Simple_Jack

That's an extreme example of one individual in history. This is definitely not the norm, especially when it comes to the usage of koans. I know from first hand experience and practice with others in a Zen sangha who's main practice is using koans. I have yet to see or hear of anyone suffer from those type of symptoms resulting from koan usage. That's because you're only looking at the situation of monks at a certain monastery, in a certain country. Monks are (usually) not going to interact with the laity to that extent. Go out and learn your medical system of choice (e.g. Ayurveda), just like Buddhist masters and laity have done before in the past.

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2011/04/buddhism-and-transcendental-visions.html Buddhism and Transcendental Visions In my discussions with Buddhists I often find that many think a transcendental vision of the Buddha is entirely a product of later Mahāyāna thinking. This is probably due to the fact that the only extant Śrāvaka school is Theravāda and their conception of Śākyamuni is not transcendental. However, we need to keep in mind the definition of "Buddha" differs from school to school in the greater historical context. Even amongst the early Śrāvaka schools there was no universal consensus on the qualities of the Buddha. One good work which outlines this is The Concept of the Buddha by Venerable Guang Xing. Consider the following: The concept of the Buddha was significantly advanced at the time of the early Indian Buddhist schools, especially the Sarvāstivāda and the Mahāsāṃghika. The Sarvāstivādins were more empirical in their approach. They summarized and synthesized the attributes and qualities of the Buddha as described in the early sutras before formulating, for the first time, the two-body theory: that of the rupakāya and the dharmakāya. The rupakāya, according to the Sarvāstivādins, although impure, is endowed with the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks as well as a one-fathom halo. The dharmakāya is endowed with the eighteen exclusive attributes: the ten powers, the four kinds of intrepidity, the three foundations of mindfulness and great compassion. None of the constituents of either the rupakāya or the dharmakāya are innovative; rather, they consist of the qualities of the Buddha which were already present in early Buddhism. Some of them, such as the ten powers and the thirty-two major marks were simply taken from the Nikāyas and the Āgamas with further explanations. Other qualities, for instance the eighty minor marks and the one-fathom halo, were taken after careful synthesis. (p75) Venerable Guang Xing also elaborates the Mahāsāṃghikas' concept of the Buddha: The Mahāsāṃghikas’ religious philosophy was based more on faith than on reason, and accepted whatever was said by the Buddha or, more precisely, whatever was taught in the Nikāyas and the Āgamas. As a result, they developed the concept of a transcendental (lokottara) Buddha based on the superhuman qualities of the Buddha, as discussed in Chapter 1 above. Two aspects of the Mahāsāṃghikas’ concept of the Buddha can be identified: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings with skilful means. Shakyamuni was considered but one of these forms. The true Buddha supports the manifested forms that can appear in the worlds of the ten directions. In Mahayana Buddhism, the former aspect – the true Buddha – was developed and divided into the concept of the dharmakāya and the concept of the sambhogakāya; the latter aspect – the manifested forms – was developed into the concept of nirmaṇakāya. Thus, the Mahāsāṃghikas are the originators of the idea of the nirmaṇakāya, and the manifested forms can have many embodiments. Furthermore, they also introduced the theory of numerous Buddhas existing in other worlds. (p53) Even from a Śrāvaka position the Mahāsāṃghika approach is still based entirely on Āgama literature. They also did not accept Abhidharma as canonical. However, their vision and interpretation of the Buddha was quite different from that of Sthaviravāda / Theravāda. Now in such a transcendental interpretation of the Buddha (lokottara) it follows that since the true Buddha manifests forms through which he liberates sentient beings with skilful means one could continue to be taught by the Buddha though Śākyamuni had long since passed away from the physical world. Those seeking the same transcendent state could have been taught the Mahāyāna by the Buddha in pure visions. The Mahāyāna, though not taught by Śākyamuni on Earth, was still a teaching by the Buddha nevertheless. A lot of Mahāyāna scriptures are obviously not meant to be understood as having been taught by Śākyamuni in the ordinary physical world. Basically, Śākyamuni, who was later identified as a nirāmaṇakāya, did not teach the Mahāyāna, but that is not problematic at all. The Mahāyāna was likely first taught in visions to those few individuals capable of grasping its import. The Mahāyāna proponent could even suggest that the omniscient Śākyamuni was fully aware that the Mahāyāna would eventually emerge over time and that this was even planned. Even by the Mahāsāṃghika approach this is plausible. They would not have accepted such visions as canonical, but those few individuals having them would presumably have taken them quite seriously and perhaps taught them to others. Although the Mahāsāṃghika saw Buddha as representing something transcendental, they still sought Arhatship and not Buddhahood. However, in time some would have asked if it is possible to achieve the same transcendental state that they saw as the true Buddha. In other words, some individuals would have asked questions concerning the origins of their teacher and then took it one step further and pondered whether or not it was possible for anyone to recreate the same path to Buddhahood. They were motivated by compassion and concern for sentient beings. The true Buddha as they conceived it presumably could have revealed to them in visions the means and methods necessary to achieve something beyond Arhatship. The result perhaps were the first Mahāyāna sūtras. Within the history of Buddhism there are numerous cases of individuals having visions of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas while receiving extensive teachings from such transcendental beings. One famous example of this is the Mahāyāna-sūtrālamkāra-kārikā which was penned by the physical Asanga, but is said to have been composed by Maitreya, the future Buddha, in Tuṣita Heaven. Some scholars have suggested Maitreya was Asanga's teacher, but tradition holds that it really was Maitreya in Tuṣita who composed and transmitted the text to our world via the medium of the flesh and blood Asanga. In the larger Buddhist world of today this sort of phenomenon still occurs. It is not uncommon in Asia to hear of practitioners who have had visions and received useful teachings as a result. I know one bhikṣuni (a Buddhist nun) who once showed me some exquisite Chinese poetry of Buddhist content which she says was transmitted to her from Bodhisattvas. While my knowledge of Chinese poetry is far from extensive, I could at least say it was well-written. She showed me page after page of poems which she explained was not written by her, but by Bodhisattvas who borrowed her hand. In India a few months ago I heard of similar cases. In one case I heard of a monk who had a vision of Kāśyapa Buddha which drove him to visit holy sites in India. Setting aside whether or not a person really believes that such transcendental beings exist, it is nevertheless true that didactic visions are not at all uncommon within spiritual communities both past and present. However, in the Buddhist context I suspect Theravāda might not appreciate such visions as much as Mahāyāna traditions do.

