It's described in a couple of pages of The Complete Foundation: The Systematic Approach to Training the Mind by HH the Dalai Lama.

I paraphrase:

  It is the one object of all blame -- the source of all miseries therefore the only object to be blamed for all misfortune.
  Normally we blame others because we are self-righteous
  Problems come from the kind of body we assume, which is contaminated and a product of actions -- we possess that body because of attachment to self -- therefore it's attachment to self that gives rise to suffering.
  "The self-cherishing and self-grasping attitudes abide strongly fortified in the mind, we have never been able to shake the in the least."
  It leads to wars (globally) and problems within the family.
  It also leads to arguments between people with one assuming they have more truth than the other.
  The chronic disease of cherishing myself
  is the cause of unwanted suffering
  Perceiving this, may I be inspired
  To blame, begrudge, and destroy
  This self-cherishing demon.

When I read a bit of https://www.google.com/search?q=%22self-cherishing+attitude%22 it seems to include both what Theravada calls "conceit" (e.g. "I am better than you") and other vices, e.g. attachments (and I don't know about comfort-seeking too ... and presumably "becoming" and "birth" and so too).

It possibly doesn't include "the view of a real personal identity" which (as in Theravada) might be stated as a separate problem.

"Bodhicitta" is maybe meant to be the antidote, to the "self-cherishing attitude". I've also seen on video his holiness say that he sees himself as "not special" and "just, like everyone else" -- because otherwise he would be/feel imprisoned (in/by his identity).

Combining the last two paragraphs above, I wonder if sunyata rather than Bodhicitta is the antidote to "the view of a real personal identity" -- but sunyata (without Bodhicitta) isn't enough by itself to get rid of the "self-cherishing attitude".


Attitude Towards Speculation and Fantasy

There are two methods to reduce thoughts:

(1) Wisdom method, which is replacing unwise thoughts with wise thoughts. This will reduce the thoughts & build the wisdom that stops the re-arising of such thoughts in the future. Examples of wise thoughts are exactly what you have posted, which is thinking to yourself: "These fantasies are delusional & are a waste of time".

(2) Concentration method, which is to use the breath to feel calmness. When the mind feels calmness, it will not be inclined to think unnecessary thoughts.

Before the Buddha attained enlightenment, he generally used the wisdom method to reduce his unbeneficial thoughts (refer to MN 19). This is called 'yoniso manasikara' or 'wise reflection'.

The mind is difficult to know clearly & manage therefore this is a task we each much learn. The Dhammapada states:

  33. Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so
  difficult to guard.

  36. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings
  happiness.

In your situation, the wisdom method is probably the best method since you ask lots of questions here about meditation, which shows you probably need to know your mind more.

As for 'non-judging', the Pali suttas do not really teach the practise of 'non-judging' towards unbeneficial thoughts. In addition, fantasies themselves are 'judgmments'. Therefore, if the mind was really abiding in 'non-judgment', it would not be fantasizing about the future.


In my understanding, there is no controversy here at all. The explanation can be very simple:

Before stream-entry, someone can think: "I am this body" or "I am inside this body" or "I am the perceiver of all my experience" or "I am the decision maker of all my actions" or "I am my memories" or "I am the thinker of thoughts".

With stream-entry these mistaken views are abandoned. Body is just body. Experience is just experience. Actions are just actions. Memories are just memories. Thoughts are just thoughts. They are not "I", there is no "I" in them, nor is "I" doing them.

At the same time, after stream-entry there are still remaining hangups to be abandoned. Particularly, there are still some habits of getting drawn to pleasant experiences and avoiding unpleasant experiences, once those are abandoned there remains anxiety about not being perfect enough (udacca-kukucca), once that is abandoned there is pride of being perfect (mana). Having these issues does not require identifying anything as "I". Even without thinking "I am this" or "I am that" there are states of attraction, aversion, anxiety, or pride.

You are asking, how is it possible that someone could keep working on these issues without thinking "I am body", or "I am inside body" or "I am the thinker of thoughts" or "I am the doer of actions" etc.?

From my experience, working on them does not require thinking in terms of "I". Instead, what's required is to see "body as body", "feelings as feelings", "thoughts as thoughts" etc. - as explained in Satipatthana. When there is such seeing, there is observation: "here is a thought conducive to dukkha" and "this thought conducive to dukkha should be abandoned" and "this thought conducive to dukkha has been abandoned" - as you can see this can happen without any I-making.

At the same time, even after abandoning explicit I-making (thinking in terms of I) there is still deep-lying residual habit or intuition of assuming that "I" is the decision-maker of actions and the experiencer of experiences. As explained in the suttas, this will linger for a long time and requires very intensive and deep meditation practice to be abandoned.


What is the best strategy to confront Non-Buddhist ideology?

There's an apocryphal Christian story, that I heard or read long ago -- where somebody asks someone else (possibly a Buddhist):

  Have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?

... to which the person replies:

  If you mean a good Christian, like your Christ -- I don't have the courage.

  But if you mean being a bad Christian, like you -- I wouldn't want to be!

If you want to be persuasive (about the benefits and/or truths of Buddhism) perhaps it's important to be a good Buddhist.

I don't want to criticise but "ending up in heated debates about the existence of God" doesn't sound attractive or persuasive to me.

I'm particularly afraid of someone's thinking, "if being a Buddhist means being like you, I wouldn't want to be!"

I once tried to explain Buddhism (not in a "confrontational" way) -- see How to explain what Buddhism is? -- and I don't think I was very successful.

Still I hope I learned from that, that there are many different aspects of Buddhism: and different aspects appeal to or make sense to different people.

The Buddha was especially skilled at knowing different people and speaking accordingly.

It may be that the topics of God, Soul, and Self are especially important to you -- for what it's worth or for example, I don't see that as the most important doctrine.

A friend once told me a bit about communication theory, saying that when people choose a topic of conversation, then talking about what's far away (distant) is less intimate than what's close (here); that what's in the past or future is less intimate than what's now; and that talking about people we don't know, and/or talking about friends, is less intimate than talking about ourselves.

It seems to me that talking about "God" is very distant. Perhaps it's too easy to argue about something you can't see!

If you want to talk about Buddhism maybe it's better to consider aspects of Dharma like Ehipassiko, perhaps like the Kalama sutta.

Five more things.

One is that I tend to assume "good faith".
My parents professed Christianity when I was young. I don't think they were doing that in order to deceive me.
I assume they had some reason[s] for their belief[s] and that the words they spoke had some meaning[s] to them, even if those words didn't wholly make "real" sense to me.
So if I were going to engage in a conversation about God and Soul and so on, I think my participation ought to include my being interested in finding out or understanding what those words mean to someone, and why they use them and so on.1
Conversely, if I'm not interested in doing that, then it's maybe not a topic of conversation I should engage in.

The second is that (when I was young and they were trying to indoctrinate me) I was willing to believe all kinds of doctrines. Or if not believe, at least not dispute. "So, God wants us to love our neighbour as ourself? Well sure, why not. Good doctrine, more or less. And God loves us? That's nice to know, thanks for saying so. And there's a resurrection and an afterlife? Well, OK: if you say so." There was one bit of doctrine though that I couldn't manage. The way it was taught at that time was, "The Church has a monopoly on the Truth: what the Church teaches is true, and everything/everyone else (including every other religion) is wrong." And I thought, that bit of doctrine was just too much: "So, 'the Annunciation', OK, 'the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Heaven' ... whatever, OK: if you say so. But 'everyone else is wrong'? That's incredible! Impossible!" And I think that maybe Buddhism too warns against being a sectarian who argues in this way ("This alone is true") about the dhamma.

The third is that I guess (if you'll excuse my saying so) that your "heated debates" are motivated by some form of conceit, specifically comparing yourself to others: "I'm Buddhist and they're not. My being Buddhist means I know the Dhamma, whereas they are living in ignorance." That's maybe not something you want to perpetuate (even when the debate is whether 'self' is an illusion).

Fourth, if you are arguing online that's maybe even less sensible/effective than face-to-face (xkcd).

Fifth, IMO the "ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs" are for example the ideologies which involve killing -- or lying, and so on. If you understand that kind of doctrine to be the "bottom line", you might decide most people are agreeable or "very civilized".

1Maybe you can see this sort of attitude here, i.e. I like to assume that I'm at least a little ignorant about another person's views.


What caused the Golden Bowl to go upstream?

It's called Saccakiriya. It basically uses the power of true speech. But it has to be something strong.

ex:

I have never lied in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

I have never stolen in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

I have never killed in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

Once the Buddha instructed Venerable Angulimala to invoke his Saccakiriya to help a pregnant lady. This is what he said: "Since I was born of Aryan birth, O sister, I am not aware of having intentionally deprived any living being of his life. By this asseveration of Truth may you be well! May thy unborn child be well!"

