Of the two extremes (eternalism vs nihilism) the latter is more harmful. Reference?

I'm not sure what's meant by "eternalism"; but quoting from the Pali canon again, in The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice is a passage which says that "mundane right view" (i.e. belief in rebirth) is better or safer than an annihilationst view:

  So it is with all of our actions. Given that we have to wager one way or another all the time on how to find happiness, the Buddha stated that it's a safer wager to assume that actions bear results that can affect not only this lifetime but also lifetimes after this than it is to assume the opposite.

  In MN 60, for instance, he pointed out that anyone who adheres to the annihilationist view espoused by Ajita Kesakambalin would not be expected to avoid unskillful behavior, whereas those who hold to the opposite — mundane right view — would be expected to avoid unskillful behavior. Then he said of the first group:

    "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans [who assert the existence of the next world], this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful."

    — MN 60

  As for the second group — those who hold to mundane right view and act on it — he said this:

    "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & well adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful."

    — MN 60

  These arguments don't prove the efficacy of action or the truth of rebirth, but they do show that it is a safer, more reasonable, and more honorable policy to assume the truth of these teachings than it would be to assume otherwise. The Buddha didn't press these arguments beyond that point. In other words, he left it to his listeners to decide whether they wanted to recognize that action is an investment that, like all investments, incurs risks. And he left it to them to decide how they wanted to calculate the risks and potentials that action might involve now and into the future. He didn't ask that his listeners all commit themselves to an unquestioning belief in the possibility that their actions might lead to rebirth, but he wasn't interested in teaching anyone who rejected that possibility outright. As we've already noted, he saw that heedfulness lay at the root of all skillful qualities. If a listener couldn't be persuaded to develop an appropriate level of heedfulness around the risks of action, any further teaching would be a waste of time.


What are the funeral rites for Tibetan lay Buddhists?

One thing that comes to mind is reading aloud the Tibetan Book of the Dead. When one of my Buddhist friends died I read it for him and I felt it helped both of us attain piece of mind.

For those who are not familiar with Tibetan Book of the Dead, it is meant to be recited for the deceased by a lama (or the most spiritual person available in the absence of real lama). The text addresses the deceased directly, walking him or her through various post-death experiences and relating them with Buddhist Teaching.

As Chogyam Trungpa tells in The Mishap Lineage, since its discovery by Karma Lingpa in 14th century, Tibetan Book of the Dead was preserved in Surmang Monastery and passed down the line of Trungpa Tulkus.


Re. the first paragraph of your question, perhaps the teacher you met was talking about a so-called pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha (it's useful to know the technical word if you want to read more about it, see also e.g. the 'external links' etc. at the end of that article).


I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes.

I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist:

Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes against the dependent origination. Also the name 'chair' is just a convention, nothing more.

Nihilism as we know it is a recent phenomena. The name has a Latin origin, so in the time of the Buddha Nihilism didn't exist like today. It was more related to ascetic practices of thinking that the world is a illusion and nothing exists at all. So the Buddha was trying to explain that things DO exist, but not as we think. There IS a chair, but it does not own a chair-nature. It is something transitory, impermanent with a dependent origination that we perceive with the eye-consciousness


Why sitting meditation, and is vippasana and breath meditation sufficient?

Breath meditation, vipassana and Samadhi meditation are two sides of the coin. Breath meditation is about focused attention that quiets the mind of chatter and noise. It's as if you let a muddy pool settle after stirring it up. Once the mud (chatter) has settled, the water (mind) becomes clear and can now focus more easily and powerfully than before.

Now that's all well and good but what do you do with this focused mind? You point it towards the three marks of existence, and/or the four noble truths. While breath meditation is sufficient as a vehicle to carry you into higher states of concentration (the jhanas) if it is not coupled with insight meditation or some sort of reflection then all you will be doing is building up your concentration faculties without reflection or thought.

There is a section in the Visuddhi margaya that talks about reflecting after exiting the jhanas that is essential to jhanic meditation. I'm at work now but can find the reference later today.


Does Buddhist scripture mention Zoroastrianism?

Do any of the Buddhist texts mention anything about Zoroastrianism?

At the time of the Buddha the Indian spiritual scenario was under heavy influence of vedic brahminism which was on the west of Buddha's kingdom.

It is highly unlikely that Zoroastrianism which lay further west of Indus valley would cross the valley and influence Buddhist monks to get an honourable mention.

Also, it was only after the invasion of Alexander the Great that Indians came in heavy contact of Persia through the Satarps of Alexander. And his conquest was some 200 years after the Buddha. So it is unlikely that the Buddha himself would have encountered any human from Persia to tell him about Zoroastrianism as He met Jainas and Vedic brahmins.

Buddhist geography in the scriptures does not mention anything in the west not even Egypt.

Has the Buddha ever met Zoroaster?

Zoraster was hundreds or thousands of years prior to Gautama the Buddha so they might not have met in person.

But the Buddha is known to have a council with Gods and He was also possesor of super natural powers. So may be they would have had a chat in some different realms. But that only a Buddha can confirm for you.


How to not let the attachment to a self and its preferences influence the choice of a particular tradition in buddhism?

This is just a suggestion, but in the Mahayana practice, there is a sect called the SGI. The followers consider them selves "lay-buddhists" and the goal of the practice is to atrain buddhahood and ultimately help create a world of world peace. The community in my experience is very supportive and a nice community to become apart of. I know that it is seen by some as a religion that doesn't have value and that the leader isn't enlightened, but part of the reason for that is because the sutra on which the SGI is based upon is the lotus sutra which is very different ideologically than that of many other sutras. In my opinion, the religion itself, since it doesn't have monks or nuns, as well as other common aspects of many religions, is more of a philosophy. The philosophy, in my opinion, has lots of depth and is very interesting. Here is a website if you want to learn more:

What the SGI is about:
http://www.sgi.org/our-story.html

The main website:
http://www.sgi.org


From the wikipedia entry about Satori:

  Satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward Buddhahood

This is very much what Stream Entry means in Theravada. Everything else in that entry makes Satori appear to be the same thing as Stream Entry.

The meaning of Satori as "seeing into one's true nature" is also the same as the meaning of Stream entry when you consider that "one's true nature" in the context of Chan Buddhism is Nirvana/Nibbana.

Therefore it seems that these two terms do refer to the same thing.


I guess according to your definition, the "two" are not "co-existing" -- because one is "before" and the other is "after", so they're not at the same time.

I think that, conventionally, people would say that there's one piece of paper -- no matter how many people are thinking about it, nor whether anyone is looking at it and when.

The article says something poetic, about the cloud existing in the paper. Perhaps that implies that the paper-on-the-table and the paper-in-the mind are the same piece of paper too ... or that they "inter-are".

The bit of the article that stands out for me, is ...

  If we ask, “Empty of what?” he has to answer. And this is what he said: “They are empty of a separate self.” That means none of these five rivers can exist by itself alone.

