There is reference in the Thai Forest tradition to a teaching given to sāriputta by Buddha of thoughts like rain drop bubbles rising the mergie into the body of water. Dose anyone know of this suta and can give a reference to it. Most appreciated. Robert Editing... the question is very vague and is poorly referenced the simple fact is I am relying on memory. I Read an account of the Mahayana concept from the Tibetan Dzogchen teachings of unsubstantial nature of the sense of self and how seeing beyond the conceptual self one realizes that there is no one to preform these actions. Hence the sense the thief finds nothing to steal. But I have also read a similar description by one of the Ācariya. They use the descriptive citta which is a multifaceted word depending on its use. "'Citta' primarily represents one's mindset, or state of mind. It is the term used to refer to the quality of mental processes as a whole. Citta is neither an entity nor a process; this likely accounts for its not being classified as a skandha, nor mentioned in the paticcasamuppada formula." Thanks for your effort. Editing again... For your reference... "Yangthang Tulku Rinpoche: Nature of Mind Teachings (excerpts from teachings given in the US in 1990/91) In the practice of dzogchen, the method of dealing with the conflicting emotions is entirely different from the method of sutra (renunciation) or tantra (transformation). In dzogchen we are still dealing with the basic problem, the conflicting emotions or the delusions but they are self-liberated. Simply by recognizing that the conflicting emotions are just the display of intrinsic awareness, in that moment of recognition they vanish, they are no more. The moment they are recognized as what they are, they are set free, like a snake that uncoils itself. No one else needs to uncoil the snake; it does it by itself. Conflicting emotions are self-liberated through recognition, through pure awareness. Some practitioners may achieve the same result, i.e. self-liberation of the conflicting emotions, by experiencing the conflicting emotions or discursive thoughts to be free from benefit or harm. It is like a thief breaking into an empty house. There is nothing for him to steal and there is nothing for the owner to lose, hence nothing happens. And so when the meditator recognizes discursive thoughts or conflicting emotions to be without benefit or harm, they are self-liberated. Through pure awareness the five poisons and all conceptualization are recognized to be none other than the display of wisdom." AND "5. The fifth question -- -"What is the essence of concentration?" -- If we were to classify the mind at this stage, it is appana citta, the fixed mind. As for concentration, it is momentary concentration. Momentary concentration is the basis for the tempered discernment of liberating insight. The mind can't stay long with any preoccupations, for it is constantly wiping them out, like the bubbles formed by rain on the surface of a lake: As soon as they appear, they vanish flat away, like a sea without the striking of waves. When discernment is tempered through the power of a fixed mind, the preoccupations of momentary concentration constantly disband and disappear, not letting the heart get caught up on them. This is termed release (vimutti): The mind is freed from all preoccupations, among them the effluents of sensuality, becoming, views, and unawareness. It becomes a mind beyond all effluents. Thus it is said, hina jati vusitam brahmacariyam katam karaniyam naparam itthattayati pajanatiti which means, "The Noble Disciple discerns that birth is ended, the holy life is completed, the task done. There is nothing further to be done for the sake of this state." So ultimately, when the practice of concentration reaches the true essence of the mind, discernment is attained. This ends the discussion of the fifth topic." https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/thai/lee/craft.html I will cease editing here as the question is quiet long and the two quotes should be sufficient for anyone to follow the original question. Again my thanks.

Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras and sastras in the same way, or do specific schools elevate different Indian etc. texts? I read about Chinese discussion about panjiao (doctrinal classification), and found it really interesting, especially the systems developed by Tsungmi and Zhyiyi, even if may seem quite dogmatic compared to someone like Wonhyo, who practiced hwajaeng, doctrincal harmony, so that "in his works we do not see the application of the practice of doctrinal classification". Is there an equivalent in Tibetan Buddhism?

I've seen the pendulum is widely used as an illustration for finding a neutral, balance point between the extremes. Its movement is also periodic which shares the same characteristic with samsara. It seems that the allusions are mostly used in Taoism text, but one can see it in [this site](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=pendulum) too. I think that it may be hard to find (if not possible) in the sutra, as pendulum is more well known in the West. But I've seen it and the swing used in poems influenced by Zen in my language (Vietnamese) to describe mood changing. So is there a viewpoint of Buddhism over the pendulum? Any references, even personal opinion is fine, but it should depict the philosophy of Buddhism within in.

