Just some answers to random/common Dharma questions.
Q: How can I skilfully live with insects in my home?
Answer: It’s much easier to be at peace with insects and other unwanted sentient beings when we simply don’t focus unnecessary attention toward them, or conversely, honour their right to live, be happy, and be free from harm’s way; besides, they usually want less to do with us than we do with them, and many can find their way "out" if left to their own devices. And, it can be argued that indoor critters, such as house spiders, for example, are our friends. And they would quickly perish if we were to "help them out" by placing them outdoors.
That being said, this laissez-faire approach isn’t always skilful, especially when we are facing an infestation of bed bugs, termites, or other critters that can actually cause harm if left unaddressed.
Unless it's causing you actual harm, then leave it be. It came... and it will go; all phenomena are impermanent and much of the "harm" we experience is but a result of arisen negative, afflictive mind-states as a result of our vedanās, perceptions, and thoughts, and should therefore be recognised as an opportunity to work directly with these afflictions if we wish to make progress along the Path.
If you can't just let it be, and choose not to use this as an opportunity to practice and cultivate spiritual growth, then capture-and-release is an option; however, that's not always an option with the more delicate of creatures, such as moths or other creatures that would only be injured in the process of catching/releasing.
Use your best judgement, informed by your understanding of the Dhamma and by the compassion found within you.
Answer: It’s much easier to be at peace with insects and other unwanted sentient beings when we simply don’t focus unnecessary attention toward them, or conversely, honour their right to live, be happy, and be free from harm’s way; besides, they usually want less to do with us than we do with them, and many can find their way "out" if left to their own devices. And, it can be argued that indoor critters, such as house spiders, for example, are our friends. And they would quickly perish if we were to "help them out" by placing them outdoors.
That being said, this laissez-faire approach isn’t always skilful, especially when we are facing an infestation of bed bugs, termites, or other critters that can actually cause harm if left unaddressed.
Unless it's causing you actual harm, then leave it be. It came... and it will go; all phenomena are impermanent and much of the "harm" we experience is but a result of arisen negative, afflictive mind-states as a result of our vedanās, perceptions, and thoughts, and should therefore be recognised as an opportunity to work directly with these afflictions if we wish to make progress along the Path.
If you can't just let it be, and choose not to use this as an opportunity to practice and cultivate spiritual growth, then capture-and-release is an option; however, that's not always an option with the more delicate of creatures, such as moths or other creatures that would only be injured in the process of catching/releasing.
Use your best judgement, informed by your understanding of the Dhamma and by the compassion found within you.
Q: Would the following constitute a violation of the precept against music, dance and show for lay Buddhists:
Answer: The particular precept to which you are referencing only applies to those who undertake the 8 Lay Precepts, rather than the more common 5 Lay Precepts. The 8 precepts are practiced by anagārikas (lay renunciates) and by lay Buddhists on Uposatha days, and occasionally by more-serious upāsakas (lay devotees).
Regardless, if you are interested in observing this precept, it would be skilful to ask yourself if these things that you wish to marinate your mind in (e.g., the news, "true crime" documentaries, or video games) are Dhamma-friendly. Are they wholesome, beneficial, and conducive to developing your level of wisdom? If not, then the answer to your question is clear if you are intending to practice with the intention of the precepts in mind.
There is give and take here, of course.
Nevertheless, the more serious we become as practitioners, the more often we will find ourselves in positions of having to choose between our spiritual practice and our attachments to the worldly distractions that keep us away from our practice. Our time to practice is limited. It is advisable to use the discretionary time that we have available to ourselves as beneficially as possible, and how we define that will be based on where we are on the Path and how motivated we are to cultivate the factors that support making more progress along it.
Our time to practice is impermanent; strive with diligence.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student for a much more detailed response to this type of question.
- Watching (or listening to) the news
- Watching (or listening to) a news-only station like CNN
- Watching a serious documentary
- Watching a "true crime" type of documentary
- Playing a game on a phone or tablet
Answer: The particular precept to which you are referencing only applies to those who undertake the 8 Lay Precepts, rather than the more common 5 Lay Precepts. The 8 precepts are practiced by anagārikas (lay renunciates) and by lay Buddhists on Uposatha days, and occasionally by more-serious upāsakas (lay devotees).
Regardless, if you are interested in observing this precept, it would be skilful to ask yourself if these things that you wish to marinate your mind in (e.g., the news, "true crime" documentaries, or video games) are Dhamma-friendly. Are they wholesome, beneficial, and conducive to developing your level of wisdom? If not, then the answer to your question is clear if you are intending to practice with the intention of the precepts in mind.
There is give and take here, of course.
Nevertheless, the more serious we become as practitioners, the more often we will find ourselves in positions of having to choose between our spiritual practice and our attachments to the worldly distractions that keep us away from our practice. Our time to practice is limited. It is advisable to use the discretionary time that we have available to ourselves as beneficially as possible, and how we define that will be based on where we are on the Path and how motivated we are to cultivate the factors that support making more progress along it.
Our time to practice is impermanent; strive with diligence.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student for a much more detailed response to this type of question.
Q: Like many other people, I became acquainted with Buddhism after learning how to meditate.
