In the paper "Multiple Buddhist Modernisms: Jhāna in Convert Theravāda ", Natalie Quli compares what the following teachers have taught about jhana: Ayya Khema, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, Pa-Auk Sayadaw, Ajahn Brahmavamso, Bhante Vimalaramsi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Leigh Brasington and Shaila Catherine. There seems to be roughly two camps of teachers. The first that depend on Visuddhimagga, Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas for the teaching on jhanas. The second depends either primarily or solely on the suttas, and not the other sources. Another way to divide them is those who consider *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration important, or those who don't. Questions: 1. What's the actual difference between sutta jhana and visuddhimagga jhana? 2. Is *ekaggatā* or very deep one-pointed concentration required for jhana? 3. Would a jhana attainer be able to use his jhana state to reflect on the four foundations of mindfulness as found in the Satipatthana Sutta? Or is jhana simply used to overcome the five hindrances, which aids the four foundations of mindfulness meditation? The paper discussed Ajahn Brahm's view: > Brahmavaṃso argues for a very deep level of > concentration—*ekaggatā*—that other teachers often criticize. He > states that in jhāna the body disappears, so that one can no > longer see or hear. He also states bluntly that jhāna is > not possible during walking meditation, perhaps a statement made > in reference to Vimalaramsi’s light, sutta-based jhānas, discussed > below. Finally, he argues that “some teachers today present a level > of meditation and call it jhāna when it is clearly less than the > real thing.” Among the sources Brahmavaṃso reveres and cites > throughout his work are the Vinaya, the Visuddhimagga, and even the > jātakas — which are very rarely mentioned by Western Insight Meditation > teachers. The paper discussed Bhante Vimalaramsi's view: > Part of this effort to return to the origin of Buddhism has > led Vimalaramsi to revere the suttas and Vinaya but reject the later > commentaries and the Abhidhamma. He is particularly critical of the > Visuddhimagga. For example, he notes: > > > So you have the Visuddhimagga teaching one kind of > > meditation, that doesn’t lead to nibbāna, and you have the sutta, > > that teaches an-other kind of meditation, and it leads directly to > > nibbāna. And now, because we’re so far away from the time of the > > Buddha, there’s a lot of monks that take the Visuddhimagga as the same > > as the teaching of the Buddha, and then there’s other monks that don’t > > take that as the teaching of the Buddha, they take the suttas as the > > true teaching. > > Though Vimalaramsi initially studied in the vipassanā centers in > Burma, he became convinced that this style of meditation was not > authentic because it was based on commentaries rather than the > suttas. In fact, this sutta-based interpretation of meditation has > led him to teaching what he calls “tranquil-wisdom meditation,” a > joint samatha/vipassanā meditation. He teaches mainly from the > Anapanasati-sutta and the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta, and maintains that jhāna > should not be considered ecstatic or one-pointed (*ekaggatā*). Rather, > it is a light, relaxed state in which various Buddhist insights > are examined. He maintains that (1) those who follow the > commentaries’ descriptions of jhāna are practicing a non-Buddhist > meditation that does not lead to nirvana and (2) those who > follow the commentaries in practicing a separate vipassanā > practice are mistaken in following a non-canonical authority. The paper discussed Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view: > Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches jhāna exclusively from the suttas and not > from the commentaries. After noting that the jhānas as taught > in the Visuddhimagga include elements not mentioned in the > suttas, Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes, “Some Theravadins insist that > questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the > tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the > Buddha—or the compilers of the Canon—to assume that he or they would > have left out something absolutely essential to the practice.” He > concludes that jhāna in the commentaries is “something quite > different” than jhāna in the canon. > > Unlike others who advocate the “deeper” states described in > the Visuddhimagga, **Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that extremely deep > states of meditation are “wrong concentration.”** One must be > fully aware of the body; powerful *ekaggatā*, as discussed in the > Visuddhimagga, can lead to one losing a sense of sounds, thoughts, or > perceptions, which is not ideal for insight in his opinion. People who > advocate such deep meditation are, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, > blocking out certain areas of awareness and are “psychologically adept > at dissociation and denial.” Leigh Brasington, student of Ayya Khema, described sutta jhana vs. visuddhimagga jhana: > Leigh Brasington is an American student of Ayya Khema who now teaches > regularly on the jhānas across the United States, mainly to students > at Insight Meditation centers. Like his teacher, Brasington suggests > that the jhānas are not difficult to learn or practice. He notes > that “The jhānas as discussed in the suttas are accessible to many > people” but maintains that the jhānas presented in the Visuddhimagga > are actually qualitatively different from those described in the > suttas; he speculates that the Visuddhimagga jhānas were developed > during a later period and are more difficult to achieve. In fact, > **Brasington has suggested that we distinguish between “sutta jhānas” > and “Visuddhimagga jhānas,” which he considers quite different from > one another.** Brasington favors the lighter sutta jhānas. A further comment by the paper's author: > Likewise, Thai-trained Thanissaro Bhikkhu completely rejects the > authority of the commentaries in terms of jhāna practice. Both of > these teachers agree that the jhānas are a light state of meditation > because ekaggatā, deep one-pointedness, is mentioned only in the > commentaries. Thanissaro argues that the deep state of meditation > advocated by some Buddhist teachers is “wrong concentration,” while > **Vimalaramsi suggests that the jhāna practices endorsed by > Visuddhimagga followers is “hypnosis,” not jhāna.**