I think that the anatta doctrine is something like, "There isn't a 'myself' that's independent of other things, e.g. of the shandhas."

And Thich Nhat Hanh explains that the sunyata doctrine means that, for each skandha, "There isn't an 'itself' that's independent of other skandhas." (I assume that means that pereption depends on form and vice versa, and so on).

Also interesting to note that the paper is composed entirely of non-paper elements (e.g. minerals, human labour, sunlight).

Anyway, he's saying what the sutta means when it says that "form is empty".

Also, which is less clear, "because of emptiness, form exists" (I say "less clear" but perhaps that's a classic example of taoism -- also it quotes Nagarjuna's saying, "Thanks to emptiness, everything is possible", so I suppose Nagarjuna explains that too somehow).

The bit at he end of the article, about the leaf and the tree, is quite nice too: reassuring, tender.

He seems to be taking the opposite strategy towards self-identification than I'd expect -- not saying "I am not" but saying, "I am everything -- mother, cloud, leaf".

May he be well. :-)


Is there a Buddhist term for a lack of self identity?

If I understand this question, this might be a diffuse perception of the skhandas, as these are the groupings that might better translate as the identity constructs (in the modern sense).

In that case, i'm not sure there is a word or discussion of identity disorders (if that is what you're referring to) -- i've never seeing this being discussed in any text.

I have seen (modern) people talk about supposed risks of mindfulness meditation for people with specific mental disorders who already have difficulties with making sense and perceiving or associating (or too inclined to disassociate) certain things. But whether these are real risks of what specific practice and to whom exactly i'm not sure (e.g. some researchers do advocate mindfulness meditation to people with specific identity disorders). This is the closest link to buddhism and this lack of self identity i've heard of.


What were Nagarjuna's seminal contributions to Buddhist philosophy?

One of Nāgārjuna's main contributions to Buddhist though was the development of the doctrine of sunyata or emptiness. This was a reaction to the development in the doctrines of the Abhidharma by some of the early Buddhist schools (for instance the Sarvastivada). In those schools there developed the concept of things (dharmas) that had some form of independent existence i.e were not subject to dependent origination. I will quote wikipedia on this point

  The Madhyamaka school [Nāgārjuna traditionally seen as founding this school] has been perhaps simplistically regarded as a
  reaction against the development of the Abhidharma, especially the
  Sarvāstivādin. In the Abhidharma, dharmas are characterized by
  defining traits (lakṣaṇa) or own-existence (svabhāva), whose
  ontological status is not dependent upon concepts.

Nāgārjuna therefore refuted this and insisted that all things are inherently empty and do not have an independent existence. This means everything not just sentient beings. Nāgārjuna is also linked to the Perfection of Wisdom sutras and the Heart Sutra is particularly good on this point (please note I'm using the translation that we use in the Triratna Buddhist Community - scroll halfway down this document for the full version).

  So, in emptiness, no form, No feeling, thought, or choice, Nor is
  there consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No colour,
  sound, smell, taste, touch, Or what the mind takes hold of, Nor even
  act of sensing.

So nothing in the psychophysical organism

  No ignorance or end of it
  , Nor all that comes of ignorance; No
  withering, no death, No end of them.

Or ignorance or death/withering (so no lakshanas maybe?)

  Nor is there pain, or cause of pain, Or cease in pain, or noble path
  To lead from pain; Not even wisdom to attain! Attainment too is
  emptiness.

Or even no four noble truths or eightfold path. So not much left.

So hopefully this giving a flavour of the radical nature of emptiness.

Please note this isn't a complete answer. There are other areas of Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I haven't covered such as the two truths largely due to a complete absence of knowledge on my part.


Why did the Buddha suffer before he died?

"I also was under the impression that perfectly enlightened beings have obliterated, or rendered ineffective, all of their karma"

The five skhandas are roughly understood as "past kamma". Even arahants experience the fruits of their past kamma and are only free of it in parinibbana. For example, there are suttas describing arahants being hurt. In the case of the Buddha specifically, there's a well known one where he had his foot hurt:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him — painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed. Having had his outer robe folded in four and laid out, he lay down on his right side in the lion's posture, with one foot placed on top of the other, mindful & alert.

  -- SN 1.38

"If this is the case, why would the Buddha, the most perfectly enlightened of all, experience great suffering at the end of his life?"

It's generally understood that he suffered body pain (at least when not in jhana). His own teaching carries this (like the quote above):

  "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.

  -- MN 2

A well known sutta on this subject is the The Arrow which illustrates the differences between pain and suffering. Thus, pain could be understood as simply bodily discomfort (even if sharp), but unable to do anything beyond that, say, to his mind (which is naturally not the case for any "normal" person). However, like in the foot episode, he does appear managing these discomforts:

  Then the Blessed One — having spent most of the night instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the Kapilavatthu Sakyans with a Dhamma talk — said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about the person who follows the practice for one in training. My back aches. I will rest it."

  -- MN 53

Finally, body pain (vedana in general) does not cease permanently with nibbana, if a body still has vitality.


What happened to Siddhārtha Gautama wife Yashodhara?

When Lord Buddha's wife Yashodhara also joined Sangha (become bhikkhuni), what happened to her ?

As part of the Bhikkhuni order nothing special or noteworthy incidents through the Buddha acknowledged her past contribution to his enlightenment in realising the Parami.

And like anybody else she aged, decayed and passed away. On passing away she was truly free from suffering as she was enlightened.

  Did she also get enlightened ?

Yasodharā achieved enlightenment.

  Did his son Rahula get enlightened ?

Rāhula also achieved enlightenment.

  ... says Buddha can never be a woman

A woman can never become a fully enlightened Buddha. But a woman can achieve enlightenment as a disciple nun. Yasodara became a disciple nun not a Buddha. She was the wife of Prince Siddhartha. She became a nun later in the Buddha's Sasana. Also see: Bahu Dhātuka Sutta


Moving from absorption to self-awareness

In Buddhism

awareness is on:

Arising and passing of phenomena pertaining to the mind and matter process (Samudaya-vaya-dhammanupassi)

more particularly:

through sensations (as you experience phenomena and any characteristic of the aggregates or characteristics of matter though a sense door - vidita vedana - and also make you whole body sensitive - Sabbakayapatisamvedi)
any mind and matter phenomena creates sensations

arising from:

internal and external sources (Ajjhatta-bahiddha)

with:

equanimity, and
absence of clinging and craving of any type

So it is good to be aware of the reading so you don't miss any facts, but this might not liberate you from stress and misery.

If awareness alone did the trick then the happiest people would be the circus performers, gymnasts, etc.

So what ever you are absorbed in, be aware of the sensations and their arising and passing, keeping your mind firmly equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging. This is the type of awareness you have to develop in daily life including when reading.