I was mainly practicing Theravada teachers’ instructions like Gunaratana, Ajahn Brahm, etc. and also a bit of dzogchen. I had quite a success with these instructions. After that I decided to bury deep into Buddhism - give it a try, so to speak, - and started reading the suttas. I’ve read quite a plentiful of them and what caught my eye was that many suttas talk about meditation being preceded by a lot of preliminary steps like celibacy, guarding sense doors, moderate eating, contentment etc. etc. That fact highly confused me since it is obvious that many modern practitioners have success in meditation without 1)being celibate 2)guarding sense doors 3)moderate eating 4)contentment 5)even simple physical seclusion (many retreats are the group ones) etc. So, I want to ask: are these preliminary steps just cultural things that can be, basically, discarded? If so then why did Buddha give them? How all this can be reconciled?
Answer: Success in meditation does not make someone a "Buddhist" or a "practitioner."
Allow me to briefly explain what I mean by that:
The Buddha discovered and taught the Dhamma — it’s the Dhamma that uniquely set him apart from all other spiritual guides. Otherwise, he would have just been a meditation teacher. If he were a meditation teacher, there would be more than just the vague and cursory instructions found in the suttas. Upon even a cursory examination of the early Buddhist texts, anyone can see that while there is very little in the way of meditation instruction in the Dhamma, there is much on the ideas of the development of virtue, the practice of wise contemplation, and the benefits of skilful seclusion from the unwholesome (be it in the form of mental sense restraint or physical separation).
Sure, meditation is a part of the Path. However, practising meditation alone does not equate to practising the fullness of the Buddha’s teachings, far from it. Buddhism is a comprehensive and multifaceted practice that encompasses a range of views, techniques, and teachings that go far beyond just meditating. Meditation was a given; meditation preceded the Buddha and existed in many traditions both before and during his ministry, and it was very far from the core of what made Buddhist understandings and practice the Path that he taught.
Meditation alone is just meditation. To learn, understand, contemplate, and practice the Dhamma is to practice Buddhism.
The paths, journeys, and results/destinations are not the same.
The Buddha's Dhamma is always the development of sīla (virtue) first, the establishment of samādhi (mental stillness) on the foundation of sīla second, and then the cultivation of paññā (wisdom) on the foundation of sīla and samādhi as a result. And, in that specific order — always and without exception.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student and this post on meditation and awakening myths for a much more revealing response to this question.
I was mainly practicing Theravada teachers’ instructions like Gunaratana, Ajahn Brahm, etc. and also a bit of dzogchen. I had quite a success with these instructions. After that I decided to bury deep into Buddhism - give it a try, so to speak, - and started reading the suttas. I’ve read quite a plentiful of them and what caught my eye was that many suttas talk about meditation being preceded by a lot of preliminary steps like celibacy, guarding sense doors, moderate eating, contentment etc. etc. That fact highly confused me since it is obvious that many modern practitioners have success in meditation without 1)being celibate 2)guarding sense doors 3)moderate eating 4)contentment 5)even simple physical seclusion (many retreats are the group ones) etc. So, I want to ask: are these preliminary steps just cultural things that can be, basically, discarded? If so then why did Buddha give them? How all this can be reconciled?
Answer: Success in meditation does not make someone a "Buddhist" or a "practitioner."
Allow me to briefly explain what I mean by that:
The Buddha discovered and taught the Dhamma — it’s the Dhamma that uniquely set him apart from all other spiritual guides. Otherwise, he would have just been a meditation teacher. If he were a meditation teacher, there would be more than just the vague and cursory instructions found in the suttas. Upon even a cursory examination of the early Buddhist texts, anyone can see that while there is very little in the way of meditation instruction in the Dhamma, there is much on the ideas of the development of virtue, the practice of wise contemplation, and the benefits of skilful seclusion from the unwholesome (be it in the form of mental sense restraint or physical separation).
Sure, meditation is a part of the Path. However, practising meditation alone does not equate to practising the fullness of the Buddha’s teachings, far from it. Buddhism is a comprehensive and multifaceted practice that encompasses a range of views, techniques, and teachings that go far beyond just meditating. Meditation was a given; meditation preceded the Buddha and existed in many traditions both before and during his ministry, and it was very far from the core of what made Buddhist understandings and practice the Path that he taught.
Meditation alone is just meditation. To learn, understand, contemplate, and practice the Dhamma is to practice Buddhism.
The paths, journeys, and results/destinations are not the same.
The Buddha's Dhamma is always the development of sīla (virtue) first, the establishment of samādhi (mental stillness) on the foundation of sīla second, and then the cultivation of paññā (wisdom) on the foundation of sīla and samādhi as a result. And, in that specific order — always and without exception.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student and this post on meditation and awakening myths for a much more revealing response to this question.
Q: It is said in the suttas that householders who reach arahantship need to ordain in 7 days or they die!
Answer: This is a common myth/misunderstanding. I wanted to point out that it is not based on the words or teachings of the Buddha himself, but rather found in the Milindapanha, a book which presents a dialogue between the Indian monk Nagasena and the Indo-Greek king Milinda.
It is true that once someone becomes an arahant, they are no longer able to function as a householder, being incapable of tending to the daily mundane activities and chores that would make continued lay life possible, so ordaining is the most reasonable way to sustain life after the attainment unless they have family to take care of their needs. In either case, the Milinda passage should not really be interpreted as a literal teaching that arahants must ordain in 7 days or else they will die.
