You can indeed meditate(Vipassana) while performing any task.

ex: if you are sweeping, keep reminding: sweeping.. sweeping..

sweeping..

Dullness or boredom is a form of aversion.

Ignorance is the cause of it.

To overcome dullness, simply note it as it is without taking it as "I am bored" or "it is boring".

Dullness of mind is associated with sloth and torpor .

When this happens you feel: sleepy or drowsy

heavy This itself is a sensation.

Concentrate on the impermanence or arising and passing of this sensation.

When you have this Ignorance dominates and to overcome this when sensation arises contemplate is impermanence, dispassion, ending and letting go as per advise in Pacalā Sutta .

Similar advice is also found in Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 , Pahāna Sutta , etc.

As in the case of Pacalā Sutta you can note this but best is to avoid mental verbalisation of which is discussed in section 4 Note on noting in Giri-m-ananda Sutta commentary by Piya Tan which takes a more lenient stance; S.N. Goenka like the Thai Forest Tradition on verbal noting take a more hard stance on verbalisation or visualisation which I feel is right.

"Nothing is worth clinging to" When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:

In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?

Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.

And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things

[he directly knows the nature of the all].

Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.

Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.

As regards to those feelings, he dwells contemplating impermanence in them; he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them; he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them; he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.

Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

From meditation instructions we know that dullness happens when you suppress (forcefully restrict/constrict)

yourself too much.

This usually happens when you try to focus on task that has absolutely no connection with any of your goals and interests.

In meditation the usual advice is to "expand" your awareness a little to "connect" your activity with your surroundings and your goals.

Where am I, what am I doing and why?

" Sometimes we need to actually go as far as to deliberately think through: "I am doing this because it will lead me to that; I need that because I want to get so and so" - etc.

Then once you have a notion of why you're doing this and how it fits with your bigger goal "loaded" into your immediate awareness, then it makes more sense to your mind - and dullness will be replaced with either a sense of gladness

(if you know you're making good progress) or with a sense or worry and urgency (if you know you are not making progress).

So you can generate excitement by thinking of a realistic goal that is not too far, and thinking how you are making progress.

Or you can generate urgency by thinking about a bigger goal and about the danger of what will happen if you don't make it.

By connecting what you are doing with what's important to you, you can overcome dullness.

By carefully choosing the background narrative, you can control your state of mind.

As per me, my personal observation is: mind is delicate but not stable.

I meditate to stablise it by performing different-2 tasks in my day to night, unending actions.

When i sleep i meditate with closed eyes & slow working senses '

but mind do not sleep and get stablised itself.

I have nightmares and some precious dreams.

What i get is 'what i concentrate', a perception against distractions, pressing my will in favor of my belief , i start thinking (create a perception) that i am meditating.

When i convince myself that my dullness is my own perception, that very moment i start meditation by taking the advantage of my illusion-free mind(as all the senses are asleep), '

that very moment i feel good, breathfree, out of the body.

It is true that mind never stablises itself, it is true that mind creates a problem by creating a perception(while editing my perception), it is true that i am able to make my mind to concentrate on my belief.

It is true that i can practise buddhism or any kind of perception or do meditation, everywhere, anytime.

Even now, actually in present.

A lot of good answers above.

A few extra points to consider: Being really tired, a lot of lay meditators prefer to meditate inthe morning.

Get to know your circadian rhythm.

Lack of quality sleep, due to excessive snoring or sleep apnea.

Being too full, difficult to meditate on a full stomach.

The environment is not conducive, too dark, too much noise or distraction.

Ill health (diabetes, HBP, etc), obesity, nutrient deficiency.

Psychological reasons - e.g. depression.

Medications and intoxicants.

Lack of interest in the task at hand Lack of purpose or understanding of the task at hand.

Question: When you have to perform a certain task, you can't meditate during that time, but mind needs clarity. I feel very dull during that time, I want to increase my awareness and alertness in that performance time.  So, how I can remove dullness of mind (while performing a certain task during which I can't meditate)? What are the causes that lead to dullness?

How to remove dullness of mind, without sitting meditation, in regular activity?

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/7546/Jyo Soudagar - Ajay

You can indeed meditate(Vipassana) while performing any task. To overcome dullness, simply note it as it is without taking it as "I am bored" or "it is boring".  By connecting what you are doing with what's important to you, you can overcome dullness. Concentrate on the impermanence or arising and passing of this sensation. By carefully choosing the background narrative, you can control your state of mind.

You can meditate(Vipassana) while performing any task and you can practise Buddhism or any kind of perception or do meditation, everywhere, anytime. In meditation the usual advice is to "expand" your awareness a little to "connect" your activity with your surroundings and your goals. Sometimes we need to actually go as far as to deliberately think through the process - "I am doing this because it will lead me to that; I need that because I want to get so and so" - etc. Overcome dullness by simply noting things as they are without thinking "I am bored" or "this is boring". Connect what you are doing with what's important to you. Concentrate on the impermanence or arising and passing of this sensation. By carefully choosing the background narrative, you can control your state of mind.


I have done the same thing for slower speakers.

In my opinion, it's just fine to speed up your listening as long as you grasp the content.

Good idea but be mindful because in sometime your mind will feed your ego with "I am faster" feeling and you mind end up trying to listen or read faster than you should.

That can cause some harm because i have seen that sometimes it is better to listen slower when learning certain teachings.

And as Lord Buddha advised you should listen to things you have already learnt again and again because sometimes even if you know something going over and over makes you realize a whole another side of it.

It is said that the Buddha spoke very quickly.

How quickly?

During the time an ordinary person speaks one word

the Buddha could speak 128 words.

Buddha spoke very fast.

Source: Handbook of Abhidhamma Studies, by Venerable Sayādaw U Sīlānanda, Volume 1, page 19.

So it might be OK to listen fast

but if you can comprehend what is been said.

Perhaps to 128x times faster.

But remember though the Buddha spoke (I would say communicated) 128 words when someone else spoke 1 word, each listener would hear a subset as if this has been said to him.

So in this case the amount you can speedup is something less than 128x but also limited by the rate you can understand what is spoken and also comprehend what is spoken.

If you can understand what is spoken and comprehend what is spoken at the rate of 2x speed then it is OK.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

If the content of the Dhamma talk can be understood in a satisfactory way, there should be no problem in increasing the speed.

If increasing the speed is done due to restlessness , then that is a hindrance that should be dealt with by taking it as a meditation object, in order to cultivate insights.

Great question...

I would say consider the fact that his calmness and slowness might be characteristics you want to absorb/emulate

Question: I really like Ajahn Brahm's Darma talks on YouTube. But, I can perfectly understand what he's saying on 2x speed.  Am I losing anything by listening at this speed or is it ok as long as it's not for any other reason than I can understand it so I can watch two in the same amount of time as one?

Watching Darma Talks on 2x Speed

Many people consider that, as Lord Buddha advised, you should listen to things you have already learnt again and again because sometimes even if you know something going over and over makes you realize a whole another side of it.  If increasing the speed is done due to  restlessness , then that is a hindrance that should be dealt with by taking it as a meditation object, in order to cultivate insights. Others believe that it is fine to increase the speed of listening as long as you are sure you are understanding the message.

If the content of the Dhamma talk can be understood in a satisfactory way at 2x speed, then there should be no problem in increasing the speed. However, it may be worth being mindful to not take things too fast. Sometimes it is better to take things slower, for improved meditation and insight. Indeed, the calmness and slowness may be lessons to learn.

Be mindful of not taking things too fast. Sometimes it is better to take things slower, for improved meditation and insight. Indeed, the calmness and slowness may be lessons to learn.


Being depressed and delusional are also normal.

Being enlightened is what is not normal in the world.

Becoming disappointed of sensual pleasures and wanting to figure out what is really going on around you is a good thing.

It's a mild version of what prince Siddhartha felt before he left the lay life.

It's called Nekkhamma Sankappa (a part of the right intention).

But it will soon disappear and you will be defeated by sensual desires again, if you don't practice Samma Vayama (right effort) of the noble eight fold path.

If you observe what is around you the right way you can make progress.

Whatever you observe will be perceived as: desirable undesirable

neither which results in: pleasure pain neutral.

This is discussed in Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta , Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta .

When you experience any of these sensations you should remain equanimous and aware of the arising and passing nature to eliminate the roots.

See: Pahāna Sutta

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

"I am more inclined to just observe things happening around me

" Is reading novels, watching movies, playing games, etc, not observable as something happening around you?

It is true that some things lose their edge, but mostly because they never had an edge to begin with.