In this scenario it's a true statement about the future. There was no Deva involved.


There is a famous set of verses of the Buddha that go as follows:

  “All conditioned things are impermanent” – when
  one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from
  suffering. This is the path to purification.
  “All conditioned things are unsatisfactory” –
  when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away
  from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  “All things are not-self” – when one sees this
  with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.
  This is the path to purification.

  -- Dhp. 277-9 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Do you see the difference?

Nowhere did the Buddha say that everything is impermanent, because it is not true. All things that arise must cease (SN 56.11), and that is the key to answering this question, because nibbaana is unarisen:

  And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans.)

The logical conclusion of not being born is not dying, and so:

  being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna;

  -- Ibid


Which sutta is this excerpt about Buddha's death from?

The quoted passage sounds vaguely like the last paragraph of Ud 8.5 the Cunda Sutta. For example you quoted,

  You have done what is good and wholesome ... after death you will be reborn in a happy destination

Thanissaro's version of that,

  Cunda's remorse should be allayed ... it's well-done by you ... Venerable Cunda the silversmith has accumulated kamma that leads to heaven

However much of the rest of it doesn't match the your quote, e.g. "you have made a shelter from fear" sounds like it's addressed to people who have taken refuge (i.e. "all the monks and followers").

But then again it is a bit like the poem at the end of that sutta ("not greedy" -> "giving" and "You have forgiven" -> "no animosity").

For a person giving,
merit increases.
For one self-restraining,
no animosity is amassed.
One who is skillful
    leaves evil behind
and
 — from the ending of passion,
    aversion,
    delusion —
is totally unbound.

Anyway (whether or not this is the sutta which the Bikkhu wanted to share with you) this sutta too is from towards the end of the Buddha's life, and may or may not mention pork,

  The Commentary notes a wide range of opinions on what "pig-delicacy" means. The opinion given in the Mahā Aṭṭhakathā — the primary source for the Commentary we now have — is that pig-delicacy is tender pork. Other opinions include soft bamboo shoots or mushrooms that pigs like to nibble on, or a special elixir. Given that India has long had a history of giving fanciful names to its foods and elixirs, it's hard to say for sure what the Buddha ate for his last meal.


Does consensual sex break the five precepts?

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.

ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.

iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.

iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.

Causes of Sexual Misconduct

The root cause of sexual misconduct is always greed or lust,
accompanied by delusion.
Factors affecting the Gravity of Sexual Misconduct
The gravity of the offence is determined by the degree of lust
motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom
the transgression is committed. When the lust is very strong, even
incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of
a female Arahant.

So to answer your questions,
consensuality is actually a requirement to break the 3rd precept. If a girl gets raped, she's not breaking the precept, but the man is.

Case #1: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition

Case #2: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition

Whether it's a long term relationship or just a one night stand is irrelevant to violating the 3rd precept. Lust is the root cause in both cases.


Is the age of monastic life over? Is it societal conditioning or keeping up with the times?

This series of questions is quite involved and surely a book could be written to properly assess the status of how well a very traditional monastic community is holding up in modern times.

But a few things did come to mind that can be easily stated. Your comments are from people who are not currently part of the monastic tradition. They've made their decision and had their reasons. But the monastic community is alive and well without those individuals. It's far more interesting to hear the perspective of those actively a part of the monastic community.

  The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.

I suppose that's true. And yet people do it and stick with it and find it to be a meaningful way to live. As far as forsaking material things, an interesting example of this is Ajahn Siripanno. His father is a billionaire and he could have lived a life of extraordinary wealth and privilege. And he choose to ordain as a Theravada monk instead. That's a powerful statement about priority when people see clearly.

  Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development.

The head monk are our local Theravada monastery, originally from Laos, does not speak English despite having been in the US for a number of years now. Bilingual lay followers at the temple have told me his reason for not doing so is so that he will have fewer distractions. I think this is a smart approach really. Of course, he is not in a position of having to actively seek out lay followers, it's an ethnic community which seeks out the monastery. But that's certainly one way of avoiding the waste of time you speak of.

As far as whether we are moving towards some sort of a "permanent" secularization in society, that would be short sighted speculation. Throughout history, societies have changed and become more or less religious. Religious traditions have become corrupted and then reformed. Religious traditions become more heavily focused on one aspect over another and additional sects emerge (I think this latter is roughly how the "forest traditions" revived in modern times.)

It's not for everyone. But I would think for those "with little dust in their eyes" monastic life will survive all that modern life can throw at it. :)


Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you infer the mechanisms at play. At the same time, you study theory - explaining the mechanisms - which sheds light on your practice.

Certainty comes as a result of having acquired the skill. This may or may not come from theory, and may or may not be something you can explain in words. Conceptual model is the optional part that aids one's practice and helps transmit the teaching forward, but cannot give the sense of certainty by itself.

In Vajrayana schools, certainty also comes from the lineage blessings through a ritual known as empowerment (abhisheka).


If a buddhist should not kill a mouse living in their home, what justification do they have to rid themselves of a parasite such tapeworms

The Mahayana perspective on social and ecological ethics is based on the high ideals of symbiosis, harmony, and cooperation.

In the old times there were wandering monks who did not work and lived on alms - in return they shared the nectar of Dharma. They were no parasites. And if some of them were, Buddha encouraged the householders to be selective in choosing which monks to support.

Symbiosis is defined as a relationship beneficial to both sides. If the other side starts abusing its privileges to the extent that the relationship starts endangering your health and well-being, you have the right to withdraw your support. Meaning, you can stop feeding the beneficiary and let it find another sponsor. In the case of mice and other pests, this should be as simple as keeping your house clean and locking out access to food resources. In the case of the parasite, you can go on a 21-day fast; if worse comes to worst you have the right to expel.

As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, the samsaric approach involves solving the problems brute-force. The problem is solved at a very superficial level, the level of symptoms - but the root cause remains. No matter how much poison you waste on cockroaches, if your kitchen is dirty they'll keep coming back. In contrast with that, the Enlightened approach is to look in depth and solve the underlying problem. Prevent the problem altogether.

Violence is a low-skill approach. Instead, all arranged situations have supporting conditions they depend on. To the extent that you can identify and manage the supporting conditions you can control the situation.


What would be a secular interpretation of animal rebirth

'Animal birth' is described in many places in the suttas. It refers to ignorance (stupidity), lacking reflective reasoning (ayoniso manasikara), immorality & the merciless devouring of other beings, including mutual devouring.

Animals merely blindly follow & act upon instinctual drives & desires without having the capacity to reflect upon the consequences. This is the meaning of 'animal birth'.

Below are some quotes.

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

  Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

The follow quote is important because it shows 'animals' can realise the Four Noble Truths, which also show this quote cannot refer to real animals but to people:

  Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) are 'reborn' (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

This video might help understand, which shows Angulimala, the mass-murderer, as a 'animal', being reformed or changed into a 'human' by the Buddha:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNzrKAzxipY

  THE FIRST OF the Four Woeful States is hell. Hell is anxiety (in Thai, literally “a hot heart”). Whenever one experiences anxiety,
  burning, and scorching, one is simultaneously reborn as a creature of
  hell. It is a spontaneous rebirth, a mental rebirth. Although the body
  physically inhabits the human realm, as soon as anxiety arises the
  mind falls into hell. Anxiety about possible loss of prestige and
  fame, anxiety of any sort — that is hell.

  Now rebirth in the realm of beasts is stupidity. Whenever one is inexcusably stupid about something: stupid in not knowing that Dhamma
  and nibbāna are desirable, stupid in not daring to come into contact
  with or get close to Buddhism, stupid in believing that if one became
  interested in Dhamma or Buddhism it would make one old-fashioned and
  odd. That is how children see it, and their parents too. They try to
  pull back and move far away from Dhamma and religion. This is
  stupidity. Regardless of what sort of stupidity it is, it amounts to
  rebirth as an animal. As soon as stupidity arises and overwhelms one,
  one becomes an animal. One is a beast by spontaneous rebirth, by
  mental rebirth. This is the second Woeful State.

  The third Woeful State is the condition of a peta...

  Buddha-Dhamma For Students

Please note: this is not a 'secular interpretation' but, instead, the true meaning of the suttas.


One way I've seen this difference defined was in a text about Dzogchen "meditation of non-meditation". They said that traditional meditation involves conditioning or shaping the mind, while contemplation involves watching without trying to manipulate. Dzogchen non-meditation was characterized as a type of contemplation, rather than regular meditation. Incidentally, the Zen meditation I was taught (a Korean type of Shikantaza) had also emphasized this non-manipulative aspect.

I don't think this is what "contemplation" means in your text though. It seems like when they refer to "contemplation" they mean "mulling over" as opposed to "seeing" directly. So it seems your book is making the same point as my sources ("just watch what's here") while confusingly using the opposite words to convey it.