Answer: This is a common myth/misunderstanding. I wanted to point out that it is not based on the words or teachings of the Buddha himself, but rather found in the Milindapanha, a book which presents a dialogue between the Indian monk Nagasena and the Indo-Greek king Milinda.
It is true that once someone becomes an arahant, they are no longer able to function as a householder, being incapable of tending to the daily mundane activities and chores that would make continued lay life possible, so ordaining is the most reasonable way to sustain life after the attainment unless they have family to take care of their needs. In either case, the Milinda passage should not really be interpreted as a literal teaching that arahants must ordain in 7 days or else they will die.
Q: Is the Fifth Precept only about alcohol?
I initially planned on taking a few drops of a homeopathic medicine yet it is written that three drops of it equals to less than 1,2ml of beer or of 0,5ml of wine. I know that some exceptions were made in the vinaya for ill bhikkhus to use alcohol in a mixture as long as the color, taste or scent of it can’t be detected. Would it be reasonable enough to use the medicine in diluted water ?
Answer: The 5th precept includes the consumption of any intoxicants that lead to heedlessness because intoxication makes it impossible to keep the other four lay Buddhist precepts.
"Heedlessness" means moral recklessness, a disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. Intention also matters, so if you believe that the amount of alcohol would have the potential to blur the lines between what is skilful or unskillful, wholesome or unwholesome, then it falls under the intention of this precept and should be carefully considered or avoided, especially if more skilful alternatives are available. If not, then not, given the circumstances.
This, of course, is my reply within the context of your specific question and not in the context of whether or not a "small or insignificant" amount of alcohol would be "OK," as such, at an important event or a night out with old friends.
Skillfulness, wholesomeness, mindfulness, and non-harm to self and others. This is the Buddhist path as I understand it, and I believe that anything that is harmful to our ability to uphold those values in our practice is to be questioned. You seem to be treading on firm ground in this situation, so your medicine should be "OK" to consume for the purposes stated on the tin.
I initially planned on taking a few drops of a homeopathic medicine yet it is written that three drops of it equals to less than 1,2ml of beer or of 0,5ml of wine. I know that some exceptions were made in the vinaya for ill bhikkhus to use alcohol in a mixture as long as the color, taste or scent of it can’t be detected. Would it be reasonable enough to use the medicine in diluted water ?
Answer: The 5th precept includes the consumption of any intoxicants that lead to heedlessness because intoxication makes it impossible to keep the other four lay Buddhist precepts.
"Heedlessness" means moral recklessness, a disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. Intention also matters, so if you believe that the amount of alcohol would have the potential to blur the lines between what is skilful or unskillful, wholesome or unwholesome, then it falls under the intention of this precept and should be carefully considered or avoided, especially if more skilful alternatives are available. If not, then not, given the circumstances.
This, of course, is my reply within the context of your specific question and not in the context of whether or not a "small or insignificant" amount of alcohol would be "OK," as such, at an important event or a night out with old friends.
Skillfulness, wholesomeness, mindfulness, and non-harm to self and others. This is the Buddhist path as I understand it, and I believe that anything that is harmful to our ability to uphold those values in our practice is to be questioned. You seem to be treading on firm ground in this situation, so your medicine should be "OK" to consume for the purposes stated on the tin.
Q: Did the Buddha get angry?
There are several passages where the Buddha seems to be angry with others. This has always seemed to me to be troubling. While there’s nothing wrong with the Buddha correcting others, I wonder why the Buddha was usually so rude about it.
Answer: Sometimes, it appears that the Buddha, despite being perfectly enlightened, could express annoyance or perhaps even crankiness, which could come across as harsh to some.
For instance, we have an exchange found in MN 67 (the Cātuma Sutta).
As the story goes, the Tathāgata once sent away a group of "500" newly ordained bhikkhus. These bhikkhus had never seen the Buddha before and were perhaps young. Having also never met the Buddha Sangha, upon their arrival, they were noisy and loud as they enthusiastically greeted the resident monks and settled their belongings. Although they were expressing their excitement of seeing other monks for the first time, and despite travelling all the way to see the Buddha for the very first time, the Tathāgata deemed their behaviour to be inappropriate and summarily sent them away.
"[newly ordained] Mendicants, what’s with that dreadful racket? You’d think it was fishermen hauling in a catch!"
And [the new bhikkhus] told him what had happened. (That is to say, while exchanging pleasantries with the resident mendicants, preparing their lodgings, and putting away their bowls and robes, they made a lot of noise.)
"Go away, mendicants, I dismiss you. You are not to stay in my presence."
"Yes, sir," replied those mendicants. They got up from their seats… they set their lodgings in order and left, taking their bowls and robes.
After this incident, the Sakyans of Cātumā and even Brahmā Sahampati had to present themselves to the Buddha in order to persuade the Buddha to reconsider and to recall all of these newly ordained monastics that he sent away for having been noisy when they arrived:
Brahmā Sahampati appeared in front of the Buddha, arranged his robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Buddha, and said:
"May the Buddha support the mendicant Saṅgha now as he did in the past! There are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training.
