I've heard it said that some observations in modern Physics effectively confirm some of the things the Buddha taught. 1. Is that true? 2. If so, could someone provide some examples?

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama recently celebrated his 80th birthday! I've read that he is very conscious of the fact that after his death, there will be much turmoil, and it's something he thinks about often. "When I pass away, when I die, of course a setback. Very serious setback," he said in an interview. I have read/heard, though I cannot at present time point to the source (I can research further later and add citation, if necessary), that he is aware that many, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands, will commit suicide after he dies. I believe the Dalai Lama has voiced opposition to suiciding for protests, that it violates Buddhist ethics— "In the past, he has condemned self-immolations, which many Buddhists believe are contrary to their faith, but has until now kept a low profile over the recent wave of protests." And he is quoted as saying: > "Some people commit suicide; they seem to think that there is > suffering simply because there is the human life, and that by cutting > off the life there will be nothing... But, according to the Buddhist > viewpoint, that's not the case; your consciousness will continue. Even > if you take your own life, this life, you will have to take another > body that again will be the basis of suffering. If you really want to > get rid of all your suffering, all the difficulties you experience in > your life, you have to get rid of the fundamental cause (greed, hatred > and delusion) that gives rise to the aggregates that are the basis of > all suffering. Killing yourself isn't going to solve your problems." —so my question is: If in fact many plan to suicide when he dies, why will they act in a way that is antithetical to their teachings, specifically the beliefs of their religious leader? It seems to this Westerner a totally illogical reaction. My perception, not criticism or judgment, is that it's especially irrational considering Dalai Lama's objection to suicide, Buddha notwithstanding: "If one knows how to treasure oneself, one should protect oneself well."—The Buddha (Dhammapada) Can light be shed on this question? If I have been misled about the intentions of many followers to terminate their existence as a result of his passing, then my question should be deleted. Also, this is not the same question as "What are the consequences of the 14th Dalai Lama being the last one?" because it's not about the order of things but rather about the contradiction of ethics and action which I am unable to reconcile, hence the question, which I realize hinges completely on the report of planned suicides following his death, and I'm currently scouring for sources (I think it was an NPR radio program, perhaps).

Buddha was, if I'm not mistaken, a privileged prince with money/health/a social life who realized that none of those things make you “happy” (or even content enough). But how can, for example, somebody who has only known poverty all his life attain a true realization that money won’t make him “happy” without firsthand experience? Or, how is this poor person to realize that money won't make him content when he is constantly bombarded with "evidence" of the opposite, after all, most people with more than their basic needs covered (I mean people of average economy, not the filthy rich) are content enough to not seek a means to end their "suffering".

*Might* it be true that emptiness can be conceived of as the one taste of mind: that the world of mind has only one reality which is everywhere and always the same, unchanging. Who (which groups or individuals) say so? And: what **reasons** are there to believe it is a correct charaterisation of mind?

I have read in many places about Cula Sotapanna or 'Lesser Sotapanna' and 'Faith Follower'. Are they the same or different? Do both of them attain to Sotapatti phala in the same lifetime?

I notice, in images of monks and lay people in seated meditation, that many of these various persons appear to be using very poor posture, e.g. slumped and not erect. Written instructions and video instructions often recommend adherence to a straight spine and/or an erect posture. I think the Buddha simply instructed that one sit, without specific instructions about an erect straight-spine posture. Therefore, I find myself confused and distracted regarding "correct" posture. My breathe seems to be more natural and relaxed if I "slump" just a bit and dispense with the "straight spine". Although, I've also noticed that when I notice that my attention to the breathe has wavered I have gravitated into a more pronounced "slump"! SO, what is most acceptable and correct? Thanks for any advice that is offered :)

When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he or she still in this world? Obviously the body is, but what about the mind? I ask this question for a broader one: can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless? i.e. can we imagine a termination of form as something which can happen to this mind?

How valid or verifiable is the claim that a sotapanna leads no more than seven lives? Or a once returner returns once? There is another claim that practicing earnestly for seven days or seven weeks or a maximum of seven years should be enough to attain nibbana. Whereas as far as I can see, nibbana doesn't seem too common at all. Certainly not the kind of numbers one would expect if it was possible in a few years. Is there present day evidence for the latter? If there isn't then shouldn't it also lead me to wonder about the former? (Note: I'm not saying arahatship or lesser ariya states are impossible, just not very sure about the maintainability and significance of the number 7) What is the learned opinion here? The Zen approach of *nowhere to go, nowhere to arrive* seems more commonsensical to the extent that there is nothing to disprove. On the flip side one can be really only wearing out one's cushion in the Zendo, and there'd be no way to verify one's attainment.