Mindfullness or Self Consciousness (Introvert's Struggle)

It is not clear if you are doing some formal practice; if you do it regularly, you are likely to see the conditions more clear and learn to deal with them. The best is to do a retreat.

In the usual forms of vipassana  (Mahasi & similar I am familar with), you have an anchor (breathing, walking) and when something else comes to your mind (through the 6 sense doors -- western 5 senses plus mind, which includes thoughts, feelings, states of mind etc), you acknowledge/label/note/name what happened and come back to the anchor. This way you learn to (a) see what is there (b) let it go and come back to the anchor. Both points (a) and (b) are important; that's how you learn to deal with whatever happens.

In fact, various states of mind such as frozen, switched-off or dissociated are common. If you find yourself in a stuck state, you can use the "stuck" label to acknowledge that state, and come back. If you find yourself you want to get rid of that state (as you say), acknowledge that wanting and come back. The feeling of being watched is also a feeling you should acknowledge.

When you follow a condition (which the mind does automatically when you don't acknowledge it), you see that a whole drama unfolds: first you notice the stuckness, then you dislike it, then you want to get rid of it, then you perhaps remember that it happened many times and you get frustrated or desperate, then you think what you've done wrong so that it does not disappear, maybe you think there is something wrong with you in general etc etc. That is endless. Acknowledge it as soon as you can, as quickly as you can, and let it go. See what comes next. That's the practice, always coming back to the present.


Zen is part of Buddhism. Both share an understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which starts with Right View:

  AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two? The words of another and proper attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Teachers give us "the words of another". Without a teacher nearby, you can study the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) that inform all of Buddhism, including Zen. The EBTs are "words of another", in other words, they are the words of the Buddha and his immediate disciples. The EBTs also provide practice instructions that apply to zazen:

  SN47.40:1.1: “Mendicants, I will teach you mindfulness meditation, the development of mindfulness meditation, and the practice that leads to the development of mindfulness meditation. Listen …

Zazen and Satipaṭṭhāna start with mindfulness of the body. When we sit, we observe our breath, not controlling it, simply observing it. A simple count suffices. I've been doing that for decades, and it still matters.

Zazen is traditionally done while sitting. However, one can meditate sitting, standing, walking or lying down, etc:

  AN11.12:5.16: When they’re joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when they’re blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.  You should develop this recollection of the deities while walking, standing, sitting, lying down, while working, and while at home with your children.”

As you study and practice, you will want to discuss with others. If a Sangha is not readily available, you can reach out to others online just as you have done. It is not ideal, but it is available. As our practice deepens, spiritual companions invariably cross paths with us. Talk with them. Befriend them.

Zen is known for its koans. Although effective, they are of most value with greater context. Without such context, koans can inaccessibly perplexing.  Many Zen texts provide great context, but I personally value the EBTs themselves as the authoritative context. In the light of the EBTs, one can really dig into the koans and understand the wonder of the Zen canon.

Zen and the EBTs have become the heart of my practice. May your own journey bring happiness to yourself and others.


Reasons against practicing insight meditation as a main (sitting) practice for medical or other recondite-subject majoring students?

I did my first longer vipassana retreat while I was a postdoc researcher (applied math and numerics), and did many more since then. I found it beneficial to have days/weeks dedicated for intense practice (which are tough, but you're in a protected environment) and then off-retreat time for work & other stuff. After retreats, I was mostly much more creative in work (especially after the first one; I finished within weeks papers I had been  writing for months), as retreats remove a lot of negative conditions which we carry around. Sometime there were difficult post-retreat states, true, but you want to learn to face those as well.

I would not be afraid that light (1 hours and such) daily practice will cause some substantial trouble in your life; it's more about seeing stuff which is happening anyway. If you have a competent teacher, he can help you to adjust your practice if you think there is some difficulty.

That said: if you have some serious psychological condition, don't forget to take care of it along the way, using also conventional means (psychotherapy, medication) as necessary. Traditional 3 Buddhist trainings are (1) personality (they call it "morality", but it is really about having a stable psycho-social basis, as I understand it) (2) concentration (3) insight; and the first one has to be strong enough to support the other ones.

Vipassana (=3) as such does not imply separate concentration training (=2). Some schools do that (e.g. Goenka which you seem to mention implicitly -- anapanasati, then bodyscanning) but the "dry vipassana" approaches (Mahasi and similar) don't; you do vipassana and build up concentration along the way.

Being a dry person, I personally do the dry vipassana. It is very important to include all 4 foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, mind objects) in the practice. High concentration is not necessarily good; I was depressive for years and had terrible (though successful) life as a result of being very concentrated and pushing stuff away without even knowing that. In fact if you are doing PhD, odds are that your concentration is rather high. You maybe hope that if you concentrate more, you will be more successful; maybe, but maybe you won't be very happy, and maybe you will run into burn-out. It is important to be flexible with concentration (to be able to release it), to not become its slave. Concentration sometimes causes people to be excessively serious.

PS (added): "Mindfulness-based" is sometimes used to refer to secular contemplative approaches often based on vipassana, such as MBSR (mindfulness-based stress reduction), MBCT (mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) etc. You will find both mindfulness/insight meditation used as translations of vipassana (meaning "seeing distinctly/clearly"); I personally find "insight" more appropriate, since insight is the goal and mindfulness (sati) only the means, though mindfulness might become prevalent, sounding perhaps less mysterious...


Mental intention is always necessary for an action. However an intention (such as Right Intention of the Noble Eightfold Path) does not always have to have 'self' or 'attachment' involved with it.
There are three kinds of kamma: (1) bad kamma; (2) good kamma; & (3) void kamma.
The intrinsic meaning of 'good & bad kamma' is there is attachment or 'self' invested in the action & its results. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the right view with effluents (defilements), siding with merit (goodness), resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? There are
fruits & results of good & bad actions.
MN 117

'Void kamma' means there is no 'self' invested in the kamma.
Buddhas appear in the world for the primary purpose to teach about void kamma or ending kamma. The higher practise of Buddhism is doing necessary & compassionate kamma with a void mind or 'doing without a doer' (rather than for the accumulation of good karma). It is for stopping obsession with kamma & stopping creating (new) sankhara. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the cessation of kamma? This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
Nibbedhika Sutta

In summary, the enlightened view is 'ignorance' is the doer of both good (meritorious) & bad (demeritorious) kamma and 'wisdom' is the doer of enlightened void selfless kamma.

Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates (abhisankharonti) a meritorious (good) formation (saṅkhāraṃ), consciousness fares on to the
meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious (bad) formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he
generates an imperturbable formation, consciousness fares
on to the imperturbable. But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance
and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance
and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious
(good) formation or a demeritorious (bad)
formation or an imperturbable formation. Since he does not
generate or fashion formations, he does not cling to
anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being
agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is
birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been
done, there is no more for this state of being.’
SN 12.51

This link may be helpful: Kamma in Buddhism


What are the texts that contain words which can be attributed directly to the Buddha?

The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language. It is the most complete extant early Buddhist canon. It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.

See Pāli Canon on Wikipedia, also called the Tripiṭaka or Tipitaka, meaning "Three Baskets." I would recommend these books as a good reference to access original Buddhism.
Here is an example from the Mulapariyaya Sutta, Majjima Nikaya section of the Pali Canon.

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Ukkattha, in the shade of a royal Sal tree in the Very Blessed Grove. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!"

  "Yes, lord," the monks responded.

  The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena [or: the root sequence of all phenomena]. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

  "As you say, sir," they responded.

This is an example of how each "Sutta" starts.