"If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart. If young seedlings don’t get water they may change and fall apart. … If a young calf doesn’t see its mother it may change and fall apart. In the same way, there are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training. If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart."
The Buddha thus rescinded his earlier dismissal order and sent word that these new bhikkhus were welcome to return. After they returned, he then taught a short lesson, but not before taking the opportunity to publicly admonish Sāriputta.
It seems that there is much that can be discussed and learned from this sutta, but in short, while the Buddha could express annoyance or perhaps crankiness, which could come across as harsh to some, he does not have the root or defilement of anger in his mind.
By the way, Sahampati is one of my favourites, and he always seems to show up just when needed to give the Buddha a gentle nudge or poke in the right direction 😉️
There are several passages where the Buddha seems to be angry with others. This has always seemed to me to be troubling. While there’s nothing wrong with the Buddha correcting others, I wonder why the Buddha was usually so rude about it.
Answer: Sometimes, it appears that the Buddha, despite being perfectly enlightened, could express annoyance or perhaps even crankiness, which could come across as harsh to some.
For instance, we have an exchange found in MN 67 (the Cātuma Sutta).
As the story goes, the Tathāgata once sent away a group of "500" newly ordained bhikkhus. These bhikkhus had never seen the Buddha before and were perhaps young. Having also never met the Buddha Sangha, upon their arrival, they were noisy and loud as they enthusiastically greeted the resident monks and settled their belongings. Although they were expressing their excitement of seeing other monks for the first time, and despite travelling all the way to see the Buddha for the very first time, the Tathāgata deemed their behaviour to be inappropriate and summarily sent them away.
"[newly ordained] Mendicants, what’s with that dreadful racket? You’d think it was fishermen hauling in a catch!"
And [the new bhikkhus] told him what had happened. (That is to say, while exchanging pleasantries with the resident mendicants, preparing their lodgings, and putting away their bowls and robes, they made a lot of noise.)
"Go away, mendicants, I dismiss you. You are not to stay in my presence."
"Yes, sir," replied those mendicants. They got up from their seats… they set their lodgings in order and left, taking their bowls and robes.
After this incident, the Sakyans of Cātumā and even Brahmā Sahampati had to present themselves to the Buddha in order to persuade the Buddha to reconsider and to recall all of these newly ordained monastics that he sent away for having been noisy when they arrived:
Brahmā Sahampati appeared in front of the Buddha, arranged his robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Buddha, and said:
"May the Buddha support the mendicant Saṅgha now as he did in the past! There are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training.
"If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart. If young seedlings don’t get water they may change and fall apart. … If a young calf doesn’t see its mother it may change and fall apart. In the same way, there are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training. If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart."
The Buddha thus rescinded his earlier dismissal order and sent word that these new bhikkhus were welcome to return. After they returned, he then taught a short lesson, but not before taking the opportunity to publicly admonish Sāriputta.
It seems that there is much that can be discussed and learned from this sutta, but in short, while the Buddha could express annoyance or perhaps crankiness, which could come across as harsh to some, he does not have the root or defilement of anger in his mind.
By the way, Sahampati is one of my favourites, and he always seems to show up just when needed to give the Buddha a gentle nudge or poke in the right direction 😉️
Q: Is watching horror movies OK?
Do you think watching horror movies could function similarly to corpse meditation, or is watching horror movies always rejoicing in gratification of the sense powers and sense domains? I mean, if you wanted to communicate the insights of such meditation to a North American audience, do you think it could be possible through horror?
Answer: When we pass time consuming violence, especially when it’s packaged as entertainment, it touches our minds unbeneficially; and, there are many other — more skilful ways — to practice the various forms of corpse/death/charnel grounds meditations that are more in accordance with the Dhammavinaya.
Violence as a form of entertainment, especially mortal violence as a form of entertainment or pastime, should be avoided as unskilful.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student for a much more detailed response to this question.
Do you think watching horror movies could function similarly to corpse meditation, or is watching horror movies always rejoicing in gratification of the sense powers and sense domains? I mean, if you wanted to communicate the insights of such meditation to a North American audience, do you think it could be possible through horror?
Answer: When we pass time consuming violence, especially when it’s packaged as entertainment, it touches our minds unbeneficially; and, there are many other — more skilful ways — to practice the various forms of corpse/death/charnel grounds meditations that are more in accordance with the Dhammavinaya.
Violence as a form of entertainment, especially mortal violence as a form of entertainment or pastime, should be avoided as unskilful.
Please read this letter I wrote to a student for a much more detailed response to this question.
Q: I should try to let go of pleasure by turning my mind away from it or should I observe it?
I am confused by suttas related to the perception of feelings that say that we should observe our feelings, and the suttas on the jhanas that say that we should turn away from feelings instead of observing them.
Answer: Without intending to be pithy: one before the other. You cannot let go of that which you cannot equanimously observe.
If you are properly directed in your practice, as you develop your skill in observing your actions, your speech, your thoughts, your vedanās — each layer more subtle than the other — you can then begin to recognise the danger in each of them. Doing so, when properly directed, cultivates the energy, motivation, and determination to be free of the dukkha that is caused by them, which, when properly directed, leads to your focus on un-attaching from them: letting them go, or letting go of your attaching to them, per se.