From a blogger who has an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/writings/fazang-on-the-fate-of-arhats Fazang on the Fate of ArhatsIn Mahāyāna thought there are numerous theories on the eventual fates of arhats and pratyekabuddhas. In Śrāvakayāna thought it is said that arhats, having eliminated all causes for future rebirth anywhere in the three realms, are forever free from saṃsāra and enter nirvāṇa. However, some strains of Mahāyāna have alternative ideas. In my reading of the works of Fazang 法藏 (643–712) I have come to understand his position on the matter. Fazang's position is essentially that arhats and pratyekabuddhas are under the mistaken notion that their nirvāṇa is an absolute cessation of existence and that in fact they are reborn outside the three realms in a pure land, whereupon they receive a 'transformation body' and start the Mahāyāna path. Fazang cites numerous sūtras and śāstras to prove his point. He also makes use of a metaphysical explanation, asserting that if a sentient being had an ultimate end, it should have an ultimate beginning from which a 'non-sentient entity' would become a sentient entity. Here I will outline in brief his canonical citations and his metaphysical reasoning. First of all let us consider his summary of canonical citations proving his assertion that arhats and pratyekabuddhas are reborn outside the three realms. 《大 乘法界無差別論疏》卷1： 「又勝鬘經。無上依經。佛性論。寶性論。皆同說三界外。聲聞緣覺及大力菩薩。受三種變易身。又智論九十三。引法華第三釋云。有妙淨土。出過三界。阿羅漢當 生其中。是故定知入滅二乘。滅麁分段名入涅槃。實有變易在淨土中。受佛教化行菩薩道。若不爾者。未迴心時既無變易。迴心已去。即是漸悟菩薩。不名二乘。故 知於三界外所受變易。小乘以為涅槃。大乘深說。實是變易。本無涅槃。勝鬘云。聲聞緣覺。實無涅槃。唯如來有涅槃故。此論下云。應知唯有一乘道。若不爾者。 異此應有餘涅槃故。同一法界。豈有下劣涅槃。勝妙涅槃耶。以此當知二乘之人既無涅槃。無不皆當得菩提故。一切眾生皆是所為也。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a26-b11) Furthermore, the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, Treatise on Buddha Nature and Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānōttaratantra-śāstra all likewise explain [the rebirth of arhats and pratyekabuddhas] outside the three realms. Śrāvaka, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas of great power receive three kinds of transformation bodies. Furthermore, the Mahāprājñā-pāramitôpadeśa, quoting the third scroll of the Lotus Sūtra, explains that there is an excellent pure land beyond the three realms. Arhats are born within it. It is thus that we know for certain that the cessation of the two vehicles is the cessation of the coarse delimited saṃsāra which they call entering nirvāṇa. In truth they will possess a transformation body in the pure land, receive the Buddha's teachings and practice the bodhisattva path. If this were not so, then at the time they had not turned their minds [to the Mahāyāna] they would have no transformation [body], but upon turning their minds [to the Mahāyāna] they would be gradually realized bodhisattvas. They would not be called 'two vehicles'. Thus we know that it is outside the three realms that they receive the transformation [body]. The Hīnayāna thinks this is nirvāṇa. The Mahāyāna [has] a deeper explanation. In truth it is a transformation [body they receive]. Fundamentally there is no nirvāṇa [as the Hīnayāna would understand it]. The Śrīmālā-sūtra states that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas in truth have no nirvāṇa. It is only the tathāgata who has nirvāṇa.1 This treatise [the Dasheng Fajie Wuchabie Lun 大乘法界無差別論] states below, “It should be understood that there is only the single vehicle path. If this were not so, it would be different from this as there would be another nirvāṇa. The same dharma-dhātu – how could there be an inferior nirvāṇa and a most excellent nirvāṇa?”2 It is through these [citations] that we should understand that since those of the two vehicles [arhats and pratyekabuddhas] have no nirvāṇa, they will all attain bodhi, and thus all sentient beings are the object [of the aforementioned teaching]. These are potentially shocking statements – saying that there is no nirvāṇa. However, we need to keep in mind in this context 'nirvāṇa' refers to the absolute cessation of rebirth and existence, which is the goal of Śrāvakayāna teachings. The idea here is that there really is no absolute escape from our common reality, which for the unenlightened being is experienced as saṃsāra. This is not to deny the truth of the cessation of suffering. In Mahāyāna thought it is asserted that one can operate within common reality – even being reborn time and time again – without suffering, even experiencing it as bliss, provided wisdom and compassion are manifest. The statement from the Mahāprājñā-pāramitôpadeśa he is citing is as follows. 問曰：阿羅漢先世因緣所受身必應當滅，住在何處而具足佛道？ 答 曰：得阿羅漢時，三界諸漏因緣盡，更不復生三界。有淨佛土，出於三界，乃至無煩惱之名，於是國土佛所，聞《法華經》，具足佛道。如《法華經》說：「有羅 漢，若不聞《法華經》，自謂得滅度；我於餘國為說是事，汝皆當作佛。 (CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 714, a9-15) Question -- Arhats in their past lives must have extinguished all the causes and conditions to receive a new body. Where do they abide and perfect the Buddha's path? Answer -- When one attains arhatship all contaminated causes and conditions of the three realms are extinguished and one is no longer reborn in the three realms. There is a pure Buddha-land beyond the three realms, even being without the word 'defilements'. In this realm, the place of the Buddha, they hear the Lotus Sūtra, and perfect the Buddha's path. As the Lotus Sūtra says, "There are arhats who, if they have not heard the Lotus Sūtra, think of themselves as having attained cessation. In another realm I explain this - you all will become buddhas." One will notice that the text does not explicitly say arhats are reborn in this pure buddha-realm outside the three realms. However, it seems logical to read it as such given that the question is where arhats reside after they pass away and how do they achieve buddhahood. Other writers like Jizang (549–623) 吉藏 interpret this passage in the same way.3 I think this is the logical way to understand this passage as well. The other thing to note is that there is no mention here of a 'transformation body' (變易身), which is actually an idea obtained from other texts. As to his metaphysical reasoning for absolute cessation of all existence being untenable he explains in greater detail why there is no 'end of ashes and eternal cessation' (無灰斷永滅) for the two vehicles in his work entitled the Commentary on the Undiscriminated Mahāyāna Dharmadhātu Śāstra 《大乘法界無差別論疏》 by citing a passage from the Ghana-vyūha-sūtra 《密嚴經》 and elaborating the metaphysical reasons why such a permanent cessation is untenable. 《大乘法界無差別論疏》卷1：「密嚴第一頌云。涅槃若滅壞。眾生有終盡。眾生若有終。是亦有初際。應有非生法。而始作眾生。解云。此亦是聖教。亦是正理。若入寂二乘灰斷永滅。則是眾生作非眾生。若令眾生作非眾生。則應有非眾生而始作眾生。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a18-23) A verse in the Ghana-vyūha-sūtra states, “If nirvāṇa were cessation, then a sentient being will have a complete end. If a sentient being has an end, then there should also be a beginning time. There should be a non-sentient dharma that starts being a sentient being.” Interpretation – This is the holy teaching and is also the right principle. If one were to enter into extinction, the two vehicles' 'end of ashes and eternal cessation', then this sentient being would become a non-sentient being. If a sentient being is made into a non-sentient being, then there should be non-sentient beings beginning to be sentient beings. Fazang is arguing here that arhats and pratyekabuddhas cannot achieve an absolute cessation – that is to say, using his vocabulary, becoming a non-sentient entity – because it would follow that since a sentient entity could become a non-sentient entity, then a non-sentient entity should be able to become a sentient entity. If a sentient being has an ultimate absolute end, then it should also have a beginning according to him. For Fazang this would be equal to saying that an uncontaminated dharma could give rise to a contaminated dharma. He references the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra to demonstrate this point. 《大乘法界無差別論疏》卷1：「唯識論中。說有漏生於無漏。則難勿無漏法還生有漏。今亦例同。既眾生入滅同非眾生。勿非眾生法而還作眾生。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a23-26) In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra it is explained that [if it is suggested that] the contaminated is produced in the uncontaminated, then the criticism is that there are no uncontaminated phenomena still producing the contaminated. Now the precedent is the same since sentient beings would enter cessation and be the same as a 'non-sentient being', [but] there are no 'non-sentient being' phenomena that still produce sentient beings. One could respond by asking if a sentient being is doomed to exist as such without any possibility of transcending the state of being a sentient being. Moreover, how is it a sentient being becomes a buddha which is not a sentient being? Again, one must take into consideration the context in which this argument is being put forth. Fazang is arguing that sentient beings by virtue of being sentient entities cannot become non-sentient entities completely detached from reality, isolated in a nirvāṇa apart from all other beings. Sentient beings can, however, attain buddhahood where while not being a 'sentient being' they still actively interact with reality and all the sentient beings within it. This is an emotionally charged idea that one can still work within saṃsāra without being adversely affected by it. Fazang's own sentiments are clear in the following statement by him: 《修華嚴奧旨妄盡還源觀》卷1：「觀色即空成大智而不住生死。觀空即色成大悲而不住涅槃。以色空無二。悲智不殊。」(CBETA, T45, no. 1876, p. 638, b1-3) Seeing that form is emptiness manifests great wisdom and one does not abide in saṃsāra. Seeing that emptiness is form manifests great compassion and one does not abide in nirvāṇa. When form and emptiness are non-dual, compassion and wisdom are not different. Still, I think his arguments would not satisfy a lot of people and raise many more questions. For example, from a Śrāvakayāna perspective one could argue that sentient beings do not become 'non-sentient beings', but rather just that upon attaining arhatship and passing away the causes and conditions for a sentient being to arise simply cease like a candle light being snuffed out. However, the Mahāyāna proponent could defer to canonical scriptures which indeed state arhats are reborn outside the three realms and eventually achieve buddhahood, though the Śrāvakayāna proponent would not accept this. As I said above there are multiple theories on this matter. Fazang's ideas outlined above represent the views of just one thinker. He was a prolific writer and over the centuries many others read his works not only in China, but also in Korea and Japan. He no doubt influenced his posterity and so his ideas are worth special consideration.