I'm still learning but I'll add some references which might help you to contemplate on this.
Is emptiness conventionally non-empty?
In MN121, The Buddha explains the different levels of emptiness based on 'the perception that are not present and  which are present'.
But when through such emptiness approach one attains awareness-release i.e. here cessation of craving phenomena and aggregates then it is now better to describe it as cessation (unbinding) to avoid confusion. -- (from my viewpoint)

And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned? Emptiness immersion; signless immersion; undirected immersion. …” [SN43.4]

Also in MN1, It is mentioned that how a trainee or Arahat understands Nibbana but Tathgata doesn't even grasp to Nibbana after he understood it.
BEGINNER:

He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

TATHAGATA:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

Also see this answer on How to interpret cessation which explains there are two types of cessation -- with feul remaining and no feul remaining. (mentioned in Iti.044)


The doctrine of (Inter) Dependent Origination is solely the doctrine of the Buddha & unrelated to the Vedas. If it was related to the Vedas there would be no Buddha and no Buddhism since the term 'Buddha' solely rests on the premise that the Buddha 'discovered' or 'was enlightened' to the previously unknown truths that lead to Nirvana (here-&-now perfect peace & freedom of suffering).
There are some secular scholars such as Joanna Jurewicz, Linda Blanchard & possibly Richard Gombrich that claim Dependent Origination is related to the Vedas in that: "the 12-nidana chain mirror the creation myth involving the deity Prajapati & the Buddha repurposed the Brahmanic creation myth ". This view is wrong & primarily arises from a misunderstanding of the term 'nama-rupa' (the 4th link in Dependent Origination). 'Nama-rupa' is a term that originates from the Vedas however the Buddha redefined the term to mean 'mentality-materiality' ('mind-body') instead of the Vedic 'name-form'.
Unfortunately, the majority of official Buddhist translators today, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi & Thanissaro Bhikkhu, while not sharing the Vedic views of Linda Blanchard, etc, also mistranslate 'nama-rupa' in Dependent Origination as 'name-form'. This mistranslation occurs because there are contexts in the Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha is answering questions to Brahmans who have no understanding of Buddhism thus in these contexts (but not in the context of Dependent Origination) the translation of 'name-form' is appropriate since it has the same meaning as found in the Vedas.
The real origin of Dependent Origination is described in the Maha Sakyamuni Gotamo Sutta, where, before his enlightenment, the Buddha-To-Be was searching for how suffering occurs.
The Buddha-To-Be asked himself: "Why do people suffer?" He replied: "People suffer due to change & loss; due to aging & death"...he continued...Why does aging-&-death occur? Because of 'birth' ('identity'). People self-identify themselves to be 'of this clan', 'of this family', 'this self' or 'this person'. Why does 'birth' occur? Due to becoming. People 'become' what they believe themselves to be. Why becoming? Attachment. The mind attaches to sense objects & pleasurable feelings. Why attachment? Craving. The mind craves for sense objects & pleasurable feelings. Why feelings? Sense contact. Why sense contact? Sense organs. Why sense organs? Having a body & mind. Why does a body & mind exist? Due to consciousness. Why does consciousness exist? Due to having a body & mind. Why is the body, mind & consciousness not at peace & primed to create its own suffering? Due to 'sankhara' ('inner formations'). Why sankhara? Ignorance.
In summary, those that claim Dependent Origination has its origin in the Vedas cannot be Buddhists (since they deny the Buddha's enlightenment) and simply do not understand how suffering comes to be & how suffering is extinguished (which is the sole purpose of Buddhism).
The Buddha declared: "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering". Thus, the Buddha did not teach from the Vedas.


Studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" (Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, Mādhyamika) in English

I would recommend Insight into Emptiness by by Khensur Jampa Tegchok and Thubten Chodron. This book discusses the tenets of all four of these schools and compares and contrasts them. Further, the authors are of the same branch of Tibetan Buddhism as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the latter author also works very closely with the Dalai Lama and is a co-author with him on many books for the western audience.
Here are images of some handy charts you can find in this book that talk about the four schools views:


Siddhi - a paranormal power possessed by a siddha – is a true phenomenon. These are certain by-products of the practice itself. But just as gain, respect and fame can become obstacles to liberation, so, too, can such siddhi. Such phenomena are categorized under the Tenth Army of Mara. A battle faced by meditation masters, this last army is perhaps the most lethal of all. In the Buddha's time there was even a man, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha under its influence.

There was once a layman who told that the Buddha should widely deploy all of his disciples who had psychic powers and ask them to demonstrate miracles to the people. "People will be really impressed," the layman said. "You'll get a lot of followers that way. The Buddha refused. Three times the request was repeated, and three times it was refused. Finally the Buddha said, "Layman, there are three types of psychic powers. One is the power to fly in the air and dive into the earth, and to perform other superhuman feats. The second is the power to read other people's minds. But there is a third psychic power, the power of instruction. This last power is the most important psychic power. The first two psychic powers can be attained and displayed if this interests you. It is not essential, or a hindrance, if you know it for what it is.

True disciples of the Buddha are more interested in developing ‘the Four Irdhi-paada.’ Iddhiya: of attaining completion or perfection; pado: root or basis -the root or basis of attaining completion or perfection. Hence it is called iddhipada. There are four kinds of iddhipada. But this is another subject/answer for another time/question.


Significance of touching forheads in Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu)?

My main teachers have a lineage coming from both Nyingma and Kagyü, so their explanations might differ slightly from 'pure' Karma Kagyü teachings, but I was told that touching foreheads is a gesture of very endearing closeness. Good old friends might touch their foreheads as a recognition of their proximity. Similarly, teachers feeling a strong bond with some students will touch their foreheads with them when the students thank them for a teaching received.

I was also told that it would be very impolite to 'demand' that a particular teacher touches their forehead with us, to somehow publicly recognize a closeness that doesn't truly exist.

Specially gentle, kind, and compassionate teachers will often never discriminate among students — they will always insist to touch their foreheads after a teaching is giving. HH the Dalai Lama also often does that to complete strangers (with some eyebrow-raising from his entourage!). The point here is that a Bodhisattva truly never discriminates among sentient beings — he or she will feel close to everybody!


I’m often in confused stage because my mind says one thing while my heart says something else and my awareness is in total confused mode trying to interpret these two entities.

It'll be difficult to discuss in more details without some concrete examples/instances of the above, for quite oftenly, what one's "heart wants" while one hasn't attained enlightenment ususually is just a romanticized/sanitized way of sayin what one's "desire/lust wants". Just like how many times engaged couples explain away the break-up of their relationship as due to the man/woman simply "following their heart" to cheat on the fiance and had an affair with a different man/woman, etc.


Did Buddha forbid paying respect to deities of contemporary traditions?

Buddhism shares many deities with Brahmanism(Hinduism) and Jainism for example, Indra, Yama, etc. (Though the story associated with them might differ between the traditions, the central persona is the same).

Buddhism does acknowledge existence of deities but in a different context than Brahmanism / Hinduism. See: God in Buddhism, Deva

  There are also many other deities which Brahmanism and Jainism do not share with Buddhism. Did Buddha forbid paying respects to such deities?

There is not forbidding of paying respect to deities or Devas. This can be used as a subject of meditation.


Was the prohibition on eating dinner health advice?

My recollection is the rule about not eating after noon was to stop monks going on alms round at inappropriate times of the day, including at night, where they could frighten lay people. You can research the 'Vinaya' for this.

There certainly is a sutta where the Buddha states he enjoys good health by eating once a day but my recollection is that is not the rationale, which is why many monks today eat twice per day.

  When these staple foods go beyond their time limit (i.e., after noon) a bhikkhu will incur an offence if he consumes them. The original
  story shows the complications that can arise from leaving the
  monastery at the wrong time:

  The 'group-of-seventeen' bhikkhus — another set of frequent misdoers — went out one afternoon to enjoy themselves at a festival outside the
  city. When lay people saw them they gave them a meal and food to take
  back to the monastery. The Buddha therefore laid down this rule:

  "Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 37; BMC p.362)

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#begging


How to function properly in society after getting enlightenment?

Putting aside the doubts whether you're close to Enlightenment or not... Or even if there is such thing as "Enlightenment"... And whether Enlightenment is something that can be attained by "me" at some point, and then retained for ever... And whether someone enlightened could still have questions about what to do and how to behave... In other words, assuming your question is valid,

When you get "enlightened" you lose your reference point. So it may be hard to decide what's good / what's bad anymore. "What do I want? What should I do? Should I do anything at all?" -- nothing seems right or wrong by itself, in some sense it's all invented by people. Nothing is important, nothing is serious, all this stuff that normal people engage seems pointless. Hence the question about "how to behave in society" - did I get this right? I hope so.

There are two parts to an answer my teacher gave me when I asked.

First, regarding your own purpose and meaning of life. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, you are free. You can literally do anything. If you want to play games, you can play games. If you want to drink yourself to death, you can drink yourself to death. If you want to go to other worlds, you go to other worlds. If you want to teach, you can teach. If you want to do nothing, you can do nothing. There is no reason to sit and worry what's the "best" thing to do, because there is no "best" thing to do, they are all equally pointless in the big scheme of things. In fact, the best thing to do is probably to arbitrarily choose any idea X that you like, and be totally serious about it, as if it was indeed a serious thing you believed in.

However, from the perspective of life here on planet Earth, actions lead to results. What you do and say has effect. And all the people around you still feel pain, they still have their lives. If you stand up and walk out of class, this may look harmless to you, and the teacher's frustration may seem funny and unjustified (in the big scheme of things) - however, by doing that you're setting bad example to other students and you are making the teacher unhappy. So even though everything is free and empty, you just created a little island of chaos and suffering in your immediate locality. See what I mean? So the best way to function in society, is to always, always, always be mindful of the perspective of others. What will they feel? How will this affect them? Will this action lead to peace and harmony for others or will it lead to conflict and negative mindstates for them?

By combining these two principles -- the absolute and the local -- we arrive at the enlightened behavior: combination of spontaneous freedom with no reference point, and tremendous empathy/responsibility for everything you touch in your spontaneous dance.