I am confused by suttas related to the perception of feelings that say that we should observe our feelings, and the suttas on the jhanas that say that we should turn away from feelings instead of observing them.
Answer: Without intending to be pithy: one before the other. You cannot let go of that which you cannot equanimously observe.
If you are properly directed in your practice, as you develop your skill in observing your actions, your speech, your thoughts, your vedanās — each layer more subtle than the other — you can then begin to recognise the danger in each of them. Doing so, when properly directed, cultivates the energy, motivation, and determination to be free of the dukkha that is caused by them, which, when properly directed, leads to your focus on un-attaching from them: letting them go, or letting go of your attaching to them, per se.
Q: Besides Dhamma, what is appropriate to talk about?
Answer: There is much that can be discussed through the perspective of the Dhamma. For me, this opens things up quite a bit, as many worldly topics can be addressed through the lens of the Dhamma.
However, it also depends on the type of company that you keep (or find yourself in), and so there are times when I (for example) choose rather to simply rest in noble silence, compassionately listening, silently offering mettā, and skilfully abiding in the Dhamma internally — but that's me.
For a much more detailed answer to this particular question, please refer to this article on casual speech for Buddhists. It provides detailed explanations with practical examples of how to discuss various topics skillfully.
Answer: There is much that can be discussed through the perspective of the Dhamma. For me, this opens things up quite a bit, as many worldly topics can be addressed through the lens of the Dhamma.
However, it also depends on the type of company that you keep (or find yourself in), and so there are times when I (for example) choose rather to simply rest in noble silence, compassionately listening, silently offering mettā, and skilfully abiding in the Dhamma internally — but that's me.
For a much more detailed answer to this particular question, please refer to this article on casual speech for Buddhists. It provides detailed explanations with practical examples of how to discuss various topics skillfully.
Q: I am struggling to install the Golden Dictionary. I wrote to Leigh Brasington and he told me that "this dictionary is only supported by Windows so essentially unless you are a computer wiz forget about trying to install it on a Apple Macintosh."
Answer: Leigh Brasington is incorrect. The Golden Dictionary (and the comprehensive Digital Pāli Dictionary) is available for easy installation on all major operating systems. A simple guide can be found on the Digital Pāli Dictionary project homepage and covers Windows, Linux, ChromeBook, iOS, Android, Kindle, Kobo, and yes, even MacOS.
The guide is easy to follow and anyone can install the dictionary quickly and effortlessly.
Answer: Leigh Brasington is incorrect. The Golden Dictionary (and the comprehensive Digital Pāli Dictionary) is available for easy installation on all major operating systems. A simple guide can be found on the Digital Pāli Dictionary project homepage and covers Windows, Linux, ChromeBook, iOS, Android, Kindle, Kobo, and yes, even MacOS.
The guide is easy to follow and anyone can install the dictionary quickly and effortlessly.
Q: Is taking a rebirth into the higher realms a good thing or an undesirable waste of time?
Answer: As a Buddhist practitioner, rebirth into a non-human higher realm, where existence is not conducive to practice and progress along the Path, is not desirable. And yes, I’d even go so far as to suggest that it seems to be, what could be considered, a "waste of time." Especially considering the incomprehensibly lengthy duration of the arūpa-lokas (i.e., 20,000 – 80,000+ aeons).
In the heavenly realms, for example, the Dhamma is difficult for the devas to see. And while sometimes arahants will ascend to the deva realms to teach the Dhamma or to speak with the devas, it is difficult to make progress due to minimal exposure to dukkha, wrong views, limited teachings, the abundance of sense pleasures, et cetera. Despite these obstacles, there are a few instances where individuals in the higher realms have attained sotapanna (i.e., stream entry), such as Sakka, the king of gods. However, these cases are rare and quite uncommon.
It’s problematic that many devas and Brahmās seem to fall into the trap of various Wrong Views, even to the point of believing themselves to be immortal as they bask in the sense pleasures associated with their respective heavenly sense sphere realms, or in the cerebral activities and deep meditative bliss found in the rūpa- and arūpa-lokas.
Some may suggest that being reborn in the heavenly realms is "better" than being reborn as a human, for what they say are "obvious" reasons. And it may be better, more pleasurable, and freer of suffering, sure, I’d agree with that. Rebirth into the heavenly realms or, even more so, in the realms of deep concentration is no doubt more comfortable and enjoyable than the mix of pleasure and suffering of rebirth into the human realm. But "better" in terms of progression along the path toward nibbāna and the cessation of dukkha and the uprooting of taṇhā? No, of course not.
I think for pre-ariya worldlings, we can all agree that positive higher rebirths are always better than negative lower ones. And if we can avoid lower realms or unfortunate human rebirths, that would be highly preferred. But I think that’s a given, so a less interesting question?
The more interesting question (to me) is the perspective of those who have achieved inevitable freedom from suffering and whether or not a "positive" rebirth into a higher non-human realm where attainments and significant progress is less (or not) likely is still desirable when they could otherwise have a fortunate human rebirth and more directly continue the Path.
Progress is more difficult when surrounded by distractions and lack of the teachings, as I mentioned above, "it is difficult to make progress due to minimal exposure to dukkha, prevalent wrong views, limited teachings, the abundance of sense pleasures, etc." it is difficult to take on a path with so little motivation or knowledge to do so. Dukkha is a strong motivator.