The practice of observation is actually more than a practice because it's really the naturally way of being.

As such you can just go about your normal life and still be practicing and being, which effectively are the same thing.

There is no more that needs to be done.

This is the process of transformation.

[...] is losing its sheen [...]

What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

One way of thinking is that dispassion is the process a buddhist undergoes: dispassion for things that are, ultimately, unsatisfactory.

Not too different from the dispassion one starts to feel towards children toys when growing old: they are no longer a source of craving or clinging.

That does not mean that growing old one becomes depressed, however.

While depression has many kinds and many symptoms , it is invariably associated with not feeling well -- feelings of sorrow, sadness, guilt, hopelessness, anxiety/irritability, lack of energy for anything / fatigue, feeling empty, lack of concentration, difficulty remembering things and making decisions, etc.

Buddhism, however, is associated with hapiness .

We can even pair some of the depression symptoms with the 7 factors of enlightenment (which a buddhist is supposed to master): While a depressed person develops difficulty remembering and concentrating, a buddhist develops mindfulness and investigation .

While a depressed person develops lack of energy and fatigue, a buddhist develops energy .

While a depressed person develops sadness and sorrow, a buddhist develops joy .

While a depressed person develops anxiety and irritability, a buddhist develops tranquility , concentration and equanimity .

What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

In Theravada Buddhism there are identified Four stages of enlightenment .

The Viññana Sutta seems to mentions earlier stages too: "faith follower" and "Dhamma-follower".

It may be

(I know very little about it) that Mahayana Buddhism describes a different set of attainments (or describes or defines stages of enlightenment in a different way): see e.g. Ten Bodhisattva Bhūmis .

I suppose the "process" varies from person to person and from school from school.

One description of the process is presumably the description of the "noble eight-fold path".

I can't tell you what the methods of all the various schools are.

I'm not even sure what chiefly motivates all Buddhists.

For example some people talk about Saṃvega , conversely I think that some people have as their motive something like Mettā .

Also there is equanimity ...

but as 'compassion' and 'pity' are 'near

enemies' so are 'equanimity' and 'indifference' (so e.g. you should aim for equanimity but not indifference).

At some point this might be a question to ask an actual teacher.

What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, the mind are impermanent, subject to destruction, vanishing, subject to origination, subject to cessation.

Forms, sounds, odors, flavors, tactile sensations, mind objects … Eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness… Eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact …

Whatever feeling arises with eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact as condition, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant … that too is impermanent, subject to destruction, vanishing, subject to origination, subject to cessation.

Seeing thus you experience revulsion towards the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, the mind; towards forms, sounds, odors, flavors, tactile sensations, mind objects; towards eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness; towards eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact; towards whatever feeling arises with eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant.

Experiencing revulsion you become dispassionate .

What is impermanent is suffering.

What is suffering is nonself.

What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘

This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.

By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated.

Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.

Based on SN 35.39-43, 22.45 in Ven Bodhi's translation Through repeated examination and contemplation of the truth over time, your views change and what you once mistakenly perceived as attractive gradually loses its appeal as the truth of its unattractive nature becomes apparent.

Ajahn Chah "Clarity of Insight"

Question: I have been reading books on Buddhism and contemplating on the Suttas. Lately the things which I was interested about like reading novels, watching movies, playing games and girls is losing its sheen. I am more inclined to just observe things happening around me. What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

Losing interest in Samsara and transformation one undergoes when following Buddhism

Based on SN 35.39-43,  22.45  in Ven Bodhi's translation   Through repeated examination and contemplation of the truth over time,  your views change and what you once mistakenly perceived as attractive  gradually loses its appeal as the truth of its unattractive nature  becomes apparent.

As part of the transformation when following Buddhism, it is normal to feel delusional or depressed. You will perceive things as desirable or undesirable. The transformation process involves the following stages. Feelings that arise with eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact as condition, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant become impermanent, subject to destruction, vanishing, subject to origination, subject to cessation.  You then experience revulsion and become dispassionate. One way of thinking is that  dispassion  is the process a Buddhist undergoes: dispassion for things that are ultimately unsatisfactory. However, four stages of enlightenment have been identified and the transformation process involves following the "noble eight-fold path".

It is normal to become depressed and delusional.

Four stages of enlightenment have been identified and the process involves following a "noble eight-fold path".


A very apt verse in the case of anger is this one from Dhammapada -

Hi Verena Verani - Hatred is never appeased by Hatred.

It is appeased only by loving kindness.

Here is the Dhamma talk by Ven.

Yuttadhammo on that particular verse.

Although there are certain differences in anger and hatred, the basic approach will be the same - Remain equanimous by knowing Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta at the level of your body and then based on your sensations cultivate Loving Kindness towards the person.

Stop focusing on "other people" and focus on the experience.

Focus on what causes anger to arise in the mind.

ex: If someone scolds at you, it's just sound hitting the ears.

What's wrong with sound hitting the ears?

Why you need to get so upset about it?

Anger arises due to ignorance.

Ignorance personifies the experiences caused by bad Karma.

That leads to aversion.

you may want to take a look at this list of suttas and Dhammapada verses dealing with anger, hatred, aggression and hostility just one example from Theragatha Brahmadatta 6.12 One who gets angry at an angry person Just makes things worse.

One who doesn’t get angry at an angry person Wins a battle hard to win.

When you know that the other is angry, You act for the good of both Yourself and the other, If you are mindful, and stay calm.

only that these are not words attributed to the Buddha

In Engaged Buddhism (a belief started by Thich Nhat Hanh during the vietnam war in the 1960's)

Thich Nhat Hanh states that "Be aware of anger; anger blocks the communication and brings suffering"

He then advises that in order to reach Dhamma one must rid their mind of defilements of such things like suffering and ignorance, which cause angry fits of passion.

By being constantly aware and in control of one's actions, conciously one can prevent from experiencing these selfish emotions and focus on the communication and the content of the heated debate, occurrence, and/or problem.

This desire to demonize an emotion is disturbing, and I have always had a problem with it.

Anger is a useful emotion.

It can allow us to react properly to a life threatening situation, either for ourselves or for another.

The problem is not Anger.

The problem is not being able to recognize when it is harming, rather than helping, the situation you are currently experiencing.

It is also the problem that Anger severely limits our ability to reason, trading reason for energy.

If you understand these things, then Anger can be your friend, just like all other emotions.

Loving Kindness, in some situations, might be scolding someone back, if that is what teaches them the proper lesson.

It could even be defending someone, or yourself, physically.

But to recognize

that moment is the hard part.

THAT is what I believe is the liberating thought in this case.

In the Dhammapada, The Buddha says: "Conquer the angry one by not getting angry; conquer the wicked by goodness; conquer the stingy by generosity, and the liar by speaking the truth."

(Dhammapada, 223) And also here The Buddha says: "

Whence is there anger for one free from anger, tamed, living in tune — one released through right knowing, calmed & Such.

You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry.

Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry wins a battle hard to win."

(Akkosa Sutta, SN 7.2) But with making an end to mental fermentations, why would you be concerned about managing another's anger?

Happy, angerless, fearless, doubtless, sorrowless, becomes the one who's put an end to mental fermentations, such an extreme form of pleasure.

Question: What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger? Does Buddhism suggest any specific attitude when we are facing angry people, especially when they are unable to control their anger and/or unaware of their anger?  Intuitively I try for example to listen to the person, understand him/her and remain calm myself as much as possible.  What kind of recommendations or advice does Buddhism offer to help us in such situations?

What does Buddhism say about how to manage other people's anger?

Reaction to anger is dealt with in this list  of suttas and Dhammapada verses dealing with anger, hatred, aggression and hostility  just one example from Theragatha  Brahmadatta 6.12   One who gets angry at an angry person   Just makes things worse.  One who doesn’t get angry at an angry person   Wins a battle hard to win. It may help to stop focussing on other people and focus instead on the experience.

Hatred is never appeased by Hatred. Don't focus on other people. Consider the experience. Do you need to get so upset? Remain in control of your actions to avoid selfish emotions. Focus on communication, as anger can block this. Getting angry with an angry person just makes things worse. Although it is a hard thing to do, if someone is angry, remaining calm will help you both. Loving kindness is the best approach.


Abhisankhāra-māra - The Karmic force Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions. Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death. Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence. Devaputra-māra, or Māra the son of a deva (god),

that is, Māra as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Apart from your internal mara and metaphysical maras.

The Mara as existent beings are essentially gods with Wrong Views and Wrong Intentions.

