Namo Buddhaya! Here are my questions regarding justice systems & their morals: > Would it be skillful & moral to report someone to a principle, a police > officer, or any sort of authority when someone is being hurtful to > others (such as killing, bullying, etc.), knowing that reporting them will most likely cause them suffering > e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc? > > And also is justice skillful, moral and is incarceration moral, > skillful in terms of the Dhamma? Metta!

The practice of meditation is central to certain Buddhist traditions, e.g. Vajrayana, Dzogchen, Zen, important for recognizing Buddha nature. Furthermore, Vajrayana and Theravada traditions assert that the meditation serves as a basis for realizing selflessness: > the purpose of meditative stabilization is to serve as a basis for > achieving supramundane special insight realizing selflessness, the > emptiness of inherent existence, through which afflictive emotions can > be removed completely and forever > > -- Dalai Lama > > > So what is the purpose of satipaṭṭhāna? The purpose is to see > anattā, that there is no self, no me, nor anything that belongs to a > self. > > -- Ajahn Brahm But dhyana and samadhi are not unique to Buddhism, also found in schools such as Hinduism which do not lead to realization of no self. And even highly accomplished Buddhist meditators have found that with a radiant mind in meditation, the sense of self can still fail to be uprooted. > At that stage the mind was so radiant that I came to marvel at its > radiance... > > “If there is a point or a center of the knower anywhere, that is an agent of birth.” > > -- Ajahn Maha Boowa How exactly does Buddhist meditation practice lead to realizing selflessness, versus other forms other forms of meditation which do not? What exactly makes Buddhist meditation different? What made the Buddha's meditation technique differ from others' (e.g. Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta ) which did not lead to enlightenment? (Please be more specific than "Middle Way").

Throughout the suttas, we find the following stock passage: >"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." On that text, I interprete the word "*cessation*" in "*cessation of that very ignorance*" as indicating a ***complete*** cessation of such ignorance. Is this interpretation of the *cessation* also applied to the other processes indicated next in the stock passage? For instance, if the passage says "cessation of fabrications", is this implying a ***complete*** cessation of fabrications, just like in the last example? Also, what is this "*remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance*"? Is this referring to Nibbāna or to Parinibbāna? If it's indicating what happens after Nibbāna, then does this mean that fabrications (and all the posterior nidanas) cease to arise after Nibbāna as well? If not, then should we read *cessation* in all the other nidanas (i.e., in all except in *ignorance*) as the "*cessation of X nidana tainted with ignorance*"? But if, on the other, it's indicating at what happens at Parinibbāna, then Nibbāna is not the "*remainderless fading & cessation of ignorance*" **In sum, is the interpretion and implications of the word "*cessation*" dependent on the phenomenon which is ceasing?** Thanks in advance for your time! Kind regards!

I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question. So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis. It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala)." Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it? Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers. Thank you

This page of [Dhamma Lists](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) includes, > **Four Brahma-viharas (Highest Attitudes/Emotions)** > Heavenly or sublime abodes (best home). Near enemy is a quality that can masquerade as the original, but is not the original. Far enemy is the opposite quality. > 1. Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred 2. Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty 3. Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy 4. Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed Given that "pity is the near enemy of compassion", then what is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity' (e.g. what is present in compassion but absent in pity, or vice versa)? Does knowledge/awareness of that difference somehow inform your intentions and/or actions?

Is there Sutta reference for Devadatta's third attempt to kill the Buddha with drunken elephant Nalagiri as mentioned in Life of the Buddha? https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm

When I breathe there's a certain time gap after the out breath and before the in breath. I find myself being dull or distracted at that time because there's no breath to notice. Do I notice the lack of breath? Do I notice not noticing?