This question is closely related to this question and this question and this question. There is a Sutta in the Pali Canon that seems to explicitly reject that any of the aggregates is real or substantially existent, but instead likening them to a lump of foam, a water bubble, a mirage, a plantain trunk, or an illusion: > “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception > is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk, And consciousness > like an illusion, So explained the Kinsman of the Sun. > > “However one may ponder it And carefully investigate it, It appears > but hollow and void When one views it carefully. > > “With reference to this body The One of Broad Wisdom has taught That > with the abandoning of three things One sees this form discarded. > > “When vitality, heat, and consciousness Depart from this physical > body, Then it lies there cast away: Food for others, without volition. > > “Such is this continuum, This illusion, beguiler of fools. It is > taught to be a murderer; Here no substance can be found. > > “A bhikkhu with energy aroused Should look upon the aggregates thus, > Whether by day or at night, Comprehending, ever mindful. > > “He should discard all the fetters And make a refuge for himself; Let > him fare as with head ablaze, Yearning for the imperishable state.” Depending upon the answers to the previous questions I'd be very interested in how Theravada interprets this Sutta. Generally, I'm confused how Theravada interprets these Suttas into a coherent and non-contradictory whole: * SN 22.85 seems to say that regarding a Realized One as real or genuine is incorrect. * Itivuttaka 44 seems to say that (as per Ruben2020's answer here) the body is real and genuine. * SN 22.95 seems to reject that and say the body is to be considered like foam as "void, hollow, insubstantial." Finally, Mahayana monastics train believing that the substantial difference between Theravada views of anatta and Mahayana views of shunyata is that Theravada regards the aggregates and all external phenomena as real and possessing intrinsic nature or essence. How do Theravada proponents reconcile all of this?

 So, apparently, this won't let me post unless I have thirty characters, so I'm going to ask the same question in the comments. In the above image, a Tibetan Buddhist is praying (or speaking, what have you) in the top left corner. Can you translate this prayer?

What does mean the syllable HRI above lotus and moon? What does mean those visualised aspect separately and together? What kind of inner feelings they should evoke?

In AN 3.136 and SN 12.20, it is said the Three Characteristics and that suffering arises via Dependent Origination are "*sā dhātu, dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā*", namely: > *law of nature, regularity of natural principles, invariance of natural principles* > > *this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma* Yet Westerners appear of often debate about whether Buddhism is "Ontology" or "Phenomenology". It appears some Westerners, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, cannot even make up their mind, as shown with a quote (below) from 1993 arguing in favour of Ontology and then a quote (below) from the year 2000 (pages 515 & 527 of SN) in favour of Phenomenology. My questions are: 1. What are the reasons why students, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, should compare Buddhism to "Ontology" & "Phenomenology"? 2. Why are the reasons why students should not attempt to clearly understand the Buddha's teaching about "sā dhātu, dhammaṭṭhitatā and dhammaniyāmatā"? __________________________________

Consider the advice of Buddha about friends and Wife in the Siglovada Sutta . > friends and colleagues so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you are afraid, not abandoning you in misfortunes, and honoring all your descendants. > Some are drinking buddies, Some say, 'Dear friend! Dear friend!'. But whoever in hardship stands close by, That one truly is a friend. Sleeping late, adultery, Hostility, meaninglessness, Harmful friends, utter stinginess: These six things destroy a person.... In today's world where Smoking and drinking has become such a common thing and where socializing has become equivalent to having a few drinks at least a glass of wine, it's hard to find a guy to make a friend who would fit into Buddha's description of a friend here. I mean I have given up the vices but if I will try to find a mate like me its impossible, I will be left alone. A similar thing goes with the wife, > And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties. In today's time of the hit and run relationships and all that we know of modern day relationships, this seems impractical. Following this Sutta will leave you lonely. How do you navigate this problem?

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.

With reference to this comment : > An intrinsic nature, essence or characteristic that is unique to some > phenomena that can be described as that phenomena's self. The self of > chair would be that intrinsic nature, essence or unique characteristic > or set of characteristics that imbue chairness on a chair. Western > philosophers might describe it as a platonic ideal. In Theravada Buddhism, "sabbe dhamma anatta", means all phenomena is not self. This can also be rephrased as there is no self in all phenomena, with the understanding of "self" as a permanent and eternal core or soul or self at the center of beings and also non-beings. A chair, a tree, a cat, the mind, empty space and Nibbana all do not have a self, according to Theravada. All things except Nibbana, are subject to change, arising and passing - these are known as "sankhara", or conditioned and/or compounded things. The term "dhamma" refers to phenomena, which includes Nibbana and also all sankharas. Basically everything falls under "dhamma". The emptiness of Theravada refers to the notion that all phenomena is empty of a self. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is accepted by Mahayana Buddhism too. Meanwhile, in Mahayana Buddhism, specifically in Madhyamaka, all phenomena is empty of intrinsic essence. Emptiness itself is also empty of intrinsic essence - sometimes called the emptiness of emptiness. intrinsic essence is called "svabhava". I can say that in Madhyamaka, there is an equivalent "sabbe dhamma asvabhava" of sorts. Generally, the difference between the two is understood as "Mahayana says everything is not ultimately real", but on the other hand, "Theravada says everything is not-self, but are real (even if not constant and not permanent)". The commentator above now introduced a new set of terminology saying that Theravada's self or atta refers to the "self of persons", while the Mahayana svabhava (or intrinsic essence) of a chair is a "self of chairs". So my questions would be: 1. Do other Mahayana Buddhists apart from the commentator above, also call the intrinsic essence (svabhava) of a chair, as the "self of chairs"? 2. If Theravada states "sabbe dhamma anatta" and Mahayana states "sabbe dhamma asvabhava", does it mean that anatta = asvabhava, and therefore, atta (self) = svabhava (intrinsic essence)? 3. Depending on your view: if the Theravada atta (self) is different from the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then what really is the difference? **OR** if the Theravada atta (self) is same as the Mahayana svabhava (intrinsic essence), then does that make the Mahayana emptiness a redundant concept?

