Nothing is lost. However a person below the level of Streamwinner is still subject to rebirth below the level of human being. The good kamma of having made an effort will eventually surface again and bring one back to a place where practice can be resumed.

The non-streamwinner is subject to stray and unskillful thoughts that can lead to a bad destination. Should such a tendency occur at the time of death, it's: 'Have a nice day!'

The principle is something like standing at the downtown platform in the subway. Up until the time one enters a car and the doors shut one can go over to the uptown platform, but once the door has shut on the downtown train one is going downtown at least for one stop.

This is the concern when it comes to attention to death, that is that one not be thinking, as the ordinary person thinks, that ok, death will come, but some time later. One should train to think that death is a possibility as close as a breath in and out or the chewing of a mouthful of food.

See for the above idea: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.019.hare.pts.htm

and see for the practice:

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.020.hare.pts.htm

This is why one should strive for Streamentry. At stream entry, the knowledge is firmly fixed that 'that which comes into existence comes to an end.' This idea at that point is so vivid as to present itself at the time of death and acts as a barrier to making a foolish decision at that time, and the ball has been set rolling for an inevitable attainment of Arahantship within a period of no more than seven further rebirths in various heavenly states and among men.


How is catharsis different to gossiping in Buddhism?

A couple of reasons why your practice of catharsis, as described above, might not be considered a favorable thing to do in Buddhism even if you believe it's different enough from gossip to not be considered wrong speech.

It brings you out of the present moment and has you re-living or clinging to the past.

  Let one not trace back the past

  Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.

  That which is past is left behind

  Unattained is the "yet-to-come."

  But that which is present he discerns —

  With insight as and when it comes.

  The Immovable — the-non-irritable.

  In that state should the wise one grow

  Today itself should one bestir

  Tomorrow death may come — who knows?

  For no bargain can we strike

  With Death who has his mighty hosts.

  But one who dwells thus ardently

  By day, by night, untiringly

  Him the Tranquil Sage has called

  The Ideal Lover of Solitude.

  MN 131

Also, it's the opposite of Equanimity
which is prized as the 4th brahmavihāra, the 7th Factor of Enlightenment, and the 10th pāramī.

Lastly, spending time blowing off steam about another person comes close to gossip, ridicule, and other types of speech which are not considered Right Speech and could easily cross the line. As Anthony suggested above, reading up on Right Speech might help to make sense of all this. Best wishes.


Do Beings go into total unconsciousness before attaining Buddhahood?

There's a nice paper on the topic, called "Why the Buddha Never Uttered a Word" by Mario D’Amato - you can find it on Academia website.
You'd do best to read it all, although you may certainly prefer to skip to a section titled "Mindful Buddha versus Mindless Buddha".
There Mario cites some other work that says:

... Dunne goes on to specify that according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased”. Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind”.
…
Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharmakāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha... [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active”. Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

Mario then goes on to argue that, in his understanding,

... it is only metaphorically the case that buddhas do not use language. On the model of the awarenesses of a buddha considered here, a buddha possesses both a nonconceptual and a conceptual awareness, and it is a buddha’s possession of some form of conceptual awareness that allows for the use of words and language. However, through the attainment of nonconceptual awareness—through directly apprehending
thusness, the fundamental, ineffable nature of things—a buddha’s relation to conceptualization and language has been radically altered. In any occurrence of language use, a buddha would remain aware that putative linguistic referents do not actually exist. A buddha would employ language without falling
under the spell of words and objects—employing concepts and language in perfect accordance with conventional usage, while remaining aware that ultimately there are no referential objects. We might describe a buddha’s mindful awareness in terms of what some contemporary philosophers have referred to as fictionalism.
Stanley states: “On a fictionalist view, engaging in discourse
that involves apparent reference to a realm of problematic entities is best viewed as engaging in a pretense. Although in reality, the problematic entities do not exist, according to the pretense we engage in when using the discourse, they do exist”. According to such a fictionalist view, one might engage in conventional discourse without positing that the entities referred to in such discourse ultimately exist, for example, through adding an operator “in fiction F” (or “according to the conventional domain”) to any truth claim. Hence, on a mindful buddha account, a buddha may be said to use language “under erasure,” employing words while remaining mindful that words do not actually refer in the way they purport to—mindfully aware that referents are nothing more than fictions.

I, for one, agree and approve of this explanation.


Sexual Desire, Masturbating and Asuba Bawana

So basically caught up in the social norms, i used to watch porn videos and masturbate and got a bit attached to it. Kept on doing it
  for a few years.

Do not underestimate the harm & addictive character of pornography. Buddhism calls it a 'road to ruin' (DN 31). To ask your questions, you have been learning this via personal experience.

  And 2 years back I met a girlfriend and we were so in love and also did different sexual activity (Apart from sex). But our relationship
  broke one year back when i got to know that she had cheated with
  another person as a tool to solve certain problems and not for love.

Buddhism explains a successful relationship will occur when two people are both moral (AN 4.55 & AN 4.53). Since both you & your girlfriend did not have strong foundations in morality, naturally problems were expected to occur. In other words, your girlfriend was probably not really "in love" but probably clinging to something.

  When i got to know about it (She herself revealed it) i asked about her whole life story and i got upset by it and sympathized her.

Very good.

  Knowing that my mother would not approve her since she also know what happened, I taught her the path of dhamma. Created a path for her
  to move on through dhamma.To be a better person. And she is still
  engaging in that path.

Very good. But also difficult.

  So after the break up I was mentally broken down and I somehow needed to satisfy my sexual desire. So i started watching more and
  more porn and satisfied myself. But it became very upsetting for me
  due to the breakup.

Bad strategy. Instead, try to understand that women with a history often have emotional issues which are difficult to resolve. Such women can try very hard to "love" you & make you attached to them because they are often desperate. Their capacity to truly love & bond does not function well. They need lots of love, trust & counselling.

  So one day i decided to start meditating every day and i have been continuing since then. After 2 weeks of meditation i realized that i
  should stop masturbating and watching porn and i just stopped it then
  and there.

Please stop the porn. It is poison that goes deep inside the neurology of the body & mind. This is why so many people have serious problems with it. Please look upon pornography as though it is heroin or cocaine because it is that dangerous.

  But the following few weeks were very hard. My body was rebelling to watch porn or to at least to satisfy myself. But i fought and fought.
  There was a time where my body was literally shaking.

Your priority should be to avoid the pornography because the pornography is a very strong sense stimulus.

As for the masturbation, this is less serious. Just stop the porn. Put a internet blocker on your computer to stop the porn.

  And i continued that for six months. There were times where i saw some sexual dreams and i ejaculated. But i didn't do it
  intentionally.

There is nothing wrong with sexual dreams & nocturnal emission. Just stop the porn.

  I meditated different practices and I did a lot of Asuba bawana to control my sexual desire. And I was doing well.

Good.

  But since recently I have been getting flashbacks of my sexual
  activities with my sex.

No problem. This is normal.

  And i get these strong urges to masturbate and get it over with. I spoke this with my ex (Since we actually understand each other a lot)
  and she told me to just do it and accept it.

Masturbation is not a sin or grave danger in Buddhism because it is your own mind creating the sense stimuli.

But pornography is the explicit vision of other people engaging in sex and this is a very strong stimuli designed by experts to addict people. Just avoid the porn at all costs.

  I have no intention of being a monk at the moment or to live a celibacy life.

No problem.

  Whereas i have expectations to find a girlfriend and marry and move on.

No problem. But to be successfully married requires firm moral values and particularly clear insight into the advantages & necessity of sexual fidelity.

  So i won't be continuing the anti-masturbating till i find a
  girlfriend (Why i mentioned this cause by choosing a normal life you
  will be engaging in these sort pf sexual activities.)

No problem.

  I know for a fact that I will not be watching porn again.

Thank you. Please do not. Please have clear wisdom about this.

  Since Stopping it actually made my mind peaceful and to respect women more and to see the beauty in them than to see things perversely.

Most excellent. Beautifully spoken. Pornography misrepresents women. Natural women want to love & be loved and want fidelity (AN 6.52). Pornography is a lie & deception. It does not represent reality.

  My question is this Since I am doing Asuba Bawana if i get an urge to satisfy i would usually try to kill that thought. But there are
  times where it becomes a big problem in the mind and sometimes my head
  hurts trying to kill it. Literally. What should i do at such times? Should i just satisfy myself mindfully or just keep killing the thoughts?

'Mindfulness' means 'to remember' the Dhamma path (MN 117). It does not mean to 'observe'. Therefore, if the asuba path is your goal, it is not possible to masturbate mindfully.

If you are really dedicated to this asuba path, when the sexual urges arise & is difficult to control, possibly consider doing some exercise, such as jogging.

Otherwise, just scream out the urges into a pillow or, otherwise, let the thoughts run (but do not act upon them) until the thoughts lose their energy.

In summary, to have a successful relationship & marriage in Buddhism, what is required is a strong understanding of why sexual fidelity is important.