I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama. "The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: **Vaibhashika** (Skt. **Vaibhāṣika**), **Sautrantika** (Skt. **Sautrāntika**), **Chittamatra** (Skt. **Cittamātra**), **Madhyamika** (Skt. **Mādhyamika**). I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction. 1. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly? 2. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written? 3. What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts? Thank you in advance.

From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit. But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected? Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

If we have been transmigrating in samsara infinitely via rebirths, then doesn't that mean that kamma which we have earned too is infinite? And if so, doesn't that imply that enlightenment is imposible to reach since it would take one infinite amount of time to reach? I know this is classified as something that is unconjecturable and drives one insane, but this one is driving me curious. Any takers on this?

[Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Identity_view_.28sakk.C4.81ya-di.E1.B9.AD.E1.B9.ADhi.29) is the first of the ten fetters. The "eradication" of identity-view is important towards enlightenment. Presumably, "eradication of identity-view" is more than simply claiming, "Yes, there's no self anywhere!!" So, how should one understand what "identity-view" is, and whether it's eradicated? If "eradication" of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)? Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated? Is "eradication of identity-view" synonymous with having no habits? Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic? If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones! --- Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that [Culavedalla Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html) for example seems to describe it: > As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" > > "There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One." Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the **fourth** fetter"? Also, questions about the self come with a warning: "[This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc.](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html) " -- so I have **not** been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?

Further to my question about discussing Buddhism with children , I want to ask that, **at what age does one becomes capable of understanding Buddhism?** The very first time I came across Buddha and Buddhism was in my school textbook where I read the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold path. I must have been around 14 or 15 at that time and raised in a liberal Hindu family. But I still remember at that time, I thought to myself, 'this is so simple and has nothing to do with the all power full Hindu gods that I worshipped and adored'. I underrated the Buddha. Fast forward 20 years, after going through intense mental suffering, breakups, and craving and desires which never got fulfilled, and then starting contemplating about the whys, and spending time reading about religions and science and meditation, I now call myself a practicing Buddhist. **So at what age does one becomes capable to understand Buddhism**? Is going through suffering a necessary part of one's path? Does failing to have a romantic relationship act as a trigger to start contemplating about life and turn to religion? Does exposure to the absurdity of life somehow turns a person look inwards?