The Mara that tempted Buddha in particular, was a god from one of the highest heavens Paranimmita-vasavatti, the devas with the power over other's creations.

That is not only can they create anything to fulfill their desires, but other create it for them to worship them.

Seeing that the Desire Realm was so enjoyable and pleasurable, why should anyone seek to leave it and so try to oppose the Buddha.

So how did such a being came about?

Through their former karmic merit.

Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.

Unlike the Christian devil, Maras are not rulers of Hell.

But in a sense they are 'fallen' in spirit, though not in power.

Eventually such a being use up their good karma and fall possibly even the the hells themselves.

Of course they are not unredeemable either, if they repent and support the truth, the label 'Mara' would not apply to them.

There is a saying in Chinese Buddhism, to cultivate karmic rewards without cultivating wisdom

is the Way of Mara.

That is your good karma could bring you high up in the the heaven or as a ruler (or someone in position of power), but without wisdom - and therefore ethics, you could easily abuse your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.

So as you can see, you could be your own Mara, you could be a Mara to others and discourage them from doing good deeds.

The current Mara was Mara Dusi's nephew back in the days of Buddha Kakusandha.

So it seems that there's a waiting list in the Paranimmita-vasavatti heaven.

There are some people in the world who do a lot of worldly good deeds, but they dislike and discourage meditation, listening to the Dhamma, getting ordained or anything that has to do with ending of Samsara.

I would imagine such people might be born in the Mara-clan of the Paranimmita-vasavatti realm, if they can amass enough good Karma.

Among them, whoever is the most powerful, takes up the title.

As answered by Yinxu, the term '

Mara' is used in many ways in Buddhism.

I think to develop theories about Mara the Tempter , it is useful to understand 'gods' ('deva'), who include human beings with psychic powers, that Judeo-Christianity calls 'angels'.

In Judeo-Christianity, the Bible reports angels & also prophets such as Moses & Jesus that displayed supernormal (psychic) powers.

These angels & prophets are created (by nature) to rule & guide ordinary people.

These angels & prophets teach people to believe in 'God' & 'self'.

These angels & prophets with psychic powers exist today within Christianity.

Yet they are not interested in or believe in Buddhism because they believe Christianity is best for ordinary people.

Hindus are similar, often strongly opposed to Buddhism because of its teaching of anatta & atheism.

Therefore, Mara does not necessarily have to be an intrinsically evil being that is tempting people to do evil in the way Christians depict.

Satan does not exist in the Old Testament apart from in the Book of Job, as an angel in heaven with God.

The Christian idea of Satan is obviously very similar to that in Buddhism but their own version.

My point is Mara can be any being with supernormal powers that opposes the Buddhist teachings because Buddhism teaches anatta (nots-self).

Such a Mara does not necessarily need to be intrinsically evil.

Karmically, they simply need to act with the good intention that the Buddhist teachings of anatta are not beneficial to the majority of people.

Therefore, their karma will not necessarily result in a loss of their supernormal powers since opposing Buddhism is not inherently bad karma for them.

Or less insidiously, such Mara may simply be testing the Buddhas & arahants.

There are no stories within the Pāli canon that I know that describe how one becomes a Mara though there are accounts of others who have been maras in a previous life

(Moggallana being one of them.

See MN 50 ).

There is also a sutta in which the Buddha declares that it is impossible for a woman to become a Māra (See MN 115 § 15).

The Buddha does explain how one can become a deva [of the gandhabba order] in SN 31.2 .

I don't know that the doing the opposite would direct one to becoming a Mara.

Mara is the most powerful being in all the sensual realms, He resides in the highest sensual adobe called paranimmita-vasavatti.

where one day is equal to 1600 earth years.

It is not easy to become Mara, Through shear will power one has to observe the precepts well & practice generosity .

Mara being the highest sensual being surpasses all the other devas in the heavenly realms in the following ways (Exceeds in Life-span, exceeds in beauty, exceeds in sensual pleasures, exceeds in glory, Exceeds in power).

Mara surpasses all devas with respect to Life-span, unmatched beauty etc... due to the fact that in the previous lives he has abstained from killing, Stealing & sexual misconduct & Drinking.

All Unwholesome actions done involving the body.

This is the reason he surpasses all other devas in life, beauty, power etc..

There is one sutta in Tibetan Buddhism, says - That Mara has the most largest & most powerful demonic army in the 31 planes of existence at his command.

This army consists of 10 regiments with powerful/hideous demons, it is said that this army weighs 10x times the weight of the earth.

It was because that some one has observed the precepts & practiced generosity**(wholesome karamic effects)

** in a massive scale but haven't listened & thought about dharma (wisdom), this is the reason to become mara.

Question: I am not asking for an explanation on the whole "What is a Mara?" question. What i'm asking about is the being mentioned in Buddhism who has the command over all normal beings, the one who came personally to challenge,frighten lord Buddha.  Is there an explanation to why or how a person become's a "Mara"?

How does one become a "Māra"?

Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.  That is your good karma could bring you high up in the the heaven or as a ruler (or someone in position of power), but without wisdom - and therefore ethics, you could easily abuse your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.

Like gods who attain heaven through their former karmic merit but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.  In this position and without wisdom - and therefore ethics - you could easily become a mara by abusing your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.

Maras are made through their former karmic merit.

Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.  In this position and without wisdom - and therefore ethics - you could easily become a mara by abusing your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.


Definitly, As per science when there is a start, there must be end.

Even our galaxy will expire.

you can take example of anything in this world, nothing is permanent.

Not if , my dear friend, when .

Suffering will always exist.

It is after all the first noble truth.

But I think your question is a theoretical one, and a very good one.

Yes, theoreticaly, if all beings now on earth attained enlightenment, then there would be no sentient beings as we know them

(born live die).

But back to the vastness of reality's expanse, surely another meteor would come around and add new life to the earth before it falls into the sun.... de ja vue )))

Do you think that everyone in this world will develop a sense of dismay (samvega) over the universality of suffering?

Of those who see life in this way, what is the percentage that will develop an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way?

How many will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma?

What the Buddha has said is patisotagami or against the current of conventional thinking.

Buddha knew this well.

That is why He said, “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount).

Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.”

As per the Teachings of the Buddha, the world will be without humans, but it will take an extremely long time.

This is been said by the Supreme Buddha as He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa.

Sanvatta kalpa means the time that takes the world to be destroyed after countless years.

Vivatta kalpa means, time of the beginning of the world.

Long before this day is going to pass and in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed One, an Arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya /Maithree.

You may now wonder whether there would be enough food for all.

Buddha once said, ““Dear devotee, I am looking at 92 Kalpas (a long time) to the past right now.

In all that time, no one had to face any destruction of their families as a result of offering their food.”

If all of the humans become enlightened you still have other sentient creatures who would become humans.

At that point those would be saved by buddhas and bodhisattvas.

But even then there is not a finite number of sentient beings since there is no transmigration, just rebirth of sankharas which is not strictly limited to one entity.

So, I don't see an end of sentient beings reborn on earth.

Whether humans evolve into something else is unknown.

And eventually the earth will be destroyed by the sun and disintegrate with the rest of the universe.

will all beings attain enlightenment or will all beings not attain englightement is a speculative view, much like is the view about is universe finite or is the universe infinite and the other 9 questions.

This question should be set aside.

It is irrelevant to the grow or maturity of the Dhamma.

There are infinite beings in a universe.

Event if a large number of beings become enlightened then still there will be infinite beings.

The number of beings in all planes who get enlightened is approximately 24 asankya .

The number of past Buddhas is infinite, the number of Arahants are infinite as there were infinite Sasanas .

But despite all who becomes arahants infinite being remain, of whom some maybe born in this world.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Question: lets imagine that in all the human in earth become Arhant, so after their death they will not born again (i mean all of the humans).  after this will new humans born or Not, will earth become a planet without Humans  ?

Will earth become a planet without Humans?

If all of the humans become enlightened you still have other sentient creatures who would become humans. However, the number of past Buddhas is infinite, the number of Arahants are infinite as there were infinite  Sasanas .

Science states that when there is a start, there must be end. Also, theoretically, if all beings now on earth attained enlightenment, then there would be no sentient beings as we know them. However, If all of the humans become enlightened you still have other sentient creatures who would become humans. Therefore, it is hard to see an end of sentient beings being reborn on earth. There are infinite beings in a universe, so even if a large number of beings become enlightened then still there will be infinite beings. In addition, the number of past Buddhas is infinite, and the number of Arahants are infinite as there were infinite  Sasanas.