While there are probably other sutta references, the ones that seem potentially relevant to me include AN 8.29, SN 56.48, and Iti 83.
Answer: As a Buddhist practitioner, rebirth into a non-human higher realm, where existence is not conducive to practice and progress along the Path, is not desirable. And yes, I’d even go so far as to suggest that it seems to be, what could be considered, a "waste of time." Especially considering the incomprehensibly lengthy duration of the arūpa-lokas (i.e., 20,000 – 80,000+ aeons).
In the heavenly realms, for example, the Dhamma is difficult for the devas to see. And while sometimes arahants will ascend to the deva realms to teach the Dhamma or to speak with the devas, it is difficult to make progress due to minimal exposure to dukkha, wrong views, limited teachings, the abundance of sense pleasures, et cetera. Despite these obstacles, there are a few instances where individuals in the higher realms have attained sotapanna (i.e., stream entry), such as Sakka, the king of gods. However, these cases are rare and quite uncommon.
It’s problematic that many devas and Brahmās seem to fall into the trap of various Wrong Views, even to the point of believing themselves to be immortal as they bask in the sense pleasures associated with their respective heavenly sense sphere realms, or in the cerebral activities and deep meditative bliss found in the rūpa- and arūpa-lokas.
Some may suggest that being reborn in the heavenly realms is "better" than being reborn as a human, for what they say are "obvious" reasons. And it may be better, more pleasurable, and freer of suffering, sure, I’d agree with that. Rebirth into the heavenly realms or, even more so, in the realms of deep concentration is no doubt more comfortable and enjoyable than the mix of pleasure and suffering of rebirth into the human realm. But "better" in terms of progression along the path toward nibbāna and the cessation of dukkha and the uprooting of taṇhā? No, of course not.
I think for pre-ariya worldlings, we can all agree that positive higher rebirths are always better than negative lower ones. And if we can avoid lower realms or unfortunate human rebirths, that would be highly preferred. But I think that’s a given, so a less interesting question?
The more interesting question (to me) is the perspective of those who have achieved inevitable freedom from suffering and whether or not a "positive" rebirth into a higher non-human realm where attainments and significant progress is less (or not) likely is still desirable when they could otherwise have a fortunate human rebirth and more directly continue the Path.
Progress is more difficult when surrounded by distractions and lack of the teachings, as I mentioned above, "it is difficult to make progress due to minimal exposure to dukkha, prevalent wrong views, limited teachings, the abundance of sense pleasures, etc." it is difficult to take on a path with so little motivation or knowledge to do so. Dukkha is a strong motivator.
While there are probably other sutta references, the ones that seem potentially relevant to me include AN 8.29, SN 56.48, and Iti 83.
Q: Do you recommend Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the New Kadampa Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism?
Answer: They are very well-funded and have Dharma and meditation centres all over the world, which makes them quite accessible for newcomers to Buddhism; they are also approachable and knowledgeable, which is a nice bonus.
From a Tibetan (Mahayana) Buddhist perspective, the books and Dharma teachings are truly excellent. If you engage with them as a sangha member or retreat participant, or learn from their books, Dharma talks, and other resources, I believe there is significant benefit to be gained.
However, if you are considering joining their Teaching Training Program (TTP) and pursuing a path toward their inner circle, I might suggest exercising caution. The inner-sangha of the New Kadampa Tradition–International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU) has developed somewhat of an unsavoury reputation for being repressive, and while I do not have any personal experience with the inner workings of the New Kadampa Tradition, some of the things that I have heard and read about are troublesome.
As with all things, be mindful and judicious, and ask questions.
Answer: They are very well-funded and have Dharma and meditation centres all over the world, which makes them quite accessible for newcomers to Buddhism; they are also approachable and knowledgeable, which is a nice bonus.
From a Tibetan (Mahayana) Buddhist perspective, the books and Dharma teachings are truly excellent. If you engage with them as a sangha member or retreat participant, or learn from their books, Dharma talks, and other resources, I believe there is significant benefit to be gained.
However, if you are considering joining their Teaching Training Program (TTP) and pursuing a path toward their inner circle, I might suggest exercising caution. The inner-sangha of the New Kadampa Tradition–International Kadampa Buddhist Union (NKT-IKBU) has developed somewhat of an unsavoury reputation for being repressive, and while I do not have any personal experience with the inner workings of the New Kadampa Tradition, some of the things that I have heard and read about are troublesome.
As with all things, be mindful and judicious, and ask questions.
Q: I recall there being a sutta where the Buddha says that some people are unable to learn the Dhamma, but I can’t recall the citation or the context.
I thought perhaps it was a list in AN that might refer to the capacities of different kinds of learners, but I’ve been looking and can’t find anything like that. Someone suggested to me it was a sutta where Ananda asked the Buddha to teach someone, but the Buddha explained that the person would be incapable of understanding, but they didn’t have the sutta name. Do you know what sutta this might be?
Answer: I am not sure if this is the sutta to which you are referring, but in AN 6.87 the list of qualities of those who cannot enter the Path is as follows:
"Mendicants, someone with six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the true teaching.
"What six?
"They murder their mother or father or a perfected one.
"They maliciously shed the blood of a Realized One.
