If nothing can be considered 'myself' or 'mine', if nothing is in my complete control (take volition for example), how can people be held responsible for their thoughts, words and deeds, if they are by definition not in charge?

The Satipatthana Sutta begins in the following manner: > *"And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?* > > *"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his > legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes out.* > > *"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or > breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or > breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He > trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He > trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He > trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He > trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just > as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, > discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn > discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when > breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains > himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains > himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'* Later, the Satipatthana Sutta says: > *And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the > mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that > the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns > that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he > discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has > delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is > without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.* > > *"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is > scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is > enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is > not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is > surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is > unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind > is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that > the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns > that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns > that the mind is not released.* Then later, again, the Satipatthana Sutta says: > *"And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves?* > > *"There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does > a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with > reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being > sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual > desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present > within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within > me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. > And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it > has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual > desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the > remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & > anxiety, and uncertainty* Now the problem I have with practising according to the Satipatthana Sutta is when I practise the first part (*remain focused on the body in & of itself*) there are no mental defilements and no five hindrances to observe. Therefore, how can practise everything said in the Satipatthana Sutta when the mind has no hindrances if I practise the first body section very well?

In the [Sanditthika Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.047.than.html) , > "The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you" A similar description is also given in the Satipatthana Sutta. The second part, "to know when something is not present inside of me", is to be understood how? Do I literally acknowledge at any point in my daily life that I have currently no defilements in me? And if the answer is yes, what do I do with that acknowledging?

Namo Budhaya. In the Mindfulness of Death sutta Buddha says the following: > When this was said, the Buddha said to those mendicants: “The > mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live for a > day and night … or to live for a day … or to live for half a day … or > to live as long as it takes to eat a meal of alms-food … or to live as > long as it takes to eat half a meal of alms-food … or to live as long > as it takes to chew and swallow four or five mouthfuls … These are > called mendicants who live negligently. They slackly develop > mindfulness of death for the ending of defilements. > > But the mendicants who develop mindfulness of death by wishing to live > as long as it takes to chew and swallow a single mouthful … or to live > as long as it takes to breathe out after breathing in, or to breathe > in after breathing out … These are called mendicants who live > diligently. They keenly develop mindfulness of death for the ending of > defilements. Buddha corrects wrong way to mindfulness of death. But as far as I see , a person who wishes to live as long as it takes to chew and swallo a single mouthful , is same as a person who wishes to live as long as as it takes to chew and swallow ....The translator of the text failed to point out the difference between the mendicant's way of mindfulness of death and Buddha's way of mindfulness of death. I will thankful if someone could explain this sutta in its true essence. My question is :How should one be mindful of death?

This question follows from a discussion on the materialist, scientific reductionist understanding of no self, and was posted in a comment : > In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the > discussion of self? **Similarities** Both Buddhist and materialist/scientific-reductionist schools refute the notion of a self, an *atman*, an eternal, unchanging soul. Both schools understand the most obvious meaning of anatta : > the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person. Furhermore, Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements , and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. And similarly, a materialist, scientific reductionist understanding posits (quote ): > That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles > governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary > and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and > meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it > trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent, > non-unitary, and dependent. **Differences?** It appears Wikipedia tells us that the difference between Buddhist and materialist views on no self lies in karma and rebirth: > Buddha criticized the materialistic annihilationism view that denied > rebirth and karma, states Damien Keown. Such beliefs are > inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because they encourage > moral irresponsibility and material hedonism. Anatta does not mean > there is no afterlife, no rebirth or no fruition of karma, and > Buddhism contrasts itself to annihilationist schools. But I'm not sure whether this quote is accurate, or a misunderstanding If Buddhist and materialist schools share the same view on the most obvious meaning of anatta (quoted above), then what distinguishes the Buddhist view from the materialist view on no self? Is there a not-so-obvious meaning of anatta which materialist/scientific reductionist schools fail to understand?