Theoretically, if all beings now on earth attained enlightenment, then there would be no sentient beings as we know them


“It is better to travel well than to arrive.” is a fake Buddhist Quote .

Meaning Hope and anticipation are often better than reality.

Origin

This phrase is a Robert Louis Stevenson quotation, from Virginibus Puerisque, 1881: "Little do ye know your own blessedness; for to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour."

Stevenson was expressing the same idea as the earlier Taoist saying - "The journey is the reward."

Source:

The meaning and origin of the expression: To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive

"The journey is the reward." seems to be a Chinese Proverb If you look at this in the context of Noble Eightfold Path and Nirvana it is better to arrive than how or how well you travel.

It seems to me like the opposite of this statement is true.

Although the eightfold path is conditioned [1.1.3.1], its goal, nirvana (nibbāna), is freefrom conditions (visaṅkhāra,gata)

(Dh 154):nirvana is unconditioned

(asaṅkhata).Only nirvana isfree from all conditions: it is “the stilling of all formations” (sabba,saṅkhāra,samatha).This stillingof all conditions is true happiness (Dh 368, 381).

In the Māluṅkya,putta Sutta (S 35.95), theBuddha defines this stilling of all formations as “the ending of suffering.”

Source:

The Path of Awakening

The way, the life and the liberation of the noble eightfold path by Piya Tan Now, ayya, is the noble eightfold path conditioned or is it unconditioned?

"The noble eightfold path, avuso Visākha, is conditioned."

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

What this entails is that traveling the path itself is suffering / misery with a view to end suffering / misery.

So ending of misery is better than the journey to end misery which is also miserable.

Having said this as you progress if the path the misery in general will become less and less and states like Piti and Passaddhi arise.

[ (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya

Sutta , (Ekā,dasaka)

Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta ]

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

It is better to travel well than to arrive.

Means Focus on your journey rather than drop point.

This is probably not an authentic quote, as Suminda points out, and you should always check with Fake Buddha Quotes when you see such statements attributed to the Buddha on memes etc.

However, the sentiment is an authentic Zen teaching in the sense that we believe there is no 'aha!'

moment after which you are enlightened and there is no further need of training.

Dogen (the Soto founder) said that practice and enlightenment were one (i.e. without conceptualising, no separation can be found between practice and enlightenment), wrote an essay on the subject of 'ascending Buddhas' (

i.e. Buddhas are still and always training) and the final Bodhisattva vow can be translated as 'enlightenment is unattainable, I vow to attain it'.

I've never read the Buddha but ...sounds like it just means 'don't desire for gain' ('mushotoku')

, i.e., don't have any goals for your actions

, the view being that it's best simply to 'get into' undertaking them.

(In psychological literature this is sometimes referred to as 'flow'.)

This means that it's not about hope etc.

either, including a hope for the end of the journey (as per Robert Louis Stevenson); it means you should have no goal, hence no hope for an end result.

(Not that I suspect that Buddha, if he existed, wanted anyone to think in this way but - throwing ideas of goals away allows you to focus on the task itself thereby deriving genuine happiness.

This said, the argument made is also against pursuing an action for the purposes of obtaining happiness too, since this would then also constitute a 'goal' of the action [in this case a desire for happiness].

He's basically arguing the Nike slogan - just do it.

Don't have any desires - or goals, which reflect desires.)

p.s.,

Although I've no idea if it's a real quotation or not, the underlying notion overlaps pretty nicely with the idea of shikantaza/just sitting - not sitting/

meditating with a desire for an outcome e.g., enlightenment.

Doing so seems to detract from/break meditation.

I've read it in the context of life and death.

In his quote, "It is better to travel well than to arrive.

", Buddha is looking at life as a journey.

Although death is, ultimately, the final destination, it more important for one to live than it is to reach the 'destination'.

Therefore, it is more important for one to live life well than it is for one to die.

Question: I am not sure if Buddha said it or not, I was flipping around some Buddha quotes pictures and found an image saying "Its better to travel well than to arrive".can anyone explain What does it mean ?Thanks

Buddha said "Its better to travel well than to arrive", what does it mean?

It is better to travel well than arrive means focus on the journey rather than the final destination. Although death is, ultimately, the final destination, it more important for one to live than it is to reach the 'destination'.

This means that it is more important to live life than focus on death. Hope and expectation may often be preferable to reality and you should focus on the journey rather than the destination.

Hope and expectation are often preferable to reality and you should focus on the journey rather than the destination.

It is more important to live life than focus on death.


You become a real Buddhist when you walk the path of Dhamma.

The Buddhist teaching is to be experienced here and now and to be verified here and now.

There are many ways this has been put forward:

Sila - Samadhi - Panna where later is realisation at the experiential level or at the level of wisdom Pariyatti - Patipatti - Pativedha where the latter is the experience sutta-maya-panna - cinta-maya-panna - bhavana-maya panna where the latter is experiential wisdom When you have the 1st vision of the Dhamma your faith never changes.

This is because nobody can convince you otherwise of what you have already seen for yourself.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

I think a real Buddhist at the very least follows the five precepts.

Have unwavering faith in Buddha Have unwavering faith in Dhamma Have unwavering faith in Sangha Be relentless in eliminating Sakkaaya Ditti

To become a true Buddhist one should have a pleasant mind towards, and confidence, in the Supreme Buddha.

This confidence should be rooted (mulajata), and it should be well established (patitthita).

To develop this kind of unshakeable confidence, it is important to know about the knowledge of The Buddha.

A “Sotāpanna”/stream entry Buddist is a True Buddhist.

The Pali Canon recognizes four levels of Awakening, the first of which is called “Sotāpanna”/stream entry.

This gains its name from the fact that a person who has attained this level has entered the "stream" flowing inevitably to nibbana.

He/she is guaranteed to achieve full awakening within seven lifetimes at most, and in the interim will not be reborn in any of the lower realms.

The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors: Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream entry.

Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream entry.

Appropriate attention is a factor for stream entry.

Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream entry.

The Sotapanna is free from the following three fetters (samyojana):– The wrong view that the aggregates of physical and mental phenomena are ego or self.

(sakkāya-ditthi or personality-belief).

Any doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the discipline (vicikicchā or sceptical doubt).

Belief that methods other than that of cultivating the qualities of the eightfold noble path and developing insight into the four noble truths will bring eternal peace (silabbataparāmāsa or belief in mere rite and ritual).

Furthermore, his observation of the five precepts remains pure and absolute, as a matter of course.

For these reasons a Sotāpanna is well secured from being reborn in the unhappy existences of the four lower worlds.

He will lead the happy life in the world of human beings and devas for seven existences at the most and during this period he will attain Arahantship and nibbāna.

I don't know about "Buddhism" as a name.

There are those who honor the Buddha by practicing the eightfold path.

There are those that honor the Buddha by giving garlands and incense but both are wholesome and real "Buddhist" practices alright.

Even someone who has little idea what they are doing can technically be a "real" Buddhist.

It's just a word.

What is more real than any other Buddhism?

What do I know?

Maybe it's the Buddha's actual core teaching and those enlightened enough to recognize the Buddha's actual core teaching in the Suttas that is "Real Buddhism".

I think that, "really" The Buddha's teaching is always Buddhism but Buddhism isn't always The Buddha's actual core teaching , or in many instances, Buddhism isn't even anywhere near the Buddha's actual core teaching.

We should be able to talk about things like this... ...and how we feel about things with out fear of being misunderstood, persecuted, oppressed, corrected and censored by whoever has enough nerve to think they understand themselves enough to judge other forum members as "wrong".

How can this be good karma?

Can a "real" Buddhist just decide that we can be judge , jury and executioner and that is congruent with the Dhamma?

Who in this forum really understands enough to transgress punitive measures against other fellow human beings and still at the same time be a "real" Buddhist?

Anyone who justifies they're transgressions against another person because the person violated the "group's rules" can never be sure they are being fair or appropriate when they punish unless they are enlightened.

Maybe I am missing something...

I certainly know that I am no saint, this is just my little opinion.

-Metta

One "becomes a Buddhist" by seeking refuge in the 3 jewels: the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha.

By seeking refuge we mean actively learning and using that knowledge.

After the point of inquiry into "Buddhism?

" then you start to learn about it thru literature or asking people or videos.

All part of the dharma.

Then as you learn and envelope yourself with the Buddhist community ... the sangha.

But it all starts with the initial seeking of refuge.

That initial step is all that is "required" to be a real Buddhist.