Generally, masturbation occurs with sexual fantasies. Try investigating & analysing those sexual fantasies, to discern how their content is not really moral (harmless) since such fantasies are based on self-indulgent erotic behaviour rather than long term commitment to a woman.

You already had a girlfriend with many problems. Try to discern with wisdom how sexual objectification of women results in women accumulating emotional problems. If you think more about what loving a woman truly means, your sexual energy may become more pure.

It sounds like you are doing very well, practising with courage & integrity. Best wishes. May you fulfil your aspirations for a truly happy, humane & purposeful life.


Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?

IN short, taking five aggregate as I,  me and myself is the clinging-aggregate.
As Arahant does not have self-identification they do not have a clinging-aggregate.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23424&start=15


Good honest question, love it. Let me give you an honest answer.

  If one is skeptical concerning Enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?

Enlightenment is attained by a lot more people than you realize. It's just not advertised for reasons of political correctness and compassion. It's like telling kids there is no Santa Claus - kinda pointless and only hurts the kids.

  The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

This is not how it works. You don't literally "escape impermanence", instead your perception of reality changes in such a way when impermanence no longer matters. Enlightenment is not becoming a Superman. It's more like getting able to see the true nature of "The Matrix". Again, this is not a literal change in how you see stuff, it is a fundamental change of one's mental framework and therefore of one's interpretation.

  2 I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we can't cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized Nirvana/Awakening and the chances are high that they won't. So why then believe in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of detachment/revulsion, promoted by Theravada and the lower yanas of Mahayana for the sake of motivating beginners. Accepting Impermanence is not all there is to [Mahayana] Buddhism, far from it. It's more about seeing how things truly work and learning to work with them.

  Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale meant to trick people who live poorly to keep quiet in the tough times through fear of getting bad karma otherwise?

There is an element of fairy tale in Buddhism, and there is a real element. And the real element is pretty damn real and mindblowing.

  If Enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightened.

It's much more than that, both in the sense of intellectual realization, and in terms of actual personal mastery in real life.

  Why does it take so long to become Enlightened if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It takes a long time because we have some deeply lying conceptual mistakes about reality, due to which we have accumulated much emotional baggage rooted in those conceptual mistakes, and on top of that we tend to actively fight it when anyone tries to show us our mistakes and delusions. We have all these explanations and rationalizations that we cling to, and they are connected with events in our personal lives, providing support and sustenance to delusion. It's like a tangle of hair made from wrong concepts, emotions, and karma - very difficult to untangle.

  What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for Enlightenment is then pointless.

Rebirth of individuals does not exist. There is rebirth of information. Because future lives are made from information left by the past lives, Enlightenment is not pointless.

  Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

That is true. Most people are unfortunately pretty closed-minded - not because of a fault of their own or inherent weakness, but (quite counter-intuitively!) out of their best intents. People try to make sense of it all using their logic and common sense, and filter out all nonsense. But because it is so tangled up, it is not always obvious what is nonsense and what is real. Deferring to authority is infinitely easier than trying to make sense of it all by oneself.

Unfortunately this entire Buddhism thing is a mess. It has this extraordinarily valid and useful stuff in its core, lots of confusion around that, and even more fairy tale stuff on the outside. I was very confused by it for decades and suffered a great deal. Now that I got it, the purpose of my life is to help people avoid wandering in the jungle as I did, and go straight to the well. Sometimes when doing this I wonder if by my efforts I only contribute to the jungle, as did my predecessors before me. But alas, I do what I can :))))

Let us know if we can help you here and please don't hesitate to start asking specific questions about Buddhist concepts and their application to real life.


Did Dignaga argue against real relations?

DharmaKirti and Dignaga are highly revered in Tibetan Buddhism and their work is used as foundational materials in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries to this day including the famous Sera Jey Monastery. However, they are also considered to have espoused or based their work on either the Yogachara tenet system, the Sautrantika tenet system or some combination thereof.

In brief, Yogachara/Chittamatra is a tenet system of the Madhyamaka and the Mahayana which believes in the selflessness of persons and selflessness of phenomena, but also believes in true existence which is refuted by the Prasangika-Madhyamaka. The Sautrantikas in general did not posit the selflessness of phenomena and are a tenet system strictly associated with the Fundamental Vehicle (like modern Theravada) as opposed to the Mahayana.

So if by "real relations" you mean "true existence", then I think both Dignaga and Dharmakirti posited real relations. If by "real relations" you mean "inherent existence", then I think both refuted real relations.

However, perhaps it is best if you elucidate what you mean by real relations and/or universals otherwise it is very easy in my experience to misunderstand one another. In my experience, when discussing tenet systems precision of language is key and knowing the jargon is very important even if difficult. I'm still struggling with it :)


Meditation or practicing technique has benefits of prenatal elaboration?

When one make positive vibration (Kamma) this effect people around you. This is like the hanky effect. Say you wrap a perfumed flower (good person) then the hanky (another person) then the hanky will also smell good. If you warp dried fish (bad person) then the hanky will smell bad. Likewise if the mother is creating good vibrations then the child maybe influenced.

Also if the mother has been good even before conception then this would attract a good child with also more merit.


Is the sound an object or an experience?

According to MN 18:

  Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises.

Definitions

Ear = the sensitive part of the ear that is able to detect sound
Sound = vibration
Ear-consciousness = the Thought Moment that is aware of sound

This is the sensing process by which a vibration is registered by the mind. Later thinking processes may combine multiple vibrations into a syllable and multiple syllables into a word. Later thinking processes may recognize the word and start associating a meaning with the word.

So when you "hear a person speaking", it is actually a large number of sensing processes followed by a much larger number of thinking processes.

The sensing process is "impersonal"; a mechanical process that would be the same for you and for me. The thinking process is "personal"; your thinking sequence and my thinking sequence will be different based on our individual past experiences (for example, if the word is in a language that you know but I do not know, then obviously your associations will be very different from my associations).


What kind of mistakes can a new meditator in his/her early 20's avoid?

Choose the middle between all extreme contrasts.

If you are going too fast, go slower.

In your meditation you might choose a kind of meditation.
Then you would try to keep yourself on doing only that one thing you have choosen.
You would be disturbed by thoughts or feelings and might not keep yourself on one point.
This is OK. This is meditation: if you come back from things which disturb you, back to point you have choosen. - Many people might think they do not meditate if they can not keep themself on one point - that is wrong.

I think you allready know you need patience, but also there might be a time where a change can help.


Not-Buddhism is the highest level of Buddhism?

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta shows how the Buddha treats views about the cosmos being eternal and views about the fate of the Buddha after death.

    "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.

And another quote,

    "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Having a position about what is Buddhism has similar drawbacks to having a view about the eternal-ness of the cosmos. Tozan is discouraging views like "This practice Buddhist" or "That idea is part of Buddhism".


Tolerance – Buddhist in Countries with a Non-Buddhist Majority

As in Yeshe Tenley's answer, the first thing that comes to mind for lay Buddhist are the 5 precepts. Perhaps no country would have a problem allowing this. Except that the first precept may conflict with military conscription (and historically some countries or rulers had a problem with that), so some Buddhist might want to be exempt from military conscription. Many countries don't have military conscription any more, and of those which do or did, some countries allow that exemption, not for Buddhists in particular but for "conscientious objectors" and "pacifists" in general.
Buddhist monastics usually need to be supported by lay society, for example via alms rounds. Again a country sometimes has a problem with that -- disapprove of people begging and being untaxable. And again it's tolerated by liberal western democracies, not only for Buddhists but for other religions too -- for example there's provision in the tax laws for people who have made "a vow of perpetual poverty".
There might be problems if a country has blasphemy laws. Buddhist doctrine might not be considered orthodox according to Islam, and vice versa. So far as I know, Islamic "blasphemy" laws (where these exist), apply more strictly to Muslims than to non-Muslims (e.g. the Dhimmi) -- similarly "apostacy". As well as blasphemy, fundamentalists may also take exception to the iconography of other religions (leading to the destruction of the Bamiyan statues, for example). Alternatively many countries guarantee "freedom of religion" as a right, allowing people to choose any religion or none.
Some totalitarian governments have a problem with alternative social or political structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I read for example that Christianity is allowed in China, but only of a form that's permitted by the government or Communist Party -- and not for example Roman Catholicism, to avoid a church that's headed by the Pope in Rome (and may be opposed to local authorities) -- perhaps you see that also, in their treatment of Buddhists and Muslims.
Civil wars and so on also happen because it isn't only religion but ethnicity and so on -- and nationalism. Sometimes it's what I think of as an over-reaction or a wrong reaction, for example:

A (social, religious, ethnic) minority is persecuted or just disadvantaged
There's some incidents of violence (motivated by poverty, revenge, terrorism), by some members of the minority
The reaction is, "[all] the members of minority is violent, therefore we must remove them from the country"

The members of the majority religion might find articles of doctrine which justify that "defence of the faith". It seems to me that's a bit extremist though, and that different religions co-exist peacefully in secular democracies.


