I am looking for early mentions of the accumulation of karma while dreaming. Here is what I've been able to find so far: 1. In The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom a discussion of accumulating karma in dreams: > Sāriputra: Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, who in > his dreams enters into the three concentrations—emptiness, the > signless, the wishless—does he, then, grow in perfect wisdom? > > Subhuti: If, Ven. Śāriputra, he grows through the development by > day, then he also grows in a dream. And why? Because dream and waking > are indiscriminate. If the Bodhisattva who courses by day in the > perfection of wisdom has a development of the perfection of wisdom, > then also the Bodhisattva, the great being, who dreams will have a > development of the perfection of wisdom. > > Śāriputra: If again, Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great > being, does a deed in his dream, will there by of that deed a heaping > up or accumulation? If all dharmas are said to be like a dream, there > will be no heaping up or accumulation of it. And why? Because in a > dream no heaping up or accumulation of a dharma can be apprehended. > But when one wakes up and thinks it over, then there is a heaping up > or accumu- lation of it. > > Subhuti: One who had committed a murder in his dream, and, on > waking, would think it over like this, 'he has been well killed by me, > (A: it is right that he was killed, it is just that he was killed, it > was I who killed him!' Such thoughts are equivalent to the conscious > notion that he wants to kill someone). > > Śāriputra: Not without an objective support does a deed arise or an > act of will. > > Subhuti: So it is, Śāriputra, not without an objective support does > a deed arise or an act of will. Only with an objective support is a > deed produced, or an act of will, and not without. In seen, heard, and > known dharmas does intelligence proceed, and not in unseen, unheard, > unknown dharmas. Therein some intellectual acts take hold of > defilement, and some of purification. Therefore, then, Śāriputra, it > is with an objective support that a deed or act of will arises and not > without objective support. 2. In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided. 3. Shantideva addressed this (or a closely related) question in Chapter 9 of his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life verse 11 and on: > If consciousness does not exist, there is no sin in killing an > illusory person. On the contrary, when one is endowed with the > illusion of consciousness, vice and merit do arise. 4. In the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines: > Sariputra: If someone in his dreams does a deed, wholesome or > unwholesome, will that be added on to the heap or collection of his > karma? > > Subhuti: In so far as the Lord has taught that ultimately all dharmas > are like a dream, in so far that deed will not be added to his head or > collection of karma. But on the other hand [from the standpoint of > empirical reality], that deed will be added to the heap and collection > of his karma if, after the man has woken up, he thinks the dream over, > and consciously forms the notion that he wants to kill someone. How > does he do that? During his dream he may have taken life, and after he > has woken up, he thinks it over like this: “it is good that he was > killed! It is right that he was killed! It was just that he was > killed! It was I who killed him.” Such thoughts are equivalent to the > conscious notion that he wants to kill someone. Does anyone know of sutras or other ancient sources where the Buddha or Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Tsongkhapa or others might have addressed the question of whether karma can be accumulated in dreams and if so, how? **I'm especially interested to know if this question was ever answered or addressed by the Buddha in the pali canon**

Let's say I am meditating for 2-3 hours each day. How long would it take?

I have just started practicing breathing mindfulness. At several places following is said for the breathing mindfulness: > While breathing in long, he knows “I am breathing in long”, or, while > breathing out long, he knows “I am breathing out long”; or, while > breathing in short, he knows “I am breathing in short”, or, while > breathing out short, he knows “I am breathing out short”. However most of the time I am breathing normally. I am neither taking long breath nor short breath. My question is: Why normal breathing situation is ignored during breathing mindfulness? In other words ,why don't we say "While breathing in normal , he knows 'I am breathing in normal', or , while breathing out normal, he knows ' I am breathing out normal'"?

What are the benefits of transferring karmic fruitfulness and how is this done by Buddhists?

In SN 24.5, the Lord Buddha criticized the following doctrine called "natthikavādaṃ": > *There is no benefit in giving, sacrifice or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There is not this world or the > other world. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are > reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well > attained and practiced, and who describes this world and the other > world after realizing it with their own insight.* > > *This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass of > earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the main mass > of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the main > mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the main > mass of air.* > > *The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cemetery. The > bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes. > Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive > teaching (atthikavādaṃ) it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the > foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body > breaks up and don’t exist after death.* According to SN 24.5, why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (the doctrine of disbelief)?

http://www.buddha-images.com/vessantara-jataka.asp > It depicts the life of prince Vessantara who gives away all his possessions, including his children to become servants of an evil spirited character. What can this say that Buddha encourages the laymen The Middle Way , while his act of donating children during the life of prince Vessantara seems quite extreme for a layperson? > Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.

During meditation lost connection between body and the thoughts. Body remains silent but thoughts stop arise that particular matter .which are arise remain as a flow.What is this experience?

When kamathanha disappears during meditation ?is it during sotapanna state or sakadagami state?

How are the aggregates affected by a person's becoming enlightened or more enlightened? I'm guessing that some aggregates (e.g. "form" perhaps) are not affected, and some are. I'm asking, hoping to better understand what an enlightened state of mind is, or in what way it functions differently. How does "mindfulness" affect the aggregates, what's the change (in the functioning of each aggregate) depending on whether or not you're being mindful? Is this a wrong question -- were/are the "aggregates" only taught in the context of their being something inconstant and not worth attaching to?