Reading on its own creates verbal fabrications but if you can limit thought proliferation this is good. The though proliferation can be limited by:

calming the fabrication - less distraction from bodily pains

though observing the speed and length off the breath cycles - may be not easy while reading
passively looking at sensation, ideally in a small area like the upper lip

anchoring the mind

realise your mind has left the anchoring object
objectively looking at sensations or experience created by the distracting object
objectively look at the sensations created by:

reaction of your perception
though proliferation

bring back your mind to the anchor

For further details see:

http://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-on-Satipatthana-Sutta
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Discourse-Summaries
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Significance-of-Vedana-in-Vipassana
http://www.vridhamma.org/Importance-of-Vedana
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna
Sampajañña
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna-the-Thorough-Understanding


When Zen monks are completing a task, why are they doing it very quickly?

Another approach to Zen by Thich Nhat Hanh is that everything is done with a connection to the breath and things slow down. You may not complete as much but increase the awareness of each moment.

Not sure why other Zen practitioners hurry. The tea ceremony is done precisely. If you practice it over and over again perhaps there is no hesitaion and it appears faster. When the personal self is erased there is only pure action..

Here is a Zen story that advocates less hurry.
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Zen_Humor.html

  Other sayings from Linji or attributed to him: “What is the frantic
  hurry to deck yourselves in a lion's skin when all the while you are
  yapping like wild foxes? A real man has no need to give himself the
  airs of a real man!”

Now I just discovered something about the documentary

  This Documentary is all about rinzai zen and Zen in common.  It will
  give you a bit of insight how Zen is lived in a strict monastery order
  and how it influenced so many things.

Soto is the form of Shunryu Suzuki and even Dogen and one I am more familiar with. This tends to be different in application than Rinzai Zen in a very strict monastery. I only watched first 7 minutes where walking is quite ordinary. Perhaps someone who can watch the 2 hour documentary will share further insights.


Because of which element the world has come together?


Did the Buddha make any reference to Krishna and Gita?

The dates given in Wikipedia's Bhagavad Gita article, for example,

Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.

... and,

The so-called "Hindu Synthesis" emerged during the early Classical period (200 BCE - 300 CE) of Hinduism.[21][7][22] According to Alf Hiltebeitel, a period of consolidation in the development of Hinduism took place between the time of the late Vedic Upanishad (ca. 500 BCE) and the period of the rise of the Guptas (ca. 320–467 CE) which he calls the "Hindu Synthesis", "Brahmanic Synthesis", or "Orthodox Synthesis".[21] It developed in interaction with other religions and peoples:

The emerging self-definitions of Hinduism were forged in the context of continuous interaction with heterodox religions (Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas) throughout this whole period, and with foreign people (Yavanas, or Greeks; Sakas, or Scythians; Pahlavas, or Parthians; and Kusanas, or Kushans) from the third phase on [between the Mauryan empire and the rise of the Guptas].

... and in Wikipedia's Krishna article,

Worship of the deity Krishna, either in the form of deity Krishna or in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopala can be traced to as early as the 4th century BC.

... compared with the dates in the Gautama Buddha article,

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.

... suggest to me it's possible that maybe the Buddha lived a little bit earlier (e.g. 100 years or more) than when Krishna became famous and when the Gita was composed.
If it's true that the Gita was written during a "synthesis" which occurred as a reaction to competition from Buddhism and Jainism and so on, that could explain why there's no commentary from the Buddha (i.e. that he lived slightly before then, and so any commentary would be anachronistic).
There are Buddhist suttas which recount the Buddha's talking with brahmins.
In summary the first sentence of the OP (i.e. "As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy.") might be a slightly incorrect assumption.


What does Buddhism say about the consequences of good and bad behaviour?

Disclaimer: My answers may lean towards the Theravada tradition.

Does Buddhism believe in rebirth?

Yes. But there is no permanent soul that transmigrates from one body to another. Instead, just as how the flame of one candle could light another, one is reborn with the final state of mind (representing the overall volitional tendencies cultivated during life) of the previous birth shaping the circumstances of the future birth. You can read the essay The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikku. There is a section of another essay by Nyanatiloka Mahathera that discusses Kamma and Rebirth.

There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that?

The past volitional actions of thoughts, words and deeds shape the future circumstances according to the Ekamsena Sutta (quoted below). There is a good essay on Karma: A Study Guide, again by Thanissaro Bhikku.

  "Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal
  misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the
  drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done: One can
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, criticize one;
  one's bad reputation gets spread about; one dies confused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the plane of
  deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.

  "Given that I have declared, Ananda, that good bodily conduct, good
  verbal conduct, & good mental conduct should be done, these are the
  rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn't
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, praise one;
  one's good reputation gets spread about; one dies unconfused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.

However, according to the Sivaka Sutta, not everything we experience is the result of past kamma.

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that?

Buddhism encourages Dana, the practice of giving. You can read the essay, Dana: The Practice of Giving for details. Here, giving is not to the gods, but to monks, guests, travellers, the sick and the needy. The manner and attitude of giving is very important. The essay will tell you much more. There is a whole sutta for this, the Dana Sutta. I quote from it here:

  "Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his
  own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to
  store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after
  death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.'
  He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland,
  perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a
  contemplative. ... "Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving
  is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in
  the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted
  that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
  returner, coming back to this world.

In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or whatever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Surely one who does wrong would face the consequences of his words and actions. This applies to monks and religious leaders too.

Your question hints that a religious leader who preaches wrong views or encourages wrong actions would influence many towards the wrong path. Hence, if such leaders get punished instantly, many would be saved from going down the wrong path.

According to the Kalama Sutta, the onus is on the follower of the path to select his teachers wisely and to discern the right teachings wisely. There are some details on how to do this, in the sutta. Thanissaro Bhikku, the translator, has these comments for this sutta:

  Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche
  for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says
  something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be
  followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as
  historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the
  source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed
  simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings.
  Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields
  when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any
  bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they
  must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.
  The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way
  is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose
  wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends.


... I realize that I imposed my will...

No you did not. The spirit (in an abstract sense!) brought you and the butterfly together. You played your role, butterfly played its.

Was your intent pure? Have you felt the sacredness of the moment? Were you acting foolishly or have your weighted the possibilities?

Life and death is around us and inside us all the time. The fact that butterfly was on your right is a good sign. Life gives us chances once in a while, sometimes it's a chance to change someone's life - and sometimes it's a chance to have someone change our life, to be in the role of the butterfly.

At the end of the day we are not Gods - we can't foresee all repercussions of our acts, even such simple ones as yours. But we can do our best, and if we do it consistently then in the long run we will all be in the best place we could have possibly been.


What is the essential difference between citta and vinnana?

More info. from the wiki page here, in the 'Overlapping Pali terms for mind' section..


If each person's mind creates "reality" then why do we need to eat?

an illusion generated by the mind in each moment
Hunger is a complex phenomenon:

"Name" and "form" (an absence of so-called food in the so-called stomach, with associated changes to the metabolism and sensory nerves)
Consciousness of the sensations (probably a series of moments of consciousness, not a continuous consciousness)
Feeling (how you feel about or perceive that sensation, for example, "this feels unpleasant")
Craving ("I want the feeling and sensation to be gone, I want my craving to be satisfied")
Attachment (deciding that "Food is the stuff which would satisfy this craving: I want food!")