"They cause a schism in the Saṅgha.
"They’re witless, dull, and stupid.
"Someone with these six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when listening to the true teaching."
The "witless, dull, and stupid" quality would support the notion that the Path that the Buddha teaches asks a lot of those who strive for release, and without mental acuity, they have little hope for success. Perhaps it implies that they are unteachable.
I thought perhaps it was a list in AN that might refer to the capacities of different kinds of learners, but I’ve been looking and can’t find anything like that. Someone suggested to me it was a sutta where Ananda asked the Buddha to teach someone, but the Buddha explained that the person would be incapable of understanding, but they didn’t have the sutta name. Do you know what sutta this might be?
Answer: I am not sure if this is the sutta to which you are referring, but in AN 6.87 the list of qualities of those who cannot enter the Path is as follows:
"Mendicants, someone with six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the true teaching.
"What six?
"They murder their mother or father or a perfected one.
"They maliciously shed the blood of a Realized One.
"They cause a schism in the Saṅgha.
"They’re witless, dull, and stupid.
"Someone with these six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when listening to the true teaching."
The "witless, dull, and stupid" quality would support the notion that the Path that the Buddha teaches asks a lot of those who strive for release, and without mental acuity, they have little hope for success. Perhaps it implies that they are unteachable.
Q: Why didn't the Buddha want to teach people before his enlightenment? Surely he must have had a lot to share with others along the way.
Answer: He didn’t even want to teach after his enlightenment 😮️ see the Brahmāyācanasutta (SN 6.1), excerpts follow:
"This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. And if I were to teach this principle, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me."
It was the Brahmā, Sahampati, who showed up to change his mind.
By the way, it’s worth noting that Sahampati has a tendency to show up to have a talk with the Buddha when he is at some sort a crossroads, as seen here:
"Then Brahmā Sahampati, knowing what the Buddha was thinking, thought, 'Oh my goodness! The world will be lost, the world will perish! For the mind of the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha, inclines to remaining passive, not to teaching the Dhamma.'"
Sahampati is a good Dhamma brother. 😉️
"Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!"
He has more to say on this, and there is a beautiful verse that follows that excerpt. Nevertheless, after a quick talk by Sahampati, the Buddha had a change of mind:
"Then the Buddha, understanding Brahmā’s invitation, surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha, because of his compassion for sentient beings. And the Buddha saw sentient beings with little dust in their eyes, and some with much dust in their eyes; with keen faculties and with weak faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach. And some of them lived seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world, while others did not."
So, it wasn’t until after Sahampati had a talk with the Buddha that he decided to turn the wheel of the Dhamma.
"When he had seen this he replied in verse to Brahmā Sahampati:
'Flung open are the doors to the deathless! Let those with ears to hear commit to faith. Thinking it would be troublesome, Brahmā, I did not teach the sophisticated, sublime Dhamma among humans.'"
This is a good sutta which I recommend to anyone interested in how, and when, the Tathāgata decided to share the Dhamma with the rest of us.
Answer: He didn’t even want to teach after his enlightenment 😮️ see the Brahmāyācanasutta (SN 6.1), excerpts follow:
"This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. And if I were to teach this principle, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me."
It was the Brahmā, Sahampati, who showed up to change his mind.
By the way, it’s worth noting that Sahampati has a tendency to show up to have a talk with the Buddha when he is at some sort a crossroads, as seen here:
"Then Brahmā Sahampati, knowing what the Buddha was thinking, thought, 'Oh my goodness! The world will be lost, the world will perish! For the mind of the Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha, inclines to remaining passive, not to teaching the Dhamma.'"
Sahampati is a good Dhamma brother. 😉️
"Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching. There will be those who understand the teaching!"
He has more to say on this, and there is a beautiful verse that follows that excerpt. Nevertheless, after a quick talk by Sahampati, the Buddha had a change of mind:
"Then the Buddha, understanding Brahmā’s invitation, surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha, because of his compassion for sentient beings. And the Buddha saw sentient beings with little dust in their eyes, and some with much dust in their eyes; with keen faculties and with weak faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach. And some of them lived seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world, while others did not."
So, it wasn’t until after Sahampati had a talk with the Buddha that he decided to turn the wheel of the Dhamma.
"When he had seen this he replied in verse to Brahmā Sahampati:
'Flung open are the doors to the deathless! Let those with ears to hear commit to faith. Thinking it would be troublesome, Brahmā, I did not teach the sophisticated, sublime Dhamma among humans.'"
This is a good sutta which I recommend to anyone interested in how, and when, the Tathāgata decided to share the Dhamma with the rest of us.
Q: Is it ever a good idea to stop practicing for some time to see what will wear off and what will stick? To check your realization.
Answer: Never.
The spiritual and virtuous ground we gain must be retained at all costs and never yielded.
Ever.
The profound importance of our spiritual progress is only too obvious. One of the most alarming aspects of spiritual and moral life before the irreversible cerebral rewiring of stream-entry has been secured is that, as one of my teachers has so eloquently stated it, "progress and insights, when left unattended and without support, will invariably fade and the realisations that you worked so hard to achieve will evaporate over time as enthusiasm drains away into the sands of complacency and old habits."