The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

“Siddhartha Gotama sat for one last time under the pipul tree with the adiṭṭhāna that he would not get up till he became realized. He battled the beautiful as well as the ugly and fearful illusions of Māra successfully that night and at the same time had very profound insights into Reality, the final one being that into paticcasamuppāda which destroyed the last vestiges of avijjā and Gotama became the Buddha, the Tathāgata, ‘Thus Gone’.” It was a momentous event! I want to understand this profound moment and, therefore, have some questions: 1. What happened to Gotama when he became the Buddha? Of course, as Buddhists we understand that there was no self at all to begin with, but that was not experientially realized till asmi māna, one of the last fetters, dissolved. So, Gotama did not realize nibbāna because that would mean that his ‘I-am-ness’, his māna, continued into nibbāna, which is unacceptable. Should we say instead that ‘there was realization’, an impersonal phenomenon, as the asmi-māna vanished? Could we say that this realization entailed an ontological shift from the puny, illusory self to the unconditioned Nibbāna? But then wouldn’t that still be some kind of eternalism? Or: 2. Did Gotama, the conditioned, illusory self ‘die’ at the time of his realization and the nāma- rūpa, that it once was, continued by the sheer force of its unspent past karma which on exhaustion then led to Parinibbāna of this psycho-physical being? Was the Buddha this nāma- rūpa that, metaphorically speaking, ‘translated’ the unconditioned Reality for puthujjana like us and made it possible for us to tread the path for its realization? But then what happened at Parinibbāna? What remained? Nothing? Doesn’t that sound like annihilationism? Or: 3. Did at Parinibbāna, with the extinguishing of the final vestiges of conditioned being, the Unconditioned shine in its brilliant, impersonal glory? Beyond Being and Non-being? Beyond anything that can ever be understood? Or would that be mere linguistic gymnastics? I want to understand what actually happened!

What is the difference between the scientific law of causality and the Buddhist law of conditionality (Paṭiccasamuppāda)? I am not convinced with the way Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, for example, has drawn the distinction between the two. According to him, the scientific law of causality is linear with one cause giving rise to one effect which in turn becomes the cause of a second effect, so on and so forth. The law of conditionality on the other hand, he says, is a structural principle based on a complex interplay of various conditions wherein an effect arises due to an array of causes that interact with each other in a complicated fashion to give rise to an effect. Well, it is not that the scientific principle does not recognize that. It clearly does! What I have understood is that the law of conditionality is a much wider extension of the scientific principle of causality that is strictly applicable to material phenomena only. In addition to material realities, Paṭiccasamuppāda also deals with what may be referred to as metaphysical and ontological phenomena. The rules of science do not allow it to venture into these fields at all! What is the actual Buddhist position on this?

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?

In western societies specially, children are encouraged to try their hand at different things so that they can find their interest, practice it, be good at it. In the process build character like learn how to be disciplined, punctual, diligent, organized, productive, learn from mistakes etc. Then the very act of finding an interest seems similar to how 'attachments' are described in Buddhism. Am I missing something?

Is there any kamma that will definitely cause the guilty to go to hell, except the five anantariya bad kammas?

What exactly is the "bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" or "insistence that this is the only truth" in the sutta below? Why is it a bodily knot or tie? Please provide examples. The Pali term is "*idaṁsaccābhiniveso kāyagantha*". SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Bodhi: > “Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of > covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of > distorted grasp of rules and vows, **the bodily knot of adherence to > dogmatic assertion of truth**. These are the four knots. > > This Noble > Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four > knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter > destruction, for their abandoning.” SN 45.174 translated by Ven. Sujato: > “Mendicants, there are these four ties. What four? The personal ties > to covetousness, ill will, misapprehension of precepts and > observances, and t**he insistence that this is the only truth**. These are > the four ties. > > The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge, > complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these four ties.”