Most of this is "mental", including your naming the components (hunger, stomach, food, etc.).
An analogy might be, watching a movie: the movie might be 'based on a true story' and even have 'real' actors, but by the time it's been turned into a movie there's a large illusory or mind-made component.
I think it isn't only an illusion though. Before he became enlightened the Buddha tried not eating: it's said he found that interfered with meditation, and he therefore chose the doctrine of the "middle way" (neither the extreme of asceticism nor the extreme of hedonism).
Buddhism has a lot to say to people about food (e.g. right behaviours and right attitudes to have, about food), and especially to monks.
why do we need to eat?
One theory is that human life is a good opportunity to experience dharma e.g. that things aren't permanent nor permanently satisfactory. Allegedly there are other, formless being in higher planes of existence, who don't need to "eat" as such, on the other hand it's hard or impossible for them to learn dharma.
So surely hunger is actually "real" and not just in my mind - because it will lead to me dying unnecessarily unless I react to it?
Consider the opposite side of that story too, though: people over-eat because they think they're hungry. Or they crave for the repetition of any number of other experiences.
The word "real" comes from the Latin word for "thing". I think that hunger has a real component, but also many mental components.
"My death" (i.e. "me" and "dying") are both concepts, too.
it doesn't matter how I imagine a situation is going in my mind
On the other hand it does matter: because most people aren't trying to kill you; if you go around thinking "this person may want to kill me" that has consequences (for example in how you behave, how you see yourself, and how people react).
why is it that an unmedicated schizophrenic would be physically unable to meditate
My experience is that an unmedicated schizophrenic may well be able to meditate; but they may have trouble communicating with other people, and/or other people have trouble communicating with them; and various social activities (wanting and keeping a job for example) may be difficult.
It depends on the person, and the situation, who's with them and how they react; depends on the medication too.
It's complicated, and psychiatric medications are simplistic, sometimes effective, sometimes not, often with undesirable physical side-effects but sometimes (depending) better than nothing.
So I don't agree with the teacher if they said "mentally ill people stopping all medication, because it was only a placebo" -- some medications aren't "only a placebo" and some patients benefit from them.
I also don't agree with your statement: it may be true that some people can't or don't meditate, it just isn't always true, in my experience.
I feel like I'm missing some vocabulary that would help me explain better
Two useful bits of vocabulary are "middle way" and "two truths".
"Middle way" has a specific historical meaning,

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

That historic meaning is especially relevant to food. I think "middle way" might also be used more generally, to mean avoiding other extremes: for example, "the world is just an illusion" is one extreme, and "thoughts are real" is maybe another extreme, and we're supposed to learn to avoid both these extremes, and to see each view in a proper context. There's a kind of nihilism that's explicitly defines as a "wrong view":

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

There's a lot written about "two truths" and I think that different schools of Buddhism may have said different things about it. I think that an example of "two truths" might be that, "I exist and I am Chris" is a so-called conventional truth, whereas "there is no thing which can be called Chris, Chris is a name applied to an assemblage of parts" is a so-called ultimate truth ... and they are both true, they are both truths (but perhaps also both untruths if they're merely concepts).
Then there's a non-duality doctrine (perhaps from later schools of Buddhism) which says that these two truths (conventional and ultimate) are one.
Another concept that may be worth remembering is that of "attachment to a view". A "view" is something fairly fixed or permanent (see e.g. the answers to this question). And having a fixed view, being attached to a specific view, may be unwise. Again it's a balancing act, i.e. Buddhism does define a set of views as "right" (i.e. "right view"), but also warns e.g. here or here or even here not to grasp at, not to argue about, not to be imprisoned by dogma.
why does it result in good karma when you feed starving people
A couple of reasons, one is that compassion and so on are meant to be the right way to behave socially:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, and in that they are akin to Brahma, the divine but transient ruler of the higher heavens in the traditional Buddhist picture of the universe.

Another reason is, I think, that we may tend to be selfish, to have thoughts like, "this is my hunger, this is my food, I am more important than they are" ... and that kind of egoism is a cause of suffering. See also Dana.
Within a lay context (i.e. if you're not a monk who has nothing) perhaps you're supposed to find some balance (i.e. non-extreme) in your giving too.
But then isnt the child receiving negative karma for causing ME to go hungry, even though it was my choice?
No: the giving is your choice, your intention, your karma.
And why bother at all if only karma is real - the child's hunger isn't "real", so why end it?)
I like this Zen story:

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

I think the point of the doctrines of emptiness and non-self is to avoid unwise attachment (e.g. "this is me! this is mine!"), which would cause suffering (e.g. "this is changing, this is being lost, so woe is me!").
And anger (and probably hurt pride) and so on is a prime example of an afflictive emotion (see e.g. "unwholesome factors" listed on this page; or "poisons" listed on this page).
There are other examples of Zen stories which I think are intended to inform us how we ought to be behave -- this one, for example, is relevant to feeding a hungry child:

Is That So?

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a
pure life.
A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near
him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was
with child.
This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was,
but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.
In great anger the parent went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he
would say.
After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had
lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good
care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything
else he needed.
A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her
parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who
worked in the fishmarket.
The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask
forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.
Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that
so?"


The main point of paṭiccasamuppāda pretty much comes down to: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". And so the reason to our existence, not just mankind but pretty much all conditioned phenomena is that the condition or the root cause for that existence still exists. So in our particular case, the reason we, mankind, still exists is because the conditions to our existence, the 3 unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and ignorance, still exist. And as long as one has not completely uprooted them, s/he will continue to wander in Samsara's 6 realms of existence.


Why Dharma(धर्म) is pronounced as Dhamma in Buddhism?

Dhamma is the pali version of the word- In the time of Buddha , there was a conscious decision to record the teachings in Pali rather than Sanskrit. As sanskrit was not accessible to all and created a division between those who has access to it and who were interested in higher knowledge, but Pali was a common tongue in the region.

But it is to be understood that Dharma(be it sanskrit or pali) in the context of Buddhism means much more than mere Duties as the common usage in Sanskrit means.
Dhamma is the very body of Buddhas teachings which is said to be universal in truth.


Qigong in Zen Buddhism comprise the Shaolin Eighteen Lohan Hands

They were taught by the great Bodhidharma in 527 CE to monks at the Shaolin Monastery in China when this First Patriarch of the Shaolin arts found the monks weak and often sleepy during meditaion...

