I have heard that there are 8 attainments or stages of insight in the progression of Vipassana, can anyone explain? I'm familiar with the 8 stages of jhana but I believe this is in reference to vipassana specifically.

The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes. But whenever we make a decision, it always has causes. ex: If you have just enough money to buy either an apple or a chocolate for a snack, what makes you choose one over the other? Is it a spontaneous decision without any causes? No! If you pick the chocolate, it could be due to the craving of the taste of chocolate at that time. Why do you crave for it? Because the taste of chocolate had made an impression on you which says that it is enjoyable. Would you have chosen the chocolate, if it had an unpleasant taste? So your willingness to pick the chocolate is not really free. Because the taste played a big role in your decision. On the other hand, if you are willing to pick the apple, is that willingness free? No! Again, it could be because of the of the taste. Or because eating the apple would be healthier. If the apple wasn't a healthy food, would you have picked it? So your willingness to pick the apple is dependant on the condition of the food. Even if you pick any one of them just because you are hungry, is that decision free? No! Because the decision is cause by hunger and hunger is cause by other causes. So the question is: is free will possible in a practical world or is it just 'will' which isn't free?

I was reading the book "Daham Danum Sangrahaya 1" about facts of Buddhism written by a Buddhist monk. And it says if all the people in a region are educated it would be a problem. I want to know if Buddha has ever said something like that? That education could be a problem for the society. Thanks.

These three things are conducted in secret, not openly. What three? Illicit affairs, sorcery, and wrong views - says Buddha. So does this mean that secret teachings of many monks like Yogis I believe are doing one of these three things?

Through Vipassan meditation one can learn how to guard ones mind against externalities and not be affected by emotions. I believe that trying to follow this meditation to view the world from an unemotional state with actions not guided by emotion would definitely help me to be more aware and more awake, as well as have a happier and calmer mind. However, my concern is the following: Does not letting externalities affect you mean ignoring externalities? I know that this meditation will help me feel better, however is it morally right to ignore the suffering of the world so that I could feel better?

In the Potaliya Sutta, Buddha says, > So too, householder, a noble disciple considers thus: ‘Sensual pleasures have been compared to fruits on a tree by the Blessed One; they provide much suffering and much despair, while the danger in them is great.’ Having seen this thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, he avoids the equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity, and develops the equanimity that is unified, based on unity, where clinging to the material things of the world utterly ceases without remainder. What is the difference in Equanimity that is diversified and Equanimity which is unified? The complete sutta can be found here...http://suttacentral.net/en/mn54

This is a sister question to this one . Suppose a Theravada practitioner decided they wanted to take a Bodhisattva vow, could they (and remain Theravadin)? I guess there are a few of components to this question: 1. Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes? 2. Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time? 3. Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

It is necessary to develop insight in the way ignorance lies at the basis for the conditioning of suffering. See 12 links of dependent co-origination. Insight in the conditioning of suffering is developed by seeing the four noble truths at work at every aspect of the dependent co-origination. Ie: fabrications are suffering because these will "colour" experience, therefore ending the fabrications (unskilful actions, complex emotions, fixed ideas,etc...) is to be achieved by developing wisdom instead of ignorance, and finally this transforming of ignorance into wisdom becomes the path of transformation. When then does the newly acquired skill itself become redundant and a hindrance to liberation? ------------- EDIT-------------- Somehow the thinking part, the studying element of the development of wisdom creates a structure essential to gain insight into suffering. This knowledge may then become a kind of established truth, again giving rise to clinging to it, craving for it, ... and ultimately the birth of "the truth". This doctrine now needs to be defended, is liable to decay and misinterpretation, ... in short suffering. As it is impossible to use the insight to overcome itself (this is like a vicious circle), the only option left is to know when to abandon the knowledge (like in the raft simile) lest it becomes anew a cause for suffering. I hope this does clarify the issue somewhat.

Surely the Buddha never said to do this as there is not a single case I have ever heard of where a dead being was able to eat food and drink from our dimension of living.

According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Dharmaskandha references 6 elements that the traditional 4 elements in Theravada. They are not explicitly mentioned in the text. What are these elements? What are the citation for this in English? Does this coincide with the 6 elements in the Theravada Abhidhamma?

It seems to me that prophecy could only be used to predict the most likely outcomes based on the mental states of the beings whose future is being predicted at the time of the prophecy. For instance, there is a scripture I just read in which the Buddha allowed Devadatta to become a monk because if he wasn't allowed to that he would be sent to a rebirth of torment after torment for Aeons but if he entered the Sangha he could considerably cut down on this negative Karma and would eventually become a Buddha whose name the Buddha even predicted. I know freewill is limited based on past karma and the number of choices one has available at any given moment but does the power of prophecy somehow still allow for freewill or is it just a sign of pre-determined fate?

I had heard Padmasambhava referred to as a semi-mythic figure. Some of his reputed activities would fit a mythic character. However to what extent is he also a historical figure. What do we know about the historic as opposed to mythic Padmasambhava and what if any historic sources do we have about him and his activities.

I've recently discovered the concept of Tulpa or "thoughtforms", and I have some questions. Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms? Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism? From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous? For those with personal experience with thoughtforms: Are your thoughtforms permanent? Knowing that they are illusions, how "real" do they feel? Are their voices different to that of your mind's voice? Do all of your interactions with the thoughform take place in the mind, or have you experienced them in a physical way? Have you ever felt attached to a thoughtform, and has being a host for one ever cause you emotional strain? Does your thoughtform take on a physical shape or image, and if so, was this a conscious decision by you, or did the Tulpa decide it's own form?

The Buddha, apparently, said we should not do dana if the offering harms you or someone else. I have heard this teaching and I would like to know if: Is it true? Where the Buddha said that, which sutta? This teaching (if true) seems to contradict the story about the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress in a previous life, or not?

I do not understand the difference between karma and fate; are they the same or different?

Does one take refuge into the concept of Buddhahood or refuge into Gautama Buddha? What about Vairocana Buddha or Amitābha Buddha for that matter? I've heard various things from taking refuge in a cosmic Buddha principal to the actual Gautama Buddha over the years from various Buddhist teachers. Perhaps taking refuge into the Buddha is a relative subjective experience. Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in?

http://bibleprobe.com/buddhatoldofjesus.htm Hi, I have been examining the similarities between what Jesus and Buddha taught and I came across this site of the above link in which the author claims that they obtained Buddhist scriptures from Wat Phra Sing in ChaingMai province that predict the coming of Jesus and show that it is nearly impossible to gain enough merit to enter heaven or Nirvana. I suspect that this is completely faked but I always try to approach these sorts of things with the possibility that my assumptions could be wrong.If someone has any information on this it would be greatly appreciated.

The image of the Buddhist Monk Thich Quang Duc committing suicide by self-immolation is a hugely iconic image of the 20th century. But bearing in mind the first precept against taking life, can this be considered an ethical act in the context of Buddhism. I appreciate that as a political act it was brave and significant. Since Thich Quang Duc was a committed Buddhist I would imagine that he was pretty certain it was in keeping with Buddhist ethics. What was his line of reasoning? Is there precedent in scripture for this kind of act?

Does the attempt to bring awareness into all aspects of life as a beginner have a greater potential of producing negative affects when starting. I'm wondering if too much practice can come as a shock to the mind if awareness fades. Or is it the case that mindfulness always produces positive results as long as it doesn't battle the mind and ones practice continues with a calm nonjudgmental refocusing of the mind when it wanders?

Buddhism teaches prohibits murder, but some Buddhist monks self-immolate. Is this inline with Buddhist teachings or contrary to them?