I hear a lot of "spiritually awakened" people, on shows like batgap.com and on forums like dharmaoverground.org claim that the age of the monastic life is over, and in the present day one must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life. There is also evidenced by popular lay leaders like John Kabat-Zinn, one-time monastic Jack Kornfield, Ram Dass, Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Eckhart Tolle and others. Perhaps a lot of lay people on this forum are in this boat too. These are largely sincere people from what I can tell, who have spent a lot of time looking for the truth. So why do they say this? --- There have always been scandals and corruption in monastic orders since the time of the Buddha, as well as rather rigid and dogmatic views taken by some abbots. So, that cannot be a new reason to decry the tradition. The Buddha certainly appears to have spent a lot of time dealing with problem makers of this sort. And both problems continue to be pretty common in almost all Buddhist traditions today (Tibetan, Theravada, Zen etc) who in addition seem to have also confused culture with the pursuit of the truth. Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development. The saving grace is that it teaches perseverance, patience and doggedness, but is it enough? What's the alternative? Maybe it is this? --- Religion is largely becoming a taboo word in modern times with the trend towards secular materialism ascending. So, it's not like the times of the Buddha when the entire Sakhyan clan decided to follow the Buddha into monkhood. The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk. Of course many still do. Maybe it is this? --- In the time of the Buddha lay arhats were pretty rare, the general route was to become a monk. Certainly if one must remain immersed in meditation and dhammic thoughts all day and night, lay life with its smells, noises and temptations is far more dangerous today than at any time previously. This alone must make monasticism all the more necessary today. Yet, some lay teachers I can think of like Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk (at least one of them claims to be an arhat) declare that the idea of 24x7 meditative or dhammic immersion is impossible. One must allow for simple lay pleasures they say. KF even teaches in Silicon Valley, a rather central hub of material pleasures. It doesn't help that in Buddhist countries like Thailand and Indian-Tibet most monks don't spend all day in dharmic duties either - they can often been seen out in the city, listening to music or idly browsing their smart phones or even smoking. All variously (dubiously?) justified as not contravening the Vinaya. So, is it this? --- Is the monastic life still relevant? The theoretical idea of samsaric seclusion, wise teachers and rigid routine is certainly attractive - but one's resolve is weakened when looking at the reality which often appears far different. I'd certainly be interested in hearing from monks on the forum like Ven. Yuttadhammo if possible.

Are there any negative effects of samatha that were mentioned in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), the commentaries, or just from your experience? I have heard on an occasion that someone who might concentrate on a color such as a blue kasina might end up only seeing everything in blue.

This collection of [Dhamma Lists](http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/) includes the following, > Three Poisons/Defilements (*Kilesas* – lit. torments of the mind) > 1. Greed (*lobha*) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith 2. Aversion/hatred (*dosa*) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom 3. Delusion (*moha*) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity What do the statements like "mindfulness transforms this into Faith" mean? Where else (in literature) is this explained? Why these particular pairs (Faith from Greed, Wisdom from Aversion, and Equanimity from Delusion), what is the connection or how is the transformation between each pair? --- Wikipedia gave a **different** set of pairs as [Opposite wholesome qualities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_(Buddhism)#Opposite_wholesome_qualities) , which seem more obviously connected/related/opposite than the pairs or "transformations" listed above: > The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are: > - amoha (non-bewilderment); prajna (wisdom) - alobha (non-attachment) - adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness) >The principal aim of the Buddhist path is to cultivate these and related positive qualities.

References to a rebirth in the heavenly realms seems to be viewed in a positive light in Buddhism. It's easy to see why it would be considered more favorable than a rebirth in the hell realms of course. But my understanding is that beings in heaven don't practice the dhamma as there is no suffering to create conditions for them to seek the cessation of suffering, so they will not become enlightened there. Is there something positive that comes of a rebirth in the heavens other than a temporary respite from suffering? I realize we don't get to choose our rebirths, but I would like to know if heaven is considered to be a truly beneficial place and if so, why? Thank you.

Do any english translations exist online for the Buddhavamsa ? I cannot find one.

The [Twelve Nidanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas) state the cause for coming into birth. Suppose we take a look at a being with the name Robert. If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came into his first birth? As I see it, the twelve nidanas state that the cause Robert came into his first birth was because he started doing volitional activities because of his ignorance. The first time he did a volitional activity he basically stepped in the circle of the twelve nidanas and destined himself to "never ending" births and deaths. Is this correct?

When ever I see an individual that is suffering and I am able to tolerate their suffering, is also when I seem to learn and grow the most. Spiritual leaders get me on the path but the so called 'bad people' or 'obstacles' seem to teach me the most. Can Buddhists scriptures explain this? Many thanks.

My roshi tells me to focus here. Before practicing, I spent most of my waking hours thinking, analyzing, living in my head. With practice, it has gotten easier to think when thought has a purpose, and to listen to my body and environment otherwise. The book that introduced me to zen said to picture your breathing below your bellybutton. A friend said to focus your energy there. As I build focus here, it is easier to let go of distraction and delusion. But why is this place significant? Why not focus on my chest of elbow or toes?

Sometimes I feel insecure and worry about my current relationship. I try to live with mindfulness each day, but it seems very hard because I still cannot forget my bad past experience. What should I do ?

On work days (5 days a week), I'm normally able to get in around 4-4.5 hours of meditation a day, normally walking and sitting for 45 minutes each and then some Anapana meditation usually at the start and end of each day. On the weekends, I usually am able to do the same sort of practice but around 8-10 hours worth. Curiously though, on the weekends, it seems like my practice takes something of a slump, if it is even that. Towards the end of the day on weekends the pain that normally arises in my leg and I am normally able to be mindful of becomes exceptionally more intense, to the point that I'm sometimes only able to sit for 30 minutes. I know the length you sit isn't so much important as how mindful you're able to be; I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how should I reflect on this, and also how should I judge the "progress" of my personal practice in general? Thank you

Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts. You go into complete emptiness of mind, where nothing is arising. Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought. If in that state a choice is made to arise a thought, "choice" is the arising of "this thought". "Choice" must be arisen before "this thought" is arisen. Is there something that must arise before "choice" in order for "choice" to arise? What did the Buddha say is the first thing that arises that leads to the arising of thoughts? Is the answer to this question in the twelve nidanas: *"'mental fermentations/volitions' lead to the arising of thoughts"*? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas As I see it, consciousness (vinnana) arises from 'mental fermentations/volitions' (sankhara). Then, from consciousness arise 'name and form' (namarupa), which is constituted of 'matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness' (skandhas). I see skandhas as thoughts. Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions', which leads to the arising of thoughts. Is this correct?

It is my basic understanding that certain actions such as killing one's parents or harming the Buddha has immediate karmic reactions. Are there actions that have immediate "wholesome" outcomes or ones that allow you to start with a clean slate?