired their wealthy via very evil means. It is ridiculous to say the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bush Family, George Soros, etc, are wealthy due to past good kamma. Rational people understand the wealthy families of the world often gained their wealth via colonialism, exploitation, murder & evil. Many of the most wealthy people & families in the world engage in wrong livelihood.

Regardless, MN 135 is not the Dhamma. It is a sutta spoken to a non-Buddhist Brahman student and anyone who takes it seriously cannot, imo, be considered a noble Buddhist.

  4. If a person doesn't attain Nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?

The Dhammapada states the heedless are as if dead already. The Buddha remained silent when asked would he save all sentient beings. The last chapter of the SN states all beings who do not realise the 4NTs will take rebirth in hell (dukkha). The Dhammapada compares the people of the world to a rubbish heap.

If there was a next life, those who do not reach stream-entry in this life would not get closer to Nibbana in a future life because no amount of morality alone can result in stream-entry.

I have not read any suttas where the Buddha taught puthujjana laypeople they might reach Nibbana in future lives. The Buddha did not teach about Nibbana to puthujjana laypeople. In his loving-kindness, the Buddha generally taught laypeople if they do good kamma they will have a 'heavenly' ('happy') 'rebirth'. He did not teach them after eons in heaven they will be reborn in hell.

  Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
  Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
  Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
  Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

  Dhammapada

To conclude, I have not read in the Pali suttas the role of Buddhism is to save all sentient beings, let alone seek to convert or attract unsuitable people to Buddhism. Originally, the scriptures say the Buddha determined to teach only those with little dust in their eyes. Buddhism is not the same as Christianity, which condemns non-believers.


Is this talk just a convention? In this question it was said that Buddha said  "I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened ... I am a conqueror (of evil qualities)."
The answer seems to be that Buddha used 'I' for sake of convention.

Given Anatta , is the following talk a mere convention?

I have craving for music.
Do you have craving for ice-cream?

Is the 'I'and 'you' used in the talk above merely a convention or is it real?

It's all about mental context, my friend. If in your mind there's a (silent) conviction that you see, you act, you were born, you will die, this is you etc. - if your subjective experience is like that - then for you there is Self. Even if you don't use the word "I", there's is still belief in I in your mind.

If in your mind there's a silent understanding of how things work, how mind works, and how illusion of I is generated - then for you there's no "Self" or "No-Self" - you clearly see how it really is. Even if you use the word "I", there's no belief in I in your mind.

All talk is conventional, because "conventional" means we assume we are more or less in agreement what each word means. What matters is your mental context.

Conventionally, this heap of bones types an answer to that heap of bones, I think. But that may just be my conceit.


If there be no soul or transmigrating entity that takes rebirth, who or what bears or enjoys the consequences or fruits of karma? How can a religion or school of thought justify or rationalise the proposal that potential suffering could be inflicted on a subsequent rebirth - to all intents and purposes, a new individual, according to the anatta theory - because of the actions of a previous individual?
Why the threat of subjecting another to suffering, if that being cannot be held responsible for actions in a previous life?
If no soul or persistence exists, how can one suggest that performing positive karmic actions will improve the quality of life of a subsequent rebirth, if there is no element retained of a previous iteration to reap the reward and receive the incentive to continue to perform good karmic actions and/or continue in Buddhist schooling?

The question is irrelevant because there are two levels of teaching in Buddhism (refer to two sorts of right view in MN 117). The Buddha generally did not teach about "kamma-vipaka" and "not-self" (anatta) together.

"Kamma-vipaka" is mainly for puthujjana (common village people who need to be taught morals so to avoid self-harm) and "anatta" is for Noble People. Only later heretics (such as the Brahman philosopher Buddhaghosa) taught "empty not-self phenomena are reborn in a Twelvefold Voidness".

When a Noble Person realises the reality of not-self (anatta), they no longer perform immoral actions because there is no longer selfishness or self-interest within their mind. Also, there is no self-referent to any past kamma. Refer to AN 6.63, which says:

  Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.

But for the common village people who have not realised not-self (anatta), the Buddha taught they themselves are the owners & heirs of their personal actions, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma
  as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its
  heirs.

  AN 10.216

The later is true because when kamma-vipaka occurs, the idea of "self" arises in the mind of the recipient of kamma, such as the regret: "Why did I do that bad deed? What did I do to myself? I have ruined my life".

In summary, whenever "rebirth" occurs, it is a "rebirth" of "self". Inwardly, it is never "not-self".