In terms of the effects of the attainment of arahantship over the arising of feelings (vedana): Do Arahants experience the arising of non-neutral (pleasure or displeasure) mental feelings? According to Sallatha Sutta, an Arahant will still experience physical feelings of pleasure and pain, but he will just see those feelings as feelings. What does this mean? If physical pleasure/pain arises, he will not experience a mental pleasure/pain? Or he just feel it without the arising of aversion, craving and ignorance? What happens in the case of the practice of Jhana? Doesn't that count as mental pleasure? If mental pleasure and pain are eradicate, does this mean that every mental phenomena will be felt as a neutral phenomena? For example: If a non-arahant person feels an unpleasent feeling when seeing a corpse or when thinking about a corpse, will the presence of such phenomenon (the corpse, or the idea of a corpse) will still give rise to an unpleaseant feeling after attaining arahantship? If the training under the Noble Eightfold Path helps to change the way the noble one feels the world, does this mean that everything feels neutrally after attaining Nibbana? EDIT: to make this clearer, I'll be more specific. I'm trying to fit what has been said above with what I read and interpret from Sallatha Sutta. On one side, I see that physical painful stimuli does not give rise to mental feeling. On the other hand, in MN 152, we see that a noble one seem to have some tendencies and inclinations toward some preferences over others, but he reacts with equanimity to the arising of liking and disliking. So, does the training changes all non-neutral feeling to neutral feelings, or changes the way the noble one responds to non-neutral feelings? If an arahant-to-be had a preference for pizza over tacos, will that remain the same after Nibbāna? What do the suttas tell us about this or your experience tell us about this? Thanks in advance for your time! Kind regards!

Has anybody personal experience in trying this ? Is it not natural to have some attachment? I realize attachment is a cause of suffering but is suffering not natural?

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/08/error-in-pali-source-941-fourth-jhana.html excerpt: error in pali source, AN 9.41 fourth jhana impurity is sukha, not upekkha pali source is cst4. The error is on two levels. On the doctrinal level, AN 9.41 doesn't match SN 40.4 which has the correct impurity popping up in 4th jhana, sukha. --- pali source is cst4. and BJT pali source has same error: > 4. So kho ahaṃ ānanda aparena samayena sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi. Tassa mayhaṃ ānanda iminā vihārena viharato upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svāssa me hoti ābādho. Seyyathāpi ānanda sukhino dukkhaṃ upapajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya, evamevassa me **upekkhā**sahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti, svāssa me hoti ābādho. The error is on two levels. **On the doctrinal level**, AN 9.41 doesn't match SN 40.4 which has the correct impurity popping up in 4th jhana, sukha. SN 40.4: > So khvāhaṃ, āvuso, sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi. And so … I was entering and remaining in the fourth jhāna. > Tassa mayhaṃ, āvuso, iminā vihārena viharato **sukha**sahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by pleasure beset me. AN 9.41 wrongly has > Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato **upekkhā**sahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho. While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by **equanimous** pleasure beset me, and that was an affliction for me. > Seyyathāpi, ānanda, sukhino dukkhaṃ uppajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya; Suppose a happy person were to experience pain; that would be an affliction for them. > evamevassa me upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho. In the same way, when perceptions and attentions accompanied by equanimous pleasure beset me, that was an affliction for me. From STED 3rd jhana formula we know 'sukham ca kayena pati-samvedeti' is pleasure experienced with the physical body. upekkha is present in both 4th and 3rd jhana, so it can not be an impure element that intrudes upon 4th jhana. Whatever 'upekkhā-sukhe' is supposed to be, it doesn't make any sense and doesn't match the physical sukha/pleasure of 3rd jhana. **Error on sloppy editing level** The **equanimous pleasure** referred to, in the previous paragraph of AN 9.41 is: > Tasmā me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ na pakkhandati nappasīdati na santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato’. That’s why my mind isn’t eager to be without pleasure and pain, and not confident, settled, and decided about it. And it’s why I don’t see it as peaceful.’ > Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi: Then I thought: > ‘sace kho ahaṃ **upekkhāsukhe** ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulaṃ kareyyaṃ, adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseveyyaṃ, ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ vijjati yaṃ me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandeyya pasīdeyya santiṭṭheyya vimucceyya etaṃ santanti passato’. ‘Suppose that, seeing the drawbacks of **equanimous pleasure**, I was to cultivate that. And suppose that, realizing the benefits of being without pleasure and pain, I was to develop that. It’s possible that my mind would be eager to be without pleasure and pain; it would be confident, settled, and decided about it. And I would see it as peaceful.’ > So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, aparena samayena upekkhāsukhe ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulamakāsiṃ adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseviṃ. And so, after some time, I saw the drawbacks of equanimous pleasure and cultivated that, and I realized the benefits of being without pleasure and pain and developed that. > Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato. Then my mind was eager to be without pleasure and pain; it was confident, settled, and decided about it. I saw it as peaceful. AN 9.34 also has same error which has a similar theme to AN 9.41, has the same pali source error

Is there a difference in the practice of satipatthana bhavana and vipassana bhavana? Or are both terms synonyms?