I'm asking this question because I want to know if I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting something. I hope I'm not offending anyone, I want to genuinely know how to interpret my experiences with the people I'll describe below. I live in a country where there is no significant Buddhist population. Neither in my country, nor in the neighboring countries I often travel to. However, when I occasionally happen across someone who practices Buddhism, I seem to notice very strong similarities between all of them. If we're in a group with many other people, it's always them who bring up the topic of spirituality. Or if I meet an acquaintance who is not so close as to engage in deep conversations, and we would just generally exchange some pleasantries, *"how are you? I'm fine, thanks"*, they instead start to instantly brag about how spiritually evolved and enlightened they are. No matter the topic, they sooner or later mention how enlightened they are. And quite often in a condescending tone, that they are a being of much higher level than I am. And no matter the topic, they keep inserting words not from the language we're speaking in, and if I ask what it means, the answer is either that they won't say because I wouldn't understand the true meaning, or that it's the word for "desire", or "thought", or "energy", or "wisdom" or "consequence" or any other common word, but as they say *"but it means so much more than that!"*. If I remember correctly, most of these examples I met said they practiced Zen Buddhism. (because they invariably start talking about how spiritual they are, someone sooner or later asks why they say it) What also happens almost every time, is that if we're talking about a non-religious topic, they still have a very strong opinion about everything, even if it's a technological topic in which I have experience and they don't. Then they still say the opposite of what I know to be true, and if I present my proof or argument, the answer is that their feelings tell them that they are right, or that they know it better because they are spiritually more evolved than I am, therefore they have a more open mind, or something similar. I know all this sounds very negative and judgmental, but it seems to cover basically all my experiences when I happened across a Buddhist. Maybe that behavior only sounds strange or impolite for me because that's not the way of thinking I'm used to in my culture? Or maybe they themselves gravely misunderstand what Buddhism is (or should be about), and only "practice" it because it sounds exotic for them? How representative are these people, anyway? **So, my question, summed up:** there are very few Buddhists in the culture where I live, but most of them seem to be constantly bragging about how much more superior and how much more enlightened they are. * do I misunderstand them? * or are they misunderstanding Buddhism?

Correct me if I am wrong. Siddharth went to Alara Kalama, who told him to focus on his breath in order to get rid of Feelings, (Buddha achieved Alara Kalama level in 2 months), Now he told his teacher that when he is in meditation, everything is fine but on coming to ordinary state, Negative & positive Feelings again came to him. Now Alara Kalama told him to go to uddaka rāmaputta, **What did Siddharth learn under uddaka rāmaputta ?** Above information is seen in an indian television show "**Buddha**" I wanna know what happened in real ?

I understand that vegetarianism goes with Buddhism. But what about leather? Leather car seats, leather handbags, leather this and leather that. Is there some sutra on the permission to have them, since animals need to be killed to make these products?

If a family member has been dishonest with me, and upon discussing the issue denies the lie, what is the best action?

Can one gloss the doctrine of karma as the claim that we are only really hurting ourselves? At least in everyday senses of suffering. Perhaps not including sickness, old age, and death (these seem like counter examples). But when we suffer from everyday pangs of frustration, due to e.g. frustration with our visual appearance, or lack of wealth (these are just examples). Thanks for your contribution: looking for the limits of what is and is not our own fault.

Is there a comprehensive list of different types of Samadhi (in Pali, Sanskrit, English and/or otherwise) related to Buddhism?

Recently Ven. Thanissaro sacrified a lot of effort and time, to make certain Jain-ish approaches via the Buddhas better understandable. >[The Limits of Description : Not-self](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/NotSelfRevisited.html) Revisited. A response to a critique of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s essay, “[The Not-self Strategy](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/nobleandtrue_en.html#ch7)” (available in the essay collection, Noble & True). (Also available as [pdf format](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/NotSelfRevisited171126.pdf)) Now, it would be maybe good to read Bhikkhu Bodhis previous critic. Does any one know if there is a non-commercial shared copy avaliable? And if, maybe possible to be quoted. Here is a reference to the critique, provided by Nyom Chris, the topic is about: > These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” ... The critique—“**Anattā as Strategy and Ontology**,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time.