This is a very profound question that begs a profound answer. Karma is said to be based on Thoughts, wholesome or unwholesome. Science tells us that Thoughts, generate Energy and form the basis of Information. Science also tells us that Information can never be destroyed. David Tong, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University in his discourse, ''Quantum Fields, the Real Building Blocks of the Universe" (utube) explains that even in a pure vacuum, there are phenomena that can never be destroyed ( minute 21 onwards). That seems to be the position of science today. Cosmologist and Physicist Jude Currivan (utube), is one of many modern thinkers, who advocate that "Information is at the Centre of Creation". This would imply that even if the Universe is destroyed, these phenomena will remain. I believe that these phenomena represent Information - Karma. Aeons of Information that can never be destroyed, also referred to as the Akashic record.  According to Buddhist Cosmology, when a Universe is destroyed, the Karma of the Universe becomes the cause for a new Universe to be born. Karma is therefore a very profound subject and the Buddha advised us against probing deeply into it. Suggest you read "The Dhamma Theory" by Professor Y. Karunadasa (pdf) to get a better understanding of these phenomena. The Buddha suggested that we develop insight, through meditation, to realize the truth of his Doctrine of Anatta. That will surely end your Noble Quest to find the Truth.


When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in? When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?

The word means 'formations'[1] or 'that which has been put together'
and 'that which puts together'.

I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

Formation is okay, back two other meaning are not okay.
Sankhara are coworker originators.
Sankhata are lucky men or victims.
Every aggregates must be many cause states (conditioners) and many effect states (conditioned).
There are only two unconditioned, Nibbāna and Illusion (Paññatti, included name).
Nibbāna, a reality, is not conditioned by any Sankhara because it is  the cessation state of Sankhara. It is the opposite of conditioned. Whoever , aggregates, knew Nibbāna must going to never born by conditioners again in 7 births. It is never arise but it is still a state either one know it or not. And  who want to know this reality must practice hard follow the Buddha only, except SammāSambuddha and PaccekaSambuddha.
Illusion (Paññatti, included name) is not conditioned because it is just imagination which must  imagined by  someone. It is not reality, not truth. And it is not the opposite of aggregates because erything, all aggregates, Nibbāna and all Illusions, can be imagined by thinking (mind;Cittu-Uppāda).
See Abhidhamma, especially Patthāna (24 conditions), for more information.

The word 'unconditioned', as is the thought of & the understanding of this word, all these are Sankhara and are conditioned.
That which is rightly thought of as unconditioned is not a sankhara, that which one understands as 'unconditioned' is not conditioned even tho one's thinking of it is conditioned.
If one is fixated in wrong views one can think of something conditioned and think of it as unconditioned due to stupidity.
Having discerned the cessation of the conditioned as a principally unconditioned reality, it is proclaimed to be unconditioned.


If a living being is not self aware than can he experience suffering or pleasure? When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering?

Dogs don't forget pain. You only have to look at a dog that has been continuously beaten and then cringes or tries to bite anyone who tries to pet it.  Yes it has become an automatic reaction but there must be some kind of memory there about humans not being trustworthy.

It is hard to say unless you are an animal or bacteria.
In general observation, it appears animals such as dogs enjoy the sex and they feel the pain.
According to Buddhist teaching animals possess five aggregate same as the human.

Interesting video to watch. In this video, it is explained in plain English that any living and breathing organism has consciousness and how we interpret pain and pleasure.

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth


Why talk and think about self as noun? We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for the self.

For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant.

The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing.

Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion.

Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?

I think it's conventionally useful to identify 'the agent' of an action, for example, "Whose turn is it to wash the dishes?" implies there's a someone who'll be doing that (more or less reliably).
People (or people's feelings) are also nouned when they're used as the object of a sentence, for example, "I hurt him."
Personal identity (including family) are also important (in law/jurisprudence) in assigning ownership of property, for example, "Who owns this land?", and inheritance etc.

Having nouns in sentences is partly grammar. For example, Chinese sentence structure allows sentences without verbs (Wikipedia calls it "to some degree pro-drop or null-subject language"),

Today hike up mountains, tomorrow camp outdoors.

Perhaps similarly, a nounal subject is optional/implied/unecessary in Latin, where the suffix of the verb is conjugated to indicate the person. So for example amo, amas, amat is (or must be) translated into English by adding pronouns (required by English grammar) as "I love", "You love, and "He or She loves"; but maybe you can think of it without a noun (or with less of a noun) as "first person loving", "second person loving", and "third person loving".
I might have heard that linguists have theorized that there's a correlation between grammar and reality, but I haven't heard any details about that.
I don't know Pali well enough to include it in this answer, but look at an example of some Pali at the top of this page (which starts with the Pali atta for "self", from which we then get anattā or "non-self").

I found a comment about Sanskrit -- Jayarava said,

There’s nothing wrong with creating new verbs from nouns. We do it all the time. There’s even a technical term for such verbs: denominative. We also go the other way and create verbal nouns.
And it’s not just English that does this. Sanskrit is full of denominative verbs and verbal nouns.

Self as noun or action/verb?

Is mirage is a noun or action?
Is rainbow is a noun or action?

Is Dress(Not cloth) is a noun(a thing) or concept?
Is person is a noun or concept?

Is Me(self) is a noun or concept?(Mantel action).