Lifting the Sky
Shooting Arrows
Plucking Stars
Turning Head
Thrust Punch
Merry-go-Round
Carrying the Moon
Nourishing Kidneys
Three Levels to Ground
Dancing Crane
Carrying Mountains
Drawing Knife
Presenting Claws
Pushing Mountains
Separating Water
Big Windmill
Deep Knee Bending
Rotating Knees

Introduction to Shaolin Temple Luohan Qigong

Luohan Qigong is the "Art of Breath of the Enlightened Ones."  Luohan Qigong, or Lohan Chi Kung, is an system of exercises and breath control for improving your fitness, vitality, energy levels, concentration, poise, and well being.  Combined with seated or standing meditation, Luohan Qigong can also contribute to steady spiritual progress.  Numerous legends attribute the development of the Luohan Qigong methods, and the Muscle Tendon Changing Qigong methods, to the Buddhist leader Bodhidharma (Da Mo, Ta-Mo, Daruma), circa 525 CE, a early advocate of Chan (Zen) Buddhism.  There is little nor no written documentation of Luohan Qigong methods prior to 1880 CE.
The native religion of China, Daoism, and the native social philosophy of China, Confucianism, antedate the arrival of Buddhism by over 300 years.  These three viewpoints have often conflicted with one another, with Buddhism often characterized as a "foreign" influence, and at other times the three schools have blended together as in Complete Reality Daoism.  The Daoist scholar, Livia Kohn, has researched the history of Taoist and Chinese medical practices using exercise methods as a cornerstone.  There is documentation back to 200 BCE regarding these practices, although specific movement descriptions are often lacking.  Clearly these Daoist Daoyin practices and secular medical exercise methods for health and longevity influenced and were influenced by the qigong and martial arts practices of Buddhists at places like the Shaolin Temple.  Numerous other authors, listed above, have explained the intertwining and cross fertilization of the related qigong practices of the Buddhists, Daoists, and traditional Chinese medicine doctors: Liang Shou-Yu, Yang Jwing-Ming, Andy James, and Kenneth Cohen.


The respective key words for "good" and "bad" in the suttas are "wholesome" (kusala) and "unwholesome" (akusala):

kusala (adj.) [cp. Sk. kuśala] 1. (adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious.
akusala : (nt.) demerit; sin; bad action. (adj.), unskilful.

"Wholesome" and "unwholesome" here are qualifications for action/kamma. Keeping in mind that, to the Buddha, volition is kamma (see AN 6.63) manifested by body, speech and mind.

“And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
“And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
“And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; uncovetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
“And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
-- Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, MN 9

(the causes are also repeated and further explained in the Nidana sutta (AN 3.33)).
The above definitions are more general, based on the 3 defilements (greed/lobha, hate/dosa, delusion/moha) but the list of mental states can expand to more specific ones. For example, any of the five hindrances are also understood as unwholesome. In Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga lists 10  defilements.
In another exposition, the Buddha further distinguishes between four kinds of kamma (see AN 4.235):

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

Thus, generally speaking, it is said that wholesome actions are those that lead to a favorable rebirth and lead to nibbāna, whereas unwholesome actions are those that lead to suffering, perdition, hell.

For an interesting read in this subject, see The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera.


How accurate is Ozamu Tetsuka "Buddha" with the real biography of Buddha?

Since Ozamu Tatsuka is Japanese, it should be noted that in Japanese forms of Buddhism, there has been a cartoon-esque depiction of masters and even the Buddha since the earliest forms of Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism were introduced in Japan in the 12th century, the most famous ones by Hakuin:

Japanese Zen is infamous for its self-degradation, stemming from the principle that "either nothing is to be considered divine, or everything is". This is well-expressed in the Kanshiketsu (乾屎橛) Koan:

A monk asked, "what is Buddha?"
Unmon answered "A dry shit stick"

One of the main themes in the manga expresses a concept from Mahayana Buddhism (Japanese schools of Buddhism are almost exclusively of the Mahayana tradition) that wouldn't have been a concept in the original teachings of the Buddha.
Looking at the main characters, many names appear in historical and/or mythological texts on the Buddha's life, as demonstrated by the direct links to historical or mythological Wikipedia pages. The use of fictional characters is also not new in Mahayana Buddhism. The best example is Wu Cheng'En's Journey to the West, featuring the Monkey King, Brother Sand and a talking pig.
I think the manga should be seen in the tradition of Wu Cheng'En and Hakuin, using fiction and humor mixed with teaching to convey the central message. While this may offend more "traditional" schools of Buddhism, it is actually the purpose of the "Sudden Teaching" to pierce preconceptions to allow Kenshō.


Regarding characteristics of pleasure & pain, MN 44 says this:

  Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge.

Regarding your sleepiness: once the need arises, I'd try to substitute some of it for meditation, trying to focus on the breath, and not go anywhere else in your mind. Just sticking with it.

If you can get yourself to a state where you can enter meditation and gain refreshment and enjoyment, you'll have made very good progress, and that choice will now be more readily available to you wherever you are. But like anything worthwhile, it takes persistence and dedication to attain. So try to use this motivation for rest that you have right now as a catalyst for developing good qualities.


Please explain joy and/or the Kimatthiyasutta

The word for joy in AN 1.11 is "pamojja":

  Pāmojja (p. 454) Pāmojja Pāmojja=pāmujja

  Pāmujja (p. 453) Pāmujja Pāmujja (nt.) [grd. form. tr. pa+mud, see
  similar forms under pāmokkha] delight, joy, happiness; often combd
  with pīti. -- D i.72, 196; S iii.134; iv.78=351; v.156, 398; A iii.21;
  v.1 sq., 311 sq., 339, 349; Sn 256; Nett 29; DA i.217; Sdhp 167. See
  also pāmojja.

The connection here is to the five hindrances.

From SN 46.40:

  “Bhikkhus, these five hindrances are makers of blindness, causing lack
  of vision, causing lack of knowledge, detrimental to wisdom, tending
  to vexation, leading away from Nibbāna. What five? The hindrance of
  sensual desire is a maker of blindness … The hindrance of ill will …
  The hindrance of sloth and torpor … The hindrance of restlessness and
  remorse … The hindrance of doubt is a maker of blindness … leading
  away from Nibbāna. These five hindrances are makers of blindness,
  causing lack of vision, causing lack of knowledge, detrimental to
  wisdom, tending to vexation, leading away from Nibbāna.

Ajahn Brahm commented on remorse (kukkucca) in this essay:

  Remorse refers to a specific type of restlessness which is the kammic
  effect of one's misdeeds. The only way to overcome remorse, the
  restlessness of a bad conscience, is to purify one's virtue and become
  kind, wise and gentle. It is virtually impossible for the immoral or
  the self indulgent to make deep progress in meditation.

So, basically, the purpose or virtue or ethics is to remove remorse, in such a way that it will cause the arising of joy. From joy, it goes next to rapture (piti), then tranquility (passadha) then bliss (sukha).

Piti and sukha seems to refer to jhana.

Hence, the joy arising from the removal of remorse, is basically the effect of the removal of the hindrance of remorse i.e. kukkucca (which is tied to kammic effect of one's misdeeds), by inculcating virtues. Why is it called a hindrance? It's because it hinders progress in meditation, immersion and insight.

Once the hindrance of remorse is removed, then joy results. With this joy (and the removal of all other hindrances), one can progress more easily into jhana.