Question: In this society a lot of people say "I'm a Buddhist" but they're just saying that. So my question is, how can a person become a real Buddhist? And how do we know he's a real Buddhist?

How can a person become a real Buddhist?

S0: You become a real Buddhist when you walk the path of Dhamma. Even someone who has little idea what they are doing can technically be a "real" Buddhist. One "becomes a Buddhist" by seeking refuge in the 3 jewels: the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha. Maybe it's the Buddha's  actual core teaching and those enlightened enough to recognize the Buddha's actual core teaching in the Suttas that is "Real Buddhism".

Definitions and opinions may vary, real Buddhists follow the path of Dhamma. Even a stream entry Buddhist is a real Buddhist and even someone who has little idea what they are doing can technically be a real Buddhist.  Real Buddhists have unwavering faith, a pleasant mind and confidence in Buddha. Some say that real Buddhists follow at least the five precepts, seek refuge in the 3 jewels and observe the actual core teachings in the suttas.

Real Buddhists follow the path of Dhamma. Even a stream entry Buddhist is a real Buddhist and even someone who has little idea what they are doing can technically be a real Buddhist.

Depending on opinion, real Buddhists follow at least the five precepts, seek refuge in the 3 jewels and observe the actual core teachings in the suttas.


Marriage does not guarantee happiness (some married people are unhappy).

This answer includes advice about how to choose a marriage partner.

And chapter 6 of A Happy Married Life (which is titled " Security, Respect and Responsibilities

") identifies what attitudes and behaviour are recommended by Buddhist doctrine/scripture, between husband and wife.

There may also be affection between e.g. a mother and her children.

I don't think it's affection that's identified as the principal problem in Buddhism: the problems are craving (e.g. for what you don't have), and attachment .

So for example if you craved more affection than you think you're getting, you will "suffer" (and, I think, cause suffering too).

Also, a characteristic of sensual pleasure (and of other "compounded" or "conditioned" things) is that it's impermanent.

So for example "physical touch" cannot be a permanent (even if continual it couldn't be continuous ), and so people must learn (or must also learn) to live, to behave, to control or regulate themselves without it.

And I think that attachment is likely to cause the survivor problems when their partner dies, etc.

For these kinds of reasons, the pursuit of sensory pleasures may be unwise or unsatisfying.

As for "living without affection" there are attitudes which I think are recommended by Buddhism and which are like affection (perhaps these are affection, or perhaps they're a good substitute for or alternative to affection), for example kindness, benevolence, harmlessness, even equanimity.

As for the title ("Do Buddhists need...?"), I'm inclined to read that as "Do Humans need...?".

I'm not sure whether to say that all humans are the same, and have the same needs.

Perhaps they do, but have different capacities or abilities to deal with those needs.

There's a field of Western psychology (which I'm not familiar with) called Attachment theory , which has theories such as how secure people feel depends on things like how they were treated and how they developed when they were infants: as well as how they developed (how they were developed, and how they developed themselves) as children and so on into adult life.

Maybe people's needs, or how "needy" they are, varies according.

Buddhist generally show kindness.

Living in solitude is encouraged to practice detachment and other Buddhist teachings.

A need is a personal preference.

A Buddhist may choose to entertain affection at the risk of losing his "sila"

Very interesting question that you asked.

The short answer to it is “yes!”.

Buddhists who are well grounded in Dhamma do have intimacy.

They have friendship, companionship and intimacy with the good, because of their abstinence from excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures, abstinence from drunkenness, and non- indulgence in gambling.

The five precepts… specially the third... Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami -

“I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.”

Is a safeguard for us from such.

The five precepts as we know and practice is the worldly right view and worldly right conception.

The distinction made in the discourse between worldly right view and the right view that is above the world (supre-mundane) is that, in the case of the latter, this means

**Complete Abstinence, expressed by the use of these three more terms - aarati virati and pativirati.

Such abstinence applies to right action and right livelihood as well.

One who takes the five precepts with an aim of walking the Noble Eightfold Path, towards attaining Path-Fruition aim for the aarati, virati, pativirati level of abstinence.

Buddhists come under 4 groups: monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen.

Monks and nuns are not allowed to engage in any romantic or sexual activity.

They are not even allowed to touch a person of the opposite gender even as a friendly gesture.

Laymen and laywomen are only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct.

ex: Becoming intimate with another's wife or husband.

So as long as they keep to the five precepts , they can show affection to another in any socially acceptable method.

ZEN Buddhist priests and nuns may marry, and laypeople of any tradition do have intimacy at any level.

From the Karaniya Metta Sutta : “Just as a mother would protect her only child with her life, even so let one cultivate a boundless love towards all beings.”

Real Buddha Quotes

Question: I am interested in learning about Buddhism, and there are a lot of questions. I wonder (since it seems to me Buddhists are quite independent, and they don't attach that much to people or things) what about like if they did have families or friends or wives or husbands: do they live without affection etc.?

Do Buddhists need affection, physical touch or intimacy?

S2: So as long as they keep to the  five precepts , they can show affection to another in any socially acceptable method. Buddhists who are well grounded in Dhamma do have intimacy. Monks and nuns are not allowed to engage in any romantic or sexual activity.  Laymen and laywomen are only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct. On the other hand, ZEN Buddhist priests and nuns may marry, and laypeople of any tradition do have intimacy at any level.

As long as Buddhjists observe the  five precepts , they can show affection to another in any socially acceptable method. They have friendship, companionship and intimacy with the good, and abstain from excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures, drunkenness, and gambling. Some attitudes are  recommended by Buddhism that are  like  affection (perhaps these  are  affection), such as kindness, benevolence, harmlessness, even equanimity.  ZEN Buddhist priests and nuns may marry, and laypeople of any tradition do have intimacy at any level.  Some claim that a Buddhist may choose to entertain affection at the risk of losing his "sila". However, Monks and nuns are not allowed to engage in any romantic or sexual activity, but laymen and laywomen are only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct.

A Buddhist may choose to entertain affection at the risk of losing his "sila".

Monks and nuns are not allowed to engage in any romantic or sexual activity. However, laymen and laywomen are only expected to refrain from sexual misconduct.


From the Madhupindika Sutta (MN18) :

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.

What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind).

What one perceives, one thinks about.

What one thinks about, one objectifies.

Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.

What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind).

What one perceives, one thinks about.

What one thinks about, one objectifies.

Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated.

Personally consiousness and the physical are inseparable the intangible and tangeble are as just as a necessity of everything else

that's diametrically opposed.

The physical does not exist without the spiritual to concieve of it and vice versa as far I can percieve.

That thought though negates a ultimate source of consience ie god etc because that sentience would be incorporeal and be independent of the material.

I actually believe that realty is a product of every possibility and is without boundary

a whole has limitless division similarly how we perceive the infinite of space our perception of it is limited by the scale of it ,a measurement we have like a Meter or inch is simply relative to our scale and the number it throws back is of no degree of the whole because of limitless division and no precise measurement.

The whole exists and the path to knowledge is not in reduction of it but by studying it as it is.

Grasshopper lol

consciousness is a result of contact.

Of course not!

That would be a totally materialistic explanation.

Instead, consciousness, or rather, experience (vijnana) arises when enough samskaras have been accumulated to allow for recognition of patterns.

Recognition leads to arising of objects (nama-rupa) and experience of the world where objects exist (vijnana).

Then based on experience of the world and objects, there comes experience of contact, from which comes the notion of outer and inner, which eventually matures into a self once the experience of contact is projected in future.

In other words, contact should be understood in terms of developmental phenomenology, not physics.

Consciousness is not a result of contact.

In conditional relation, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya.

Western philosophy observes the object surrounds the subject and it cannot observe itself which is fundamental to there definition.

But this definition is limited and is a consequence of a sequence of subjective observation and that subjects interpreting it's observation.

Observing the subject is recognising and interpreting other object you consider to contain a subject but is a consequence of that sequence .

To change the definition of subject or what appears to be would be that the subject never experience the object

it's definition of its observations

would not be able to be determined through a language which we use to describe the subjects observation and be uncommunicable since it would experience nothing.

The language we use is a consequence of the sequence.

A subject surrounding the object is a negation of language and a consequence of our natural emergence and it's sequence into the object from within.

To observe the subject surrounding the object by negation would be to emerge not from within the object but without it and create the object within it, but all that reasoning is a consequence of sequence which is a product of time and being a prisoner off.

I'll stop rambling now.

This is a specific case.

Looking only at conciousness arising from contact.

So what is this saying?

Let me use an example Lets

say that there was a new material that was invented.