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/writings/arhats-and-longevity Arhats and LongevityAs of late I have been reading part of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya in detail utilizing the original Sanskrit as well as the Classical Chinese translations by Paramārtha 真諦 and Xuanzang 玄奘. In addition, I have made great use of Leo M. Pruden's English translation of Louis De La Vallee Poussin's French translation and study of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. In the following section I will outline a process elaborated on in the text under the chapter on indriya which details how an Arhat increases or decreases his or her lifespan. The key thing to note here is the process first requires entry into the fourth dhyāna or meditative absorption which indeed entails that only those already quite advanced in samadhi have this ability. Furthermore, the process is one where a voluntary decline in enjoyment is exchanged for an extension in lifespan and a decline in lifespan is exchanged for an increase of enjoyment. The former is undertaken when an Arhat feels they would be of further benefit to sentient beings or to preserve the Dharma. The latter is undertaken when one sees oneself as being of little benefit to others and desires cessation. I will provide here the Sanskrit followed by the two Classical Chinese translations penned by Paramārtha and Xuangzang respectively and finally the English translation by Poussin / Pruden. The first paragraph explains how an Arhat transforms unripen karma, which was originally to become resultant joy, into an extension of his lifespan. śāstre uktam ——“kathamāyuḥsaṃskārān sthāpayati ? arhan bhikṣuḥ ṛddhimāṃścetovaśitvaṃ prāptaḥ saṅghāya vā pudgalāya vā pātraṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā anyatamānyatamaṃ vā śrāmaṇakaṃ jīvitapariṣkāraṃ vā dattvā tat praṇidhāya prāntakoṭikaṃ caturthaṃ dhyānaṃ samāpadyate|sa tasmāt vyutthāya cittamutpādayati vācaṃ ca bhāṣate ——‘yanme bhogavipākaṃ karma tadāyurvipākaṃ bhavatu ’ iti tasya yad bhogavipākaṃ tadāyurvipākaṃ bhavati| yeṣāṃ punarayamabhiprāyaḥ ——vipākoccheṣa vipacyata iti| 【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「於阿毘達磨藏中說。云何引命行。令住阿羅漢比丘。有聖如意成通慧。至得心自在位。或於大眾。或於一人。捨施若鉢若袈裟。或隨一沙門命資糧。 因此發願。入第四定遠際三摩提觀。從此定起。作如是心。說如是言。凡是我業應熟感。富樂願此業熟生我壽命。是時此阿羅漢業。應感富樂。轉生壽 命。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c16-22) 【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「云何苾芻留多壽行。謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在。若於僧眾若於別人以諸命緣衣鉢等物隨分布施。施已發願。即入第四邊際靜慮。從定起已心念口 言。諸我能感富異熟業。願皆轉招壽異熟果。時彼能感富異熟業。則皆轉招壽異熟果。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b11-16) The Mūlaśāstra says: “How does a Bhikṣu stabilize the vital energies? An Arhat in possession of supernormal power (ŗddhimān-prāptābhijñāḥ), in possession of mastery of mind, i.e., one who is asamayavimukta, gives, either to the Sangha or to a person, things useful to life, clothing, pots, etc.: after having given these things, he applies this thought to his life; he then enters into the Fourth or prāntakoṭika Dhyāna; coming out of the absorption, he produces the thought and pronounces the words: 'May this action which should produce a retribution-in-joy [bhogavipāka] be transformed and produce a retribution-in-life [āyurvipāka]!' Then the action (the gift and the absorption) which should produce a retribution-in-joy produces a retribution-in-life.”(1) The term “retribution-in-joy” or bhogavipāka is a combination of the terms bhoga and vipāka. The former is derived from the root verb √bhuj which has a number of meanings not limited to but including to enjoy food or carnal pleasures, to use, to possess and so on. The term bhoga itself can also mean experiencing, feeling or perception of pleasure or pain.(2) Paramārtha translated the term as fùlè 富樂. Xuanzang only uses the character fù 富. The term vipāka is perhaps better known in the expression karmavipāka where karma is volitional action and vipāka is the retribution or result of it. Hence the term bhogavipāka is interpreted as retribution as joy or pleasure. Incidentally, in the Mahāyāna the word sambhogakāya, otherwise known as the “enjoyment body” of the Buddha, also includes the term bhoga. The other term “retribution-in-life” or āyurvipāka is derived from the terms āyus and vipāka. The word āyus is defined as life, vital power, vigour, health, duration of life or long life.(3) Thus it is clear how āyurvipāka is understood as a retribution or result of life or an extension in one's lifespan. Paramārtha appropriately rendered the term as shòumìng 壽命 and Xuanzang likewise used the character shòu 壽, which is normally rendered into English as longevity. Having provided the opinion of the Mūlaśāstra, Vasubandhu then presents the opinion of another school. ta āhuḥ ——“pūrvajātikṛtasya karmaṇo vipākoccheṣam| sa bhāvanābalenākṛṣya pratisaṃvedayate ” iti| 【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「復有餘師執。殘業果報轉熟。彼說宿生所作業。有殘果報。由修習力。引取受用。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c22-24) 【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「復有欲令引取宿業殘異熟果。彼說前生曾所受業有殘異熟。由今所修邊際定力引取受用。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b16-19) According to other masters, the prolonged life of an Arhat is the result of the retribution of a previous action. According to them, there is a remnant of the result of retribution-in-life which should have ripened in a previous life, but which was interrupted by death before its time. And it is the force of the absorption of the Fourth Dhyāna that attracts this remnant and makes this remnant ripen now. It seems here the alternate opinion is that it is not the willed thought coupled with the fourth dhyāna that enables prolonged life, but simply the dhyāna itself mechanically producing that result. Poussin and Pruden state “Arhat” here, but the term does not appear in the Sanskrit or Chinese. It is perhaps that the implied reference is to an Arhat. Nevertheless, one problem that arises from such argument is that it would mean anyone, or perhaps more specifically any Arhat, attaining the fourth dhyāna or deepest of meditative absorptions, would, whether willingly or unwillingly, prolong their lifespan as a rather mechanical resultant process. The Mūlaśāstra actually is more reasonable as it specifically states the Arhat must attain the fourth dhyāna and then will the transformation of vipāka for the desired result to occur. Vasubandhu then continues his quotation of the Mūlaśāstra. kathamāyuḥsaṃskārānutsṛjati ? tathaiva dānaṃ dattvā praṇidhāya prāntakoṭikaṃ caturthaṃ dhyānaṃ samāpadyate ——‘yanme āyurvipākaṃ tad bhogavipākaṃ bhavatu ’ iti|tasya tathā bhavati| 【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「云何棄捨命行。如此捨施發願。入第四定遠際三摩提觀。從此定起。作如是心。說如是言。凡是我業應熟感壽命。願此業熟生我富樂。如彼欲樂。如 此轉熟。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c24-28) 【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「云何苾芻捨多壽行。謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在。於僧眾等如前布施。施已發願。即入第四邊際靜慮。從定起已心念口言。諸我能感壽異熟業。願皆 轉招富異熟果。時彼能感壽異熟業。則皆轉招富異熟果。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b19-23) [The Mūlaśāstra continues] “How does a Bhikṣu cast off the vital energies? An Arhat in possession of supernormal powers ... enters into the Fourth Dhyāna ... ; coming out of this absorption, he produces the thought and pronounces these words: 'May the actions that should produce a retribution-in-life be transformed and produce a retribution-in-joy!' Then the action that should produce a retribution-in-life produces a retribution-in-joy.” The term here “vital energies” is āyuḥsaṃskāra. The word saṃskāra itself is usually translated as karmic formation and is the fourth of the five skandhas or aggregates (the others being form, sensations, perceptions and consciousnesses) which conventionally make up a person. The term āyuḥsaṃskāra, like āyurvipāka, contains the word āyus which as stated above means life or longevity. Hence the term means the karmic formation of longevity, or as Poussin has translated “vital energies”. Just as outlined above but here abbreviated, the Arhat commits a chartiable act and upon returning from a the fourth dhyāna, wills in his mind and verbally announces that whatever previous actions that would produce an extension in his life (āyurvipāka) be transformed and produce additional joy (bhogavipāka). Essentially what this entails is a sacrifice of longevity in exchange for additional enjoyment. However, this does not mean the Arhat is addicted to sensory pleasures and would rather have those than live longer. This is merely a mechanical process whereby one's life is shortened by willingly transforming and diverting one's unripe karma from longevity into enjoyment. From here the question arises how this process works. Vasubandhu presents two opinions on the matter. bhadantaghoṣakastvāha——“tasminneva āśraye rūpāvacarāṇi mahābhūtāni dhyānabalena sammukhīkarotyāyuṣo ’nukūlāni vairodhikāni ca|evamāyuḥsaṃskārān sthāpayati, evamutsṛjati ”iti| 【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「大德瞿沙說。於自依止中。由定力。引色界四大令現前。能隨順壽命。或相違四大。由如此方便。引命行令住。及以棄捨。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c28-p. 175, a1) 【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「尊者妙音作如是說。彼起第四邊際定力引色界大種令身中現前。而彼大種或順壽行或違壽行。由此因緣或留壽行或捨壽行。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b23-27) The Bhadantaghoṣaka said: By the force of the prāntakoṭika Dhyāna that this Arhat has produced, the primary elements of Rūpadhātu are attracted and introduced into his body. These primary elements are favorable to, or contrary to, the vital energies [āyuḥsaṃskāra]. It is in this manner that the Arhat prolongs or casts off his life. The opinion of the Sauntrāntika is then presented: evaṃ tu bhavitavyam——samādhiprabhāva eva sa teṣāṃ tādṛśo yena pūrvakarmajaṃ sthitikālāvedhamindriyamahābhūtānāṃ vyāvarttayanti, apūrvaṃ ca samādhijamāvedhamākṣipanti|tasmānna tajjīvitendriyaṃ vipākam, tato ’nyat tu vipākaḥ| 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「應如此成。諸阿羅漢。有如此定自在力。由此力宿業所生。諸根四大。引住時量。皆悉迴轉。先未曾有三摩提引住時量。今則引接。是故如此壽命非 果報。異此名果報。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 175, a2-5) 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「應如是說。彼阿羅漢由此自在三摩地力轉去曾得宿業所生諸根大種住時勢分。引取未曾定力所起諸根大種住時勢分。故此命根非是異熟。所餘一切皆 是異熟。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b27-c1) Along with the Sauntrāntikas, we say that the Arhats, through their mastery in absorption, cause the projection of the constitutive primary elements of the organs for a certain period of duration, a projection due to previous actions, to cease; inversely, they produce a new projection, born of absorption. Thus the vital organ, in the case of the prolonged life of an Arhat, is not retribution. But in other cases, it is retribution. Finally, it begs to ask why would an Arhat shorten or extend their lifespan? Kimarthamāyuḥsaṃskārānadhitiṣṭhanti? parahitārtham, śāsanasthityarthaṃ ca|te hyātmanaḥ kṣīṇamāyuḥ paśyanti, na ca tatrānyaṃ śaktaṃ paśyanti| atha kimarthamutsṛjanti? alpaṃ ca parahitaṃ jīvite paśyanti rogādibhūtaṃ cātmabhavam| 【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「阿羅漢人。何因發願引命行令住。或為利益他。或為令正法久住。是諸阿羅漢。已見自身壽命將盡。於此二中不見他有此能復以何因棄捨壽命。於有 命時。見利益他事少。自身疾苦所逼如偈言。修梵行已竟 聖道已善修 由捨命歡喜 如人病得差」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 175, a6-12) 【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「彼阿羅漢有何因緣留多壽行。謂為利益安樂他故。或為聖教久住世故。觀知自身壽行將盡。觀他無此二種堪能。復何因緣捨多壽行。彼阿羅漢自觀住 世於他利益安樂事少。或為病等苦逼自身。如有頌言。梵行妙成立 聖道已善修 壽盡時歡喜　猶如捨眾病」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, c2-9) Why does the Arhat prolong his vital energies? For two reasons: with a view to the good of others, and with a view to the longer duration of the Dharma. He sees that his life is going to end; he sees that others are incapable of assuring these two ends. Why does the Arhat cast off his vital energies? For two reasons: he sees that his dwelling in the world has only a small utility for the good of others, and so sees himself tormented by sickness, etc. As the stanza says: “If the religious life has been well practiced, and the Way well cultivated, at the end of his life, he is happy, as at the disappearance of sickness.” We should be mindful that the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is a Śrāvakayāna and not Mahāyāna text. That being said, this particular section in a sense helps to explain the causal process behind mantras. In the aforementioned case, the Arhat, with fine and well developed mental stamina, summons a thought directed towards a certain effect and verbally states it. Likewise with a mantra one cultivates single pointed concentration, summons a thought directed towards a certain effect and verbally recites a short verse which represents it. The process seems to be identical. One thing to be stressed here is the emphasis placed on mental stamina or fitness. In the case of the Arhat, he must have mastery of the fourth dhyāna to successfully manipulate his lifespan. Likewise, it is my understanding of mantras that concentration of the practitioner affects their efficacy. Again, both processes work on the same principle. I imagine someone might ask what bearing all this has in reality. What is the practical aspect of all this? I suppose the only appropriate answer is that one must attain mastery of the fourth dhyāna and only then is one in an actual position to verify the worth of such claims. Failing that, deferring to the testimony of a valid authority is possible, but will probably be unsatisfactory to most. We must keep in mind that this is not science, but by definition religion. The only way to verify whether it is really possible to extend or shorten one's lifespan through meditative absorption and willed thought is by attaining the state of an Arhat. In simpler terms we might see some hint of validity in such claims when we consider how the mental state of an individual can affect quite visibly their ageing process. Those who are weary and full of stress quickly turn grey and rapidly suffer the degeneration of mind and body. In contrast we see that those individuals who are calm, without stress and maintain good mental hygiene age slower and on the surface appear healthier. In any case, the effects of long and hard meditation are slowly being documented in the scientific community. If you are interested in the seemingly supernormal effects of meditation, I recommend the following article in the Harvard Gazette which outlines the documented effects of Tum Mo. Meditation changes temperatures: Mind controls body in extreme experiments By William J. Cromie