Is "doing according to one's best understanding" a protection from wrong-doing?

Doing the best that you can, is not a protection against wrong-doing.

Why? Ignorance, or the lack of Right View and wisdom, may cause you to commit wrong-doing, despite doing "the best that you can".

Hence, gaining Right View, and gradually improving Right View and wisdom over time, through insight, will push the boundaries of your "best effort".

In the Salt Crystal Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), the Buddha taught:

  'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And there you have it. For protection from wrong-doing, one should be developed in body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment and dwelling in the immeasurable.

The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here:

  What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it
  in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a
  lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted,
  living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.


Is this picture of a statue of the Shakyamuni Buddha?

Yep.  Probably Thai judging by the pointed top knot.


According to the suttas, samsara has no beginning. There are many references to this.


In my experience, it's a kind of phase. First, you don't really strive, but you're intrigued by Dharma enough to keep learning hodgepodge and practicing once in a while.
Then your perception of samsara becomes negative enough that finding the way out becomes an urgent matter. This is the phase when you strive. Some people are more extreme than others and so get pretty unhinged while others are lukewarm, and everything in between.
Then you break through enough barriers or otherwise get enough insight into what's possible and what's fiction that your attitude to striving transforms. You realize that what you thought was striving was actually a neurosis fueled by samsaric confusion and what you thought was non-striving is actually the right striving. You begin to get the true meaning of the word "cessation" and in general the first three Noble Truths become your everyday reality rather than something abstract.
And then slowly but steadily you get more honest with yourself, until you get so honest that you can admit that you are not perfect. Far from it, you admit that occasionally you still get carried away by emotions and make mistakes. And if you think about it very carefully, you realize that being perfect is kind of impossible exactly because of anatta. And so, since you are not and can never be perfect, some amount of striving - not necessarily striving for something extraordinary but simply striving to not be a jerk - will stay relevant for as long as you live and probably even longer.


Does anyone know what Bhodisattva this figurine represents?

This is a statue of Vajradhara, the primordial Buddha sitting in Virasana with his hands in a Vajrahumkara mudra.


For Buddhism, If you define God as someone who created the world, God does not exist.

But if you define the God as someone who is superior to other beings, then god exist.

However, such a god exists only for a period of time, then one day the god will go down to another level (I mean rebirth) as an angel or human.

The Lord Buddha is not a God.

In Tripitaka, there is a lesson about how the world is created and how god came to exists.


Four noble truths, any single being of mankind can invent, find the new truth other than that?

If you will study in-depth, the Four Truths are a complete system in themselves.

Asking if there is a 5th truth to be invented is like saying if there is an additional step to the scientific method... i.e. such a person does not understand the scientific method in the first place.


How can people meet again after rebirth?

If you both have:

(1) compatible faith (sama,saddhā),
(2) compatible virtue (sama,silā),
(3) compatible charity (sama,cāgā),
(4) compatible wisdom (sama,pannā).

Sama,jivi Sutta 1
With the balance of probability, you will be born in the same plane, which increases the chance of meeting again. There is no guarantee through. This will make your current life together effective.
What is desirable is not achieved through wishing or praying, but through action resulting is conducive karma, i.e, convergent, action-based karma from both parties should spontaneously effect reunion:

they are not to be obtained through prayer (ayacana,hetu) or through wishing (patthana,hetu)

Pañcaka Iṭṭha Sutta

all of them are rooted in diligence, converge on diligence,

(Hatthi) Pada Sutta


Buddhist ethics is the basis to develop wisdom and mastery over the mind. If there are no unwholesome Karmic results you cannot collect your mind to develop concentration as wholesome results give present experiences than unpleasant which is more distracting in meditation.

In the above case through you can argue that you remote form of indirectly kill in buying meat you do not create the type unwholesome roots associated with killing in the mind which results in unpleasant experiences later. Making others kills which has Karmic repercussion would be instead of you killing you order someone else to kill or bring hims to such a state that he will kill intending that he would kill.

Leaving aside killing, if you take ethics too far then you cannot live. E.g. your food and drinks do have microbes. Antibiotics kill microbes. I have heard once a monk with supernormal powers, after filtering water, saw that there were beings too small to be seen by the naked eye still in the water hence if you are strictly not to harm the you cannot ever eat or drink. The advice received was do not use your Jhanic powers to see if there are microbes in the water.

If you are vegetarian well and good, but if you are not, this is not a hindrance to develop mastery over the mind or wisdom and such action does not have karmic repercussions.


It seems that one can enter the Bodhisattva way more easily than trying to attain the bhumis. Too much can be made of attaining, while not enough of serving others. I find the Dalai Lama's Book THE OPEN HEART to be a wonderful introduction to the Bodhisattva way. It is a book not only of words but pointing to action to free all sentient beings.

If you want more info on bhumis you will find it in this article that even describes the bhumis as "hyperbolic". Perhaps that is a hint that we should stick more to basics and keep things simple. The Buddha gave us an example of a simple life. Some of those that followed tried to make it more complicated than it was. Remember the Flower Sermon. The Buddha holds up a flower and smiles. That is the whole sermon.

https://plus.google.com/+DenisWallez/posts/e4ungo3s4Fj

  The bodhisattva  path (with its descriptions of bhumis  so hyperbolic
  that they always amount to "there's work to do" no matter your
  attainments, even if you're an arhat! gplus.wallez.name/2Q5j3jM1oGC)
  is bringing back ethics into a practical approach:  you're not
  perfect, there's work to do, what matters is how hard you try and
  cultivate qualities…

  Life is dukkha  (1st noble truth), this is true even for ethical
  people (monastic or lay): failures will arise. What matters is to
  continue cultivating! The Mahayana approach sets extremely ambitious
  goals (when described with the bhumis)  and doesn't consider small
  failures as easily acceptable (a small moral failure might cancel eons
  of merit!), but it doesn't forget that even if the human birth is the
  most promising for Awakening, we cannot reasonably expect humans not
  to make mistakes! This is not about 'forgiving' lightly; instead, this
  is about accepting that amends (i.e. continued cultivation) are more
  important than snap judgements. If you did wrong, don't ignore it,
  what do you  plan to do to fix the situation, how do you take
  responsibility for it? This is, of course, perfectly aligned with the
  focus on emptiness, and on compassion as the root-quality giving rise
  to bodhicitta.


What is Karuṇā? Is 'compassion' really a good translation?

Literally, karuna means "to mourn", "to pity", "to lament" - but the Buddhist meaning is quite different.

In Pali Canon karuna is one of the four brahmaviharas, practiced as an antidote against aversion towards people and society due to their shortcomings. Somewhere in the Canon I've read Buddha saying karuna is like what a good king should feel for his people. The king does not complain that his country is imperfect nor does he resent his people! Instead, he appreciates their condition and tries to help them out as much as he can. (This doesn't mean he lets them sleep in his bedroom - he can't solve their problems for them, but he can "give them the fish pole and teach them how to fish".) There is a reason they are called "brahma-vihara"-s, the dwellings of Brahma - the nondualistic all-inclusive God-Absolute. It is like the practitioner takes on the Brahma's perspective.

In Mahayana compassion goes hand in hand with wisdom and skillful means, exemplified by Lotus Sutra's parable of the burning house. It is like compassion of parents towards their children. They know there is sex, but they don't want their children to be harmed by what those are not ready for, yet. They know Santa Claus is an illusion, but because they love their children so much they put the gifts under the Christmas tree.

As you see, in both cases it is a top-down compassion, compassion of superior taking care of the junior, weak, sick, or confused - using whatever tools you have at your disposal, from logic, to useful fiction, to wrath and "tough love". Instead of resenting the way the world is or the people are (=the victim stance), we take the master's stance.

At the same time, part of the practice of deconstructing the ego is to cultivate clear understanding that in principle, there is nothing substantial that makes Bodhisattva "better" than others, beside the luck of having encountered, and benefited from, the genuine teaching. Bodhisattva can relate to everybody's dukkha - because they see that deep inside people are not that different. Everyone is subject to the three marks of existence. Every one is subject to emptiness. Even though Bodhisattva has realized Emptiness, s\he sees how hard it is to not assume things to be real. Bodhisattva can see how people organize their lives around illusions - and how it inevitably leads to suffering. This is why it is said, in one who sees things as they are, compassion arises spontaneously.

So [in my understanding] Buddhist compassion is not as much just feeling other people's pain -- as it is an attitude, a modus operandi permeated with the sense of ownership of and responsibility for the good of all beings - based on being able to relate, to put oneself in their shoes.

P.S.

Several quotes to support my understanding.

Thich Nhat Hanh:

  [Karuna is] the intention and capacity to relieve and transform suffering and lighten sorrows. Karuna is usually translated as 'compassion', but that is not exactly correct.