I'm wondering basically whether anapanasati can *result* in as much compassion as metta. Though the focus is different, **can these two meditations have the same potential for altruism? Does meditating on the breath produce as much compassion?** Basically, I wonder if -- in order to become altruistic and compassionate -- one has to *focus* on compassion as a subject, or if that is not necessary. Thank you

*Namo Buddhaya! (I am a Theravada Buddhist)* The Vinaya says monks & nuns cannot be together in private (it would be an offense). > But what if someone is a homosexual, **how would they go about > ordaining**, as they would not be able to technically be with men then (similar to nuns)? I would have a hard time believing the Buddha would discriminate against someone who is a homosexual. **IF** they cannot ordain, > what is the **reason** that they can't ordain as according to the Buddha? ( WITH SOURCE) The Buddha chose to ordain woman, and homosexuals for sure can overcome their sexual urges just as a woman can towards men AS WELL, so why can't homosexuals ordain? (Please, if possible, cite sources!) Metta!

What is the exact meaning of the second factor of Enlightenment 'Dhammavicaya'? Does it mean: enquiry of the Dhamma (buddhasasana)? Or is it the enquiry (= tilakkhana) of all dhammas i.c. all phenomena? Or both?

I read that those monks who self-immolated probably felt no pain because they were in nirvana... Is there a state you can get to more easily than nirvana where you can be conscious and pain-free? If so, how many hours of meditation do you need to get there, on average?

I've been practicing concentration for a while, trying to reach access concentrataion. In the beginning of my practice my mind was very noisy (as I guess anyone else), after a while I began to calm down and thoughts began to slow down enough for me to see the way to concentration. I experienced how tracking the breath and taking in all the texture really changes the state of my consciousness and feels like plunging to a deep water. It seems that this is a window to a wide world I really want to explore. In recent sittings I've been finding myself calming down very much to the point of not focusing on anything at all. No thoughts, no breath. I guess there's still thoughts and activity but my mind is not in tune to any of them in particular. While this can fell quite good, I think its retarding my practice. I notice that its now hard to track the breath in the same way, its like the mind is being lazy and wants to slip into the comfort of being dull. There's no texture to the breath and it now feels more distant. What can I do to overcome this state of torpor and inject some clarity into the practice?

The 14th Dalai Lama have known to actively support scientific explanation on Buddhism. For example his investment in the [Mind and Life Institute](https://www.mindandlife.org/) . But I remember that I've read somewhere that he jokingly requests scientists to invent a meditation machine, because meditating 4 hours every morning is very hard, but I can't find it again. Is there a source of that?

There must be a desire to even bring a glass of water to drink. Without desire, no movement is possible. First, there is a sensation of thirst; out of that thirst, there is the desire for drinking water. So, **when desire is the fuel to carry out normal daily activities, what does it mean that Buddha didn't have desires?** My guess is When there was a sensation of thirst, Buddha used to not identify himself with the sensation. In other words, there was an absence ego-identity with the thirst. But again, **the desire to drink water, eat, move, etc. was arising. From where it was arising?** Generalizing it better, the question turns up, **Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? Because desires seem to be driving force of any action. Doesn't it? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?**

What if one thought it wiser to tell a lie, because the truth could potentially endanger one's own life? For instance, someone might lie that they believe in a supreme being, in reply to a question being asked by their parents who have strong faith. This is a very sensitive topic in some cultures or countries, to the point that parents might kick their son or daughter out of the house. This is an example where the intention is to maintain personal security. Does this violate the precept of not-lying? Or, instead of being a lie, might this be considered like the "noble silence" that Buddha once exhibited when the listener was incapable of understanding the Dhamma?

Is it true that most "enlightened" Buddhists attained this realization gradually? Or are there cases of sudden enlightenment? I ask because either this process is way more gradual than I can even detect, or else I'm not yet at the sudden point. Or perhaps I won't ever get to that point at all. I'm pretty new to all this - been meditating daily for about a year now, at first once a day for 20 minutes, then 30 minutes, and lately twice a day for 20 minutes each...I feel so clueless. And my mind continue to race all over the place when I'm sitting. :-)