In today's perspective is it possible to practice mindful meditation except bhikkhus?

I don't think it is all that different than in past times. The distractions and duties might have been different, but there were surely many obstacles on the way.

The texts always mention householders and lay people for a reason.

The degree to which you practice or are able to practice may vary on your circumstances; many of those might not be that fixed as one may think, though. Too many possessions to look after? Too many duties that need your attention? If you need more time to practice, change the elements of your life. Downsize.

Most things that we think are necessary or "needs" are really useless if you think about them. With every excess you remove, life get's a whole lot easier.

Also, mindfulness can be practiced in many contexts. You could say: the harder the environment, the better the training.


What is Buddhist law of marriage ? Is there any?

There is no such as a Buddhist law on marriage. If you like to have a long time partner its always good to have the same tendencies as he/she but such is not merely up to religion. Virtue, generosity, gratitude... all this things are not limited to a certain religion. So to seek for a partner with equal virtue or virtues one likes to follow, is quite good.

And there is no such as any cultural, national, or what ever discrimination. Of course such plays, even so, always a rule in live and society as much traditions have also to do with common virtues. The world is not full of Arahants and Noble Ones.

(thoughts come up sometimes ...and now they like to be great yogis ...  :-)  "I wan it all", but not to speak about those who even do not take on the responsibility of partnership)


Is there a ritual free form of Buddhism?

Yes. The "original tradition" i.e. of the time of the Buddha himself, did not have a lot of the rituals and customs that are practised today.

There was some recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya, but it did not amount to liturgical chanting in the Buddha's time. Certainly, monks did not chant for blessing, in the Buddha's time. Recitation was just a form of recollection, as it was initially an oral tradition. Recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya did not have mystical effects.

There were no statues or idols or images in the Buddha's time, and certainly no rituals were performed to those idols or images. There were stupas, as we could find in DN 16, but those were just memorials for inspiration and not for worship. In fact, the tradition of making Buddha images originated centuries after the Buddha, influenced by ancient Greek art.

There were no Buddhist temples in those times. Only monasteries and some stupas.

The Buddha strongly criticized astrology, palmistry, divination and such practices in DN 2.

Prayer beads or rosaries, mandalas, incense etc. all came much later and was not part of the original tradition.


When should one ask a question of someone other than themselves?

Asking questions is interesting in Buddhism; the Buddha had his own version of the Socratic method, and many of the discourses are comprised of back and the Buddha asking questions in order to lead his audience to their own wisdom.
See, for example, the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha's second discourse:

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
(Nyanamoli, trans)

Other discourses are more traditional, wherein the Buddha is asked a question and responds in one of various ways. The Buddha himself said he responded to questions in one of four ways:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four ways of answering questions. What four? (1) There is a question to be answered categorically; (2) there is a question to be answered after making a distinction; (3) there is a question to be answered with a counter-question; and (4) there is a question to be set aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.”
-- AN 4.42 (Bodhi, trans)

Yet other teachings show the Buddha using questions out of compassion, to bring up a topic that his students are disinclined to bring to his attention out of consideration for his welfare. As the commentary explains:

jānantāpi tathāgatā pucchanti, jānantāpi na pucchanti; kālaṃ viditvā pucchanti, kālaṃ viditvā na pucchanti; atthasaṃhitaṃ tathāgatā pucchanti, no anatthasaṃhitaṃ. anatthasaṃhite setughāto tathāgatānaṃ. dvīhi ākārehi buddhā bhagavanto bhikkhū paṭipucchanti — dhammaṃ vā desessāma, sāvakānaṃ vā sikkhāpadaṃ paññapessāmāti
Sometimes, knowing, the Tathāgata asks, and sometimes, knowing, he doesn't ask. Knowing the time, he asks; knowing the time, he doesn't ask. He asks what is connected with benefit, not what is not connected with benefit; for the Tathāgata has destroyed the bridge in regards to what is not connected with benefit. With two intentions the Buddha, the Bhagava,  asks questions back to Bhikkhus: "We will discourse on the dhamma, or we will establish training rules for our disciples."
-- Pārājika, verañjakaṇḍa

To this end, we can see that the Buddha himself gave some significance to asking and answering questions.
As to the purpose of questions, it is most obviously related to the way in which we acquire information, and how information informs our behaviour. Since asking questions can lead to hearing useful things, to broadening one's perspective, to reminding one of what one has forgotten, to helping one discard wrong views, and to many other good things as well, it seems obvious that questions should be asked and answered.
I can't think of a specific reference for the above paragraph, though, except to say that a read through of the Buddha's forty-five years of teaching should give a good idea of how questions are effective in helping us progress on the path. The only specific teaching on benefits of questions I can think of off the top of my head is:

“Here, student, some man or woman does not visit a recluse or a brahmin and ask: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome? What is unwholesome? What is blameable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What kind of action will lead to my harm and suffering for a long time? What kind of action will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ Because of performing and undertaking such action…he reappears in a state of deprivation…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is stupid. This is the way, student, that leads to stupidity, namely, one does not visit a recluse or brahmin and ask such questions.
“But here, student, some man or woman visits a recluse or a brahmin and asks: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome?…What kind of action will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ Because of performing and undertaking such action…he reappears in a happy destination…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is wise. This is the way, student, that leads to wisdom, namely, one visits a recluse or brahmin and asks such questions.
-- MN 135 (Bodhi, trans)

So, there you have it. Asking questions leads to wisdom.
As with all sorts of learning, it is important not to mistake asking questions with actual meditation and empirical realization of the truth. On the other hand, asking questions certainly has greater benefit that simply producing theoretical knowledge; it can challenge and encourage and be quite beneficial as a means of producing wholesome mind states.


Will I know when it's time to meditate longer?

This answer is based in the practice of insight meditation.

You will know when to begin adding more time to your sitting practice. In the beginning quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to meditation. What does quality mean when it comes to meditation?

Quality means to make an effort to keep the mind in the present moment, so that one can observe the arising and ceasing of phenomena without the mind following after them or running away from them and getting lost.

By keeping the mind in the present moment one ties the monkey down. The mind is like a monkey jumping from branch to branch. By keeping the mind in the present moment is like taking the monkey in the hand and walking him to another area, an area that has only one tree. Now the monkey cannot jump anywhere.

In samsara, conditioned reality, the mind can never be satisfied with anything because all objects are impermanent meaning they cannot bring any lasting and permanent happiness to the mind. So the mind jumps from object to object but everytime it's left with suffering. The hardest thing in the world is actually to do nothing. So don't be too hard on yourself. It's the nature of mind to wander.

The tibetan buddhists have a saying that goes like this: "If the Mind wanders a Thousand times, bring it back a Thousand times".

Step by step we train the mind so that it will not stray from the present moment. It's usually a long process so don't get stressed about it. You might also not see any apparent changes at first but everytime you meditate you are changing something. You are untying the knots, slowly. Don't be fooled by not seeing any changes from day to day or even from week to week. There are changes happening but in the beginning they are subtle.

Results come not from how long one sits but from consistency, diligency and the ability to keep the mind in the present moment. It's like learning to play football. If one only plays once a week one will not improve that fast. If one practices let's say 1 hour every day then the benefits will be more solid and apparent. So to become good at any skill in life, one has to practice consistently.

Don't worry if you sit 30 minutes or 10 minutes everyday, just try to make an effort to do a little bit of meditation every day. Then naturally you will increase your physical and mental stamina and then you can begin to increase your sitting time.


Is there a specific practice that leads to a "rainbow body"

Here is a quote about the practice from the Wiki:

"Rainbow body (Tib. འཇའ་ལུས་, ja lü; Wyl. 'ja' lus) — fully accomplished Dzogchen practitioners can dissolve their body at the time of death."
"Through the practice of trekchö, the practitioner can attain the so-called ‘rainbow body’, in which the body becomes smaller and smaller as it dissolves, emanating rainbow light, and finally only the hair and nails are left behind."