Buddhagosha:

  1) When there is suffering in others it makes (karoti) good people’s hearts tremble (kampana), thus it is compassion (karuna).
  2) It combats (kinati) others’ suffering, attacks and demolishes it, thus it is karuna.
  3) or it is dispersed (kiriyati) over the suffering, is spread out through pervasion, thus it is karuna.

The-Teaching-of-Aksayamati-bodhisattva Sutra:

  As for this great compassion (maha-karuna), reverend Saradvatiputra, it means "work" or "action" (kar-)
  ...
  [Even if is for the sake of others] it is one's own work - thus it is called "great compassion".


What are the Pali or Sanskrit words for these things?

There are many synonyms to the words given in the table. Only mentioning some of the popular words.


The Dharma is the higher power, not the Buddha Shakyamuni, who is a Nirmanakaya.

Out of the three treasures, Dharma is primary, because it remains operative regardless of appearance or not appearance of Buddha and Sangha.


Why is focusing on the breath more difficult than focusing on Mantras, and how important is it before vipassana?

When reciting a mantra you have vitakka and vicāra which helps you get close to the 1st Jhana. But this is also accumulation of Fabrications (more particularly Verbal Fabrications) which should be avoided.

Vitakka and vicāra without the constant awareness of arising and passing inhibits the ability to see impermanence. That is why when you are doing Vipassana you become aware of vibration but not when doing mantra meditation.

To aid you breath meditation you can use vitakka and vicāra to your advantage. Be aware that your are aware of breathing then periodically assess whether you are actually with the breath, but at the reducing frequency. Start with even in breath and out breath and when you notice you can stay a while then do it after each breath and then after few breaths and you your mind just sticks to the task then drop it altogether.

Vitakka and vicara in initial application and sustained application. 1st your bring your mind to the breath then this is the initial application followed by trying to keep the breath in mind.


Is lying at a job interview breaking a precept?

Causes of False Speech

The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain
material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.
Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss
and bring harm and suffering to others.
Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain
nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of
enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to
spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

Lying to get a job falls under the 1st category. So yes, it  does break the fourth precept.


"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces"

In the Karma Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism we interpret this saying in a different way.

We interpret the iron birds as the airplanes and the horses running on wheels as the trains or automobiles.

The prophecy was fulfilled when the XVI Karmapa visited the Sioux Indians in the seventies.


What was before the Buddha? The Vedas and the earliest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya) came before the Buddha.
A few other Upanishads (Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki) and the Nyaya school of logic may have developed around the same time as the Buddha.
If you look at the scholarly dates given in Wikipedia, all Vedanta schools, Samkhya, Yogasutras of Patanjali, Purva Mimamsa school, the rest of the Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita all came after the Buddha's time.
If you read the Vedanta page on Wikipedia, you will find this info:

Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is one of the six (āstika) schools of Hindu
philosophy.
Some of the better known sub-traditions of Vedanta include:

Advaita Darshan - established by Adi Shankara (788–820 CE)
Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017–1137 CE)
Dvaita Darshan - established by Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE)
Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya (c. 7th century CE)
Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE)
Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534 CE)

On the other hand, if you read the Wikipedia page on the Buddha:

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians
in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE.
More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while
at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those
who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side
of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies,
however, have not been accepted by all historians.

So, Vedanta (as a school) came after the Buddha. So you will not find references to Vedanta in the Pali Canon. The only reference is to the three Vedas in the Canki Sutta (MN 95) and Tevijja Sutta (DN 13). The composers of the Vedas are also mentioned in these suttas by name.
I imagined that Advaita Vedanta influenced Indian Mahayana schools, but it turns out that it may be the other way round. Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school, lived around 150 - 250 CE. Asanga and Vasubandhu, the founders of the Yogacara school, lived around 3rd to 4th century CE. This predates all schools of Vedanta.
The best correlation between Buddhism and Vedanta that I can find is from  "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" (1995) by Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp:

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
(true substance)," or similarly.

And another one from "Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm Shift)" (1994-95) by Acarya Dharmavajra:

To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an
ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as
something which exists (skt. satta). However, the Buddhist ultimate
truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing
or ultimate reality.


Does anyone have a source reference for Advayavajra in tantric buddhism?

If by Advayavajra they mean Maitripa then it must come from Maitripa's Amanasikara.

Specifically, in Mahasukhaprakasa, text #16 in above translation, so pages 181-187.

In addition, for an English translation of a small but relevant part of Sadhanamala see "Two Tantric Meditations: Visualizing the Deity" by Luis O. Gómez. in Buddhism in Practice pages 236-245.


Does Buddhism apply to this formula for Christianity?

For me, the Buddha’s great insight about suffering had a very practical goal in this life—not some future one. I see this goal being confused with the accomplishment of the enlightenment and total realization of the Buddha. That takes much time and patient dedication which I won’t speak about.
I feel that it is important to point out a couple of obvious differences between Christianity and Islam, and what came to be called Buddhism: the Buddha was not God and is not the creator, and the point of Buddhism is not to worship Buddha, but to emulate him throughout your life, while practicing what he taught about ending suffering. The desire to end suffering does not bring about ‘happiness’. That is the well-crafted carrot on a stick that consumptive corporatists dangle in front of us to keep us wanting more and more in a hopeless chase to find something which ultimately can’t be found outside ourselves.
The Buddha’s path doesn’t make you happy, although you might experience being happy while on that path; instead, the Buddha taught how to end suffering, which leads to the satisfaction called comfort. All too often today, that message is corrupted, by those that should know better, into a ‘buddhist’ search for ‘happiness.’

The goal to be sought is not momentary elation, but an enduring, universal omnipresent enjoyment: “… Unshakable freedom of mind, this is the goal…” [1] when achieved, then “to whatever place you go, you shall go in comfort; wherever you stand, you shall stand in comfort; wherever you sit, you shall sit in comfort; and wherever you make your bed, you shall lie down in comfort.” [2]

If you think about it, all sentient beings seek comfort, not happiness. It is only in modern times that ‘happiness’ has become our stated goal, but it is only an abstraction, not something that is attainable, and marketeers know this. That is why they are always trying to convince us that we need to buy their products to be more comfortable in some way. They know that this is our actual motivation, but they also know that desiring or craving things will not bring us happiness, nor comfort, so we will never be satisfied.

Any community that lives on staples has relatively few wants. The community that can be trained to desire new things, even before the old have been entirely… consumed, yields a market to be measured more by desires than needs. And man’s desires can be developed so that they will greatly overshadow his needs.[3]

This is the exact opposite of Buddha’s great insight about how not to suffer.
I’ll leave it at that, so you can answer your brother without getting into the complexities of how one goes about implementing what Buddha taught.
[1] “The Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya),” Volume I, tr. I.B. Horner, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1954, pg 253
[2] “The Book of the Gradual Sayings,” Volume IV, tr. E.M. Hare, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1935, 1955, pg 200
[3] American Prosperity - Its Causes And Consequences, Paul M. Mazur (Lehman Brothers) 1928, pgs. 24-25


Which canon and traditions does the Flower Sermon text belong to?

Here is some information about it:

  The origin of the Zen school is traditionally traced to Mahakassapa,
  who was said to have received a direct transmission outside the
  scriptures. This transmission is illustrated with the evocative story
  of the Buddha holding a flower silently before the assembled Sangha:
  only Mahakassapa understood, and smiled. The story is gains special
  resonance since Mahakassapa is renowned as a curmudgeonly old monk –
  although his authentic verses in the Theragatha do indeed show a
  delightful love of nature.

  Despite the fame and importance of the story, it is not attested in
  any Indic scripture, and is a Chinese Chan invention. It’s first
  appearance is apparently in the compilation of koans, the 無門關
  (Wúménguān, often rendered in English as The Gateless Gate), compiled
  by the Chinese Zen master Wumen Hui-k’ai (無門慧開) and first published in
  1228. The development of the notion of lineages is discussed by Dumoulin.
  -The Date of the Flower Sermon, Sujato Bhikkhu

The text is found, as mentioned above, in "The Gateless Gate" under the heading "Buddha Twirls a Flower".


If a monk sees a pin in his path, will he step on it and accept pain?

I have not read in original Buddhism we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything (apart from possibly one popular yet questionable teaching, at this link).
Buddhism teaches, about all things experienced by the senses, their origination, passing away, attraction, danger & escape from their danger should be comprehended (at this link).

...discern, as they actually are present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawback and the escape from the six
spheres of contact.
Punna Sutta


Is Vessantara Jātaka in conflict with morality?

At that time of the society husband is the sole owner of wife and children and he can give them away to anyone at will. To become a Buddha one needs to cultivate Dana Parami to the highest level. That includes the ability to give away anything you own. King Vessantara did not give away the children to be tortured. It was Jūjaka who decided to hit the children. So the Karmic consequences fall on Jūjaka. Not king Vessantara .

It was extremely tormenting for king Vessantara as you can see in the following passage:

  What follow are the verses of the Great Being's lamentation.