Can someone explain the difference between reincarnation and rebirth? I've read the tags and am a little confused. Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist? If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.

I read some articles and saw some references to the words , Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya used by Buddha , as mentioned in the Theravada scriptures , at least a few times during His Lifetime. Has anyone come across this , too?

I am riddled by this question lately and it necessary for my progress on path of Dhamma. My question is, why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain *nibbana* while everyone around me is living in total oblivion. I mean if I had so many rebirths in past lives exactly what was I doing all these quantillion lives, was I never told the *dhamma*. If I was told, then why am I not already enlightened. Was I dumb or something all these lives not to have awaken to the truth of suffering? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that mistake so that I can felicitate my *nibbana* in this life?

It is generally taught in Mahayana monastic universities that Theravada does not posit the selflessness of phenomena. There it is taught a dichotomy exists between the tenet systems employed by various Buddhist traditions: 1. The selflessness of persons 2. The selflessness of phenomena In Mahayana texts it is often said that the self of persons and the self of phenomena comprise the "two selves" that are refuted. It is said that Theravada only posits and thus refutes the self of persons. This is a commentary on a textbook used in Buddhist monastic universities in India/Tibet written by a Geshe Lharampa: > For the, "Vaibashika school, there are 3 divisions and 18 subschools, > one of which is the Theravadan school)" > > ... > > **Selflessness of phenomena is not asserted because the Vaibashikas > assert that an established base is pervaded by self of phenomena** i.e. > even though the V assert selflessness of person, they do **not** assert > the selflessness of phenomena. > > Within existence, there are two aspects – person and phenomena. When > one talks about selflessness of person, one is referring to the > concept of “I”. When one talks about the selflessness of phenomena, > one is referring to one’s 5 aggregates, all outer objects and > everything other than concept of “I”. The V school doesn’t assert the > selflessness of phenomena because they hold the view that phenomena is > truly existent from its own side. Emphasis in the original. The point I think is that a dichotomy is made between persons and external objects. The former is said to lack a self, but external objects are considered to be real or truly existent. Some Mahayana tenet systems say the latter also are unreal and not truly existent. What do self-identified Theravada proponents think of this? Is this how you'd characterize your school or you understanding? Do you identify with the Vaibashika school?

In a Vipassana retreat you are made to wake up at 4 am, also similar is the case in the Zen retreat. I have read numerous articles on advantage on waking up early. Are there any Sutta references or teachings of Monks or Lama or Zen master which give advise on waking up early and going to bed early?

I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot. But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing. I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness. The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience. I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up? If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator. You don't think so ? Yours sincerely.

If the self is an illusion - of little importance - where does that leave my relationships? All the people I know, have a relationship with this 'fake self' of mine -- so the relationships are groundless? an illusion also?

I have heard two ways off approaching mindfulness of breathing: - Breath in a inhale-pause-exhale-pause pattern, focusing on the sensations of the breath at the nostrils and the silences at the pauses between breaths.You would control your breath in this method. - Quiet your mind and just follow the sensations of your breath as it naturally arises. Questions are 1. Should you control your breathing if you want to reach the Jhanas? 2. Which one is best if you want to attain the jhanas?

I am very interested in adding mantra singing to my practices. But sometimes it feels kind of weird singing in a language I do not speak. Is it possible to sing my own prayers or will the effect change, once the sounds are different?

**Edit**: *In our lay following of the path of Dhamma we need an external object of veneration and an external connotation to actions, which gives it a positive meaning, to help us stick to the actions. Going beyond simple logic, to do good karma and follow the Samma or right way we need something supra-mundane to transcend the mundane as a clear reason to act in that direction. Such examples can be, experiencing the Sacredness in the Idol of Buddha at an altar in your house. Having a mental image of the Buddha as a Divine being rather than just another human having achieved Nibbana through life times of practices Thinking your path as something supra-mundane which is Spiritual in meaning of it...that something having to do with spirit(non-material aggregate). This gives added meaning to your existance thereby adding flavour to otherwise dry following to the prescribed discipline in its entierity.* I undersatnd that Sacred is something religious, but as form is emptiness, **Can we call Buddha's statue as Sacred?** Buddha is not the body and body is not to be identified with, if by divine we mean Godly: transcending the experience of mundane reality....same flower different experience. **Buddha in His body, can we call Him Divine?** As opposed to mundane life of chasing women, money and fame...defining spiritual life as holy life towards Nibbana...knowing that there is no spirit to be found... **Can we call the path of Dhamma as Spiritual path?** OR Will these terms create mis- understanding about Dhamma?