Is a Dhamma follower always a stream entrant? According to MN 70 : > “What kind of person is a Dhamma-follower? Here some person does not > contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful > and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet > destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, **but those teachings proclaimed by > the Tathāgata are accepted by him after reflecting on them > sufficiently with wisdom. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the > faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the > concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is > called a Dhamma-follower.** I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has > work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable > one…into homelessness. Seeing this fruit of diligence for such a > bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to do with diligence.

What does craving feel like as a set of sensations (body and mind)? I'm interested the recognition of craving as it occurs in that moment and how other people's lived experience accords with my own. Also, if there are very different forms of craving that present in entirely different ways. Many Thanks

EDIT: I've changed this question from SN 22.56 to SN 22.57, but the sutta content related to my question is very similar. And I've added a new question. The term "form" in SN 22.57 below, seems to refer to the physical body. Cessation of form is "*rūpanirodha*". And the "seven bases" from the Thanissaro translation is a bit different from the Sujato and Bodhi translations which call it the "seven cases". Question 1: What does cessation of form through the noble eightfold path mean? Does it mean that physical rebirth is ended through the practice of the noble eightfold path? What else could it mean? Question 2: I guess it can be argued that the "cessation of form" (through noble eightfold path) and "escape from form" (through abandonment of passion and desire for form) are the same thing. But are these two the same or different? If they are the same, then why are they two different bases of the seven bases? From SN 22.57 (trans. Thanissaro): > "And how is a monk skilled in seven bases? There is the case where a > monk discerns form, the origination of form, the cessation of form, > the path of practice leading to the cessation of form. He discerns the > allure of form, the drawback of form, and the escape from form. > > "And what is form? The four great existents [the earth property, the > liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property] and the form > derived from them: this is called form. From the origination of > nutriment comes the origination of form. > > From the cessation of nutriment comes the cessation of form. And just > this **noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the > cessation of form**, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. > > The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on form: that > is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful, > subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of > desire & passion for form, **the abandoning of desire & passion for > form: that is the escape from form.** > > "For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing form in > this way, directly knowing the origination of form in this way, > directly knowing the cessation of form in this way, directly knowing > the path of practice leading to the cessation of form in this way, > directly knowing the allure of form in this way, directly knowing the > drawback of form in this way, directly knowing the escape from form in > this way, are practicing for disenchantment — dispassion — cessation > with regard to form, they are practicing rightly. Those who are > practicing rightly are firmly based in this doctrine & discipline. Translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here : > And how is a mendicant skilled in seven cases? It’s when a mendicant > understands form, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that > leads to its cessation. They understand form’s gratification, > drawback, and escape. They understand feeling … perception … choices … > consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads > to its cessation. They understand consciousness’s gratification, > drawback, and escape. > > And what is form? The four primary elements, and form derived from the > four primary elements. This is called form. Form originates from food. > When food ceases, form ceases. **The practice that leads to the > cessation of form is simply this noble eightfold path**, that is: right > view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, > right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. > > The pleasure and happiness that arise from form: this is its > gratification. That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: > this is its drawback. **Removing and giving up desire and greed for > form: this is its escape.** > > Those ascetics and brahmins who have directly known form in this > way—and its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its > cessation; its gratification, drawback, and escape—and are practicing > for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding form: they > are practicing well. Those who practice well have a firm footing in > this teaching and training.

Are there references that the Buddha taught such as metta-meditation to householders (wordlings, without complete Sila), giving ground for hypocritical practice, agree with such, in manners of: "There is the case where a householder..."? Didn't he not focused on getting right view and Silas first? Was modern householder-metta-meditation ever taught, even trained by the elders, such as doing it inbetween business as usual? *[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to maintain houses but for liberation and with non-hypocratical metta: may all beings give causes to find there way out for themselves with ease.]*

According to MN 60 and other suttas, believing in karma and afterlife is right view and believing that there is no karma and afterlife is unskillful and a wrong view because there is actually karma and next world. > "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing. >"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view. This actually make sense. For example, if someone tell you that your mother is dead because he actually saw your mother die then he is telling the truth but if you think that your mother is still alive and not dead then that is a wrong view because your mother is actually dead. In the same way, the Buddha has actually seen how karma works. It is mentioned in MN 36 and some other suttas. >"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. So **my questions is why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth**? The Kalama Sutta does tell us to only believe what we can experience ourself but even then you cannot deny karma and rebirth because it is possible to know them through the fourth jhana. So **why don't they just have the view "Karma and rebirth could be real" instead of denying them completely?** **Is it also kind of a counterfeit dharma if someone says that rebirth and karma are metaphorical and not real?**

The following quotes talk about consciousness. Through relishing, intending or having underlying tendencies, consciousness would grow, increase, mature, land, establish. **What does growth, increase, maturing, landing and establishing of consciousness mean in this case?** **Are these simply different ways of talking about craving and clinging?** Or is there another interpretation? When it comes to relishing, it sounds like the craving and clinging of sensual pleasures (*kama*) based on sensations that are cognized (based on SN 22.79's statement that consciousness is that which cognizes). When it comes to intending, it sounds like the craving and clinging of becoming (*bhava*) based on mental ideas that are cognized (based on SN 22.79's statement that consciousness is that which cognizes). From SN 22.53 : > As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with form, > supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, > it would grow, increase, and mature. > *Rūpupayaṃ vā, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ > tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṃ rūpappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ > vuddhiṃ virūḷhiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya.* And the same applies to other aggregates apart from form. From SN 12.38 : > “Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying > tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness. > *“Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ > hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā.* > > When this support exists, consciousness becomes established. > *Ārammaṇe > sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.* > > When consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a > new state of existence in the future. > *Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe > virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.* As an additional reference from SN 22.79 : > “And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ > bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it > cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it > cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes > salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is > called consciousness.

I believe I have read within the Dalai Lama's works that there exists (at least) two kinds of compassion meditation: - Generating the four abodes within oneself, in a more concentrative and affective way (*metta bhavana*). - Analyzing compassion through logical discernment, having compassion as meditative object. I noticed my capacity to be compassionate with analysis seems very limited. The Dalai Lama suggests to focus on *feeling* after using reasons to generate compassion. **Is it possible that my mind functions more with feeling, and that analysis doesn't generate as much compassion in myself? What is the best course of action to generate compassion?**

In SN 12.17, it is said: > *Well now, good Gotama, is suffering caused by oneself?* > > *No indeed, Kassapa," said the Blessed One.* > > *Well then, good Gotama, is one's suffering caused by another?* > > *No indeed, Kassapa.* > > *Well then, good Gotama, is suffering caused by both oneself and another?* > > *No indeed, Kassapa.* > > *'He who performs the act also experiences [the result]' — what you, Kassapa, first called 'suffering caused by oneself' — this amounts to > the Eternalist theory.* > > *'One person performs the act, another experiences,' — which to the person affected seems like "suffering caused by another" — this > amounts to the Annihilationist theory.* Alternate translation: >*Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who > experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one > existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When > one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one > thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result > is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by > feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, > this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of > these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With > ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with > volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin > of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless > fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional > formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of > consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of > suffering.*’ Why are 'eternalism' & 'annihilationism' mentioned in SN 12.17 when SN 12.17 does not appear to be directly about reincarnation or about the denial of reincarnation?

AN 10.61 says: > Thus not associating with good persons, becoming full, fills up not > hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, > fills up lack of faith. Lack of faith, becoming full, fills up > **careless attention (ayonisomanasikāro)**. Careless attention, becoming full, fills up lack > of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear > comprehension, becoming full, fills up non-restraint of the sense > faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, becoming full, fills > up the three kinds of misconduct. > >AN 10.61 Since careless or improper attention (ayonisomanasikāro) results in non-restraint of the sense faculties, it appears this ayonisomanasikāro arises before sense contact in Dependent Origination. Is this true? If the above is true, where do we think careless or improper attention (ayonisomanasikāro) should be placed within the standard teaching of the twelve conditions of Dependent Origination?

The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states: > The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & > sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, > intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who > would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if > questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, > would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. > Why? Because it lies beyond range." The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states: > Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24 ) says that the "All" is > to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be > abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (*nirodha*), which is to be > realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be > done. > > Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to > limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to > the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse > shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and > feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana > would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another > point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest > of all dhammas (Iti 90 ), while the arahant has gone beyond even > dispassion (Sn 4.6 ; Sn 4.10 ). > > This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, > does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena > are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 > states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining > (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is > to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify > the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18 ). The range of > differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or > not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond > the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all > differentiation is allayed. On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II : > On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and > external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense > faculties and their objects, with the term *āyatana*, base, having the > sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this > supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already > from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of bases as a > complete scheme of classification capable of accommodating all the > factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the > six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23) , in which > the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from > which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of > literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka defines the mind base (*manāyatana*) as including all classes > of consciousness, and the mental phenomena base (*dhammāyatana*) as > including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types > of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73). So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why? What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

So I notice that I have what I consider to be intense meditation experiences as a beginner. I still consider myself as a beginner because I am not following any guidelines or books or yoga practices. Plus I get scared and stop meditating for long periods of times because of Fear of the unknown. But in my meditations it's just me and music or me and crystals (mostly Amethyst). Today I was listening to a Theta Vibration YouTube video and began to notice I was going to deeper into meditation I started to have Rapid Eye Movement. I told myself that I should not fear this and as I did I got passed the eye movement. I then started to feel my hands in a specific position and my index fingers being bent upwards toward the ceiling (not uncomfortable) I then became more blissful and serene. But my main question is, "IS it normal to feel your hands and arms raise mere inches off the bed? (I lay down during my meditations, I notice laying down works best for me.) What is my body healing in order to be feeling what I experience as this type of levitation in my arms? I have felt this in my legs too another time. What is my body doing in this process? Thanks in advance for any answer. I'm not sure who to talk to about my experiences. Thanks, Alicia

Aside of the trap of self-overestimating, theoretical (abhidhamma in action): When one is asked a question and brings his person, his estimate, into play, is it possible to give an answer which is not biased, does not protect ones stand or ones disabilities at first place (i.e. minimum holding something back)? Is a person able to give a "objective" answer if the mind is caught by identification-views intentionally? Wouldn't such a person, in such a state not either give a non-biased answer certain unaware of certain "self-damaging" or be shameless? In cases of being aware and fearing "self-damaging" simply not answering? (May one not fear or be ashamed of skillful actions while trying to give an answer.)

I read the following ideas on the internet by Mahayana faithful: > Namarupa means "name-form" - meaning "a concept of form", "an idea of > form" - referring to our subjective representations of external and > internal phenomena, as well as the most important Name-Form, our idea > of self. So in my understanding, every time we delineate [external!] objects, our ideas of objects keep getting more concrete. And then these ideas feed back into the delineation process, making delineation more precise but also more rigid and fixed. Thus these two - "the process of delineation" and "the collection of ideas" - support each other in their growth and development. And, in affirming the above idea and negating an alternate explanation, another Mahayana said: > But your understanding of consciousness and name-form is not Buddhist. > It's not even logically correct. Now, in the Pali suttas of SN 12.2 and MN 9, "nama-rupa" is described as follows: > And what are nama and rupa? > > Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? > > Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention. > > Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro— > > This is called nama. > > idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. > > The four primary elements and form derived from the four primary > elements. > > Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. > > This is called rupa. > > Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. In his translation of the Majjhima Nikaya in 1995, Bhikkhu Bodhi translated 'nama-rupa' as 'mentality-materiality' as follows: > When, friends, a noble disciple understands mentality-materiality, the > origin of mentality-materiality, the cessation of > mentality-materiality, and the way leading to the cessation of > mentality-materiality, in that way he is one of right view…and has > arrived at this true Dhamma. > > Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention—these are called > mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from > the four great elements—these are called materiality. > >MN 9 Also, in the Pali, the word "nimitta" is often found, to mean "theme" or "sign". For example, ideas such as "beautiful" are said to be a "nimitta". The Pali (MN 43) says such nimitta are produced by greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, the impression is these nimitta are much more than mere "perception" ("sanna"). At least in the Pali, "nimitta" appear to be "mental formations" ("sankhara"). My questions are: 1. How does the Pali definition above about "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention" describe the Mahayana idea of "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? Particularly how do the Pali terms "contact", "intention" and "attention" operate as part of this Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form"? 2. How is the Mahayana "a concept of form" and "an idea of form" different to the Pali "nimitta"?

According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why.

Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me. Some examples I've noticed- The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc. But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones. These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time. I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it. Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't. Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts. I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it. In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic.

What does this fetter really refer to? Is it clinging to rites & rituals and thinking that these practises by their own can lead to liberation OR does it refer to clinging to precepts? If it is the former, then most "rational" inclined people should have little to none of this fetter, no? If it's the latter, then it's NOT about blindly believing a precept, but questioning it and seeing for oneself that it's helpful. However, it appears to me that many rules in the vinyana are there to avoid social faux pax and unnecessary conflicts. If we take the not-eating-after-noon precept, we will see that the Buddha has reason for devising such precept; but do those reasons still hold true nowadays? I doubt it. So if most monks just follow rules and precepts because the Buddha said so (or they are deemed to be effective), then this is called Silabbata Parāmāsa?

Or is it just to maintain ones home, dwelling, without any fruits toward liberation? Given one is in debt, is it wise to seek advices by those in debts or wouln't it be smarter to ask those having left this state?

Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict. Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects. Many thanks as always

According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor. Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself. What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)? > "There is no spoon" The Matrix

I've been searching around forums for the maximum time that is productive to do a single meditation sit. There are lots of comments around over 20 minute mark for effectiveness and sitting for the hour is the most I've seen anyone say they sit. But what is the maximum that one should reasonably sit for before it becomes counter productive or at least diminishing returns set in? As a side note I remember Jack Kornfield relating that a retreatant of his declared that he was going to sit for as long as it took to get enlightened. He didn't get enlightened and the whole episode didn't go that well for that individual