Here is a quote on The Rainbow Body from the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia:

"The rainbow body phenomenon is a third person perspective of someone else attaining complete knowledge (rigpa). Knowledge is the absence of delusion regarding the display of the basis.
Rigpa has three wisdoms, two of which are kadag and lhun grub. Kadag (primordial purity) is the Dzogchen view of emptiness. Lhun grub (natural formation) is the Dzogchen view of Dependent origination. Throughout Mahayana, emptiness and Dependent origination are two sides of the same coin. Kadag deals with tregchöd. The lhun grub aspect has to do with esoteric practices, such as (but not limited to) Thödgal, that self-liberate the dependently originated human body into the Sambhogakāya (rainbow body phenomenon). The symbol of Dzogchen is a Tibetan A wrapped in a thigle (see picture to the right). The A represents kadag while the thigle represents lhun grub. The third Wisdom, thugs rje (compassion), is the inseparability of the previous two wisdoms.
The ultimate fruition of the thodgal practices is a body of pure light, called a rainbow body (Wylie 'ja' lus, pronounced Jalü.) If the four visions of thogal are not completed before death, then at death, from the point of view of an external observer, the following happens: the corpse does not start to decompose, but starts to shrink until it disappears. Usually fingernails, toenails and hair are left behind (see e.g. Togden Urgyen Tendzin, Ayu Khandro, Changchub Dorje.) The attainment of the rainbow body is typically accompanied by the appearance of lights and rainbows.
Some exceptional practitioners such as Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra are held to have realized a higher type of rainbow body without dying. Having completed the four visions before death, the individual focuses on the lights that surround the fingers. His or her physical body self-liberates into a nonmaterial body of light (a Sambhogakāya) with the ability to exist and abide wherever and whenever as pointed by one's compassion."

Lanka


Is this the correct translation and exact meaning of these epic verses in Tripitaka?

"Divine" has its roots in the gods, the "devas". However, the Buddha declares this about gods:

  AN8.29:1.4: Firstly, a Realized One has arisen in the world—perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He teaches the Dhamma leading to peace, extinguishment, awakening, as proclaimed by the Holy One.

Indeed, being reborn as a divine god is not so fortunate:

  AN8.29:4.2: But a person has been reborn in one of the long-lived orders of gods. This is the fourth lost opportunity.

Because of this, we must be careful in choosing adjectives used for gods and for the Buddha. A human life is the best opportunity to study the Dhamma fully.


Where does the Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness?

The Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness?

That wasn't really what He meant. Basically He said that the reason why human realm is the most conducive to the cultivation of the Dhamma is because it's a realm where there's a mixed bag of misery and happiness, unlike realms where there's only exclusively just misery or just happiness.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life." ~~ SN 35.135 ~~

And Ven. Thanissaro's note:

The message here is that in realms where sense objects are totally disagreeable or totally agreeable it is very difficult to practice the holy life, for in the former, one is too distracted by pain; in the latter, too distracted by pleasure.


Which are considered to be the oldest suttas?

I was told that the Sutta Nipata is a one of the oldest collections. I'm no Buddhist scholar so I can't help with any great textual analysis of the sutta. However Thanissaro Bhikkhu says here that the The Parayana Vagga is quoted in other (more recent) parts of the Pali Canon so this makes it a good candidate to be considered one of the oldest. To quote the relevant part of the passage

  There is evidence that these sixteen dialogues were highly regarded
  right from the very early centuries of the Buddhist tradition. [...]
  Most of the Cula Niddesa, a late addition to the Pali canon, is
  devoted to explaining them in detail. Five discourses — one in the
  Samyutta Nikaya, four in the Anguttara — discuss specific verses in
  the set


Does DN2 and MN36 provide an irrefutable statement on the fact of rebirth?

In response to the comment of Ilya Grushevskiy

Rebirth has everything to do with the Buddhist soteriology because if it weren't for rebirth suffering could have been easily ended at natural death or at any moment "in the here and now" with suicide, and the entire teaching if the Buddha would be pointless and vain.

But it is because of rebirth that beings need a method of salvaging themselves from suffering, propagation of which was the purpose of the Buddha's ministry.

It is exactly because of rebirth that liberation must be attained here and now, otherwise next birth follows.

The stock phrases are not to be dismissed, it's agreed that they actually constitute the core of the Dhamma. Besides these stock phrases there're many suttas which deal with destinations for next existence based on the behavior in the current life.

Secular Buddhism is a cherry picking Buddhism, its proponents only select what conveniently fits in with their preconceptions rooted in Western rationalism, discarding the rest as 'superstitious'. They don't seem concerned with samsara and ultimate predicament of existence, they're happy enough to alleviate some suffering in this life using the Dhamma as a psychotechnic. But this is not exactly the gist of the Buddha's teaching.


Some daily-life examples to help explain what 'mindfulness' and 'mindless activity' are?

When your Buddhism teacher tells you: "don't get irritated in daily life, don't get frustrated, be the master of your mind"

-- and then you come back next day and say, "I really wanted to be a master of my mind... but then I got carried away and yelled at my wife"

and teacher says: "but this was supposed to be your main practice, to not get irritated, didn't I give you instructions?"

and you say: "somehow, in real life, when we started arguing with my wife, it looked so real and so important, and your instructions seemed so far away and so naive and irrelevant"

and the teacher says: "this means you lack mindfulness. You must hold your practice assignment in front of you at all times, it must be the main thing on your mind - whatever else you do in daily life. Develop mindfulness. Do not get carried away."

So that moment when "it looked so real and so important, and your instructions seemed so far away and so naive and irrelevant" - is when your perspective (and with it, your perception of reality and hence your judgement) has shifted by the external circumstances. If you had mindfulness, you would be able to hold your perspective the way your teacher has set it up, regardless of external pressure. So mindfulness is really a basic form of jhana, being able to control your perspective, instead of you being a slave of perspective. Mindfulness is predecessor to meditation.


What is the logic behind visualization meditation

It depends on the system.

In the sutra system, there are analytical meditations involving visualizing the form of the body of the Buddha, for instance. You do this in order to achieve calm abiding on the mental image of the form of the body of the Buddha. It is very much practiced in Tibetan traditions, since it is said that the object (that mental image) is very virtuous and thus preferable to neutral objects such as one's breath and so forth. It is said that one has to focus on a mental image to achieve calm abiding: if you take the breath, usually from the fourth mental abiding (calm abiding itself being the tenth), your mind becomes so subtle that a mental image of the breath starts to appear. Taking a mental image (such as the form of the body of the Buddha) from the outset makes things easier.

In the tantra system, the way of visualizing, the reasons to do so, and the objects visualized are completely different. I will not go into it here because it is secret mantra. However, in general, one engages in deity yoga so as to take the resultant enjoyment body into a path. It's called "taking the result as a path", or "mixing of the ordinary states with the three kayas."

The idea is to create the substantial cause of the enjoyment body. This substantial cause has to be of a similar type (and in the continuity of its result). It is a special body, a special mental body you create the cause of when you identify with the deity.


Why is 'attention' ('manasikara') included within 'nama-rupa'?

There is this hierarchy in the teaching. One such is in the Nama…..  of the  rupa (material phenomena) & nama (mental phenomena).  Nama is broken down into Vedana (feeling) , Sañña (perception),  cetanā (mental activities),  Passa (contact) , and manasikāra (mental advertence). Buddha placed Passa & Manasikaara to the end for a reason. For the three things: feeling, perception and volition (vedana, sañña, and cetana) to be born contact must be there. Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

Vedanā, saññā, cetanā multiple series of mental events are rapidly arising and passing away from moment to moment. Only if contact happens -  Passa paccaya vedanā, saññā, cetanā….  with vedanā as condition, Tanhā arises.  Passa (Pāli) is a Buddhist term meaning "contact" or "touching”.  Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

In the case of an arahant the manasikāra is in accordance with the Dhamma. They live in the timeless present. For an Arahant in reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. For him it is only “Passa”, whereas for you and me, it is ‘sampassa’ (san+passa).

“San’ is basically the term for “good and bad things we acquire”. When we are thinking about an experience in the past or worrying about a future event, it all happens in the present moment. They are all activity of nāma-rūpa happening only in the present. From this ‘sampassa’ (san+passa) comes Ayonisomanasikāra.

Thus Manasikāra simply means ‘attention’. This in essence is the ability to be aware of the activity of the senses and the origin of mental phenomena, as it happens. The activity of the six senses. (1) Eye and forms (objects), (2) ear and sounds, (3) nose and odours, (4) tongue and tastes, (5) body and tactile objects, (6) mind and mental phenomena (mind objects). This happens both in you and me, as well as in Arahants.

In Arahants there is cetanā. In you and me it is san+ cetanā.  There is a distinction between sankhara and abhisankhara. Sankhara involves everything that we do to live in “this world”; these include breathing, walking, eating, etc. Even an Arahant has to be engaged in sankhara until Parinibbana or death. The prefix “abhi” means “stronger” or “coarse”. Sankhara become abhisankhara by engaging in the “wheeling process”. The sansaric process or the rebirth process is fueled by abhisankhara.


I have.  The hypnagogic/hypnaponic state is known for the interesting and even intense phenomena that can arise.  Here's my most vivid experience:

  I woke up one morning, paralyzed.  This happened before (sleep paralysis), and I knew it was a symptom of the hypnagogic/hypnaponic state. Well, I had recently read a book on out-of-body experiences (OBE), and it stated that I should simply will myself to lift out of my body.  So I did.