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2012/10/buddhism-is-pagan.html Buddhism is Pagan Stepping into Tōdai-ji 東大寺 in Nara, Japan, founded by Ryōben in 741 under Emperor Shōmu (701-756), there are two guardian deities flanking the main image of Vairocana Buddha in the center. One is Virūpākṣa 廣目天王 in the northwest corner and the other is Vaiśravaṇa 多聞天王 in the northeast. These are two of the Four Mahārāja 四天王 (i.e., the Four Deva Kings), who are the four chief guardian deities of the four directions. These are ancient Buddhist deities that are said to protect the cosmos from evil forces. Their details are as follows: Sanskrit Chinese Color Direction Jurisdiction (the four continents) Retinue Dhṛtarāṣṭra 持國天 Blue East Pūrvavideha Gandharva, piśācī. Virūḍhaka 增長天 Red South Jambudvīpa Kumbhāṇḍa, preta. Virūpākṣa 廣目天 White West Aparagodānīya Nāga. Vaiśravaṇa 多聞天 Black North Uttarakuru Yakṣa, rākṣasa. We find them presented as images of art in some temples, particularly in East Asia, but there is a canonical basis for them in the earliest scriptures as well. In other words, these images were not produced just for the sake of decoration. For example in the Dīgha Nikāya there is the Atanatiya Sutta which commences with the “four great kings having placed a guard over the four quarters, with a large army of Yakkhas, of Gandhabbas, of Kumbhandas, of Nagas; having placed troops; having placed a barricade of soldiers on four sides, came to the presence of the Blessed One, when the night was far advanced, illuminating the entire Vulture's Peak with their surpassing radiance, saluted the Blessed One and sat on one side.” They also make an appearance in the Mahasamaya Sutta. The Four Mahārāja serve under Śakra Devānām Indra, otherwise just known as Indra, who resides in the realm of Trāyastriṃśa atop Mount Sumeru, the second celestial level of the desire realm (kāma-dhātu). Indra in the English speaking Buddhist world is often just regarded as a Hindu deity of no consequence to Buddhism, but this ignores his rather important role in ancient Buddhist cosmology and scripture. In the greater Indo-European perspective, Indra is equivalent to Thor. The pan-Indo-European culture and language family extends from Ireland to Nepal. Languages like modern Nepali, English, Farsi and Icelandic all stem from a root going back thousands of years into prehistory. This is why Hellenic, Nordic and Vedic pantheons share similar characteristics. It is theorized that there was once a Proto-Indo-European religion. Indra is regarded as the protector of humanity who fends off evil forces with his vajra (Zeus has a lightening bolt while Thor has a hammer). Historically in Indian Buddhism and elsewhere Indra, although being a worldly deity, has like the Four Mahārāja been regarded with the utmost esteem and respect. Indra is also on record as having received teachings personally from the Buddha in the Sakkapañha Sutta. The presence of such deities who are presented as actual sentient gods, and clearly not metaphors or personified human qualities, challenges the assumption that Buddhism in general is atheist. As of late I have encountered discussions where people are quite keen on insisting Buddhism is atheist because the Buddha himself rejected the existence of creator deity, among other reasons. This blatantly ignores that the Buddha is also on record repeatedly acknowledging the existence of devas, spirits and other such beings, some of which are said to be quite powerful and important in maintaining the cosmic order. Other scriptures even have the Buddha having dialogues with gods. While such gods are said to be ultimately mortal, and are at times reminded of their less than supreme status, they are still existent within the classical cosmology. It also popular to label Buddhism as “non-theistic”. Again, this is problematic. The word theist in English is derived from the Greek root theos (θεος), which does not strictly denote monotheism. While naturally in the English language context “non-theist” is likely to imply anti-monotheism (which applies to Buddhism), by definition it would also mean rejecting the existence of multiple gods, i.e., polytheism. Non-theism would entail rejecting polytheism. With so many different gods in the Buddhist pantheon can we really say Buddhism is non-theistic? Some might argue that “non-theist” really just means that while gods may or may not exist, they are not important to the practice of Buddhadharma. Again, this is problematic simply because of the historical role worldly deities have played in Buddhist traditions across many cultures throughout the last twenty-five centuries, which I will demonstrate below. Contemporary Buddhist revisionists have a tendency to sanitize their Buddhism(s) of disagreeable religious elements while attempting to cater to the prevailing materialist ideology which is presently the orthodox belief system of our modern age. There is a popular urge among western Buddhists to gain the consent and approval of present day intellectuals instead of deferring to tradition and living masters. What is likely to meet with disapproval is either ignored or reformed into something more readily digestible. One recent example of this is Alan Pope who posits in his article that the six realms “represent different states of mind through which we cycle in the course of a human lifetime.” Nevertheless, such ideas collapse when viewed from twenty-five centuries worth of tradition. This is why I believe suggesting Buddhism in general is “atheist” or “non-theist” is just a reflection of baseless popular revisionism by individuals who lack credentials and authority. The idea that worldly gods, even if they do exist, are entirely irrelevant to Buddhist practice is also problematic in the face of ancient tradition. For instance, the Four Deva Kings Sūtra (Chn. Si Tianwang Jing 四天王經; Skt. *Catur Devarāja Sūtra), which is also quoted in Nāgārjuna's (c. 2nd-3rd cent.) Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa (Chn. Da Zhidu Lun 大智度論), details how the Four Mahārāja under Indra's direction descend with their entourage to inspect the world and its inhabitants. See the following: 《四天王經》:「諸 天齋日，伺人善惡，須彌山上即第二忉利天，天帝名因，福德巍巍，典主四天，四天神王，即因四鎮王也，各理一方。常以月八日遣使者下，案行天下，伺察帝王臣 民、龍、鬼、蜎蜚、蚑行、蠕動之類，心念、口言、身行善惡；十四日遣太子下；十五日四王自下；二十三日使者復下；二十九日太子復下；三十日四王復自下。」 “The devas on the fasting days examine the good deeds and misdeeds of people. Atop Mount Sumeru there is the second [desire realm heaven] of Trāyastriṃśa where there is the celestial sovereign named Indra whose virtues are lofty. The chief four devas, the four deva kings, are Indra's four guardian kings, each managing one direction. On the eighth day envoys are always dispatched who descend on an inspection tour of the whole world. They investigate the sovereigns, kings, officials, citizens, nāgas, spirits, fliers, crawlers and wrigglers – the good deeds and misdeeds in the thoughts of their minds, the speech of their mouths and the actions of their bodies. On the fourteenth day he dispatches the princes who descend. On the fifteenth day the four kings themselves descend. On twenty-third day the envoys again descend. On the twenty-ninth the princes again descend. On the thirtieth day the four kings again personally descend.” The cycle can be broken down like this: 8th, 23rd - Envoys 14th, 29th - Princes 15th, 30th - Four Kings This occurs based on the waxing and waning lunar cycles. One half of the month is bright or śukla-pakṣa (the waxing) and the other half is the black or kṛṣṇa-pakṣa (the waning). Each period consists of fifteen days. These are also the designated days for fasting. Traditionally lay Buddhists take eight precepts, which are almost identical to those of a novice, on these days and abstain from eating past noon until dawn on the following day. This might immediately sound like something rather Mahāyāna, though in reality it is also found in the Śrāvakayāna canon. See the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra (Chn. Da Piposha Lun 大毘婆沙論): 《大毘婆沙論》:「問何故唯說三十三天...答以彼諸天數數雲集、論善惡事、故偏說之。謂彼諸天於白黑月，每常八日、若十四日、若十五日，集善法堂，稱量世間善惡多少。復次三十三天常共伺察造善惡者。見造善者，便擁護之；見造惡者，即共嫌毀。」 “Question – Why only speak of thirty-three devas? Answer – The devas frequently gather to discuss good deeds and misdeeds. Hence the partial discussion of them. The devas during the waxing and waning moons on every eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth always gather in the hall of saddharma to weigh the amount of good deeds and misdeeds in the world. Furthermore, the thirty-three devas always together inspect the creators of good deeds and misdeeds. Seeing one who has created good deeds, they then protect them. Seeing one who has created misdeeds, they then together resent and ruin them.” The Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, attributed to Kātyāyanīputra, is generally held to have been composed sometime around the 2nd century CE in Northwest India. It is a key treatise of the Kashmir Sarvāstivāda school. Another Sarvāstivāda text describes the significance of the aforementioned days. The significance of these specified days on the lunar calendar was probably shared with other native traditions at the time in Magadha. See the Sarvāstivādanikāya Vinaya Mātṛkā: 《薩婆多部毘尼摩得勒伽》:「王舍城諸外道，八日、十四日、十五日，集一處唄誦，多得利養，眷屬增長，爾時瓶沙王信佛法僧，往詣佛所……佛言聽諸比丘，八日、十四日、十五日，集一處唄誦說法。」 “The heterodox of Rājagṛha on the eighth, fourteen and fifteenth would gather in one place to chant, gaining many offerings with their retinues growing. At that time King Bimbisāra had faith in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. He went to visit the Buddha. ... The Buddha said, 'I permit bhikṣus to gather in one place to chant and teach the Dharma on the eighth, fourteenth, and fifteenth.'” ... Of course all this begs the question of whether or not we should uncritically accept all such scriptural descriptions as this as real or not. Do we unconditionally believe them just because they are in the canon? I think we can turn the question around and ask if there is any compelling reason to drop such ideas just because they are disagreeable with the contemporary prevailing cosmology and belief system? There is no harm in trying to be mindful of one's behaviour on designated days according to the lunar cycle. Moreover, it is clear ancient Buddhist masters like Kātyāyanīputra and Nāgārjuna were supportive of such ideas and did not reject them. Obviously from a contemporary scientific perspective it is all superstition, but such judgement ignores the mental and spiritual spheres of human experience which I have discussed elsewhere. In any case, as I have demonstrated already it is undeniable that Buddhism in ancient times, including during the Buddha's own teaching career, was concerned with gods. Their judgement and good favour was regarded as important. Furthermore, some deities were held as guardians and thus worthy of proper respect. This is still the case in much of the Buddhist world in Asia. The other objection that might arise is all this was possibly added after the Buddha died and does not reflect his original ideas about liberation from saṃsāra; all such gods and so on being popular beliefs that infiltrated and settled into the ancient Buddhist pantheon. Firstly, this ignores that even today many Buddhist yogis attest to the existence of such beings. Quite often it seems that they are encountered while one is in deep meditation, though not always. Moreover, the Buddha is on record in numerous scriptures as having dialogues with devas. I myself once spoke to an eminent bhikkhu in Bodhgaya, India who spoke about encountering beautiful goddesses while meditating on some desolate mountain. In Asia where there is no secular Buddhism apart from in Japan, people readily accept mystical experiences as legitimate and not some kind psychotic episode. Plenty of sane and well-respected monks and nuns have such encounters and the scriptures regarding gods are not held in any contempt. You will probably never hear of anyone trying to paint the Buddha as a secular atheist humanist. It begs the question what would the “Atheist Buddhists” say if the Buddha really did believe deities like Indra had a significant role to play in maintaining the cosmic order? I imagine they would write it off as mere cultural baggage, easily done away with in our modern age. However, to do so would be to imply oneself as superior to the Buddha and countless other later arhats and bodhisattvas. In which case, why call yourself a Buddhist? Refuge in the Triple Gem entails taking the Buddha as your supreme teacher and consequently accepting his teachings, i.e., the Dharma. While the traditional cosmology might seem rather archaic and difficult to accept from a scientific perspective, this does not mean it must be abandoned. It does not reflect a materialist-scientific perspective at all, but rather includes other aspects of reality that are for our purposes immaterial and hence unavailable to materialist investigation. The whole Mount Sumeru model is not entirely a description of physical space, but something else. The devas and other such beings that the Buddha is on record as having acknowledged and communicated with are a common feature in almost all human cultures throughout time. It is something of an aberration that in our modern industrial civilization they have been categorically dismissed as non-existent because they do not fit with the orthodox theories of the intelligentsia, despite the fact that sane people all around the world continue to have "paranormal encounters" with ghosts, spirits and the like. I believe Buddhism in general with all its cultural developments throughout the last twenty-five centuries is best described as polytheist and I hope I have demonstrated this. In that light, one could actually call it pagan, though this might unsettle some people for fear of being associated with the Neo-Pagan movement in the west. Is it not interesting, though, that one of the prime protectors of Buddhadharma from the early sangha onward was Indra, who is basically Thor in Indian garb? The myriad deities in the greater cosmology might be ultimately mortal and subject to the pains of saṃsāra like us, though that does not negate the role they have to play in the cosmic order. Back when arhats were widely known to walk the earth they too did not deny this. It is really only in our degenerate age that some self-identifying Buddhists have come to openly reject the classical cosmology as taught by the Buddha, thinking they know better. Such is a sign of the times.