Never stop practicing to test how sticky your progress is! Opportunities in life to test your resolve will always present themselves, whether you will them or not, you can bet on that. The stuff of spiritual growth is not to be gamed with; it is to be supported, fueled, and developed — always.
Answer: Never.
The spiritual and virtuous ground we gain must be retained at all costs and never yielded.
Ever.
The profound importance of our spiritual progress is only too obvious. One of the most alarming aspects of spiritual and moral life before the irreversible cerebral rewiring of stream-entry has been secured is that, as one of my teachers has so eloquently stated it, "progress and insights, when left unattended and without support, will invariably fade and the realisations that you worked so hard to achieve will evaporate over time as enthusiasm drains away into the sands of complacency and old habits."
Never stop practicing to test how sticky your progress is! Opportunities in life to test your resolve will always present themselves, whether you will them or not, you can bet on that. The stuff of spiritual growth is not to be gamed with; it is to be supported, fueled, and developed — always.
Q: Nobody can give me a nutshell explanation of Buddhism that isn't some sort of out-of-context sutta quote, or esoteric gibberish that you'd have to be a Buddhist to understand. Can you please summarize Buddhism in one sentence?
Answer: Summarise the entirety of Buddhism into a single sentence? Yes, of course:
Pain and suffering arise from two sources - (1) our unskilful craving, and (2) our attachment to the false narrative that creates and supports our false sense of self (i.e., our ego); freedom and contentment are experienced by freeing ourselves from the views and behaviours that perpetuate unskilful craving and ego-clinging.
Or perhaps, Buddhism can be explained in just the last part of my sentence:
Freedom and contentment are experienced by freeing ourselves from the views and behaviours that perpetuate unskilful craving and ego-clinging.
Answer: Summarise the entirety of Buddhism into a single sentence? Yes, of course:
Pain and suffering arise from two sources - (1) our unskilful craving, and (2) our attachment to the false narrative that creates and supports our false sense of self (i.e., our ego); freedom and contentment are experienced by freeing ourselves from the views and behaviours that perpetuate unskilful craving and ego-clinging.
Or perhaps, Buddhism can be explained in just the last part of my sentence:
Freedom and contentment are experienced by freeing ourselves from the views and behaviours that perpetuate unskilful craving and ego-clinging.
Feel free to contact me if you would like me to be your teacher.
If you are currently experiencing suicidal thoughts or feelings, it is crucial that you receive immediate support from professionals who specialise in crisis intervention. For those in the United States who are in urgent need, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by dialing 988. This service is available 24/7 and provides free and confidential support for individuals in distress. Your safety and well-being are of utmost importance. The services provided by Michael Turner are educational, spiritual, and coaching in nature, drawing on principles of Early Buddhist teachings and contemplative psychology. Buddhism is a philosophical, not a psychological, approach to improving well-being. These services are not psychotherapy, counselling, or medical treatment, and are not a substitute for the care of licensed healthcare professionals such as physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, or counsellors. No medical or psychological diagnoses will be made, and no promises of cure or specific outcomes are offered. If you are currently under the care of a licensed professional, you should continue that relationship and follow their guidance. Once you are in a stable and safe place, we can explore how working together may support your ongoing personal development, insight, and well-being journey.
most of my buddhist students are donation-funded - you can fund a pro bono student by making a small donation
Zelle is the preferred method for unsolicited donations, as no fees are deducted from your donation. However, PayPal, Wise, and cryptocurrencies are also gratefully accepted. Those for able to use Zelle® I can be found via the email address in the image below:
Preferred Method
|
|
Wise (formerly Transferwise)
|
bitcoin address
35LjgsHRUJjkTDx1FmRKmU642jJyMwdDzG
|
etherium address (base network)
0x9AF7D9E0469Ac3138A89c34A9f2D1dA53FB467FA
This address accepts ETH on the Base Network (by Coinbase). Please select the correct network when sending ETH. |
Alternatively, you may help me become a better teacher, practitioner, and person:
If you would like to assist me in my studies or support my life as a devoted Buddhist please consider donating a dhamma e-book from my Amazon wishlist, found here:
If you would like to assist me in my studies or support my life as a devoted Buddhist please consider donating a dhamma e-book from my Amazon wishlist, found here:
my amazon.com wishlist
|
Michael Turner is an accomplished Buddhist practitioner and a former Buddhist anagārika. He is also a deeply accomplished stream-entry mentor, applied-dharma coach, and Buddhist therapist. He emphasises and teaches the practical application of the Buddha's teachings in our everyday lives to overcome the problems that stand in the way of making measurable progress toward Buddhist enlightenment, and he is particularly adept at explaining them in ways that can be easily understood and practiced by Western Buddhists. He has been meditating and cultivating the views and techniques that generate genuine resilience, inner-strength, and direct experience for 30+ years, and has helped countless students enhance and course-correct their practice to make veritable progress along the path toward Nibbāna.
|
My Stream-entry Coaching Manifesto
do good. be kind. help others. be peaceful.™ |
"beingpeacefully"®, "the stream-entry buddhist"™ and all logos/slogans are trademarks in the united states and/or other countries.
website by michael turner — beingpeacefully sp © 2013, 2026 — all rights reserved.
website by michael turner — beingpeacefully sp © 2013, 2026 — all rights reserved.