  "O when at morning or at eve for food my children cry, Opprest by
  hunger or by thirst, who will their want supply? [552] How will their
  little trembling feet along the roadway go, Unshod? who'll take them
  by the hand and lead them gently so?

  How could the brahmin feel no shame, while I was standing by, To
  strike my harmless innocents? a shameless man say I!

  No man with any sense of shame would treat another so, Were it a
  servant of my slave, and I brought very low.

  I cannot see him, but he scolds and beats my children dear, While like
  a fish caught in a trap I'm standing helpless here."

  These thoughts came into the Great Being's mind, through his affection
  for the children; he could not away with the pain to think how the
  brahmin cruelly beat his children, and he resolved to go in chase of
  the man, and kill him, and to bring the children back. But no, he
  thought: that was a mistake; to give a gift, then to repent because
  the children's trouble would be very great, that was not the way of
  the righteous. And the two following stanzas contain the reflexions
  which throw light on that matter.

  "He bound his sword upon his left, he armed him with his bow; I'll
  bring my children back again; to lose them is great woe. But even if
  my children die ’tis wicked to feel pain 1: Who knows the customs of
  the good, yet asks a gift again?........"

Also read the passage where the son defends his father's actions

  But the boy hearing this, could not stomach his father's blame; but as
  though raising with his arm Mount Sineru smitten by the windblast 1,
  he recited this stanza:

  "How, grandsire, can he give, when none in his possession are, Slaves
  male or female, elephants, a horse, a mule, a car?" The king said:

  [576] "Children, I praise your father's gift: no word of blame I say.
  But then how was it with his heart when he gave you away?" The lad
  replied:

  "All full of trouble was his heart, and it burned hot as well, His
  eyes were red like Rohinī, and down the teardrops fell."

So you can see that he gave them away not because he didn't care, but it was a bond that he had to overcome. What's ironic is that they say that the Mara could trouble the Buddha so much under the Bodhi tree because king Vessanatara lamented a lot for this great gift he gave. In comparison, when Maithree Bodhisatta becomes the Buddha, Mara can only watch from afar. He cannot come close enough to trouble the Buddha.


Where is the mind referred to as being luminous?

The earliest reference is from the Pali Tipitaka, AN 5.49-50:

49. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhan”ti.
50. “pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi vippamuttan”ti.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed by those invading defilements it is defiled.
Luminous, o Bhikkhus, is this mind. And indeed from those invading defilements it is released.


Is there a proper name for my recent experience?

Common signs of depression:

---> Decreased Interest or Pleasure

The second core symptom of major depressive disorder is a decreased interest or pleasure in things that were once enjoyed. A person exhibiting this symptom will show markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, daily activities.

---> Disengaged

A developed practice of being distant or disengaged, uninvolved with things that usually matter, negligent towards loved ones.

Depression can be dangerous, do not take it lightly and seek proper medical support is also a preferred way.


i can say that Buddha was mindful of every word he said making sure they are beneficial to all beings.  However, there might be some thing that seems to be harmful in short term but actually good in long run.  For example, during Buddha's time, 500 monks committed suicide after contemplating unpleasantness of body and 5 skandha.  (Buddha often talked about the drawbacks of all things that create sensual pleasures).  Those monks took it over the top and felt disgusted by their conditions so they took the wrong way out.  Later, someone asked Buddha if he didn't see that coming, Buddha said those monks would have taken their lives anyway from past karma.  at least they got some true knowledge in dhamma while they were still here which would benefit them in the future.
So in short,  practicing Buddhism according to Buddha (8 folds path) is not harmful.


Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?

Of course not. There's a whole chapter in the Dhammapada where it shows what qualifies one as a brahman. None of them use high birth or high caste as the criteria:

  Whoever does no wrong
      in body,
      speech,
      heart,
  is restrained in these three ways:
      he's what I call
      a brahman. ~~ Dhp 391 ~~

About the Buddha being born in the high caste, we shouldn't blame Him for that. If any, the blame should be on the way folks treated one another in ancient India. It's simply a skillful mean to be born in whatever condition that is most conducive and effective in propagating the Dhamma. The Buddha was a Kshatriya and He already got all kinds of attacks from all kinds of religious sects. Now imagine being born an Untouchable in ancient India and trying to propagate a whole brand new religion, well, good luck with that!


Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life

Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly.

If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana.

  Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg


The second of the Five Precepts (pañca-sila) is  “Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami”… meaning…. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given. Overall, the precepts offer a clear moral foundation which has benefits for how we interact with others and our own spiritual progress. When one develops a strong conviction that the sacrifices one might have to make in observing the precepts that are really worth making, that there are some things of greater value to be gained by letting go of those unskillful activities, such thought / doubts come up at times. But here in this instance I do not see anything wrong in what you did.

The question is how can I explain this to you, to one who have decided that you’re not going to kill under any circumstances, that you’re not going to steal under any circumstances from anyone at all, no illicit sex, no lying, no intoxicants ever at all. When you give such limitless protection to all beings in following the precepts to the letter, then you gain a share in that limitless protection as well.  Taking what is not given [stealing] is breaking a precept. A disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. But when it comes to the True Teachings of the Buddha there is no such thing as stealing.  Also there is no such thing as plagiarism, or plagiarizing when it comes to dhamma. No one can take ownership of the teachings of the Buddha.

But there is a serious problem, and a grave danger to those who speak of and write about Dhamma. It is of the distortion of the Suddamma. Today many a writers make gross distortions and incorrect adaptation of the Teaching of the Buddha to 'explain' the Dhamma. Thus it is very difficult for you and I to learn the true Dhamma without any adulterations or distortions that are widespread in most of today’s preaching and in the written material found in book stores and libraries. So in going forward in this dhamma path you and I have to be a bit cautious.


I don't think there is any single word that's cleanly equivalent to qualia, but there are some that approach the idea from different angles.

  sabhāva-dhamma: Condition of nature; any phenomenon, event, property, or quality as experienced in and of itself.

sabhāva by itself means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It describes the intrinsic nature or essence of living beings.

  dhamma: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself.

dhamma by itself can describe a kind of mental quality or quality of thought.

  mūla: Literally, "root." The fundamental conditions in the mind that determine the moral quality — skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) — of one's intentional actions (see kamma). The three unskillful roots are lobha (greed), dosa (aversion), and moha (delusion); the skillful roots are their opposites. See kilesa (defilements).

mūla describes the root of our actions; the quality of our intention behind them.

sabhāva-dhamma and dhamma probably come closest, while mūla carries the same concept but applies it very specifically to the mental root of action.


What is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?

Reincarnation implies a soul that takes a body; rebirth does not, so it is preferred.

Note that neither term has a widely used cognate in the Pali texts, perhaps because the concept of "re-" anything implies the continuation of an entity. Buddhism tends to talk about birth and death in a more linear fashion; rather than being reborn, it's "being born again" (e.g. dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ).

Further, the focus in Buddhism is on individual mind states and ultimate reality rather than the conceptual reality of birth and death, so it's not really a core teaching. Death is a concept; at the moment of a being's death, one body/mind experience ceases and the next one arises, just as it did through the entire life.


OP: How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?

Once ignorance and the rest of the ten fetters have been uprooted, the enlightened are free from mental defilements, causing them to not have any thoughts based on greed/ lust, anger/ aversion or delusion.
Please read the Buddhism part of this answer for more details.

OP: How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?

Objective morality in Buddhism is based on compassion and the notion that you will feel remorse hurting others, because you know how it would feel if others hurt you.
Removal of remorse is needed to brighten the mind, which is needed for the rest of the path to enlightenment.
Please read this answer for details.

OP: How can there have been past Buddhas if civilization/homo sapiens evolved recently (archeologically speaking)?

It's not clearly answerable.
Some texts imply the Big Bounce model of the universe where the universe expands, then contracts and becomes destroyed, then expands again. So, past Buddhas may even have existed in past universes. Please see this answer for details. But this is only a conjecture.
Some people see this only as an exaggeration added to the texts.
Either way, this does not make any difference to the Buddha's message and teachings. It is not important compared to the path to the end of suffering.

OP: How do the planes of existence and rebirth make sense amid the heavily (as far as I understand) supported theory of evolution?

Please read this answer and this answer to understand what rebirth is in Buddhism. It's the rebirth of individuality and not really the rebirth of the individual, since there is no soul or permanent consciousness in Buddhism.


What is the difference between mindfulness and concentration?

Concentration is part of every mind state: the normal, regular, every-day-of-life mind states; the unwholesome ones; the wholesome ones.
It is absolutely not limited to jhana states!

One-pointed means basically that it focusses the entire mind on to an object. In vipassana we speak of momentary one-pointedness where the mind in this moment focusses entirely on this object and the next moment on the next object.


This is a very well know paradox, perhaps the main paradox of Buddhism. On one hand, there is no Enlightenment -- on the other hand, Enlightenment truly occurs! Most of Zen lore revolves around this very pivot point.

You are right in your intuition that thinking and talking of Enlightenment is counterproductive. At the same time, to simply go on with life is not Enlightenment either.

Enlightenment requires getting to the very bottom of things. Once you get to the bottom of things, you're no longer fooled with words such as "Enlightenment" -- instead, you directly see what is being referred to. And then in the practical sense, Enlightenment means mastery of skillful action rooted in the right understanding.

When such a master acts, the skill is quite obvious to everyone. Because the master is in harmony with all things, her action is very efficient. Needless to say, the master knows how to act as to avoid hurting herself or others.


Is it conventional to use third-person speech when conversing with a monk?

What does good householders, considering his own good prepared samples, think: Which way requires the most sacrifices, mindfulness, patient, skill in many regards and earn the highest merits of them? This will then easy answer good householders question fast and doing well and is only convention for insider, a matter of Sila, and for outsiders place for merits in the sphere of Dana.
And in regard of meritorious deeds it's actually, different when after trade, not importand of what another might prefer.
Of course, a wise monk would fast think "a learned with pleasing behaviour" if good householder speaks in best manners, but whether on likes to use possibilities for merits or for gains, that wouldn't touch a wise monk much aside of possible not seeing ways given to teach.
As for usual monks good householder usually would/could meet, they are not used to representing a field of merits, are merely ashamed and might be high confused if speaking in skilled and venerating manner, as most are actually former followers of marxism, where such seech is regarded as unproductive and time and effort feeding, strong objected toward gains in the world.
"'Please', may my person ask good householder, whether good householder would be able to consider further and deeper on this matter of topic by him, if my person would give further into it in possible more supportive enviroment for such?"

Abhivadanasilissa
niccam vuddhapacayino
cattaro dhamma vaddhanti
ayu vanno sukham balam.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever else world-binding trade but for escape from this wheel]


When were the earliest Buddhist writings created

There is no external evidence for the Buddhist texts before Asoka. The evidence for Asoka's time is extremely limited - a few texts mentioned by name with no content. All dates in early Indian history are highly conjectural. There is for example no other evidence than Buddhist texts for if or when the Buddha lived, and that evidence has produced a number of different dates. A symposium on the dates of the Buddha in 1991 concluded that he lived ca 480-400 BCE. In 1992 Richard Gombrich independently reasoned from the texts a very similar date - see Dating the Buddha A Red Herring Revealed. These are the currently accepted dates amongst most scholars. It looks like Wikipedia is drawing on the traditional Theravādin date, which is only accepted within the Theravāda sect and no longer accepted by non-sectarian scholars.

The dates of Asoka are reasonably certain, since four Bactrian kings are mentioned in the edicts and these can be aligned with physical evidence of these kings (such as coins) in Bactria. So we know that Asoka flourished in the mid-3rd century BCE (ca. 250 BCE). On Asoka and his dates, see Charles Allen's excellent book Asoka. Similarly, in the texts the Magadhan Empire has yet to expand beyond Magadha, and it's future capital at Patna (Trad. Pataliputta) is still a small frontier town of little significance. Suggesting a time before the Moryan Dynasty founded by Asoka's grandfather Candragupta - so probably at least a century before Asoka.

Less precise, but of considerable importance is the beginning of the second urbanisation in the Ganges Valley ca. 7th century BCE. Evidence for this is extensive, for example, in the form of the ruins of walled cities at Rajgir and Shravasti (See Romila Thapar's Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations).

In the texts the Magadhan Empire is not yet an empire and Pataliputta is unimportant. Early Buddhist texts do not mention Asoka, so we assume that they predate him, at least by a century, ca 350 BCE. The texts do mention well established walled cities so we assume that the antedate them. If these assumptions are valid (and not every scholar agrees that they are) this gives us a range of ca. 600-350 for the composition of the Buddhist texts. This is at least not inconsistent with most of the dates derived from the texts, which place the Buddha somewhere in the middle of this range.

The texts show considerable evidence of having composed orally and existing as a widely dispersed oral literature for a considerable time before being collected and written down. See for example Anālayo's article Oral Dimensions of Pāli Discourses: Pericopes, other Mnemonic Techniques and the Oral Performance Context. This is consistent with the Sri Lankan chronicle Mahāvaṃsa which asserts that the texts were not written down in Sri Lanka until about the first century BCE during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmini. Writing texts down in India is less certain, but probably began around the same time.

The earliest physical evidence of early Buddhist texts are birch bark manuscripts from what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan (ancient Gandhāra). One or two texts are carbon14 dated to the 1st century BCE, and a few more to the first two centuries CE. The oldest Pali text is a small manuscript written on gold from the 5th or 5th century CE.


Is fantasizing a form of craving and thus worse than sexual activity
  without it? What are the mental processes involved?

Fantasising creates further sexual energy that adds to the momentum of the whole process. Mental visualisations and thus sensory pleasure being the 'wanting' component.

  How much does a single orgasm, for example, affect the spiritual path?
  Basically what is the magnitude of the effect?

An orgasm doesn't effect the path in the slightest. How you have come to achieve the orgasm does. This can be a bit of a grey area for some. Sexual encounters are still possible for a practicing Buddhist but sometimes it's helpful to refrain from sex for a time in order to learn about how your physiology is guided towards the wanting of sex.

  Is it possible that some individuals cannot eradicate lust and should
  merely diminish it?

If you practice ardently, diminishment will be the first occurrence. It's not helpful to want to eradicate a natural biological process. It will create frustration (dukkha) but it may be a great learning curve if you're well versed in the arisings of your own suffering. Essentially, just work towards learning how it shows itself in your body and actions.


The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself. Oysters are extremely primitive life forms. While they breathe oxygen, they are very close to plants. Oysters have a nervous system but not a brain. We practise non-killing as Buddhists so we cultivate a respect for life and cease to be violent people. If killing oysters (that don't suffer or don't have relatives or loved one's who suffer about them) is against your moral principles then find a new job. However, if you think deeply about what or who you have harmed, I don't think much will be found. Don't worry about it. Let it go. An oyster does not have a  brother, sister, mother or father somewhere in the universe grieving about their lost relative oyster. The Buddha appeared to infer in SN 12.63 that lifeforms consuming other lifeforms is part of the cycle of life. As a "vegan", I imagine your views about food are more extreme than the average Buddhist. For example, the Buddha did not preach vegetarianism. The above said, personally, I would not like to kill oysters for a living.


In which tradition Om Ma Ni Pad Me Hum mantra is used Mahayana or Thervada?

The back cover of the book "The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra" by Alexander Studholme states:

  Om Manipadme Hum, perhaps the most well-known and most widely used of
  all Buddhist mantras, lies at the heart of the Tibetan system and is
  cherished by both laymen and lama alike. This book presents a new
  interpretation of the meaning of Om Manipadme Hum, and includes a
  detailed, annotated precis of Karandavyuha Sutra, opening up this
  important work to a wider audience.

  The earliest textual source is the
  Karandavyuha Sutra, which describes both the compassion of
  Avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva whole power the mantra invokes, and
  the mythical tale of the search and discovery of the mantra. Through a
  detailed analysis of this sutra, Studholme explores the historical and
  doctrinal forces behind the appearance of Om Manipadme Hum in India at
  around the middle of the first millennium c.e.

  He argues that the
  Karandavyuha Sutra has close affinities to non-Buddhist puranic
  literature, and that the conception of Avalokitesvara and his
  six-syllable mantra is influenced by the conception of the Hindu deity
  Siva and his five-syllable mantra Namah Sivaya. The Karandavyuha Sutra
  reflects historical situation in which the Buddhist monastic
  establishment was coming into contact with Buddhist tantric
  practitioners, themselves influenced by Saivite practitioners.

The mantra "OM mani padme hum" seems to be found only in Tibetan Buddhism.

However, Avalokiteshvara can be found in other non-Tibetan Mahayana traditions like Pure Land Buddhism. Avalokiteshvara is officially not found in the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, even if you can find images of him in some Theravada temples.

Mantras or some kind of phrase for chanting can be found in almost all Buddhist traditions like "namo amitabha buddha" in Pure Land Buddhism, "nam myoho renge kyo" in Nichiren Buddhism and "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" in Theravada Buddhism.


What are the differences of Phala Samapatti between each stage of sainthood?

The fruition consciousnesses are classified as being resultant consciousnesses (vipākacittāni) so they differ based on what the wholesome consciousness produce them, so the difference between the fruit of a stream-enterer and a sakadagamin is the wholesome consciousness that causes them. For the fruit of stream entry, the wholesome consciousness that causes it is the path consciousness of stream entry, and for a sakadagamin it is the path consciousness of a sakadagamin.

Then one will wonder what is the difference between the different path consciousnesses. That is an easier question to answer. It is the path consciousnesses that cut through the fetters. The path consciousness of stream entry cuts through the first three fetters, the path consciousness of a sakadagamin weakens desire and ill-will, etc...

For more information on this I would recommend reading §26 and §27 of A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma and chapter 22 of the Visuddhimagga. Both of these books are freely and legally available online as PDFs.


Buddhist perspective how humans can communicate with spirits?

Yes this can be done if you develop abhiññā. It will be through ceto-pariya-ñāṇa. In order to do this you have to develop at least the 4th Jhana.

Also there are more recent documented instances where this has been done in Venerable Ãcariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera's biography. The general training that was followed recorded in Patipadā Venerable Ãcariya Mun’s Path of Practice. (Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta Thera was a teacher of Ajahn Chah)

Also refer:

p369, CH. XII THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS, The Path of Purification, 4td Ed., Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans.)
p206, The Path Of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) of Arahant Upatissa Translated from the Chinese by Rev. N. R. M. Ehara, Soma Thera, Kheminda Thera
Ways of Attaining Dhyana by Piya Tan
Miracles by Piya Tan

Also be warned that only a few a successful in developing supernormal powers and this can become a hindrance, hence you are better of working towards liberation.


This is something I face too. I work in the IT industry building automation systems.

This is my own opinion on the matter. I think most people, including me bias toward a belief that being consumed or obsessed by something (some call it passion) gives great outcomes. This is correct. However; I believe far more intelligent people exist who are able to achieve much greater results while remaining detached. How this can be achieved is a tricky subject and might be out of scope of this forum.

For example, the Buddha himself knows all sciences that should be known. Ven. Sariputta was highly intelligent. All of them practiced detachment and still remained sharp and more intelligent.

So, maybe practicing dhamma might help us.


Sure, best maybe just ten times, when possible situations appear which could be approached by bad thoughts, words or deeds before not doing such. That's the most effective time with most benefical fruits, and if doing seriously and heedfull, watching over it's requirement, Breath will see it's great effects very soon.

Best make a strong resolve and promise to do. Maybe by chanting 108 times, having bowed before the Three Juwels, taken refuge in a small personal sermon. Before going to bed every day, in the case if chanting in such situations was forgotten, chant it 108 times and renew the promis like at the beginning. If having chanted if in situations and did not do the deeds then, best rejoice on it and try to just dwell silently in this joy. If feeling inspired, maybe good to devote gratitude to the Gems at the end.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange. It's given as guest and not as subscriber, as possibility given by the owner of this page here.]


Repeated blissful experiences in meditation

From the theravada perspective, you ought to master each jhana. That is, you should have reasonable control of it, enter when you make a resolution to enter, keep it stable and leave when you make a resolution to leave. So you should be able to replicate it. If you identify important factors that are weak, these are factors that need further development. Weak jhana factors mean one does not fully understand their conditions, what obstructs them, how to cultivate them, control and keep them stable.

This is roughly the full jhana/samadhi meditation curriculum, though it can be argued that full mastering of jhanas are optional when pursuing the goal, in favor of mindfulness/sati meditation.

I believe Pa Auk Sayadaw considers a student to have mastered a jhana if he or she is able to enter at will and stay for 3 hours in it (period that testify the meditator skills in stabilizing jhana). This is also what he recommends before moving to the next jhana, which can be impossible to access without a minimum control of the previous jhana (e.g. as the factors to be abandoned might be too strong and unfamiliar to be properly controlled)


Reproduction is not the only function of having opposite genders. If that is the case, both males and females should look the same when sexual organs are covered. Even at the beginning(Agganna sutta) of man kind, reproduction happened as a result of beings who looked different getting attracted to the differences.

Companion nymphs are beings who get born in heavens due to less powerful karma. Their main duty is to entertain the Deva who owns them.


Mindfulness when “reading” : Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition

Yesterday I have answered a question similar to yours where i write about being mindful when studying/reading with basis in the Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition. There are also references to books and videos by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw and Ven. Yuttadhammo.

You can find it here. Maybe it might be of some help to you.

Lanka


What is gained by learning Vipassana meditation in long retreats?

To put it succinctly you need to rub two pieces of wood long enough to get fire.

Likewise you need to meditate continuously for some stretch of time to see results.

As Goenka says "Continuity of practice is the secret of success".


Is it possible to achieve universal detachment? How?

I have, for some time, tried to detach from things in my life so I can find true happiness without needing anything. Although I have had some success detaching from some things, like the need to be right or material stuff, I still am too attached to some other things, like girls and people that should not be a source of attachment.

Any external object brings pleasurable, painful and neutral sensations1. It is these sensations you have to let go there by letting go of the external object thereby letting go of the roots which create this attachments2. Say you are still reacting to external sensations by you have let gone of external objects your mind still can crave for them.

  I can tell myself I don't need something(and I really don't) but something deep inside still makes it come up on my mind every so often, and mostly together with fear of loss, desire and imaginary situations of both good and bad outcomes.

You are doing this at an intellectual or conceptual level. There are other religions which preached non attachment but inevitably they got attached to the view orr concept of non attachment which would have been more subtle and difficult to eradicate than external attachments.

The way to go is the be able to objectively observe the arising and passing of any sensation from contact. May it be you stay in one posture and want to shuffle around (pain in the old, pleasure in the new posture). May it be sensation just arising. Also thinking caused sensations.

  So my question is about detachment.. how can I practice to be more and more in control of what I feel attachment for, regardless of what it is? It seems that it controls me, and makes me miserable sometimes.. how can I let things go?

The method to do this is as described in Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta, whereby cut the source of attachments, through being aware of arising and passing of the sensations in what is felt.

1

    Then there remains only consciousness,
    purified and cleansed.
    What does one know [cognize]
    with that consciousness?
    One knows, "It is pleasant."
    One knows. "It is painful."
    One knows, "It is neutral."
    On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.
    When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, "I feel a pleasant feeling"
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.
    When one feels a painful feeling one understands, "I feel a painful feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."
    On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.
    When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, "I feel a neutral feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."

Source: Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

2

See: Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta


The body we get as we leave one I based on the good deeds we have done & our state of mind. The gods etc. are other (extra terrestrial) life forms with a more developed mind than ours. The animals are considered seperate from humans because of the higher state of mind the humans posses in compared to animals.


Electric blood, electric breathe, electric ball and one beam

You started meditating. If you're having strange experiences, you're doing it right. The "truth" is coming into view and your ego is dying. When your ego is loosing control, he will do everything to gain that control back. Thus, your ego is giving you pleasant experiences. Your ego wants you to crave for these experiences. He wants you to play with them until your death. If you play with the experiences, you'll never see what's behind your ego, thus you'll never gain control of it, never see the "truth" and no liberation from suffering will follow in this life.

If these experiences are interesting to you and you crave for more, then explore the experiences you described, don't fight them or search them, if they arise just play with them. Sooner or later you'll reach a point where there will be nothing new to explore in these experiences. Nothing new to play with. When you reach this point, start asking yourself "Why these experiences arise? What's behind these experiences? What's the cause?". Explore your mind and search for the cause. You'll find the "truth" and liberation from suffering will follow.

If you're willing to let go of these experiences now, then let go of them. If they arise, just relax, empty your mind, do nothing, and let them cease without trying or wanting anything. When you'll reach a point where you'll be able to just observe your mind, without reacting, without craving, clinging or aversion arising in your mind, these experiences will stop. Then, you'll be able to explore your mind further and you'll find the "truth" and liberation from suffering will follow.


How can I change my perception to overcome reification?

Brilliant video, agreed. (The first 9 minutes are really great, then he gets distracted and starts rambling.)
He answers your question right there in the video. He says, reifications are overcome by questioning them.
Let me explain in my own words.
Reifications is the substance the ego is made from. Since ego is a conglomerate of reifications, by overcoming the ego you overcome reifications and vice versa.
And how do you overcome the ego? By letting go of attachments, biases, prejudices, overgeneralizations.
How? Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions these states in you.
Then try and notice how in these situations the ego is trying to defend itself. The conglomerate of reifications is trying to defend itself by convincing itself that its reifications are right. It's a kind of feeding, upadana, the ego is feeding itself by cycling over these thoughts, by holding onto these reifications, prejudices, overgeneralizations and so on.
The more you watch it the better you see it, and then you should make a resolve to not allow the ego to keep on feeding and defending itself. You make a promise to yourself that every time you see your ego justify itself, you will challenge it.
For example, if you have a prejudice against dark-skinned people, you catch your ego holding on to it. You catch yourself feeding onto the thought "I'm better because my skin is lighter. I am more civilized." You notice how your ego tries to convince itself that it is better than someone else. As soon as you notice that, you stop it. You tell your ego: "not so fast, this is a reification. There are plenty of horrible people with white skin and plenty of highly evolved people with dark skin". Then you force yourself to behave in accordance with this understanding. You go and talk with dark-skinned people with  friendly love and friendly respect. Most importantly, you change your attitude.
Similarly in other situations, whenever you feel "it must be this way only and not another", "only this is good - the rest is bad", "only my opinion is valid, the other is not". All of these are reifications the ego feeds on. By systematically stalking and catching the ego in the middle of real life situations, social situations, especially the ones where you get emotional - you can recognize and overcome your reifications.
Once you develop the habit of doing this, your mind will automatically challenge its stereotypes and generalizations.
The most important point to understand, you don't need to be in a monastery in order to practice prajnaparamita. You must practice right in the middle of Samsara, because reifications are the very building blocks of Samsara itself. By working with reifications as they manifest in your emotional reactions in your everyday life you're not just learning to see things as they are - you are walking the real path to real Enlightenment.
P.S.
By the way, when the speaker in that video says that animals do not reify nor suffer, with all respect he is not well-informed on this detail. Animals do engage in semiosis and as all semiosis is essentially reification therefore animals do reify. For example when a bear smells honey and assumes that means food (an example of primitive semiosis), if he or she climbs a tree and finds an empty hive the bear's assumptions fail and there's arising of dukkha, of course! It's just not as deep and convoluted a tangle as it is with humans but animals absolutely do reify and suffer.