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2013/02/buddhist-sorcery-and-astrology-in-east.html Buddhist Sorcery and Astrology in East Asia Kūkai (774-835) As we discussed earlier, it was after the fifth century that the Mahāyāna slowly emerged from the fringes to become a much more mainstream and perhaps sought after component of Buddhism in India. The Mahāyāna had license to employ expedient means for both mundane and spiritual matters alike. The capacity for engaging in mundane affairs no doubt contributed to the forward development the Mahāyāna enjoyed come the feudal period in India that accompanied the demise of the Gupta empire (c.550). However, China displayed a special appreciation for Mahāyāna scriptures and practices early on. By the fifth century many scriptures had been translated and the teachings consolidated when Kumārajīva (344-413) arrived and translated a number of texts while also clarifying questions. It seems likely that early on many Mahāyāna proponents fled India or Central Asia to settle in a more favorable culture. Some of the early Mahāyāna monks in China might have effectively been refugees. Here I want to take a basic look at Buddhist sorcery in the Sinosphere (i.e., East Asia). We should understand sorcery here as a means by which one achieves mundane aims via the summoning and direction of non-corporeal beings and/or setting patterns in motion at a primarily mental level. In relation to this we should also consider other more occult practices like astrology. As to the origins of Buddhist sorcery, we can actually see very early on in the Pāli canon mention of non-corporeal beings offering protection to the Buddha (I hesitate to say “supernatural beings” because that implies they are outside causality, whereas these beings are subject to causality, though people do not normally perceive them). One example of this is the Atanatiya Sutta where the four Mahārāja (Dhṛtarāṣṭra, Virūḍhaka, Virūpākṣa and Vaiśravaṇa, who attend to guarding the four cardinal directions) pay homage to the Buddha and offer protection whenever needed to him and his followers: "Surely bhante, there are disciples of the Blessed One. They frequent the remote recesses of forest and woodland wilderness where there is no sound, no tumult, where breezes are void of human contact, and suitable for man's seclusion and quiet contemplation. There are eminent Yakkhas who haunt these forests, who have no faith in the word of the Blessed One. "Bhante, may the Blessed One learn the Atanata protection so that the displeased Yakkhas may be pleased, so that the monks and nuns, laymen and laywomen, may be at ease, guarded, protected and unharmed." This protection is made available to practitioners. It is effectively the summoning of friendly non-corporeal beings to protect oneself. This idea could be extended to other uses. For instance, instead of warding off hostile nāgas, one might see to directing them towards bringing rain during a drought. This is indeed what we later see. In an earlier post Buddhism is Pagan we also looked at how Buddhism, both the Mahāyāna and Śrāvakayāna varieties, is basically polytheist with a deep concern, even anxiety, about deities and their activities. The contemporary idea that gods are irrelevant to Buddhist practice ignores both the early canon (such as the Atanatiya Sutta above) and later commentary literature which expresses concerns about all manner of celestial beings. Buddhist cultures have generally throughout history found it expedient to employ Dharma guardians, whose images were not just for decoration. When it comes to summoning nāgas, devas and other such non-manifest beings for the purposes of directing them to some mundane aim, historically it has generally always been that practitioners saw these as actual beings in their own right with subjective experiences of their own, and not a reflection of elements in one's own psyche. Both eastern and western magic alike employ the summoning of immaterial beings. In the Buddhist context, if one is summoning nāgas to bring rain, it is assumed that these are in fact real beings, albeit not normally perceived, who can influence the weather. Now, let us consider several of the notable scriptures which form the core of Buddhist sorcery in the Sinosphere. The Sūtra on Golden Light Brilliance 金光明經 (Skt. Suvarṇa Prabhāsōttama Sūtra). There are a few translations of this text, the earliest being done by Dharmakṣema (385-433) between 414-421. It is often seen as a scripture for state protection. The four Mahārāja are said to offer protection to the state and people by virtue of the scripture being venerated. Chapter six sees the four of them addressing the Buddha and speaking of how they will aid both king and subjects alike if the scripture is recited and its proponents respected: 《金光明經》卷2〈6 四天王品〉：「世尊！如諸國王所有土境，是持經者若至其國，是王應當往是人所，聽受如是微妙經典，聞已歡喜，復當護念恭敬是人。世尊！我等四王，復當勤心擁護是王及國人民，為除衰患令得安隱。」(CBETA, T16, no. 663, p. 341, a14-18) World Honored One! If someone should bring this sūtra to the lands possessed by a king, this king should go to this man and hear so profound a scripture as this. Having heard it there will be rejoicing. Further, he should care for and venerate this man. World Honored One! We Four Kings [deva kings] should also diligently guard this king and the peoples of his country, to prevent calamities and ensure peace. Concern for the four Mahārāja is seen in a text translated around the same time in 427, the Four Deva Kings Sūtra (Skt. *Catur Devarāja Sūtra): 《四天王經》:「諸 天齋日，伺人善惡，須彌山上即第二忉利天，天帝名因，福德巍巍，典主四天，四天神王，即因四鎮王也，各理一方。常以月八日遣使者下，案行天下，伺察帝王臣 民、龍、鬼、蜎蜚、蚑行、蠕動之類，心念、口言、身行善惡；十四日遣太子下；十五日四王自下；二十三日使者復下；二十九日太子復下；三十日四王復自下。」 The devas on the fasting days examine the good deeds and misdeeds of people. Atop Mount Sumeru there is the second [desire realm heaven] of Trāyastriṃśa where there is the celestial sovereign named Indra whose virtues are lofty. The chief four devas, the four deva kings, are Indra's four guardian kings, each managing one direction. On the eighth day envoys are always dispatched who descend on an inspection tour of the whole world. They investigate the sovereigns, kings, officials, citizens, nāgas, spirits, fliers, crawlers and wrigglers – the good deeds and misdeeds in the thoughts of their minds, the speech of their mouths and the actions of their bodies. On the fourteenth day he dispatches the princes who descend. On the fifteenth day the four kings themselves descend. On twenty-third day the envoys again descend. On the twenty-ninth the princes again descend. On the thirtieth day the four kings again personally descend. This deep interest in the activities of gods was not limited to Mahāyāna literature as it is also found in Indian Śrāvakayāna texts such as the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra and Sarvāstivādanikāya Vinaya Mātṛkā (see here). In Japan the Sūtra on Golden Light Brilliance was one of three traditional sūtras employed for protecting the state (護國三部經), the other two being the Lotus Sūtra and Benevolent King's Sūtra 仁王經. This was established as such by Saichō 最澄 (767-822) in 806. He mentions it in 818 in his “Six Articles” 六條式: 《天台法華宗年分學生式一首》(六條式 ): 凡止觀業者，年年毎日，長轉長講，法華，金光，仁王。守護諸大乘等護國衆經。 Shikan activities [止觀業]: every day of every year we will constantly turn and constantly expound the Lotus Sūtra, Sūtra on Golden Light Brilliance and Benevolent King's Sūtra, the protective Mahāyāna sūtras for protecting the country. This no doubt justified the resources and funding for such a monastic operation, which facilitated further opportunities to engage in serious practice. This idea of preserving the well-being of the country via the activities of the sangha incidentally was a contributing factor in the generous state support Buddhist institutions received around East Asia in this period. The widespread belief in both malicious and benevolent deities, and the welfare of the state often relying on the latter, encouraged the elites to invest heavily in religion. A well-developed and complex religion like Buddhism with its large canon and monastic system was one such beneficiary. In the satellite tributary realms around Tang China, such Silla, Pohai and Japan, the existence of a sangha also demonstrated a capable level of state and cultural development, thus reducing the image of outer barbarians. For further discussion of Saichō's reforms see here. The Benevolent King's Sūtra, one of the three aforementioned state protecting scriptures, is unique in that it is directed at rulers. It is also considered to be an apocryphal text originating in China. There was a second version of the text done by Amoghavajra 不空 (705-774), which includes additional esoteric material on dhāraṇīs, maṇḍalas and mantras. Sixteen kings present themselves seeking to ask about the causes and conditions with which they can protect their countries. The prajñāpāramitā is credited with protecting the country: 《佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經》卷1〈4 二諦品〉：「大王！此經名為“仁王問般若波羅蜜經”。汝等受持般若波羅蜜經，是經復有無量功德，名為護國土功德，亦名一切國王法藥，服行無不大用。護舍宅功德，亦護一切眾生身。即此般若波羅蜜，是護國土，如城塹牆壁刀劒鉾楯，汝應受持般若波羅蜜，亦復如是。」(CBETA, T08, no. 245, p. 829, c16-21) Great Kings! This sūtra is called the Sūtra of the Benevolent Kings' Inquiry of the Prajñāpāramitā. You should receive and uphold this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. This sūtra also possesses immeasurable merit, called the merit of protecting the country, also called the Dharma medicine of all kings, which when applied is always of great use. The merit of protecting household is also protecting the bodies of all beings. Here in this prajñāpāramitā, this protection of the country is like city defenses, a wall, a blade, a spear and shield. You should also receive and uphold the prajñāpāramitā like this. In chapter five, specifically entitled “Protecting the Country” 護國, it is said that should the country come under attack a hundred Dharma Masters should be asked to expound the prajñāpāramitā. It also states that benevolent spirits will offer their protection if said sūtra is recited twice daily: 《佛說仁王般若波羅蜜經》卷2〈5 護國品〉：「大王！一日二時講讀此經，汝國土中有百部鬼神，是一一部復有百部，樂聞是經，此諸鬼神護汝國土。」(CBETA, T08, no. 245, p. 830, a7-9) Great King! Twice a day recite this sūtra and in your country there will be a hundred divisions of spirits, each of these divisions also possessing a hundred divisions, who will delight in hearing this sūtra. These spirits will protect your country. Such a program would of course required trained clergy who would devote themselves to such an ongoing task. They would have had to possess a degree of literacy as well as be suitably ordained. In various East Asian countries state resources were invested in such people and institutions with the expectation that all manner of calamities could be avoided by virtue of the good graces of such protective entities. This indeed helps to explain why in China, Korea and Japan so many monasteries were built and paid for by central governments. There was of course additional utility to be found in having a corp of well educated monks for various purposes. In any case, such an arrangement effectively meant the relevant monks were under state control. Another noteworthy scripture entitled the Sūtra on Dhāraṇīs for Guarding the Realm and Ruler 守護國界主陀羅尼經. It was translated into Chinese in 790 by Prajñā and Muniśrī (these two were incidentally Kūkai's Sanskrit teachers in Chang'an). It is said it was adapted to the culture of China, though two-thirds of it does correspond to the Tibetan (see DDB). One idea expressed in the text is that a king plays a primary role in the spiritual welfare of his people, his own spiritual strength acting as a means through which the country as a whole is pacified and free of distress, hence the buddhas are especially inclined towards protecting them. 《守護國界主陀羅尼經》卷9〈9 陀羅尼功德軌儀品〉：「善男子諦聽諦聽當為汝說。諸佛如來非不住於平等三昧。由平等故守護國王。善男子譬如良醫見小嬰孩。身縈疾病不勝醫藥。乃以良藥令母服之。由母服藥力及於乳。其子飲乳疾病皆除。諸佛如來亦復如是。哀愍一切守護國王。」(CBETA, T19, no. 997, p. 566, a11-17) Good sons, Listen well! Listen Well! I will teach you. All the buddha-tathāgatas abide in the samādhi of equality. It is due to that equality that they protect sovereigns. Good sons, it is like a good doctor seeing a small infant. Wrought with illness it cannot stand medicine, so the mother is made to take it. The power of the medicine the mother takes extends into her milk. The child drinks the milk and the illness is completely eliminated. The buddha-tathāgatas are also like this. They have sympathy for all and protect sovereigns. It goes on to say that by virtue of protecting the ruler one protects the crown prince, who when protected enables the great ministers to likewise be protected, onward down to the common people who enjoy ease owing to their ruler's well-being. The ruler plays a key role as he is said to enable great peace and prosperity among his subjects should he practice the dhāraṇī included in the sūtra: 《守護國界主陀羅尼經》卷9〈9 陀羅尼功德軌儀品〉：「若諸國王受持於此陀羅尼門。能令無量無數眾生。現在安樂長守尊貴。身壞命終得生善道。是知國主善能關閉諸惡趣門。開示人天涅槃正路。故我偏說守護國王。」(CBETA, T19, no. 997, p. 566, a27-b2) If sovereigns receive and uphold this dhāraṇī, they can enable immeasurable and innumerable beings to be immediately at peace, constantly protected and venerated. When they die they will attain birth on a good path. Hence know that the ruler of a country can close the doorways to unfortunate destinies. They reveal the direct path to nirvāṇa for gods and men. Thus, I particularly teach on protecting sovereigns. The appeal of such a teaching to rulers in China and elsewhere like Tibet would have been presumably great. Such a teaching not only justifies and enhances the temporal and religious powers of the ruler, but the common people are likewise encouraged to consent to the hierarchy. This indeed reflects the post-Gupta (c.550 CE onward) religious shifts towards reliance on authority and legitimization of power in a feudal society. The practice itself is effectively benevolent magic where the ruler sets in motion patterns in the world by way of the dhāraṇī. It is accompanied by samaya precepts and consecration by an ācārya. There are other dhāraṇīs in the text which deal with stopping excessive rains or to make invading forces disperse. Naturally these magical arts would have been of interest to rulers, but the masters of such arts likewise would have held special status and treated appropriately. In respect to summoning rains, there is a specific text entitled the Mahāmegha Sūtra 大雲輪請雨經, which provides a dhāraṇī specifically for this purpose. There were four translations of the text, the earliest being in 570 by Magadha monk Jñānayaśas. The sūtra commences with the Buddha at the palace of the nāga king Upananda (one of the eight nāga kings) along with his bodhisattva and bhikṣu company as well as numerous other nāga kings, all of whom pay their respects with incalculable precious substances, performances and so on before walking around him clock-wise and then standing to one side. Several dhāraṇīs are taught to the nāgas, one of which is described as follows: 《大雲輪請雨經》卷2：「於未來世若亢旱時能令降雨。若滯雨時亦能令止。飢饉疾病亦能除滅。普告諸龍令使知聞。復令諸天歡喜踊躍。能摧諸魔安隱一切有情。」(CBETA, T19, no. 989, p. 488, c14-17) In future worlds should there be a time of drought it can make rain fall. If a time when bogged in rains, it can also halt it. It can also eliminate famine and disease. Announce it widely to the nāgas and have them know it. It will further make the devas leap and dance in joy. It can crush māras and set at ease all beings. Shinsen'en There is a famous story where Kūkai at Shinsen'en 神泉苑 in Kyōto summoned rain during a famine caused by drought. In 824 at the age of 51 he performed a rite derived from the above sūtra, requesting that the third nāga princess of the Nāga King Sāgara, she being an emanation of Cintāmaṇicakra Avalokitēśvara Bodhisattva 如意輪觀音, to come from the snowy mountains of the Himalayas. After a week she appeared and rain poured down. It is said that she took up residence at Shinsen'en and an appropriate shrine was built for her. A rather earlier scripture dealing with mantras is the Mahāmāyūrī Vidyārājñī Sūtra 孔雀明王經, sometimes just known as the Peafowl Sūtra 孔雀經,which was first translated in the fourth century. The early translation is quite brief. The introductory passage is followed by the mantra. The introduction reads as follows. 《大金色孔雀王咒經》卷1：「佛告阿難。往昔於雪山王南。有一金色孔雀王。佛住其中。彼以此大孔雀王呪經。朝說自護晝則平安。暮說自護夜則安隱。」(CBETA, T19, no. 986, p. 477, c6-8) The Buddha said to Ānanda, “Long ago to the south of Himālaya Girirāja, there was a golden peacock king. The Buddha resided with him. It was with this incantation scripture of the great peacock king that the day would be peaceful if recited in the morning as an observance, and the night settled if recited in the evening as an observance.” Here the Chinese describes the being as a king, not a female. Mahāmayūrī (literally “great peahen”) later is definitely feminine and one of the non-wrathful Vidyārājñī, which is in contrast to other male figures like Ācala. She is also described as a bodhisattva. The image of the peacock eating troublesome insects is analogous to removing afflictions. The ability of a peafowl to predict rain also makes the deity associated with rain summoning. She generally has four arms, but in the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala 胎藏界曼荼羅 she is placed in the susudi section, where she has two arms while sitting atop a red lotus. Curiously in the Tibetan tradition the deity has three faces, eight arms and sits on a lotus, but does not ride a peafowl. The matter of astrology is also of relevance to our discussion. In an earlier post Ethnicity in Tang Buddhist Art we took a look at the painting from Dunhuang "Tejaprabhā Buddha and the Five Planets". It was based on the astrological text the Brahma Horanavagraha 梵天火羅九曜, which was translated by Yijing 一行 (683-727), an esoteric monk who had studied under Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 and Vajrabodhi 金剛智. The text itself provides methods for making appropriate offerings to the nine luminaries as well as the accompanying mantras plus details on when things are auspicious or inauspicious. Another astrological text is the Sūtra on Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva and the Sage's Teaching on Auspicious and Inauspicious Times, Days, Good and Evil Constellations and Luminaries 文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經, translated by Amoghavajra in 759 and revised in 764 by disciple Yang Jing Feng 楊景風 under his master's guidance. It details the relationship between astronomical bodies (for instance the twenty-seven classical Indian constellations, twelve zodiacal mansions, sun, moon, planets and so on) and the fortunes and misfortunes of people, functioning as a Buddhist text on both Indian astrology and divination. The text is divided into eight chapters and includes two charts. It provides information on astrological lore, including the genesis of the cosmos. The essences of heat and cold morphed into the sun and the moon with the five stars (the visible planets) acting as retainers. The twenty-seven constellations moved the twelve zodiacal mansions, giving rise to myriad phenomena. These twelve zodiacs houses 十二宮 are identical those found in western astrology. They are given in the following order and suitable occupations are advised for those born under the respective signs. Chinese English Optimal Profession 師子 Leo Army 女 Virgo Palace quarters 秤 Libra Storehouse 蝎 Scorpio Nursing 弓 Sagittarius Greater Minister / Commander 磨竭 Capricorn Executions 瓶 Aquarius College 魚 Pisces Government official 羊 Aries Kitchen 牛 Taurus Stablemaster 夫妻 Gemini Gatekeeper 蟹 Cancer Punishment litigator These professions are all key occupations in a palace, and not ordinary professions. It is generally held that at some point Greek astrology was absorbed into India, perhaps after Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) with the Indo-Greek kingdom. Hellenic influences even influenced language as in the ancient northwest Indian language of Gāndhārī for instance there is the word stratego. Eventually Buddhists came to adopt Indian astronomy and this was transmitted to China where the zodiacs were translated. The traditional Chinese zodiac remained dominant, but nevertheless Buddhists had a zodiac component in their astrology that was originally Greek. Sorcery and astrology played important roles in Buddhism across East Asia for most of its history. Arguably in some cases these were the primary practices that many educated Buddhist clergy engaged in rather than meditation and other transmundane aims, though the texts frequently speak of benefiting beings through such activities. Many eminent figures in East Asian Buddhist history actually secured their special privileges, particularly funding for monastic complexes and other projects, by demonstrating knowledge and skill in the occult arts of Buddhism. In the modern day there are still some who study such subjects, though I would think such individuals are relatively scarce. I have heard that rain summoning rites are still done in Japan. Nevertheless, I believe contemporary Tibetan lamas have a better preserved understanding of occult arts plus active traditions which engage in them."