  I then felt a buzzing sensation up and down my body that grew to a
  fevered pitch.  It was INTENSE.  Then I felt myself lifting out of my
  body, with a static-electricity-like sensation at every point I exited. Then I
  saw the ceiling coming closer through CLOSED EYELIDS.

  I was terrified, so terrified I wanted back in.  I ended up
  snapping back in, and literally shivered myself to sleep.

  Then I woke up again, and heard strange music.  I never heard this song
  before, but the voice sounded like Sinead O'Connor's.  I then felt the
  buzzing again, like it was a spontaneous OBE.  I fought it hard, and
  it stopped.

The above was very vivid, more vivid than my waking experiences.  I chalk it up to the hallucinations (or lucid dreams) possible from this state.


I'd hazard a guess that if the Ven. Nagasena were around today he might respond with something as follows:

1) Just because you don't know that you have a problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

2) One cannot conclude that something in the past didn't happen just because you don't remember it. For example, I don't have any memories of being an infant or being born but that doesn't mean that I never was.

3) One should be concerned about Nirvana because it is not some sort of prize after death, but a reality that is fully realizable in the here and now.

4) One should strive for enlightenment through meditation because meditation is a necessary part of the spiritual practice. Without it one cannot expect to attain anything.


Why are there rising/falling tones in English-language chanting?

Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism says of chanting

  [chanting] has a rhythm which encourages the mind to flow from word to
  word [but ..] usually lacks melody which might encourage some words to
  become distorted

Also

  chanting is neither singing or a monotonous dirge [...] it holds
  interest with it's minor variations of pitch and rhythm

So from this I would suggest that the tone of chanting is an aid to memory and interest and doesn't, in English, have a semantic content deriving from the original language. Of course Thai being a tonal language (i am not any kind of expert here) the tones may well have a more semantic content.

I guess less charitably you could say we are making it up a bit. Certainly from my own experience chanting within the Triratna community we have a tone they we vary widely from  and add harmonies to on occasion. The the Padmasambhava chant we actually got the words wrong too initially (50 years ago) but we have just stuck to our original bad interpretation. We kind of like it.


What is appropriate punishment for heinous crimes by Buddhist standards?

Though Buddhism does not make a stance on punishments, they should be there as a deterrent. But there should be also a opportunity to reform one self through the practice of Vipassana. Meditation will lead to reform, as it is latent tendencies of aversion, craving and ignorance which lead to crime, and meditation helps alleviate them.

I do not think capital punishment should be acceptable this does not give an opportunity to correct oneself is depriving of life.

Also see: Vipassana Meditation Courses For Correction Facilities, Doing Time Doing Vipassana


What are the views considered "false convictions", and why are they false?

The following quotes are extracts from the Pali Deeganikaya  Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views.

  Speculations about the Past (Pubbantakappika)

  "There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. And what are these dhammas?

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, who hold settled views about the past, and who on eighteen grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

  Eternalism (Sassatavāda): Views 1–4
  Partial-Eternalism (Ekaccasassatavāda): Views 5–8
  Doctrines of the Finitude and Infinity of the World (Antānantavāda): Views 9–12
  Doctrines of Endless Equivocation (Amarāvikkhepavāda): Views 13–16

  "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

  "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

  "Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:

  A.
  •   2. Is there no world beyond?
  •   3. Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
  •   4. Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
  B.
  •   1. Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   2. Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   3. Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
  •   4. Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
  C.
  •   1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
  •   4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
  D.
  •   1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
  •   2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
  •   3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
  •   4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?

  "This bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

  "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation when questioned about this or that point. Whatever recluses or brahmins there may be who resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

  "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

  Doctrines of Fortuitous Origination (Adhiccasamuppannavāda): Views 17–18

  Speculations about the Future (Aparantakappika)

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future, who hold settled views about the future, and who on forty-four grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

  Doctrines of Percipient Immortality (Saññīvāda): Views 19–34

  "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality[10] and who on sixteen grounds proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

  "They proclaim: 'The self is immutable after death, percipient, and:

  A.
  •   1. material
  •   2. immaterial
  •   3. both material and immaterial
  •   4. neither material nor immaterial
  B.
  •   1. finite
  •   2. infinite
  •   3. both finite and infinite
  •   4. neither finite nor infinite
  C.
  •   1. of uniform perception
  •   2. of diversified perception
  •   3. of limited perception
  •   4. of boundless perception
  D.
  •   1. exclusively happy
  •   2. exclusively miserable
  •   3. both happy and miserable
  •   4. neither happy nor miserable.'

  "It is on these sixteen grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality, all of them do so on these sixteen grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
  "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understand... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

  Doctrines of Non-percipient Immortality (Asaññīvāda): Views 35–42
  Doctrines of Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Immortality (N'evasaññī-nāsaññīvāda): Views 43–50
  Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57
  Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda): Views 58–62

This teaching on the 62 (false) convictions is from the Brahmajala Sutta (in the Pali Digha Nikaya -- adapted herein from Walshe).

  At the end of this Sutta the Buddha declares that this teaching may be known by the following names:

  • The Net of Advantage (Attha = Artha)
  •   The Net of Dhamma
  •   The Supreme Net
  •   The Net of Views
  •   The Incomparable Victory in Battle

  In his glossary entry on the “sixty-two convictions” in the Vimalakirti Sutra, Thurman states:

    These ... consist of all views other than the "right view" of selflessness. All sixty-two fall into either one of the two categories known as the "two extremisms": "eternalism" (sashvatavada) and "nihilism" (ucchedavada).

  [However,] for Vimalakirti’s take on this subject, see his exchange with Manjushri below.

  Vimalakirti’s Take on the 62 Convictions (From p. 44 of Thurman’s translation):

  Mañjushri: Householder, where should emptiness be sought?

  Vimalakirti: Mañjushri, emptiness should be sought among the sixty-two
  convictions.

  Mañjushri: Where should the sixty-two convictions be sought?
  Vimalakirti: They should be sought in the liberation of the
  Tathagatas.    Mañjushri: Where should the liberation of the
  Tathagatas be sought?    Vimalakirti: It should be sought in the prime
  mental activity of all living beings.

  Mañjushri, you ask me why I am without servants, but all Maras and
  opponents are my servants. Why? The Maras advocate this life of birth
  and death, and the bodhisattva does not avoid life. The heterodox
  opponents advocate convictions, and the bodhisattva is not troubled by
  convictions. Therefore, all Maras and opponents are my servants.

Buddha's conclusion (From Wikipedia)

  "The Tathagata knows these sixty-two views. He also knows the dhamma
  which surpasses them. Knowing that dhamma, he does not view it in the
  wrong way. Since he does not view it in the wrong way, he realizes by
  himself the extinction of defilements (i.e., greed, anger, and
  ignorance of the Four Ariya Truths).

  Buddha finally concludes the exposition of these 'wrong' beliefs by
  stating that these (62) beliefs, if they are believed, will certainly
  cause agitations and cravings. It implies that the beliefs come to
  conclusion due to the inability to see the truth, as they are seized
  by craving (clinging), agitated by longing (feeling).

  The Buddha further explains that the beliefs are originated from
  Contact (Phassa) as the cause. The contact is a phenomenon when the
  perception recognised an object beyond our Self. Then, from this brief
  (like lightning in the sky, Nagasena analogued in Milinda Panha)
  event, rise up feelings.

  Buddha states that there are no possibilities of feeling without
  contact. Thus, according to the law of Twelve Related Chain of Cause
  and Effects (Pratitya-samutpada), the people who believe in one of
  many of these sixty-two beliefs, will end up in round cycle of
  sufferings; as they have not found the truth on the cease of
  sufferings.

  Due to their faith, they will experience feelings as a result of
  repeated contact through the six sense bases. In them feeling gives
  rise to craving; craving gives rise to clinging; clinging gives rise
  to current existence (upapatti bhava) and the kammic causal process
  (kamma bhava); the kammic causal process gives rise to rebirth; and
  rebirth gives rise to ageing, death, grief, lamentation, pain,
  distress and despair.

  The Buddha states that Monks who have realized and understood the
  origin of contact of the six senses, and escaped the round of
  sufferings, would see Dhamma (Truth) of Precepts (Śīla), Concentration
  (Samadhi) and Wisdom (Pańńa) which surpassed all the wrong beliefs.

  The Buddha then makes an analogy of a fisherman using a fine-meshed
  net to catch the fish in the pond. The fish represent the ascetics who
  cling to their beliefs. They will rise and sink in the pond, but in
  the end will unavoidably be caught in the net. Whereas the Buddha, who
  stand outside the net has found the truth and has transcended the
  cycle of suffering.

  The Brahmajala Sutta ends with this quotation:

    "When the Bhagava had delivered this discourse, the Venerable Ananda
    addressed him thus: "Marvellous indeed, Venerable Sir! Extraordinary
    indeed, Venerable Sir! What is the name of this exposition of the
    dhamma?"