Under what conditions is it proper for Buddhists of one tradition to try and proselytize Buddhists from another tradition? Under what conditions is it improper? What harm can be done? What fruits can be gained? Can cross-tradition debate be a good thing? Is it ever a bad thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful? Is it desirable to grant a modicum of respect for all traditions? How should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful dialogue and how can/should the line be drawn? Note: I'd prefer if these questions are not used to proselytize or engage in debate about Buddhist doctrine... but rather to answer the questions above. ... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana(which I want to enter). I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving while breathing(I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less. I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness. So my questions: > 1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change? > 2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

This may be primarily for the Tibetan style practitioners. Also, my question assumes that "rebirth" etc are *not* metaphors. Since non-human animal existence is lower down in the six realms, why wouldn't killing them (painlessly) be considered a good thing, since it then allows the being rebirth and maybe it will be reborn as a human? For example, in "Seven Years in Tibet ", earthworms were saved from death. Isn't that in some sense cruel, since saving an animal prolongs the time it has to spend *as* an animal? I *think* I know the answer; namely, that karmic effects need to be worked out and if we kill an animal prior to that point, then it's simply going to be reborn as another animal until it's paid whatever "karmic debt" is involved. Therefore, killing an animal *doesn't* serve to give it a chance of a higher rebirth. But that's a guess. Any ideas? (And again, I know some people think the whole "rebirth" thing is just a metaphor. Fine. But this question is predicated on that not being the case, so in this particular case, please keep yer metaphors to yerself :-) )

In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment? It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule. To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure others. Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place?:)

Wikipedia includes [this (unreferenced) sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81#Tibetan_Buddhism) : > According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: *pāramitāyāna*) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: *tantrayāna*), which is the Vajrayāna. Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)? For example, some related questions include: - Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true? - Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism? - What are *pāramitāyāna* and *tantrayāna*: - What is the goal of each? - What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)? - What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)? - To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

in John Haspel's book, '_Becoming Buddha_', the following quote is attributed to MN 11: > “Magandiya, when you hear the true Dhamma, ... When released from > clinging **the mind is without feature or surface, limitless, outside of > time and space,** freed from the six-sense base.” Here's a larger quote: > While meditating with tranquility, allow insight to arise and have a direct experience of the Buddha’s teachings leading to abandoning clinging and the cessation of suffering. Experience awakening through unbinding the Five Clinging-Aggregates. > > > “Magandiya, when you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma correctly. When you practice the Dhamma correctly, you will know & see for yourself: ‘This is where confusion and suffering ceases without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.” (Majjhima Nikaya 11) > > The Buddha describes a mind free of clinging and freed of association to the five clinging aggregates: > > > “**released from clinging the mind is without feature or surface, limitless, outside of time and space, freed from the six-sense base**.” (Majjhima Nikaya 11) > > (*This text was copied from Becoming-Buddha.com. If you found this helpful, please visit our website for more Dhamma articles. All content is copyright 2017 by John Haspel and is distributed under a Creative Commons 4.0 license. Here is a link to the full article: [The Five Clinging Aggregates | Becoming Buddha](https://becoming-buddha.com/the-five-clinging-aggregates/)*) However I don't see this phrase, that verse about the nature of the mind, in translations of MN 11. Because the quote mentions Magandiya, I looked in MN 75 as well, but don't see it there either. Is that verse anywhere to be found in the Pali Canon? Thanks for your much appreciated help.

Namo Buddhaya. Buddha talks about walking meditation at several places in the suttas for example [here](https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/sujato) . However he doesn't mention it in the Long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness . There are 4 ways of attending to mindfulness but none of them mention walking or walking meditation. My questions are : Why doesn't Buddha mention about the walking or walking meditation in the long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness? Is there any sutta where Buddha talks about the technique of walking meditation?

What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living.

To better see the relative, insubstantial nature of phenomena, maybe it is helpful to think about this another way, that is, seeing what is *not* relative, not conditioned, not empty. It has been said that all phenomena are conditioned, not intrinsically real, empty of independent, self-existence. What *is* intrinsically real? Is nibbāna intrinsically real? > O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute (Asaṃkhata, Unconditioned)? It is, O > bhikkhus, the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of > hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo). This, O > bhikkhus, is called the Absolute When the terms *unconditioned*, *absolute*, and *ultimate* are used, as in the above and below quotes, do they not mean the same as *intrinsically real*? Does *un*-conditioned not mean "independent of conditions" and hence self-existing? > Bodhicitta literally means “awakened heart.” On the relative level it > is compassion, expressed in the bodhisattva vow to save all beings; it > is the aspiration to awaken from ignorance in order to live one’s life > for the benefit of all. On the ultimate level, bodhicitta goes beyond > the concepts of self and other. It is the empty, aware nature of the > mind itself. ---------- The first draft of this question was partly motivated by the question, "is compassion real?", however, from reading One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism (Joseph Goldstein) , my understanding is now that compassion is relative (not intrinsically real), i.e. as Joseph Goldstein puts it: > I realized that the relative level is the expression of the ultimate: > compassion is the activity of emptiness. Since that part of my question has been answered, it has now been revised.

According to Kutuhalasala Sutta (SN44.9) , translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > **Vacchagotta:** "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its > sustenance then?" > > **Buddha:** "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for > craving is its sustenance at that time." Alternative translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi here : > **Vacchagotta:** “And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master > Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?” > > **Buddha:** “When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by > craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.” In the Theravada tradition, the orthodox doctrine based on the Abhidhamma states that there is no intermediate state between births, that rebirth-linking consciousness instantaneously results in a new birth without any gaps. However, the above sutta implies that it is possible to have an intermediate state that is sustained by craving. So, my question is: does SN44.9 imply an intermediate state between births, or is there an alternative interpretation for it?

Have Buddhas escaped samsara? Obviously there is the mainly Chinese term "non-abiding in nirvana". I'm interested in an answer from any tradition at all, and for enlightened non-Buddhas, too. To be specific, I would like to know if when a Buddha dies they then *suffer* death, or whether their death is somehow something over and above the suffering of samsara. I'm asking just because I think that's how I'd like the near eternal rounds of rebirth to end, perhaps with a little regret. Cheers.