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies: http://huayanzang.blogspot.in/2012/12/innumerable-buddhas-and-mystical.html Innumerable Buddhas and the Mystical Mahāyāna "Contemporary western circles interested in Buddhism (not specifically Theravāda or Mahāyāna) sometimes display both a decided predilection for the “historical Buddha” Śākyamuni and hesitant reservations about other buddhas, which are considered later developments and hence unimportant. Many people are concerned with getting back to the “original Buddhism” and this is usually attempted via the Pāli canon, though in recent years there has come to be an appreciation for Gāndhārī. In the “original Buddhism” there is sought a pure and untainted philosophy free of disagreeable religious elements. I think this reveals something about a contemporary and common western rationalistic mindset which, rooted deep in materialist assumptions, relegates transcendental experience and knowledge to superstition or at best interesting fiction. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that the idea of a “historical Buddha” is a modern creation. While not all ancient Indian thinkers accepted the existence of countless buddhas simultaneously existing, they still had a view of many past buddhas. Nāgārjuna in his Mahāprājñāpāramitā Upadeśa notes the difference of opinion as follows. 《大智度論》卷9〈1 序品〉：「譬如鹿未被箭 時不知怖畏，既被箭已，踔圍而出。人亦如是，有老、病、死苦，聞唯有一佛，甚難可遇，心便怖畏，勤行精進，疾得度苦。以是故佛於聲聞法中不言有十方佛，亦 不言無。若有十方佛，汝言無，得無限罪；若無十方佛，而我言有，生無量佛想，得恭敬福。所以者何？善心因緣福德力大故。」(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 126, a29-b7) For example, when a deer is not yet wounded by an arrow it does not know fear. Once it has been wounded it leaps around and flees. People are also like this. When there is the suffering of old age, illness and death, they hear there is just one buddha and that it is very difficult to encounter them. Their mind then experiences fear. Diligently practicing they quickly attain liberation from suffering. Consequently, the buddha in the śrāvaka-dharma did not speak of there being buddhas in the ten directions. He also did not say they did not exist. If there are the buddhas of the ten directions and you say they do not exist, then you are guilty of limitless transgressions. If there are no buddhas of the ten directions though I say there are, then I produce immeasurable thoughts of the buddha and obtain the merit of veneration. Why is this? It is because the meritorious power of the causes and conditions of a virtuous mind is great. This might bring Pascal's Wager to mind. Regardless of we might think of this line of thought, it does indicate that in ancient times as now plenty of people assumed that only one buddha existed, at least in a single period of time. Classical Buddhism of course universally acknowledges the existence of past buddhas. By Śākyamuni Buddha's own admission he was neither the first nor would he be the last buddha. The common grouping of buddhas includes seven in the following order (Sanskrit/Pāli): 1. Vipaśyin/Vipassin 2. Śikhin 3. Viśvabhū/Vessabhū 4. Krakucchanda/Kondañña 5. Kanakamuni/Konāgamana 6. Kāśyapa/Kassapa (not to be confused with Śākyamuni's disciple Mahākāśyapa) 7. Śākyamuni The existence of countless buddhas is quite a profound idea, but especially if you view a buddha as a kind of transcendental force among beings. As I discussed before elsewhere, the vision of the Buddha as taught by the Mahāsāṃghikas was quite different from the Sthaviravāda/Theravāda. The Mahāyāna, which no doubt emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika branch of early Buddhism, likewise had a perspective of the buddha as a transcendental force (i.e., the dharmkāya). In that sense if there are immeasurable worlds and incalculable beings suffering and likewise innumerable tathāgatas arising, then regardless if in our world there is no immediate buddha walking the earth, one can be confident there are still buddhas simultaneously “standing nowhere like infinite space” and as a result of their transcendental nature still interacting with the world in subtle ways. Amitābha Buddha Consequently, Śākyamuni becomes just one of many buddhas is the vast expanse of cosmic time and space. This provides the ideological framework and justification for devotion to Amitābha Buddha or Vairocana Buddha instead of Śākyamuni, who is not derided in any way, but just counted as one of many buddhas. As I wrote about earlier, the iconic bronze buddha statue at Tōdai-ji in Nara, Japan is Vairocana Buddha, specifically the one mentioned in the Brahma Net Sūtra 梵網經 which quotes Vairocana Buddha directing the buddhas present at the assembly to transmit the Dharma to “innumerable Śākyamunis”. Now, granted, this sūtra is thought to have emerged in China, but nevertheless it does demonstrate that early on in the 5th century people there saw Śākyamuni as just one of many buddhas. There was clearly no sense of a “historical Buddha”. In the sūtra it is Vairocana Buddha who holds supreme precedence. The obvious response to this sort of thing is to ask if somebody just made this up for whatever reason. As with much religious literature you can never be quite sure about these things. However, we do have records of eminent Buddhist masters having visions of bodhisattvas and buddhas, and subsequently producing insightful texts as a result. Probably the most notable example of this is the Mahāyāna Sūtrālamkāra (in the recent English translation entitled The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature) which as tradition holds was composed by the tenth stage bodhisattva Maitreya and transmitted to Asaṅga (4th c.). Some decades ago Sylvain Lévi accepted the text as divine inspiration just as traditions holds, while the Japanese scholar Ui Hakuju insisted that Maitreya was a human person and probably a teacher to Asaṅga. Paul Demiéville defended Lévi, suggesting Maitreya was the source of Asaṅga's inspiration, but that the authorship was really to be attributed to Asaṅga. The introduction to the recent English translation of the text is adamant about Maitreya being the author (while it is not specified, this sounds like Robert Thurman who is the editor-in-chief of the book): Thus, the modern prejudice that a celestial being named Maitreyanatha, renowned as the bodhisattva who is the next buddha on Earth, waiting in Tushita heaven, could not exist since there are no celestial beings, there are no heavens in the desire realm, there is no such thing as a genuine revelation, and so on, is nothing but a prejudice, a bit of modernist, materialist, secularist ideology, no more or less rational than a belief in all of the above. It goes on to say that unless there is solid evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the Maitreya story is the "best working hypothesis". 1 In reality this is not so unusual. In ancient India transmundane sources of knowledge were not so uncommon. As Richard L. Thompson in his work Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy points out, the classical Indian astronomical treatise entitled the Surya Siddhanta is attributed to demi-gods.2 In other words, such knowledge was originally not of this world. Now this attribution might have occurred to sanctify the knowledge as a means of acquiring prestige and consequently resources, but we will likely never know. Incidentally, if you are interested in classical Indian astronomy see Richard L. Thompson's paper “Planetary Diameters in the Surya-Siddhanta” available here. The ancient Indian astronomers often had accurate astronomical knowledge, which again they curiously attributed to transmundane beings. The point here is that transmundane knowledge and visions were (and still are) part of the classical Indian intellectual heritege. Some Mahāyāna literature is directly attributed to beings beyond the world. I suspect a lot of it actually emerged in this fashion. Some sūtras even expressly state that the teaching is not given in an ordinary worldly environment. For example, the first line of the Mahāvairocana Sūtra reads as follows: 《大毘盧遮那成佛神變加持經》卷1〈1 入真言門住心品〉：「如是我聞。一時薄伽梵。住如來加持廣大金剛法界宮。一切持金剛者皆悉集會。」(CBETA, T18, no. 848, p. 1, a9-10) Thus have I heard. At one time the Bhagavān was abiding in the Tathāgata's Blessed Vast Great Vajra Dharmadhātu Palace where all vajra-holders had assembled. Clearly this is not in Magadha on the subcontinent. The teachings are given in a transmundane realm. The whole point though is not so much the venue, but the teachings contained within which the upholders of the tradition would call buddhavacana or "words of the Buddha". Avalokitēśvara In the English speaking western world, especially in the popular print, there is a tendency to shy away from or just outright sanitize Mahāyāna of any disagreeable mystical elements and refocus exclusively on mindfulness and the virtues of benefiting beings, compassion, kindness and generosity. While such virtues are not wrong, it is a reflection of a largely unrecognized desire amongst many modern people to warp their Buddhism into something that would be considered palatable with secular humanists. This is entirely divorced from the original richness of Mahāyāna mysticism which in itself a process of transformation by which one becomes all the more compassionate, aware and lucid. The aim is to overcome suffering and there have been adepts for thousands of years singing praises about practice. To deny their message is to reject a potential cure for individual human woe. However, if the running assumption is that transmundane buddhas do not really exist and if you do experience such things you are probably schizophrenic, then the gateway towards profound transcendental experiences, which are time and again described in Mahāyāna literature as positive and desirable, closes and becomes inaccessible. This ties in with why the teachings of transcendental buddhas and bodhisattvas are not given the same weight as what the “historical Buddha” taught. The academic literature speaks of the "authors of Mahāyāna sūtras", and hence transcendental teachings are suddenly made all too human, assumed to be mere deviant products of later people’s imagination and not at all the intent of Śākyamuni Buddha. Academics of course have every right to frame their discussions with such language, but some of the traditional accounts of where these teachings came from should be taken into consideration as well."