First, you should keep in mind that rules are different for those on the monastic path than those who are lay practitioners. Monastics are not supposed to engage in any sexual activity (in most orders), but it is presumed that lay practitioners can engage in sexual activity without it being considered misconduct (so long as they adopt the right attitude). All you need to do is maintain a properly respectful attitude towards your altar.  This might involve covering your altar, buying a small folding screen to put in front of it, or even taking down your altar and putting it away when you are not meditating.

It's worth keeping in mind that purpose of an altar is to create the proper mental state (attitude) for meditation and spiritual development. The altar itself has no intrinsic value or meaning beyond that which you imbue it with; it is more like a stepping stone or walking stick that helps keep you on the path as you move forward. An attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) is one of the Ten Fetters, so while it is important to maintain an attitude of respect towards any altar or image of the Buddha, one does so because it creates respect for the Buddha within, not because some external Buddha or external rule demands it. Follow your conscience and you will not go wrong.


Justifying the Four Noble Truths without rebirth

Anti-rebirthist = ucchedadiṭṭhi =  one extreme.
Rebirth-lover = sassatadiṭṭhi = another extreme.
Profit-follower = eightfold path  = middle way.

1st and 2nd see brahmajālasutta.

3rd see dhammacakkappavaḍḍhanasutta. (I am in plan to re-translate this sutta, but I can't not done it now. So if something wrong, I am sorry. I can't not check it deeply now, because my english still not good enough.)

  "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding.

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path:
  right view, right contemplate, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This
  is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision,
  producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Unbinding.

What is profit?

6 profit: self profit, the others' profit, public's profit (common interest), this life's profit, next life's profit, and nibbāna-profit. (pali for search: attattha, parattha, attaparattha, ditthadhammika, samparāyika, and paramattha.)

Self profit, the others' profit, and public's profit (common interest) are done together by sati.

  "Because of what I have said here, monks, you should train yourselves
  such that the gifts of those whose requisites we use — the robes,
  alms-bowl, chair, bed, and medicine as a support when sick — will have
  great fruits, great merits [for the people who give them], and our
  going forth will not be in vain, will be fruitful, will have a result.
  Thus should you train yourselves, thoroughly seeing that for your own
  benefit, monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness; thoroughly
  seeing that for the benefit of others, monks, it is right to strive
  with heedfulness; and thoroughly seeing that for the benefit of both,
  monks, it is right to strive with heedfulness."

This life's profit and next life's profit are done together by sati (appamāda). So, person who do just this life's profit or next life profit is pamāda person. see:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.017.than.html

Nibbāna profit can be accessed by practitioner after he perfect finished to meditate magga.  And that magga can start to meditate after sīla is done.

  SN 45.149 Just as, bhikkhus, whatever actions are to be performed with
  strength are all performed on dependence on the earth, supported by
  the earth; in the same way, bhikkhus, it is on dependence on virtue,
  supported by virtue, that a bhikkhu develops the noble eightfold path (magga),
  that he cultivates the noble eightfold path.

Above sīla give this life's profit and next life. See (1st-4th are this life's profit, 5th is next life's profit):

  Mahāparinibbānasutta
  24. "Five blessings, householders, accrue to the righteous man through
  his practice of virtue: great increase of wealth through his
  diligence; a favorable reputation; a confident deportment, without
  timidity, in every society, be it that of nobles, brahmans,
  householders, or ascetics; a serene death; and, at the breaking up of
  the body after death, rebirth in a happy state, in a heavenly world."

So, anti-rebirthist & rebirth-lover are pamādo (person who has not meditating mindfulness).

That is one of many reasons that why I, who have never seen any ghost or any spirit, am not deny next life.


How does Paticcasamuppada or 12 Links of Dependent Origination relate to Aversion?

Aversion is simply the disliking of an experience. When a person gets angry, sad or afraid, it is the craving to be rid of the experience that is going to lead to clinging. Not aversion itself. It is called Vibhava-tanha. Hence aversion isn't considered a direct cause of Samsara.


Do the Abhidharma texts exist online in original format?

You can find Theravada Abhidhamma, all Pali, only some translations, at Sutta Central:
https://suttacentral.net/ds
https://suttacentral.net/vb
https://suttacentral.net/dt
https://suttacentral.net/pp
https://suttacentral.net/kv
https://suttacentral.net/ya
https://suttacentral.net/patthana


Praying to God - What are the consequences?

How you should consider what do to depends on your situation. Have you converted to Buddhism? Do you believe in an all powerful God? If you haven't converted to Buddhism and still believe in a God and are just adopting Buddhist practices because you find that they give you wellbeing I wouldn't worry about it too much. But if you are trying to work out the full path to awakening according to the teachings of the Buddha then there could be a problem.

If you have decided to strive for enlightenment according to the Buddhist path then belief in a God is problematic because it is in conflict with the teachings that all things apart from Nibbana are impermanent, incapable of giving true happiness, and are non-self. So if you believe in an all powerful God and pray to him that will reinforce that belief and interfere with developing right view.

Apart from interfering with right view and thus delaying the attainment of enlightenment until such view is corrected, I can't see any direct consequences. Belief in God can lead some people to be heedless thinking that God will look after them and everything will automatically turn out all right, and still others sometimes give up their consciousness to their concept of God, but the actual belief in the existence of God itself isn't going to create bad Karma directly or anything.


What is the best way to forget bad choices in the past?

Short answer is, you should not forget bad choices. You should learn from bad choices.

Long answer:

  Kukucca is characterized by regret. It's function is to grieve about what has or what has not been done. It manifests as remorse. It should be regarded as
  slavery.

--from Visuddhimagga XIV, 174

  The Dalai Lama was working with an American psychiatrist who was interviewing him for a book on happiness. The subject of remorse was broached: His Holiness explained that one time an elderly Buddhist man came to see him to ask for instructions on how to do a very difficult Yoga pose. The Dalai Lama told the man that he was too old and should not attempt the pose as it would be too dangerous. The old man thanked the Dalai Lama, went home and killed himself so he could be reincarnated as a younger, healthier man who could attempt the pose. After hearing the news, the Dalai lama was overcome with guilt at being the reason for another man’s death.

  “So how did you deal with that?” asked the interviewer. “How did you get rid of the remorse.”

  The Dalai Lama sat there in silence for a minute or two, thinking hard about the question.

  “I didn’t get rid of it” the Dalai Lama explained. “It’s still with me every day. I just continue to live with my heart open.”

-- from http://toryshulman.com/how-to-live-with-remorse-efficiently

So, what does it mean, "to live with one's heart open"? It means to see it like so: "What was done in the past cannot be changed. Thinking about it will not help me undo it. Now I have learned my lesson and will not make exactly the same mistake. I don't know what will happen in the future, but if similar situation comes up, or even a completely different situation -- I will do my best!"


Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent?

It's impermanent.  That's kind of the point.  You're supposed to empty your store house consciousness or, practically speaking, at least try to stop perfuming the seeds.

  4

  The store consciousness is clear and undefinable.
  Like a great river, it is always changing.
  Neither pleasant nor unpleasant, when one becomes fully realized, it ceases to exist.

  ...

  29

  That is the supreme, world-transcending knowledge
  Where one has no mind that knows
  And no object that is known
  Abandoning twofold grasping
  The storehouse consciousness is emptied

  30

  That alone is the pure, primordial reality
  Beyond thought, auspicious, unchanging
  It is the blissful body of liberation
  The dharmakaya nature of the enlightened ones

  From Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses

What's "left" when you've abandoned the karmic conditions of the store-house consciousness and the two fold grasping (i.e. grāha-dvaya - the grasping of the grasped and the grasper himself) is ultimately all that is truly unchanging or supramundane.  That said, I think it makes more sense to call what's left simply "unconditioned".  It isn't subject to the negative influence of ordinary defilements.  When you call it "permanent", I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of seeing it as a "thing" or a "self".