Nobody had ever touched it before.

Would you know what it feels like?

NoNot

until you touch it would you be concious of what it feels like.

There would be no way to be concious of what the material feels like until you touch it.

Question: I read the following on the internet:   Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.  It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).  We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.   Is consciousness a result of contact?   Or contact a result of consciousness?   What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this?

Is consciousness a result of contact?

S0: Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated. consiousness and the physical are inseparable the intangible and tangeble are as just as a necessity of everything else. In conditional relation, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya.

Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated. Consciousness and the physical are inseparable. The intangible and tangible are just  a necessity of everything else. In conditional relationship, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya.

Consciousness and the physical are inseparable. The intangible and tangible are as just as a necessity of everything else.


You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind.

After while it becomes second nature to you.

Please see this question on Appamada (heedfulness) .

We need to be heedful of the precepts that we choose to undertake willingly.

This is an idea that doesn't just exist in religion or spirituality.

If you are a professional like a medical doctor, you need to be aware that the life and health of your patients depend on your decisions.

If you're a civil and structural engineer designing a building, the lives of the many people who may use the building you designed, depend on your design.

If you have very young children, you need to be always aware of where they are and what they are doing.

When you're leaving your house everyday, you need to be mindful of locking the doors, locking the windows and turning off the gas or other heating appliances so that you wouldn't cause accidental fires.

Similarly, you have to be heedful of the precepts that you choose to undertake willingly.

There are also other aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path like Right Speech or Right Action, that we may need to be heedful of.

If you commit yourself to be heedful of practising something, then it should be similar to being heedful of being constantly aware of your very young children's whereabouts and wellbeing.

I think it is not very different.

The Five Precepts can be taken formally, but to observe them properly you must be heedful not to break any of the rules during the day.

When you break one of the rules, however, there is no need to punish yourself.

Keep in mind that you are observing the precepts and strive to improve.

This is where being mindful throughout the day of the precepts is important.

One cannot simply be a person who "says the 5 propositions [sic] and then goes about his day" because the whole point of undertaking the five precepts is to follow them and realize the benefits.

Maybe usefull to answer the question: How to Observe(ing) the (5) precepts , Ursula

Keep 5 precepts in mind, first queue, and meditate together.

But meditation is second queue.

As time goes by, 5 precepts will be automatically appear in mind.

At that time, you just use a few time to check the precepts.

However, if you in a meditation course, you should do follow to your teacher, first.

Because (certified) buddhist teacher must can read the practitioner mind.

So he should know what is the best for his student.

Question: As I know one says the 5 propositions and then goes about his day.   Or are the precepts also pegs for mindfulness? Keeping them constantly in mind?

How observance of the 5 Precepts is done?

S0: You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind. The Five Precepts can be taken formally, but to observe them properly you must be heedful not to break any of the rules during the day. One cannot simply be a person who "says the 5 propositions [sic] and then goes about his day" because the whole point of undertaking the five precepts is to follow them and realize the benefits.

The 5 precepts should be kept in mind constantly and as time goes by, they will come to mind automatically. However, once the 5 precepts have been taken, one must strive to observe them throughout the day in order to reap the benefits.

Once the 5 precepts have been taken, one must strive to observe them throughout the day in order to reap the benefits.


No.

Anatta arises from seeing the arising and passing nature of conditioned phenomena wherever you look.

You see that the whole body is like mass of bubbling particles.

One set gets destroyed another arises.

You also see that this process is not controllable and this process generates sensations which are essentially unsatisfactory.

Unpleasant sensations are unsatisfactory, pleasant sensation are unsatisfactory when they end and neutral sensations are unsatisfactory as they are conditioned and pass away giving rise to unsatisfactory experiences.

In addition, craving towards any of the sensation gives rise to the notion or perception of a being.

Such perceptions all end in unsatisfactoriness.

Whatever unsatisfactory is not worth identifying as self.

This is Anatta.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

When in meditation observe fabrications that arise in your mind.

If you see that no matter what fabrication you observe, the observed fabrication is not you nor it's yours,

that is the experience of anatta.

You said that during your meditation mind itself can be seen.

Do it again and ask yourself if this mind you see is you and is it yours?

If you clearly see that it is not you nor it's yours, that is the experience of anatta.

Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible in your mind.

Next, experience anatta by observing as much fabrications as possible outside your mind, in the world/universe.

No matter where you'll observe, inside or outside, you'll experience anatta.

Na matter where you'll search, you'll experience anatta.

If at the end of your search for self (atta), you experience anatta and just anatta (no self), then you'll know anatta: all is not self.

All is empty of self.

This is knowing anatta by experience.

Once anatta is known in the way I described, then the realization of the dhamma is not far away.

During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically.

no thoughts were coming.

mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

Seeing anatta is seeing the natural absence of 'self' in things; such as the absence of self in a drop of water.

If the mind can see its knowing & consciousness (awareness) is without self; if the mind can see it is the physical body that breathes rather than a 'self' that breathes; if the mind can see the breathing is merely 'air' or 'wind' (rather than ' my breathing '); and if the mind can see the automatic happenings in meditation occur without any self; this is beginning to see anatta .

What you are describing is a state you reach when you practice meditation.

This cannot be anatta since anatta is not a state, it is a property of existence present in all things.

Rather, your description looks like you have reached a state called access concentration.

This is the first but important step in practice.

This is the state where mind no longer gets lost in usual wanderings, and breathing becomes relaxed, with mind staying with the object of meditation (breathing).

Thoughts don't arise or if they come, they stay in the background, because the subtle tension that gives rise to thoughts doesn't become strong enough to distract and goes to the background

(This is what I believe you meant by mind itself can be seen).

Also, your description that mind itself can be seen also tells me that is not related to anatta, as that itself is a thought (without that you would not know that it is mind you are seeing), which means you are in the identification stage and not (yet) seeing the true nature of things.

Observing anatta is seeing the grasping/identification activity in action and noting that that is not me (if it is, then who is the I that is watching it? -

hence a contradiction so both are not me in essence).

I don´t know.

If you look inside whilst thinking, ask yourself "What is this?"

Try to find the one who is thinking.

Then the thought just vanishes, because it is Not-Self, not you nor anything else, but a changing phenomenon that comes and goes.

Just let it go by asking What is This?

There is no answer in your brain, you just need to see that there is nothing behind a thought but emptiness (no entity)

Question: During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

what is anatta during vipassana practice?

Seeing anatta is seeing the natural absence of 'self' in things; such as the absence of self in a drop of water.

By experience, this is anatta. Anatta is seeing the natural absence of 'self' in things; such as the absence of self in a drop of water.


What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana?

This answer is pretty straight forward.

Practice and perfect the Noble Eightfold Path as laid out by the Buddha.

When perfected, the Path Consciousness takes Nibbana as an object.

It performs four distinct functions, i.e.; "fully understanding Dukkha, abandoning the origin of Dukkha, realizing Nibbana and cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path" .

Is Nibbana guaranteed after perfecting the Noble Eightfold Path ?

In the Nagara Sutta , the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality). "...

So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past.

And what is that ancient path, that ancient road?

It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

I followed that path and by doing so

I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ...

-- SN 12.65:

The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.

From a Theravada perspective, in order to attain Nibbana (the fourth and final stage of enlightenment), you generally need to pass through the first stage of enlightenment, which is the fruit of stream entry .

In this YouTube video , Ven.

Dhammavuddho explains the characteristics of a sotapanna (stream winner) and explains how to get there.

He quotes from many suttas to support his points.

The experience of nibbana for the first time happens at the first stage of awakening, other wise known as stream entry.

The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors:

Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry.

Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.

Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry.

Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. — SN 55.5

The practice leading to disenchantment, dispassion, and release follows a stepwise path of cause and effect.

"Now, I tell you, clear knowing & release have their nutriment.

They are not without nutriment.

And what is their nutriment?

The seven factors for awakening...

And what is the nutriment for the seven factors for awakening?

The four establishings of mindfulness...

And what is the nutriment for the four establishings of mindfulness?

The three forms of right conduct...

And what is the nutriment for the three forms of right conduct?

Restraint of the senses...

And what is the nutriment for restraint of the senses?

Mindfulness & alertness...

And what is the nutriment for mindfulness & alertness?

Appropriate attention...

And what is the nutriment for appropriate attention?

Conviction...

And what is the nutriment for conviction?

Hearing the true Dhamma...

And what is the nutriment for hearing the true Dhamma?

Associating with people who are truly good... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html

A slightly cheeky thought: it's not about fulfilling conditions, but rather removing conditions.