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence Translator's Introduction The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school. This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha. Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate. However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening. If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123. Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse. "The Tathagata "The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you." That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words."

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on Fire "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is not eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is finite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is infinite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?" "...no..." "How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?" "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. "The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'... "...'the cosmos is finite'... "...'the cosmos is infinite'... "...'the soul & the body are the same'... "...'the soul is one thing and the body another'... "...'after death a Tathagata exists'... "...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'... "...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... "...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'... does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." "Does Master Gotama have any position at all?" "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released." "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?" "'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply." "In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear." "'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply." "...both does & does not reappear." "...doesn't apply." "...neither does nor does not reappear." "...doesn't apply." "How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured." "Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?" "...yes..." "And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'" "If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?" "...yes..." "And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. "The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention. "And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to. "And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.011.nypo.html Ahara Sutta: Nutriment "At Savatthi. "There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? "Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness. "Of these four nutriments, O monks, what is their source, what is their origin, from what are they born, what gives them existence? "These four nutriments, O monks, have craving as their cause, have craving as their origin, are born of craving, and craving gives them existence. "And this craving, O monks, what is its source, what its origin, from what is it born, what gives it existence? Craving has feeling as its source and origin, it is born of feeling, and feeling gives existence to it. "And this feeling, O monks, what is its source and origin, from what is it born and what gives existence to it? Feeling has sense-impression as its source and origin... "And this sense-impression, O monks, what is its source...? sense-impression has the six sense-bases as its source and origin... "And these six sense-bases, O monks, what is their source...? The six sense-bases have mind-and-body as their source and origin... "And this mind-and-body, O monks, what is its source...? Mind-and-body has consciousness as its source and origin... "And this consciousness, O monks, what is its source...? Consciousness has kamma-formations as its source and origin... "And these kamma-formations, O monks, what is their source and origin, from what are they born, what gives existence to them? Kamma-formations have ignorance as their source and origin, they are born of ignorance and ignorance gives existence to them. "Thus, O monks, through ignorance conditioned are kamma-formations; through the kamma-formations conditioned is consciousness; through consciousness conditioned is mind-and-body; through mind-and-body conditioned are the six sense-bases; through the six sense-bases conditioned is sense-impression; through sense-impression conditioned is feeling, through feeling conditioned is craving; through craving conditioned is clinging; through clinging conditioned is becoming; through becoming conditioned is birth; through birth conditioned are decay and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Thus arises this whole mass of suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile "Grounds for Views 15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.[19] That I shall be after death;[20] permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,[21] shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'[22] 16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' 17. "Considering thus, he is not anxious about unrealities."[23] Anxiety about Unrealities18. When this was said, a certain monk asked the Blessed One: "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the external?"[24] "There can be, O monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone thinks: 'Oh, I had it! That, alas, I have no longer! Oh, may I have it again! But alas, I do not get it!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the external." 19. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the external?" "There can be, O monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not think thus: 'Oh, I had it! That, alas, I have no longer! Oh, may I have it again! But, alas, I do not get it!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the external." 20. "Lord, can there be anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?" "There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal." 21. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?" "There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not have this view: 'The universe is the Self... eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishing of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then does not think: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal.[25] Impermanence and Not-self22. "You may well take hold of a possession,[26] O monks, that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition. (But) do you see, monks, any such possession?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such possession that is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, that abides eternally the same in its very condition." 23. "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair." 24. "You may well rely, monks, on any supporting (argument) for views[28] from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such supporting (argument) for views?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such supporting (argument) for views from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."[29] 25. "If there were a self, monks, would there be my self's property?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."[30] Notes "The universe is the Self," lit.: "This (is) the world, this (is) the self" (so loko so attaa). That, in fact, an identification of the two terms is intended here, will be shown in the following comments. The best explanation of the passage is furnished in the Brahmajaala Sutta (DN 1) where a similar phraseology is used: "There are, monks, some ascetics and brahmans who are eternalists and who proclaim self and world to be eternal" (sassatavaadaa sassata.m attañca lokañca paññapenti); subsequently the theorist is introduced as stating his view in similar terms: "Eternal are self and world... they exist as eternally the same" (sassato attaa ca loko ca... atthi iveva sassatisama.m). The last term appears likewise in our text; see Note 21. From this we may safely conclude that it is the identity, or unity, of the Self (or soul; mahaatman, paramaatman) with the universe (or the Universal Spirit, Brahman) which is conveyed by our text. In the Commentary specific to our text, this eternalistic view is rendered and classified in the terminology of the Dhamma. The Commentary says: "This statement ('The universe is the Self') refers to the (wrong) view 'He considers corporeality, etc., as the self (ruupa.m attato samanupassatii' ti aadinaa nayena).'" The canonical quotation (e.g., in MN 44), included here in the Commentary, has two implications which are of importance for understanding the reason why it was cited in this context: (1) As very often in the commentaries (e.g., to Satipatthaana Sutta), the term "world" (loko) is explained as truly referring to the five aggregates (khanda, i.e., corporeality, feeling, etc.), singly or in toto. (2) This quotation is the formula for the first of the twenty types of personality-belief (sakkaaya-ditthi; e.g., in MN 44). In the first five of these twenty, the self is said to be identical with each of the five aggregates (as in the earlier part of §15 of our text). Hence the application of this quote to our textual passage signifies that the theorist conceives the "world" (i.e., corporeality, feeling, etc.) as identical with the self. The double "So (loko) so (attaa)" in our text, should therefore, be taken as standing for "yo (loko) so (attaa)," lit.: what is the world that is the self. In the Comy to MN 44 we find a similar phrase: "Someone considers corporeality as self: what is corporeality that is 'I'; what is 'I' that is corporeality. Thus he considers corporeality and self as non-dual' (... ya.m ruupa.m so aha.m, yo aha.m ta.m ruupan' ti ruupañca advaya.m samanupassati)." According to this interpretation the phrase has been translated here by "This universe is the Self." Mostly, the first five types of personality-belief are explained as referring to the wrong view of annihilationism (uccheda-ditthi). [see, e.g., Patisambhidaa-Magga, Ditthikathaa, Ucchedaditthi-niddesa; further Comy to MN 44.] But their being quoted in our context, shows that they may also apply to eternalism (sassata-ditthi). We have come to this conclusion since it is improbable that, in our textual passage two mutually exclusive views should have been combined in a single statement formulating the sixth "ground for false views"; that is, in the first part of that statement, annihilationism, and in the second, eternalism."