    "Ananda!" said the Bhagava, "Bear in mind that this exposition of the
    dhamma is called Atthajala, the Net of Essence, as well as Dhammajala,
    the Net of the Dhamma, as well as Brahmajala, the Net of Perfect
    Wisdom, as well as Ditthijala, the Net of Views, as well as
    Anuttarasangama Vijaya, the Incomparable Victory in Battle."

  Thus said
  the Bhagava.


How we can develop metta for terrorists?

I am going to try my reply, based on the assumption that by 'terrorists' you are referring to the recent events in Middle East, 'Sydney Siege', Charlie Hebdo and so forth.

Personally I would take the following approach:

Ensure my own 'safety' first

By 'safety' I mean to ensure I do not lose my own Metta. Within the eternal tides of Samsara, the wellness of my current physical body can not compare to my heart's purity. Terrorists attacks mainly originates from the hatred poison, and I must ensure I do not have delusions of justice which can subject myself to the same contamination.

In reality, I am a commoner with no political influence on international affairs. Therefore, as a son, father and husband, I am obliged to ensure my, and my families', safety so I can continue to fulfil my duties. I shall remain respectful to all parties, and always keep a graceful distance.

Repent my own poisons

Upon witnessing the aftermath of much hatred build-up, I shall reflect within myself, "am I still poisoned with the same or similar traces of hatred? if so, can I let go of them? if not, then I shall continue to diligently abstain from hatred."

Offer my merits to them

Buddhism teaches that we are one with every being in all realms. We all share the same essence, and the existence of 'me' and 'them' is an illusion.

Everyone in the cosmos is like the trillions of microscopic cells in a human body. When a body part is malfunctioning, the body proceeds to repair it, not avenge it. For example, if my teeth accidentally bites my tongue, would my tongue exact revenge on my teeth? If differently body parts start to turn against each other, the violence multiplies and we will all eventually perish together.

There is an African village that doesn't punish fellow villagers whom has committed misconduct. They consider 'bad people' are simply unfortunately confused, so they would band together, and sing and dance around the 'bad person'. They would sing to praise nice things about him, and remind him that he should return to being the wonderful person he has always been.

We may need to stay vigilant in the short term to protect our safety, but in spirit we must be mindful that anyone is capable of greatness, everyone can attain Buddha-hood, and work towards that goal.

As a Pureland Buddhist myself, I would ask Amitabha Buddha to help us and dedicate merits to the situation at the end of every practice.

Proper education

As a Chinese Buddhist I practise Confucian virtues as a core foundation before diving into Mahayana wisdom. An essential part of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese culture, in general) is cultivating filial piety. By fulfilling our filial duties we focus our life on full and proper care for our parents, our first and most important benefactors, and then gradually expand that love to our direct family members, friends, community and, with Mahayana teaching, expand the love to all realms.

The confucian book 'Di Zi Gui' (sometimes known as 'Pupil's Guide') summarizes criteria of filial piety into 7 parts: filial to elders, care for juniors, exercise caution, trustworthiness, love all beings, get well acquainted with the wise, and study arts (e.g. literature, skills, music etc) once the former criteria have been well established. This is commonly thought to be taught to children, but has been highly encouraged for adults to practice and 'fill in the gaps'. After all, how can you be Buddha, if you can't even succeed at being a human being?

If we can promote education towards love and wisdom (Metta), then we can cultivate better empathy for others and work together to foster happier families, and better communities. The most efficient way to convince others is not to approach them, but to first practice Metta diligently, set a great example, and convince others with our actions.

I hope the above has been helpful. I must be honest to say that I am not the expert in global affairs, but I can act on what I know and try to be a better human being. Any feedback to my reply above would be very much appreciated.


It's a good intention to desire to make a livelihood that does neither harm one self nor others, and conscience is very importand toward path and beyond.

As for how to use it all the way to highest liberation, best to get known the talk by the Sublime Buddha to his Son Ven. Rahula.

Mudita

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for liberation from it]


Here is you can get a clue how it like the enlightenment. Reading this sutta superficially will not guarantee  the total realization of Nirvana. But surely get clue.

The heart sutta;

Body is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence --
feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --
are likewise nothing more than emptiness,
and emptiness nothing more than they.

All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.

(So anybody have any idea about how the enlightment feels like)The question is how you imagine the feeling of this kind. you have to think,meditate and find the wisdom to realization. Its like explain color to born blind. Also you get full enlightment after parinibbana or death of person who attained Nirvana through realization.

So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.

Note: After reading above phrase you have to think deeply what is this "condition or state" , can anybody "feel" the above condition, and most important thing is we can assure there is no suffering or pleasure ultimately to feel and so on.......

There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.

The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and so with no delusions,
they feel no fear,
and have Nirvana here and now.

All the Buddhas,
past, present, and future,
rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and live in full enlightenment.

The Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest mantra.
It is the clearest mantra,
the highest mantra,
the mantra that removes all suffering.

This is truth that cannot be doubted.
Say it so:

Gaté,
gaté,
paragaté,
parasamgaté.
Bodhi!
Svaha!
Which means...
Gone,
gone,
gone over,
gone fully over.
Awakened!
So be it!
* Emptiness is the usual translation for the Buddhist term Sunyata (or Shunyata).  It refers to the fact that no thing -- including human existence -- has ultimate substantiality, which in turn means that no thing is permanent and no thing is totally independent of everything else.  In other words, everything in this world is interconnected and in constant flux.  A deep appreciation of this idea of emptiness thus saves us from the suffering caused by our egos, our attachments, and our resistance to change and loss.


Kesi Sutta, what is an untamable person?

Ven. Sujato translates it, "a person in training" (which makes sense in the context).

The word in question is purisadamma.

Piya Tan explains it here as follows:

  1.3.3.2 What is purisa? The usual translation for purisa is “person,” usually a “man.” And the usual
  word for “individual” is purisa,puggala or simply puggala, as if famously used in reference to “the pairs of
  persons, the 8 individuals” (purisa,yugāni aṭṭha,purisa.puggalā) in the recollection of the noble community (saṅghânussati).

  Here, purisa refers to a “person,” which loosely refers to a being with some capacity for thought and
  will (in the sense of personal action).

  The Buddha has tamed animal persons (tiracchāna,purisa), such as the naga-rajah Apalāla, Cūḷodara, Mahodara, Aggi,sikha, Dhūma,sikha, the naga-rajah Āravāla, and the elephant Dhana,pālaka.

  He has tamed human persons (manussa,purisa), such as the young nirgrantha Saccaka, the brahmin
  youth Ambaṭṭha, Pokkhara,sāti, Soṇa,daṇa, and Kūṭa,danta.

  He has tamed non-human persons (amanussa,purisa), such as the yakshas Āḷavaka, Sūci,loma and
  Khara,loma, and Sakra, the lord of the devas.

  1.3.3.3 What is damma? The word damma (Skt damya)
  is an adjective, the gerundive of dameti
  (causative: Skt dāmyati), “to bring into the house, to domesticate; to tame, convert; to be restrained;
  especially with reference to tamable animals; figuratively, to humans to be tamed or converted.” Technically, damma means “to be tamed, or should be tamed,” but the context here clearly refers to the
  capacity or readiness of a being or person for taming—hence, “tamable.”

  “Tamable persons” (purisa,damma), that is, those to be trained, according to the Sutta are of 4 kinds:
  (1) those who are trained with gentleness; [1.3.4.1]
  (2) those who are trained with harshness; [1.3.4.2]
  (3) those who are trained both ways (with gentleness and with harshness); [1.3.4.3] and
  (4) those who cannot be trained at all: the untamable. [1.3.5]


Does Buddhist's Time Dilation have something to do with Physics's Time Dilation?

Time dilation due to special relativity happens because the speed of light is constant and is expressed using equations which include the Lorentz factor.

Time dilation due to gravitation is a related concept.

Assuming that "time dilation" is a concept in Buddhism, have you evidence that the theoretical/conceptual cause of that dilation is the speed of light being constant being all frames of reference, or, the acceleration of frames of reference e.g. due to gravity? Do Buddhist scriptures (mathematical equations) mention the Lorentz factor, somewhere? If the answer is "no" then I suggest that "they both refer to the same thing" is false, i.e. that Buddhism's "time dilation" and Physics' "time dilation" actually refer to different concepts.

I don't want to say that Buddhism in't helpful towards understanding Physics; but it was my experience that my learning Physics wasn't much help towards understanding Buddhism.

Working with, studying or applying Physics might count as a form of "right livelihood" in Buddhism.

I think it would be missing the point of Buddhism to see it as a way to get miraculous leaning/knowledge/insight/invention of the detailed models of (i.e. the hypotheses or theorems about) the universe which are used by physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

If you read from the Pali canon for example then the Buddha is talking about something else entirely.