In practice, cultivating good conditions yields good results (and thus this is prescribed as part of the path), but ultimately the unconditioned needs no conditions.

When a fire burns out because its fuel is exhausted, it vanishes.

All that remains is the vanishing.

As Upasak inb4dead told .

There are no conditions for Nibbana.

Nibbana is unconditioned.

To possible reach the Unconditioned, one needs to hold on, put into, increase the conditions to let go of them.

One needs to have upanissaya (strong conditions) and give into strong condition causes ( upanissayapaccayena ).

Of which causes are conductive and which not, how to foster, increase, develop... conductive causes, all of that is what the whole teaching are about.

The Essence of the Dhamma might be useful, since the Unconditioned is not to be reached without giving conditions to attain.

[Note:

This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

I can’t disagree with any others answers advocating this or that practice.

But what jumps to my mind is the Buddhist teaching all conditioned things - those arising from causes* and conditions are impermanent.

Thus ultimate extinguishing, Nimbanna, is beyond conditions or causes.

But, as one uses a raft to cross a river and then abandons it, causes and conditions may be used to reach the unconditioned, and uncaused, which I think cannot be spoken of, or should not if it could be.

One who attains Nibbana has extinguished ten fetters: “Bhikkhus, there are these ten fetters.

What ten?

The five lower fetters and the five higher fetters.

And what are the five lower fetters?

Personal-existence view, doubt, wrong grasp of behavior and observances, sensual desire, and ill will.

These are the five lower fetters.

And what are the five higher fetters?

Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance.

These are the five higher fetters.

These, bhikkhus, are the ten fetters.”

AN 10.13 To extinguish these fetters, one practices the eightfold path.

Or, more comprehensively, one practices and fulfills all factors of the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā .

Question does not apply.

Nibbana is unconditioned, uncaused, unmade.

The proper question would be what are the conditions for cessation of All/aggrigates

The condition for Nirvana is "suchness".

The condition for suchness is having no conflict between "is" and "should".

The condition for no conflict is insight into the nature of things.

The condition for insight is study and practice of Noble Eightfold Path.

Question: This question is pretty straight forward.   Suppose I wish to attain Nibbana then what are the conditions which I must fulfill in order to attain Nibbana?

What are the conditions necessary for Nibbana?

To achieve Nibbana, you must practice and perfect the  Noble Eightfold Path as laid out by the Buddha. From a Theravada perspective, in order to attain Nibbana (the fourth and final stage of enlightenment), you generally need to pass through the first stage of enlightenment, which is the fruit of  stream entry .  Nibbana is unconditioned, uncaused, unmade.

From a Theravada perspective, in order to attain Nibbana (the fourth and final stage of enlightenment), you generally need to pass through the first stage of enlightenment, which is the fruit of  stream entry.  You should practice and perfect the  Noble Eightfold Path  as laid out by the Buddha. However, there are no conditions for Nibbana - it is beyond conditions or causes.

Practice and perfect the  Noble Eightfold Path  as laid out by the Buddha.

The experience of nibbana for the first time happens at the first stage of awakening, otherwise known as stream entry.

There are no conditions for Nibbana - it is beyond conditions or causes.


Let go of what is going to cause the suffering.

I.e. your attachment towards him.

Practice Satipattana meditation .

The way you express your feeling reminds me of a sutta where Buddha told story of how gods in heaven tremble in fear when they heard Buddha preached about impermanance.

Or even a great horse sees a shadow of a whip.

Since this a Q&A, Anatta is a cure.

Try to behave virtuously, do what you can, and see the virtue of/in others.

Even when you want the world to be other than it is, I think it would be worse if on top of that you regretted your own past misbehaviour; conversely you may find it better if you had good relations.

I think that "recollection of virtue" (including generosity) appears frequently ( e.g. here ), in one form or another, as something of a consolation or support.

There was a story of a very accomplished monk in the Soto Zen tradition.

One day, he heard that his master had died.

He took the news with apparent ease.

At his funeral, he was composed - greeting well wishers, accepting their condolences, smiling, and even laughing.

This lasted for much of the memorial service.

Right before they were to take the body away for cremation, this monk when to the side of his masters coffin.

He began to sob uncontrollably.

All of the people in attendance began to look at him with mouths agape.

Realizing that he was being stared at and wise to the reason why - after all it's not often that you see a Zen master lose his composure so fully and unashamedly - the monk said to the onlookers: "

My master, who I have known all of my life, who I loved as deeply as my own father, has died.

If I want to cry, I'm going to cry."

Buddhist practice isn't Vulcanism.

It isn't about transcending our emotion and sitting in a tepid path of imperturbability.

Rather, Buddhist practice is about being openhearted.

It is about becoming fully and unashamedly intimate with the world.

If your father dies, of course you will suffer.

Why shouldn't you?

Allow yourself to experience the full extent of your grief.

Mourn wholeheartedly.

Anything short of that is a disservice both to your relationship with him and to your own feelings of love.

If your father was a good father to you (doing good karma), according to the Pali suttas, he will have a good rebirth.

The Pali suttas say: These beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.

MN 4

You need to eventually face this suffering due to your attachment.

Such attachment is usually deep seated.

But what may be helpful is to contemplate on anicca or impermanence.

For this, you can take A Walk in the Woods with Phra Khantipalo.

Also, read the story of Patacara in Dhammapada 113 .

This is a difficult problem.

Although an arahant (enlightened person) would be free of grief in this situation, for the rest of us, sorrow is more or less inevitable.

There are a number of approaches.

One is to practice mindfulness of feelings, realizing that your feelings change from moment to moment.

Another is to realize that your father possesses the three marks of existence: Suffering, Impermanence and Egolessness.

Like all other beings, his life is full of suffering, and to grasp onto him is to cause suffering.

His life is impermanent, which you have already shown some awareness of.

Being mindful now of this unavoidable fact will help you deal with it when the time comes.

He is not a self and does not possess a self.

He is composed of many things which themselves are composed of many things, and these things are always changing.

As mentioned by others, a regular meditation practice is also helpful for developing serenity and insight.

From the Dhammapada : Sabbe sankhara anicca ti.

yada pannaya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe.

esa maggo visuddhiya

Every thing (experience specifically, since that is the primary) is ephemeral.

And by experientially internalising that wisdom, one comes out of suffering.

This is the path of purification.

Practice the Dharma.

Whether our father goes first or we go first, ultimately we have to face impermanence one day.

If our father goes first, we feel grief naturally, that is because we are attached to something-our father.

Yet if we go first, we are presented with a huge fear, because of the unknown of death.

Buddhism deals with all these grief and fear- sufferings.

Thus one should practice Buddhism diligently and without doubt because we really don't want all these sufferings.

Question: One day my Father will leave me. I love him a a lot. It will cause suffering when he leaves.  My question is : How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father?

How can I escape the suffering of losing my Father?

To escape the suffering of losing a loved one, allow yourself to experience the full extent of your grief.  Regular meditation practice is also helpful for developing serenity and insight.

Practicing the Dhamma and regular meditation help to develop serenity and insight. It may be helpful to contemplate anicca or impermanence. You should allow yourself to grieve and let go of the cause of the suffering. Try to behave virtuously.

Try to behave virtuously, do what you can, and see the virtue in others.

Let go of what is going to cause the suffering, and allow yourself to experience the full extent of your grief.


"Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal.

That's not a good description.

Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss.

You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases.

When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel to many countries, spend more time with my family, enjoy different types of food, build a career, become successful, raise my children to be successful etc.

" - well, that kind of thinking and emotions cease after enlightenment and is replaced with the peaceful bliss of the moment.

No, the will to live does not cease after enlightenment.

Firstly, we have to define what it means to have a will-to-live.

Arthur Schopenhauer, he been the first who coined this term, defines the will to live as a drive or conscious reason to live this life (not future life), the will to live this life not the will of becoming after death which the Arhat extinguished.

So, someone who doesn't possess the will to live will stop eating or even breathing as Zeno did and depart from life, but it's not so with an enlightenment person they have a reason to maintain this life.

As you pointed out an enlightened person will maintain his/ her life to teach others or if they can't teach they will remain in the world to ease the suffering of others by helping them to avoid the picks of pain and pleasure which are the worst enemy to a man seeking liberation.

Correct.

Other than teaching, generally there would be no reason to continue living (although there could be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents).

Attaining enlightenment is like running out of gas while driving.

The car does not stop immediately and the driver has no desire to hit the breaks to forcefully stop it.