This is from the Pali canon, your favorite source for Buddhism: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother. And on that occasion — the uposatha of the fifteenth, the night of a very full moon — he was sitting out in the open with the community of monks. Then a certain monk, rising from his seat, arranging his robe over one shoulder, and placing his hands palm-to-palm over the heart, said to the Blessed One: "Lord, there is an area where, if the Blessed One would give me leave, I would like the answer to a question." "Very well, then, monk. Sit back down in your seat and ask whatever you want." Responding to the Blessed One, "Yes, lord," the monk sat back down in his seat and said to the Blessed One, "Aren't these the five clinging-aggregates, i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate." "Monk, these are the five clinging-aggregates, i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk delighted & approved of the Blessed One's words and then asked him a further question: "But in what, lord, are these five clinging-aggregates rooted?" "Monk, these five clinging-aggregates are rooted in desire." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?" "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Might there be diversity in the desire & passion for the five clinging-aggregates?" "There might, monk. There is the case where the thought occurs to someone, 'May I be one with such a form in the future. May I be one with such a feeling... perception... fabrications... such a consciousness in the future. This is how there would be diversity in the desire & passion for the five clinging-aggregates." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "To what extent does the designation 'aggregate' apply to the aggregates?" "Monk, whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. Whatever fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness.[1] This is the extent to which the term 'aggregate' applies to the aggregates." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?" "Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view come about?" "There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "This, monk, is how self-identity view comes about." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view no longer come about?" "There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "This, monk, is how self-identity view no longer comes about." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "What, lord, is the allure of form? What is its drawback? What is the escape from it? What is the allure of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness? What is its drawback? What is the escape from it?" "Monk, whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on form: that is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of desire & passion, the abandoning of desire & passion for form: that is the escape from form. "Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on feeling: that is the allure of feeling... "Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on perception: that is the allure of perception... "Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on fabrications: that is the allure of fabrications... "Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on consciousness: that is the allure of consciousness. The fact that consciousness is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of consciousness. The subduing of desire & passion, the abandoning of desire & passion for consciousness: that is the escape from consciousness." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit?" "Monk, one sees any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every form, as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "One sees any feeling whatsoever... any perception whatsoever... any fabrications whatsoever... "One sees any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every consciousness — as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'" "Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way, there is — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit." Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever... "Any fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentations." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha " "When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.' "When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left. "Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'" "What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is consciousness constant or inconstant? "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

This is a page with scriptural support from the Pali canon on lay followers of the Buddha who achieved varying levels. Goes to show that even in Buddha's time there were lay followers who reaped the fruits of the practice. Even if this is supposedly the "Dharma-ending Age", I think that it is still possible for lay people to reap the fruits of the path. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Lay_arahant: One of the misconceptions about Buddhism, especially early Buddhism / Theravada is that only monks and nuns can become Arahants, fully enlightened. Contents [hide] 1 Lay Dhamma teachers 2 Sotapanna Lay followers 3 Sakadagami Lay followers 4 Anagami Lay followers 5 Arahant Lay followers 6 Likelihood of enlightenment for lay people 7 References Lay Dhamma teachers In the Anguttara Nikaya, Book of Tens, Anathapindika and Vajjiyamahita, both lay followers teach the Dhamma by refuting the wrong views of a group of wanderers. At the end of the discourse, the Buddha praises Anathapindika for defending the teaching against misrepresentation. (AN 10.93) The householder Citta attained to the high spiritual level of anagami (non returner) and taught Dhamma even to monks. (SN 4.282) Sotapanna Lay followers In the Pali Canon, thousands of lay followers are mentioned as having reached the status of Sotapanna (stream entrant), guaranteed no more than 7 future lives before attaining full enlightenment. The Digha Nikaya, parinibbanana sutta mentions "over 500" lay followers who attained stream entry. The Digha Nikaya, chapter 18 mentions "over 2,400 Magadha followers" who attained stream entry. Sakadagami Lay followers In the Pali Canon, at least 90 lay followers are mentioned as reaching the status of Sakadagami (once returner), guaranteed to attain enlightenment in the next life as a human or deva. (DN 16) Anagami Lay followers Over 50 lay people are mentioned as reaching Anagami (non returner), guaranteed full enlightenment in the next existence in the Pure Abodes deva realm. (DN 16) Majjhima Nikaya 73 mentions over 500 lay followers who have attained Anagami: Other than bhikkhus, and bhikkhunis. Is there a single lay disciple of Gotama, who wearing white clothes had led the holy life, has destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and is born spontaneously, not to proceed?' `Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and born spontaneously would not proceed,' `Good, Gotama, wait! Other thanbhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay disciples of Gotama, who wear white clothes and lead the holy life. Is there a single a lay disciple, who wears white clothes, leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, and doing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts. Has become confident of what should and should not be done, and does not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher. Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, wearing white clothes leadingthe holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures and doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts Have become confident of what should and should not be done and do not need a teacher any more' Arahant Lay followers The Commentaries mention some lay followers who attained full enlightenment, such as Uggasena who was a lay man with the householder responsibilities with family and work as an acrobat in side shows. The Milindapanha mentions by implication that lay people can attain full enlightenment: "If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" Milindapanha III.19 "You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it." "The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die." Milindapanha III.62 The Milindapanha, which is almost as old as the [rest of (Burmese ed.)] Pali Canon above implies that lay people do/did attain enlightenment. It is just that they all ordained or died within 7 days or less. Many of the arahants mentioned in the Pali Canon who attained enlightenment were either monks or nuns or ascetics from other traditions, so technically, perhaps the ascetics were not lay followers. But there is a list of 21 lay followers in AN 6.131 - 151 / 3:450 f; PTS ed AN 6.119-120 who attained full enlightenment. One is listed as a doctor, others as householders, so it does not appear they were all ascetics. Likelihood of enlightenment for lay people Although there are about 3,000 lay sotapannas mentioned in the Pali Canon, at least 90 sakadagamis, at least 500 anagamis, and about 21 lay arahants mentioned in the Pali Canon, there are far more monastic monks and nuns mentioned as reaching full enlightenment. This appears to be due to the fact of the life of renunciation of monastics, which is more conducive to the highest noble states. "There are not only one hundred . . . or five hundred, but far more bhikkhunis, my disciples, who by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom . . ." (repeated for bhikkhus too, in MN 73) Although it is unlikely, it is still possible and the distinction between monastic and lay is not quite as sharp as some have believed in the past. Piya Tan's essay, Lamen Saints (see references) goes into greater detail on this subject. In the previous few centuries the thinking and practice has been that there is a sharp distinction between lay and monastic, with lay people basically serving monastics for their requisites and just hoping for a better rebirth, while the monastics work on their salvation. But Piya Tan and other scholars are now showing that it is more of a blur and that in the time of the Buddha, as evidenced by the Pali Canon, the divide was not that sharp. References Milindapanha, an Abridgment edited by Bhikkhu Pesala Laymen Saints Uggasena

I can see what you mean, it's only natural. Keep investigating....

Imputation of an identity (Atman) onto any of the 5 skandhas...You are just a bundle of 5 interdependently arising psycho-physical processes.

Because: 1. It's an intellectual understanding. 2. You still haven't abandoned all that is to be abandoned and realized all that is to be realized. P.S. That website is a crap source for understanding Buddhist concepts.

Those two sources are just going to throw you off instead of clarifying anatta for you: they are best to be avoided if you want an accurate understanding of anatta. The latter especially will just put you in an endless loop of affirmation and negation or worst, easily leading to reification (i.e. 'You' are not your body; 'You' are not your personality; 'You' are not your thoughts, etc. It doesn't help either, when it says at the top of the page: "proof that We are All One"). It's best if you go by authoritative sources from the traditions where this concept comes from, especially if you want an accurate understanding. For this, one of the best references to go to is the traditional suttas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html Alwayson, had it right, when he said that you are only a bundle of 5 skandha. It doesn't get any easier to understand anatta if you only remember this. Don't succumb to the trap of interpretations such as "ego", "awareness", "Being", etc. Understand the 3 characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) and investigate them in all sensate experiences; each moment to moment, keeping mindful of how they arise and cease. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Munindra "Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing. As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on." ~ Living This Life Fully: Stories and Teachings of Munindra by Mirka Knaster

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html: "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.[4] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' "[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.' [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.' "[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.' "[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.'[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.' "This, Rahula, is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit. "When mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued in this way, even one's final in-breaths & out-breaths are known as they cease, not unknown."[6] That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Rahula delighted in the Blessed One's words." It would be good to follow up this sutta with the Anapanasati Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html) and Kayagatasati Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html).

You know I've always wondered why Zhiyi/Chih-i of the Tiantai/Tendai school isn't mentioned on here a lot. His works deal with using the breath for developing samatha-vipasyana together in tandem, in a Mahayana framework: http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Buddhist-Meditation-Kalavinka-Classics/dp/1935413007/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368995510&sr=8-1&keywords=zhiyi http://www.amazon.com/The-Six-Dharma-Gates-Sublime/dp/1935413015/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368995510&sr=8-2&keywords=zhiyi

I've noticed that the way he lectures tends to be lively and when translated: with a lot of funny dialogue. Also, that sutta where Buddha is talking to Rahula is in the Majjhima Nikayas of the Pali canon: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html

When it comes to the criteria of jhana and how one enters those states: it is definitely not a good idea to rely solely on teachings from Ajahn Brahm. Most importantly, you should rely on your own experiences as well. It is a good idea to compare and contrast between what different people have to say on the subject (e.g. Ajahn Chah, U Pandita, Ajahn Sumedho, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Leigh Brasington, etc.) The degree of absorption into the object of meditation that he describes (where the 5 senses/sense impressions shut off), does not follow the traditional descriptions of the Nikayas. Practically speaking, this level of absorption isn't needed since an individual is unable to perform vipassana while in this degree of absorption. Of course, it comes down to the choice of the individual on which method or approach is best for them.

In the Pali Nikayas, samatha-vipassana isn't described as two separate meditations. Realistically, you alternate between the two in each individual session, until they are indivisible. Vipassana can be used to enter each individual jhana. It's not always as black and white as that, at least when it comes to the experience of jhana's.

That quoted text wasn't from me. You should pose your question on either Dharmawheel.net or zenforuminternational.org.

Something of relevance from dharmaoverground: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3539206: "While at Chanmyay Yeiktha, I talked to a Chinese monk about my interest to go to Pa Auk. He told me he met people with experience at Pa Auk and they told him they didn't progress very fast. He said that Pa Auk ask of people to master the 4th Jhana before they start Vipassana. I also remember stumbling on a youtube video of a Western monk criticizing Pa Auk, arguing that the approach was based on sub-sub-commentaries, or something to that effect. I'm just repeating what I heard." Mastery of jhana would be the ability to enter, abide, exit the jhana at will. In this case that would be a "Visuddhimagga jhana".

It really depends on the individual and what works best for them or what approach they most prefer. IMO, the disadvantage to that approach, would be the amount of time it takes to actually start applying vipassana. The advantage to it, theoretically, would be that the individual has a clearer, purer state of mind from which to apply vipassana to gain the insight knowledges.

Daneil Ingram's map is based off other traditions categorizations of the nana's/insight knowledges: http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4078034 Some good points are brought up, particularly from the 4:20 mark and onward: