I read the following comment on the internet: >*Buddhadasa, his health > failed him revealed he had no attainment in "Anapanasati", though > written 550 pages on it. He was just a Bhikkhu-scholar groomed by > Theosophical Society, his teaching contained poison.* Is there any evidence Buddhadasa was groomed by the Theosophical Society? Also, what evidence exists the health of Buddhadasa failed him to prevent Anapanasati? When he was in his final years, I saw he would sit very still crossed legged (although with back supported by chair) for up to 3 hours giving a talk. There was no visible evidence to most people in the audience he had physical discomfort (unlike the audience, who often sat in physical discomfort for at least 2 hours). In fact, at a time when it was said his passing was imminent, I saw him lose often consciousness when giving a (live translated) lecture when the translator would speak; then he would be woken up; and continue the talk exactly at the point he previously stopped. Most importantly, what errors did Buddhasasa make in his teachings about Anapanasati?

Is there a figure in Buddhism corresponding to the Christian notion of such? And what would that mean, practically?

It has been observed, all the egoic voices heard is same as the younger brother. When any positive resolution is made, for example, fasting on certain days, doing japa, abstaining from certain foods, going on pilgrimage & all positive things that will increase spirituality. This voice of younger brother is troubling since many years. Tried mindfulness, however this voice always triggers pain in the body, could see the soul very sad, as if any tantra is done. Please suggest any Buddhist way to get rid of these voices. **Edit**:Just wanted to add something more to this experience. It's not just voice sometimes, it is observed the body is overcome & actions of the body are controlled by another spirit(same as the younger brother). Kind of spooky, but it was observed many times.

It is said that Nirvana is unconditional i.e there are no conditions for it to happen. If so then why is Nirvana not happening now? Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

I’m trying to find the truth behind religious movements, for so far possible of course. I admit, it’s with a selfish goal, but it’s important for me. I want to find my way in Life and try to understand things about Life. Alas I am a little skeptical about things. I’m trying to learn as much as possible from the main religions, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam (and of course I try to learn things about the Jewish faith and Hinduism). What they all have in common is the written sources are all written many years after that the “main person” – the Founder – is deceased. The gospels are written many years after the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ, the Pali Canon is written about two/three hundred years after Gautama the Buddha, and the Quran more than twenty years after Muhammad the Prophet. All texts seems to be composed by followers who decides which texts to be sacred and which text are had to left outside the canon. And all have in common that believers believe that they contain the thru words of the founder. After reading the Quran, also a composed book by followers, I decided that this book does not contain the words of a God or whatever Devine being. I contain so much threats to humans that I cannot believe that a divine creature is the source of this text. With the exceptional rude text that when you are a Muslim, and you think about changing to another believe, Allah will torture you forever by burning off your skin, let it grow again, and burn it again, etcetera. Next page there was written Allah is merciful. I cannot think of a better contradiction in one book itself. And there are so much other threads to otherwise-believers that I think this book should be forbidden. There are many rules maybe written down by his followers after his life to maintain the status quo. Jesus Christ on the other side amazes me with his Message of Love. But what about Paul and Peter, did they really wrote down the words of God? So many rules, rules never spoke out by Jesus. But written down by Paul and Peter. So I come to the Buddhism. I really understand that it is not a religion in the way of the two here above mentioned. I don’t know much about Buddhism but I think to understand that the concept of a God was not the foremost concern of Gautama the Buddha, since it was not possible to learn about this concept during Human Life. I also understand that he is not THE only Buddha. I think his original message had some complex elements for a layman, but was great with also still a simple one. I have the impression that after his life his followers made up many rules, rituals, maybe not with the origin of Gautama. Some will say that this is because the Shakyamuni Buddha is not the only Buddha. And he is not the foundation of the Buddhism movement, but it started before him. So I come to my question, after this long intro: the Buddhavamsa mentions about 29 Buddhas, including Maitreya. Twenty seven before Shakyamuni (Gautama) the Buddha. This raiser a few questions to me. I hope you can answer these as exact as possible. 1- If Gautama is not the first founder of Buddhism why where these Buddhas not worldly known to be in existence before his life? Why took it hundreds of years before they were mentioned in Holy Scripts? Now it seems to me that Buddhism followers made them up to declare and explain rules and things in their canon. Wrote down their names to upgrade the core of their faith. 2- Is the Buddhavamsa the first Holy Scripture where the Buddhas of the Past are all mentioned? 3- Who wrote this scripture? 4- So far as I understand (have read) Gautama mentions only six Buddhas during his life. How can persons than know the names of the other Buddhas after the death of Gautama without making this up? Because there is no record that he did mention them his self? 5- How can we ever know the name of the Buddhas who lived hundreds of thousand years before us? Like Dipankara Buddha and even the ones before? 6- Why did the Buddhas of the past not launch Buddhism as we know it, or their own version of it? I know I sound skeptical, but that is not the purpose. I try to make up if there is any sense in being a Buddhist. I want to follow only what the Devine Beings want to teach up (for so far they exist) and not to follow rules and stories made up by men. So I hope to learn from your answers. With kind regards, Johan

In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes' I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first *Jhnana* then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious. Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there. - So is the author right or wrong? - What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain? - Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with *Annatta.*. So we have space for Idealism. **Small Edit:** I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper

It is generally held that there are four stages of enlightenment, namely, Soatapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahant. These stages are achieved by a practitioner as she/he gradually eradicates the ten fetters. I need the complete reference of these topics (four stages and ten fetters) in the first four Nikayas of the Pali canon. Can anyone help me?

What did Buddha mean when he told not to sacrifice? Does "sacrifice" mean the same thing as in the Jewish or Christian traditions? Btw: don't feel offended when I compares some things, I'm just wondering the differences.

After attaining Nirvana will I remember that I was once without Nirvana? If yes , as Buddha did, then isn't it true that my relationship with or possession of Nirvana had a beginning?

Many monks achieved various levels of perfections and some were extraordinary by human standards like passing through walls , walking on water, levitating in the sky, dying then arising etc... If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected? Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish. Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief. And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening. Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism? In short ,why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?

Most people interpret almost everything as Dhamma. And it is said that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Given everything is Dhamma , isn't it true that he who sees me sees Dhamma?

Ajahn Brahm’s quite interesting position on "too much Dharma" and studying Abhidharma might be conveyed in this citation: > I think of our modern age is that too much Dhamma. So much Dhamma that > you get really confused. So, just keep it easy Four Noble Truths, > Eightfold Path. Keep it simple and if you keep it simple - it [is] > much, much, much easier. > >(…) > >That gets too much, it gets so much that > people get confused. So, that's reason why they don't get enlightened. > Keep it simple. > >(…) > >You can actually see that [in Abhidhamma] language - those concepts they didn't arise until a couple of centuries after the time of the Buddha. So, even the language shows you it's much > later. You know that's great relief you don't have to study all of > that very very difficult stuff. You have to be like a professor to > learn the Abhidharma sometimes. It's so complex. Keep it simple - Four > Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, meditate. That's all the Gunpowder you > need, so keep it going. > > [Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha -- YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIK3h-UMwaw) Not only Ajahn Brahm, but also Ajahn Sumedho seem to also reduce the Buddhist practise to bare minimum, to repeating “Let go” for the first number years of his practise, which is similar to general teachings of Zen/Chan and experiential Dzogchen approach as well. Given that obsession is clinging and clinging is suffering - then, truly, for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, Dharma cannot be realised and experienced merely through reason. Thus, theoretically, sets of teachings might be double edged sword for own progression. There seems to be common ground in Mahayna with Ajahn Brahm’s claim. Quoting important piece that is a complementary reading to Heart Sutra, a Diamond Cutter sutra: > Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does > not rely on any object—any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, > or dharma—to practice generosity. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in > which a bodhisattva practices generosity, not relying on signs. Why? > If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the > happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured. > >(…) > > In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in > that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of > signs, you can see the Tathagata. > > (...) > > Subhuti, a bodhisattva who still depends on notions to practice > generosity is like someone walking in the dark. She will not see > anything. But when a bodhisattva does not depend on notions to > practice generosity, she is like someone with good eyesight walking > under the bright light of the sun. She can see all shapes and colors We know that Buddha didn’t coin a great deal of technical terms and vocabulary that did arise as attempts of explanation. As such, many things were imputed to Buddha, according to many scholars. The extent of it I don’t dare to bring up as such is not a nature of this post. Yet, we can deduce that most of the practitioners that attained Arahantship in Buddha’s times had in majority followed practical and minimalistic Buddha’s advice. That is at least what Suttas depict intuitively, rather than operating in terse sets of lexical and intellectual frameworks. In conclusion, several questions arise: - What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm? - Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths? - Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us? - Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

Does the concentration occurs during first jhana?or is it relates to the samadhi which involves in second jhana?What is actually one pointed of the mind means?

What's the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)? From my understanding, tanha is always unwholesome but chanda can be wholesome or unwholesome. How is this the case? Craving (tanha) arises from feeling as many suttas say "from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". What does desire (chanda) arise from? There are three types of craving (tanha) - sensual, becoming and unbecoming. How many types of desire (chanda) are there?

Buddha said he taught only the suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path to cessation of suffering. He also said whatever arises must perish and that is why whatever arises is a source of suffering. However Buddha arises too. Therefore is it correct to say that Buddha is also a source of suffering?

If you are a meat eating buddhist, is there any support that eating in this way lessens the karmic impact of consuming meat?

In the movie Samsara by Pan Nalin, an older monk shows some sketches to the protagonist monk. The sketches are erotic in nature but when held in front of flame reveal true nature as skeletons. It's a very powerful teaching. Do these sketches have any significance? What are they called? This is the youtube link for the movie (look @44:37). Screenshots from the movie are copied below -- they are hidden using 'spoiler' tags because they are "erotic in nature", so mouse-over the image if you want to make them visible. >! And after changing the angle of the 'paper' (there's light from a candle on the other side): >!

In modern society most politicians and banks are corrupt and only care to gain more money & power. They do not care about the welfare of the citizens. What would the dhammic response be? Activism and Dhamma should be incorporated or not or partially?

Can anyone give me a clear answer? What does the Buddha say?

Where can I find the Tripitaka source of the Death of Ven. Moggallana? The part of him being beaten by thugs and then came to the Buddha to take permission to go into parinibbana.