Just like how the car stops when the momentum runs out, enlightened beings expire when their life runs out naturally.

Does will cease?

No, it is the opposite, the will is all that remains.

As my teacher said, once you "see" the emptiness, you have no reason to live, no reason to die, all you have from that moment on is your will , made strong through years of practice.

After Nirvana, that is the real enjoyable life, a state of supreme knowledge.

A connection with cosmic consciousness and a cheerful acceptance of people and situations comes once we transcend in our practice and experience the inner world which is beyond the experience of senses and emotions.

True bliss is in the company of such evolved souls.

That serves the to the purpose of life.

It's an enjoyable journey.

I'm not sure what is meant by "the will to live", but whether one has that view (or any other view!)

consciousness continues no matter what.

If by "losing the will to live" you mean the state of mind right before someone commits suicide, it is important to understand that simply ending ones life will not extinguish the consciousness nor the karma that impels one to take further birth.

Moreover, an enlightened being's mind is in no way comparable to the mind of someone right on the verge of suicide.

The Buddha or other enlightened beings are no more capable of ending their consciousness than any other being.

Mind and consciousness continue after the break up of the body.

Further, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas work tirelessly for the benefit of sentient beings.

This is why the Buddha taught the Dharma and continues to manifest in countless ways to benefit transmigrating beings.

Question: 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.

Does the will to live cease after enlightenment?

S0: No, the will to live does not cease after enlightenment. Other than teaching, generally there would be no reason to continue living (although there could be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents).

Opinions differ, with some claiming that the will to live does not cease following enlightenment. Others believe that  in general there would be no reason to continue living other than teaching or compassionate reasons.

The will to live does not cease after enlightenment.

Other than teaching, in general there would be no reason to continue living (although there may be other compassionate reasons, such as looking after parents).


Here is one teaching the Buddha gave on the start of the world: Dwelling at Savatthi.

There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world.

Listen & pay close attention.

I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world?

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness.

The meeting of the three is contact.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

This is the origination of the world.

And in the same teaching the Buddha gave the explanation for the end of the world: "

And what is the ending of the world?

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness.

The meeting of the three is contact.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.

From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.

From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.

From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

This is the ending of the world.

To understand this

I think takes familiarization with the Dharma and specifically the teachings on the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination.

how all these started?

There's no real starting point.

But if you are asking the origin of earth and how it's populated, how we came here etc.

you can read the Agganna sutta .

We basically came from a Brahma realm called Abhassara.

We were luminous beings.

Not at all like monkeys.

Only after a long time we changed into this monkey like form because of our behavior and what we consumed.

What are we doing in this place?

That's up to you to decide.

How it is gonna end?

Read the Satta Suriyuggamana sutta or Satta Suriya Patubava sutta .

I don't have a link to a good English translation.

Basically, it will end in fire this time.

According to the Sutta, 7 suns will appear and burn the earth to a crisp.

Some translate it as the sun expanding 7 times.

But, given that the Andromeda galaxy is heading towards the Milky Way for a big clash before our sun dies, it's not unlikely that 7 suns will appear after about 4 billions years and burn us to oblivion.

I take these statements to be true: "A beginning is not evident" (a formula, describing samsara, which appears in several suttas)

"The cosmos is eternal" and "The cosmos is not eternal" have not been declared by the Blessed One ( SN 44.7 ).

In other words, these are among The unanswered questions .

I prefer this to assuming that every conceivable question has a good answer -- see also for example Simsapa Sutta (SN 56.31) .

To add to Yeshe Tenley's answer, the origin of the world is explained in Pali Canon's teaching on Dependent Co-arising, also known as the Twelve Nidanas.

It all starts with Ignorance and proceeds to Craving (and Aversion) which leads to separation into "self" and "the world".

While Pali suttas don't go in too much details, this process of separation is further explained in the Tibetan tradition.

Here is, for example, an abridged quote from Lamp of Mahamudra by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol: Primordial "ground" Your natural essence [...] is neither tainted nor spoiled by such designations as pleasant or unpleasant, being or not being, existent or nonexistent, permanent or annihilated, self or other , and so forth.

Because it is not established as a certain kind of identity, your essence can serve as the basis for the manifestation of any form or conception to manifest.

Yet, no matter how it manifests, ultimately this essence has no true existence.

Thus, it is a great emptiness free from the limitations of arising, dwelling, and ceasing .

Ignorance ...

Due to the ignorant aspect of this neutral all-ground, you do not cognize your own essence, and the natural state is not realized.

In this way have you obscured yourself.

Called "coemergent ignorance" or the "great darkness of beginningless time" since it is the basis from which all disturbing emotions and deluded thoughts arise, it is also known as the "all-ground of various tendencies.

Hence it is the ground of confusion of all sentient beings.

Craving and separation ...

From this coemergent ignorance arises a fixation on an ego and self-entity.

On the basis of this "self" arises the fixation on "other."

Not recognizing this personal manifestation for what is, a personal manifestation, one grasps at it as though it were an external object.

[...] It is the cognitive act of confusing object and mind as being separate and is accompanied by the forty thought states resulting from desire, such as attachment and clinging.

The origin of the world ...

Through the power of being habituated to confused fixation, your personal manifestations will appear as a world with inhabitants .

[...] The various objects of gross materiality and the pure and impure parts of nadi, prana, and bindu of the inner body, as well as all the various phenomena of samsara and nirvana, the worlds and beings of the three realms, appear externally in an interdependent manner .

There are 10 questions that Buddha didn't answered..About the beginning and end of world is one such question...that subject is much far beyond from brain of human..

And otherwise we don't need to know extra useless things to understand the truth what we are finding...

Question: I always wonder how all this started... How did we arrive here? What are we doing in this place?  So are there teachings in Buddhism that are clear on this point?  How did the world start? and How is it gonna end?

What does Buddhism teach about the start and end of world?

The Buddha not talk about the beginning or the end of the world.

There are 10 questions that Buddha didn't answer. The beginning and end of world is one such question, as it is beyond our capacity to understand. However, according to the sutta, 7 suns will appear and burn the earth to a crisp.

According to the Sutta, 7 suns will appear and burn the earth to a crisp.


I think that nibbana is defined as the end of suffering -- which occurs with the end of craving (as defined by the noble truths).

The end of craving happens (permanently) when the various causes of craving up uprooted -- the causes of craving include e.g. anusaya and asava and so on.

This uprooting can be permanent in the same way that when a palm tree is cut then it won't grow again .

Conversely, Samsara is a cycle of existence -- the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the 12 nidanas ) says that cycle (including further birth) is conditioned by craving -- and so does this description : “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.

No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

Interesting question.

You assume a fundamental division but we are told (for instance by Rumi) '

the two worlds are one'.

My guess or conceptualisation would be that Samsara and Nirvana are co-dependent and reduce to Unity.

This would suggest that Samsara and Nirvana are dual-aspects thus inseperable.

Just pondering out loud.

This is beyond my pay-grade.

I'm not even sure this language is appropriate.

EDIT:

No wait.

This is not beyond my pay grade.

Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent-existence and to not really exist.

Nagarjuna proves it.

The truth would be beyond intellection or conceptualisation and to entail the dissolution of all conceptual opposites including Samsara and Nirvana.

So the short answer would be 'no'.

It's not so much: is it possible to have Nibbana without Samsara?

That is just how it is.

Positive is accompanied by negative, yin and yang, pain/trouble and peace/bliss.

The goal is to be more towards Nibbana, and step out of the way of, or avoid being in Samsara.

Beings learn by falling into Samsara, and deciding not to go back there!

Buddhism doesn't define the extremes; Samsara's beginning and end is not apparent.

So, if it's not apparent you question is, according to Buddhism, wrong question.

Sure, that's what the path of the Noble One is all about.

While the question "is sustainability possible (and how)?

" is of no need.

It's the very nature of Unbond that it does not require any sustainability, entertainment, is free of "under holding", holding on, requirement of support.

For one who as fulfilled the task.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma , not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

This kind of questions comes simply because, you have mixed your understanding about Buddhism with Science.

Science made by humans to solve day to day problems, but Buddhism isn't.

Believe or not dharma is the explanation for everything.

So don't let your mind to ask such questions about the Nibbana, see this thread also to get some brief idea about Nibbana.

Question: Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

Possibility of nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

It could be that Samsara and Nirvana are co-dependent and reduce to Unity. Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent-existence and to not really exist.

Samsara and Nirvana are thought to have a dependent existence and to not really exist.

Samsara and Nirvana are said to have a dependent existence and to not really exist.