From everywhere I've read and heard in the suttas they talk about the jhanas being needed for insight, but as I understand it the Visuddhimagga gives the option of dry insight not requiring the jhanas. Does anyone know what canonical source Buddhagosa was basing this on?

Good will , compassion , equanimity etc are objects of meditation. Good will is used to escape from ill-will. Compassion is used to escape from viciousness. Equanimity is used to escape from passion. All the above ideas are familiar to me and I understand them well. Along the similar lines there is a concept of signless (I guess signless is also an object of meditation). Signless is used to escape from all signs. Following quote from aṅguttara nikāya explains signless : > “Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although the > signless has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a > basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken > by me as my awareness-release, still my consciousness follows the > drift of signs.’ He should be told, ‘Don’t say that. You shouldn’t > speak in that way. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One, for it’s not > right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn’t > say that. It’s impossible, there is no way that—when the signless has > been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given > a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an > awareness-release—consciousness would follow the drift of signs. That > possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from all signs: the > signless as an awareness-release.’ I am having difficulty in understanding what are signs? My question is : what is signless (or what is sign) and what is meant by escape from all signs?

During meditation consciousness of ear nose eye tongue body sensation have disappeared. No sensations for a while and start emerge of thoughts. When see the thoughts clearly there are spaces between them. Suddenly came up a light. Then breath appeared. What is the experience? Is it stream winning?Is the vinnanaya have experience?

What is the main goal for Theravada Buddhism and Zen Buddhism? Is it Nirvana for both or is there any additional differences? Can the answer be detailed because this is an assignment and I am trying to be as detailed as possible. Thanks so much!

If you are in a situation/or period of your life, where you think your are reaping the results of bad karma, is there something you can do to mitigate or hasten the results of such bad karma since you can't avoid it?

I'm referring to [Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60)](https://suttacentral.net/an10.60/en/sujato) , where the Buddha introduces 9 perceptions + mindfulness with breathing: > The perceptions of impermanence, not-self, ugliness, drawbacks, giving up, fading away, cessation, dissatisfaction with the whole world, non-desire for all conditions, and mindfulness of breathing. Aniccasaññā, anattasaññā, asubhasaññā, ādīnavasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā, **sabbaloke** anabhiratasaññā, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā, ānāpānassati. How is this perception to be understood? Is 'Loke' here translated as our 'world' (5 aggregates) or is it the external world and the intrinsic dukkha in it? Thanks

Lama Atisha famously brought the teachings of Nalanda back to Tibet and authored his famous, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment upon which the new translation schools were founded. This seminal text is the foundational document of the lamrim upon which all subsequent lamrims are based. Atisha did not seem to mention guru devotion in his lamrim. Spiritual teachers are mentioned only in the course of explaining how to properly receive the Bodhisattva vows and to receive Tantric initiations. Nowhere can I find the idea that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Je Tsongkhapa on the other hand listed guru devotion towards the very beginning of his lamrim and it is widely taught in new translation schools that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Why is this? Why would something so important and fundamental be left out entirely by Lama Atisha from his seminal text? Also, this is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said about guru devotion in *Questioning the Advice of the Guru*: > It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is > to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect. > Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see > written in the scriptures, “Every action seen as perfect.” However, > this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own > words: “Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst > buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.” The problem with > the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it > very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple. > Therefore, whenever I teach this practice, I always advocate that the > tradition of “every action seen as perfect” not be stressed. Should > the guru manifest unDharmic qualities or give teachings contradicting > Dharma, the instruction on seeing the spiritual master as perfect must > give way to reason and Dharma wisdom. > > Perhaps you will think: “The Dalai Lama has not read the Lam Rim > scriptures. He does not know that there is no practice of Dharma > without the guru.” I am not being disrespectful of the Lam Rim > teachings. A student of the spiritual path should rely upon a teacher > and should meditate on that teacher’s kindness and good qualities; but > the teaching on seeing his or her actions as perfect can only be > applied within the context of the Dharma as a whole and the rational > approach to knowledge that it advocates. As the teachings on **seeing > the guru’s actions as perfect is borrowed from Highest Tantra and > appears in the Lam Rim mainly to prepare the trainee for tantric > practice**, beginners must treat it with caution. As for spiritual > teachers, if they misrepresent this precept of guru yoga in order to > take advantage of naive disciples, their actions are like pouring > the liquid fires of hell directly into their stomachs. Emphasis mine. If preparing the trainee for Tantric practice is the reason for adding it to the Lamrim, then is it true that guru devotion is not of such importance for those studying sutra only? In other words, can it be said that for those practicing *sutrayana only* that guru devotion is not the root of the path?

In Lama Atisha's, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment he ends the teaching this way: > 64. Because the _Great Tantra of the Primordial Buddha_ Forbids it emphatically, Those observing pure conduct should not Take the secret and wisdom initiations. > 65. If those observing the austere practice of pure conduct Were to hold these initiations, Their vow of austerity would be impaired Through doing that which is proscribed. > 66. This creates transgressions that are a defeat For those observing discipline. Since they are certain to fall to a bad rebirth, They will never gain accomplishments. > 67. There is no fault if one who has received The preceptor initiation and has knowledge Of suchness listens to or explains the tantras And performs burnt offering rituals, Or makes offering of gifts and so forth. I interpret this to mean that people holding vows of conduct that are in contradiction to what is required in some Tantra (so-called taboo practices of sex, alcohol or other illicit activities) should **emphatically** not take those Tantric initiations. In Louisville, Kentucky in 2013 I heard His Holiness the Dalai Lama explain that monks should not be engaging in sexual tantric practices and that to do so is a defeat that will lead to bad rebirth. Was I misunderstanding something or is it not the case that Tantric practices that involve activities in contradiction to pure conduct should be avoided by those who hold vows of pure conduct? Do any schools of Tibetan Buddhism *disagree* with Lama Atisha's seeming prohibition? How about any schools of Vajrayana outside of Tibet?

In this age, getting enlightened is not sought after by many as in Buddhas era. So I assume it must be harder for parents to accept such a decision. But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents. How does that fit into ethics of Buddhas teachings? I understand giving Dhamma to parents is one of the greatest gift one can give to a parent. Can it not be done by living with them and still maintaining lay practice (like the potter who was an anagami and looked after his parents) Why ordain? NB: this is asked with due respect and do not wish to condone monks or people who desire to ordain. As Buddha would not have been a Buddha if he did not step out. I just want to understand ordaining in today's day and age.

Was Sakyamuni Buddha a vegetarian? I've heard that he ate some pork and got poisoned by it when he died? Yet the precepts say that he was vegetarian. Which one is correct?

I need English translation of Pali sutta Vipallāsakathā . I am mainly interested in the following part : > Anattani anattāti, asubhaṃ asubhataddasuṃ; Sammādiṭṭhisamādānā, > sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ upaccagun”ti.

How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol? How did his students justify his drinking? Is it possible an enlightened being could or would drink alcohol if they had been physically injured and had serious chronic pain? Like Rinpoche had chronic physical pain? What about strong opiate pain killers?

I have read some articles and book, it says that you need to develop some basic level of concentration before you can start practicing vipassana(insight) meditation. What are the **criteria** to know if I already reached that basic level of concentration? Thank you very much!

I'm a graduate student studying plant-insect interactions. My research, necessary for my degree, requires me to collect (kill) a few hundred insects. Are there any suttas, or general Buddhist recommendations, for how a lay person can best approach this? Are there ways to make up for the bad karma incurred by this action?

In what ways are the Advaita concept of 'Nirguna Brahman' similar, and/or different, to the Buddhist concept of Buddha Nature? This is a good comparison, that is where the doubt arose: [Nonduality in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/abhidharma-tenet-systems/non-buddhist-asian-traditions/nonduality-in-buddhism-and-advaita-vedanta) Maybe there is a similarity...?