There is only one small problem here. The word for remorse in AN 1.11 is "vippatisara", while the word for remorse in SN 46.40 as a hindrance is "kukkucca". But the dictionary entry for kukkucca solves this problem:

  Vippaṭisāra (p. 628) Vippaṭisāra Vippaṭisāra [vi+paṭisāra] bad
  conscience, remorse, regret, repentance Vin ii.250; D i.138; S
  iii.120, 125; iv.46; A iii.166, 197, 353; iv.69; J iv.12; v.88; Pug
  62; DhA iv.42; VvA 116; PvA 14, 60, 105, 152. -- a˚ no regret, no
  remorse A iii.46.

  Kukkucca (p. 218) Kukkucca Kukkucca [kud -- kicca] 1. bad doing,
  misconduct, bad character. Def. kucchitaŋ kataŋ kukataŋ tassa bhāvo
  kukkuccaŋ Vism 470 & Bdhd 24; -- Various explanations in Nd2 on Sn
  1106=Dhs 1160, in its literal sense it is bad behaviour with hands and
  feet (hattha -- pada˚) J i.119=DA i.42 (in combn with ukkāsita &
  khipitasadda); hattha˚ alone J ii.142. -- 2. remorse, scruple, worry.
  In this sense often with vippaṭissāra; and in conn. w. uddhacca it is
  the fourth of the five nīvaraṇas (q. v.) Vin i.49; iv.70; D i.246; S
  i.99; M i.437; A i.134=Sn 1106; A i.282; Sn 925; Nd2 379; DhA iii.483;
  iv.88; Sdhp 459; Bdhd 96. -- na kiñci k˚ŋ na koci vippaṭissāreti "has
  nobody any remorse?" S iii.120=iv.46. The dispelling of scrupulousness
  is one of the duties and virtues of a muni: k˚ŋ vinodetuŋ A v.72; k.
  pahāya D i.71=A ii.210=Pug 59; chinnakukkucca (adj.) free from remorse
  M i.108; khīṇāsava k˚ -- vūpasanta S i.167=Sn 82. -- akukkucca (adj.)
  free from worry, having no remorse Sn 850. Kukkuccaŋ kurute (c. gen.)
  to be scrupulous about J i.377; kariŋsu DhA iv.88; cp. kukkuccaŋ
  āpajjati (expl. by sankati) J iii.66.


Who are the Buddhas Yet to Come and what Information do we have about them as per Theravada standpoint?

There are many schools and teachers in Buddhism. They all contribute to the growing dispersement of Buddhist teaching. The past is full of references to the Buddhas of the past like Shakyamuni Buddha, his closest students, Bodhidharma, Dogen, and all the Buddhist teachers that have come to the west in the last 75 years.
How can we know what tomorrow's flowers will look like and what scent they will carry when they are only seedlings popping out of rocky soil? Just don't know.


Happiness, rebirth, and the death of an arahant

Your question seems very sensible. Some thoughts...

I think you're wrong to suggest that the Buddha was 'not sure what will happen...'. There are some things that may be known but not explained. He advises us not to worry about metaphysical problems and just take the medicine, but this does not mean these problems are not understood or the facts not known.

If you are having a pleasant time, as you say, then you may not feel you are suffering and you may question the need for the medicine and have little motivation to take it. The Buddha was in this position early on but saw the suffering of others and recognised his own future death and suffering. His medicine is not just a cure for suffering now but forever, and while you may feel free of suffering right now this situation is not going to last. (Sorry about that).

Thus it is said that the Gods have such a cushy time they may lose their motivation to push on to full attainment, but in the end even they must give up the pleasant life and sink back into the mundane, making it more helpful to be a human being with the motivation to go all the way.

I doubt your pleasant situation will hold you back since it won't last for long. What you call happiness is not what the arahant means by the word. His or her happiness is unshakable and not dependent on conditions. When you are happy in a way you know nobody and nothing can diminish or destroy then you're properly happy. Usually our happiness can be destroyed instantly by a death in the family, an illness or even just a missed meal. Happiness is real happiness when it is permanent, at which point the word 'happiness' may become slightly misleading as a description.

It's a slippery and subtle doctrine and these issue take some time to sort out, and they cannot be properly sorted out without some 'empirical' evidence to inform the process.

Needless to say this is just some thoughts, not advice from a guru.


How to show compassion for attention-seeker

I have had similar experiences of both - being the observer (the quiet one) and the performer (the loud one) - neither is wrong. However, what a wonderful opportunity to practice compassion


That's quite the complicated sutta!

MN137 has a very detailed and distinct progression. Thirty-six categories, with eighteen for non-renunciates folks and eighteen for renunciates. For both non-renunciates and renunciates, the path to equanimity leads from sadness through happiness to equanimity.

Let's take an example with non-renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon seeing a chocolate bar. They buy, eat it and the hunger is gone. The absence of hunger is seen as "happiness".  Then the candy companies realize that this is a good business and offer many many kinds of chocolate bar (technically, this is called "over-choice"). After eating many kinds of chocolate bars, one experiences a "meh-equanimity" to any particular brand of chocolate bar. This is lay equanimity.

Now let's take the same example for renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon the cessation of hunger after mindfully seeing and eating chocolate bar. They are aware of how hunger passes as food is ingested. They are also aware of a certain aftertaste and afterfeeling once the food is consumed. They are mindful of the changes to their body with each bite of every food. Mindful of the effects of sugar and its ill-effects, they become equanimous towards the sight of chocolate bars, accepting them when no other better food is offered. That is the equanimity of the renunciate in diversity.

The formless meditations lead to equanimity based on unity/singleness. Here one is not concerned about chocolate bars, since that is just a form of food. Instead, one establishes equanimity by the relinquishing of defilements by observing the origin, rise and fall of the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.

That is how I read MN137.


It depends on what the society consider as an adult. Back then in India, women always had a guardian regardless of their age.  But things are quite different nowadays. In most countries when one reaches 18+ the society consider that person as an adult that no longer requires guardianship. Any care given after that is optional and any care accepted after that does not make one a minor, unless there is such an understanding between the 2 parties.  In other words, when you become an adult by law, if your parents continue to give you food and lodging with the mutual understanding that you will not be sexually active with someone without their permission, it breaks the 3rd precept.


Should Buddhists drive a car or a motorcycle?

Please also see this answer.

When you walk you might accidentally step on ants or other small insects. Does that mean you should stop walking?

From Dhammapada 1:

  On one occasion, blind Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent."

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

    All mental
    phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
    chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
    'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
    that draws the cart.


What is the purpose of not eating after noon?

From my understanding, the Buddha laid down the rule to not eat afternoon in order to reduce the burden on the laity and to help the sangha avoid a negative reputation.

In the Latukikopama Sutta (MN 66) the Buddha said that there were many disadvantages to going for alms at night.

  that monks wandering for alms in the pitch dark of the night have
  walked into a waste-water pool, fallen into a cesspool, stumbled over
  a thorn patch, or stumbled over a sleeping cow. They have encountered
  young hooligans on the way to or from a crime.


I have been practicing what I believe is insight meditation for over 5 or 6 years now in the Mahasi tradition but still very frequently I feel like I'm not doing it right or something.

You are practicing for 5-6 years but was it like 1 hour sitting every day for 5 years? Did you do any 10-day retreats? In all those years did you spend any days solely for meditation? If you have been doing it for that long, let's assume you have learnt the instructions and you are doing it right.

I suppose I thought that I would see some kind of change or have some insights but nothing much has changed and I can't say I've had any insights into the true nature of reality which is so often emphasized and mentioned.

The path of spirituality does not work like ordinary marketplace logic. Besides only doing insight meditation will not bring any significant change. Meditation or 'Right Mindfulness' is just one of the fold of the eightfold path of the Buddha. If you want to see a significant change then you have to follow the eight-fold path, you don't have an option of being selective.

I've started to do body scans but I'm unsure if I'm doing it right. I sit for a while and notice the breath then I start at the top of my head and go down the body part by a part ie crown of the head, back of head, forehead, eyes, nose, lips, chin, neck etc. But I have difficulty with this. I'm unsure how to focus on a body part apart from trying to see it in my mind.

After 5 years of practice, if you are still unsure and having difficulties with practice I will suggest you change the meditation you are doing. Samatha meditation is relatively easier and  Zazen is what I will recommend to you.

Please don't tell me to read the scriptures or find a teacher. The scriptures bore me.I'm not a religious person. They are just so repetitive and convoluted that I don't find them helpful. They send me to sleep and trying to find a teacher is impossible. I have attended Sanghas regularly on occasions and nothing ever comes out of it. I don't know how to approach people and say can you please be my teacher. The people at the Sanghas didn't seem to be open to having students.

I see your problem is not as much as of the practice as much as it is about the frame of your mind. You have failed to understand the context of Buddhism and you have directly jumped to practice and expecting results. From your overall question, I understand you have missed studying the practice of, 'let-go', of not having 'Expectations', the importance of getting instructed about Dhamma along with meditation.

I agree that if you start reading the scriptures of Pali canon it's repetitive and at times boring, but there is an option available, and that is reading the commentary. I reckon you read the book, 'In the Buddhas words' by Bhikkhu Bodhi, that will put you in a greater context of Buddhism which will guide you towards the experiences you want.

If this is still boring to you, I will suggest that you read a few books by Ajahn Brahm, he is a Cambridge graduate in Physics, his words might resonate with you. And if you are hell-bent on having spiritual experience only through the medium of instructions on Meditation, in that case, I will suggest you read, Ajahn Brahm's book, 'Mindfulness, bliss and beyond', no boring scriptures straightforward instruction manual which takes you to la-la land.

About the teacher part, you really don't have to deal with real world people now that the internet is there. There are a plethora of videos on youtube teaching you the basics of Buddhism putting you in the right context. Watch Ajahn Brahms videos on youtube.

You don't have to approach anybody and ask to become a teacher, it doesn't work that way. A teacher is usually a highly ordained monk who professes to be a teacher, by himself or herself. Don't rely on people if they are not around you, the internet is there.


What is the common understanding of all enlightened people?

As others have already answered, the four noble truths are the wisdom held in common by the teachings of the Buddha that lead to enlightenment. As the Buddha said in his first discourse,

"As long as my knowing and seeing how things are, was not quite purified in these twelve aspects, in these three phases of each of the four noble truths, I did not claim in the world with its gods, its Maras and high divinities, in this generation with its monks and brahmans, with its princes and men to have discovered the full awakening that is supreme.
(Nyanamoli, trans.)

Sariputta's attainment of sotapanna is a good example of how the four noble truths are both necessary and sufficient for enlightenment, as what you call cause and effect is actually a concise teaching on the truths, as the commentary relates:

ye dhammā hetuppabhavāti hetuppabhavā nāma pañcakkhandhā; tenassa dukkhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"Those dhammas that arise based on a cause": Those things that arise based on a cause are the five aggregates. By that he showed the truth of suffering to him.
tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āhāti tesaṃ hetu nāma samudayasaccaṃ; tañca tathāgato āhāti dasseti.
"The cause of them was told by the Tathagata": the cause of them is the truth of the origin of suffering. "And the Tathagata spoke that," he caused him to see.
tesañca yo nirodhoti tesaṃ ubhinnampi saccānaṃ yo appavattinirodho; tañca tathāgato āhāti attho. tenassa nirodhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"And the cessation of them": the cessation by non-manifestation of both those two truths - "And the Tathagata spoke that," is the meaning. By that he showed him the truth of cessation.
maggasaccaṃ panettha sarūpato adassitampi nayato dassitaṃ hoti, nirodhe hi vutte tassa sampāpako maggo vuttova hoti. atha vā tesañca yo nirodhoti ettha tesaṃ yo nirodho ca nirodhupāyo cāti evaṃ dvepi saccāni dassitāni hontīti.
But here the truth of the path is not explicitly shown; it is however shown implicitly. For when cessation was said, the path leading to it was also said. Either that or: "And the cessation of those" here means "the cessation of those and the means to cessation," thus the two truths are both shown.

Good evidence of the need to teach the four noble truths to attain enlightenment exists in the Dhānañjāni Sutta (MN 97), where Sariputta fails to teach the four noble truths and the listener goes to be reborn in the Brahma world. As the commentary says:

kālaṅkato ca sāriputtāti idaṃ bhagavā “tatrassa gantvā desehī”ti adhippāyena theramāha. theropi taṃkhaṇaṃyeva gantvā mahābrahmuno dhammaṃ desesi, tato paṭṭhāya cātuppadikaṃ gāthaṃ kathentopi catusaccavimuttaṃ nāma na kathesīti.
"And he has made an end to time [i.e. died], Sariputta": this the Blessed One said to the elder with the intention, "having gone there, teach him." And the elder, at that very moment having gone, taught the dhamma to the great brahma. From that moment on, even when teaching a four line verse, he never again taught anything devoid of the four truths.


Rebuke of Jains - resource after Bodhis approach

Using Google I only find it in a book:

Title -- Investigating the dhamma : a collection of papers
Author -- Bhikkhu Bodhi, edited by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
Published -- Kandy, Sri Lanka : Buddhist Publication Society, 2015

Here is a copy of the introduction, taken from a Google preview of the book:

So far as I know there's no free/electronic copy of the book.

The summary of the book on Amazon says,

  This book brings together eight essays of Bhikkhu Bodhi, five of which were earlier published in academic journals and volumes, and three not published before. Most of the essays are critical responses to various modern interpretations of the Dhamma that the author considers to be at odds with the Buddha’s teachings, in particular as transmitted and interpreted by the Theravada school of Buddhism. The other essays are in depth discussions of important Buddhist doctrinal terms.


Well, Theravada is often argued to hew most closely to the original teachings of the Buddha. See, e.g. "Two Main Schools of Buddhism" for a very brief overview of this.

As I understand it, this has much to do with the fact that Theravada is the oldest of the extant Buddhist schools of thought, predating Mahayana by a few centuries. Theravada practice is also more localized to geographic regions nearer the birthplace of Buddhism (that is, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia), and never strayed far from it; this is thought to have contributed to the "orthodoxy" of the school - it mixed less with other intellectual and spiritual traditions.

Additionally, Theravada Buddhists draw primarily on the Pali Canon (the Tripitaka), whereas Mahayana Buddhists draw primarily on Chinese sources. These Chinese sources are relatively more distant from the original teachings of the Buddha in terms of both time and language. As a byproduct of this, the Pali texts are often more "authentic".1

That said, the term "Orthodox" has no specific meaning in the context of Buddhism, i.e. there is no such school as "Orthodox Buddhism". There are only lowercase-o "orthodox schools of Buddhism", and what counts as "orthodox" will probably differ depending on who you ask. I should add that pre-sectarian Buddhism is almost definitionally the most "orthodox" school of Buddhist thought. The only problem is that, well, it doesn't exist anymore.

1 See, e.g. Rupert Gethin's The Foundations of Buddhism, p. 44: "it is likely that [it] is generally the case [...] that the traditions [the Pali recension] preserves are [...] the oldest and most authentic available to us" (elisions/etc because the original sentence was inverted)


Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

There sure are many conflicting points within and between schools, but more important meditation objects isn't one of them, for there's no such thing as the best meditation object. The best meditation object is one that is the most suitable to solve a problem due to the personality, shortcomings, and orientation of the practitioner. Full of lust? then meditate on the foulness of the body thru its 32 body parts; full of hatred or anger? meditate on loving kindness and joy; full of drowsiness or torpor? meditate on light or various kasinas, etc.

Regarding the possibility of Nibbana, there's no doubt it's no trivial pursuit. But one can see it in a more positive light, if the road to Nibbana is like a marathon which would take millions of steps forward, as long as one puts in the time and effort slowly and consistently, any step s/he puts forward would mean it's one step closer toward the finish line. But if s/he doesn't put their foot forward, s/he won't go anywhere.


Phsyical, emotional, mental, what is next?

Briefly speaking, Mahayana and especially Vajrayana schools assign utmost importance to energetic phenomena at the level of latent potentials, hidden relationships, and subtle influences. However, we don't consider it a "body" or even any kind of bounded entity. We just say, the energy at that level is in flux, things are fluid, neither one nor apart.

If you think about it, in Buddhism we try to stay away from too much appropriation of stuff as me/mine. So recognizing energy-level phenomena but not identifying with them kinda makes sense.

Also it should be noted, that in (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't say that stuff on different levels is made from different materials, no. Physical, emotional, energetic, karmic - they are all here, made from the same stuff, but can be observed by focusing on different levels, from coarse to subtle, and these different observations produce different perceived planes (dhatu). It is very important to understand that all these levels or planes are same stuff.

To consider physical and spiritual to be two different things would be a gross error of Dualism, in Mahayana Buddhism.


Samsara can be quite brutal and there is suffering. The Buddha acknowledged this in the First Noble Truth. And his last words urged his disciples to strive on with diligence toward their enlightenment. Only through Nibbanna will one escape the suffering of Samsara.

Nature is full of examples of suffering such as you detailed. The animals involved have no evil intentions. They simply eat to stay alive. This is why humans are so very fortunate. We generally don't have to live such a brutal life and we can think things through and form intentions and take actions with as much wisdom and compassion as we possess. This is a blessing.

Treating all beings with metta (loving kindness) creates peace in one's mind. Treating other beings with cruelty creates conflict and discord in one's mind. One is clearly better than the other for living a peaceful life and for creating better conditions for one's meditation and eventual enlightenment.

A sutta which explains this idea of taking care of others by taking care of yourself is the Sedaka Sutta. SN47


Does the "Zen Master" from Cyberpunk 2077 accurately represent Buddhism?

Buddhism does not have meditations on the Spirit of Water, Spirit of Air and Spirit of Fire.
Real Buddhist monks do not accept money for teachings.
The teachings of Cyberpunk 2077's Zen Master appear to be New Age.


Living worried about the future and reaching mindfulness

How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities?

In a sense, the answer is because being immersed in the future is a large part of the problem.

Buddhism doesn't recognize the things you call problems as real problems. They are conventional problems that only obtain the designation because of your own views and beliefs; in reality, whether you solve them or not is mostly meaningless.

This is because Buddhism recognizes the impermanence of life, the inevitability of death, and the cyclic nature of the universe.

  286. “Here shall I live during the rains, here in winter
  and summer” – thus thinks the fool. He does not
  realize the danger (that death might intervene).

  287. As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
  so death seizes and carries away the man with a
  clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle.

  -- Dhp (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Buddhism doesn't advocate the acceptance of impermanence, so much as the realization that it is the truth; once you realize it for yourself, you will give up attachment to the future and the past, since you will understand that their importance is merely circumstantial.

A good advice is to accept that reality inevitably boils down to the six senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking. No matter what comes in the future, good or bad, it will only be some combination of these six categories of experience. This is how one settles ones concern about the future and the past. Even if you are homeless, living or dying on the street, it will only be an experience, not categorically different from living in a mansion.

The closer you come to realizing this, the better, not worse, your life will become (according to Buddhism).


MN26: "not even has Alaro Kalamo..." or "not only Alaro Kalamo has ..." or "Alaro Kalamo has not only..."?

Either is technically possible, I think, but only one makes sense in the context. Here eva in āḷārasseva means "only", not "even", since we know that āḷāra indeed has faith, etc., according to the passage prior to this:

tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi — ‘na kho āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ kevalaṃ saddhāmattakena sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedeti; addhā āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ jānaṃ passaṃ viharatī’ti.
"At that, monks, it came to me thus: 'not indeed by faith alone does āḷāra kālāma declare this dhamma in its entirety thus: "having known for myself with higher knowledge I dwell having attained it". Indeed, āḷāra kālāma dwells having known and seen this dhamma."

So the context implies that indeed he does have the faith, etc., he's just not alone in having that faith, etc..
Also, if it was going to be "but I have faith...", we would expect mayhaṃ pana rather than mayhaṃpi (mayhaṃpatthi = mayhaṃ+pi+atthi), since pi generally means "and, also", and not usually "but".


It is frowned upon in cultures influenced by Buddhism depending on the situation. If you are abandoning your family because of your sexual desire or craving towards wealth, fame, power of another person, it's frowned upon. If you are getting divorced simply to get away from responsibilities, it's frowned upon. If you are leaving the lay life to become a monk or a hermit, it's accepted. If you want a divorce because you don't get along well with your partner, you are first expected to try to correct yourselves. Be more tolerant of the differences and resolve your problems according to the Dhamma. There's very good advice on how to lead a successful marriage life in the Singalovada sutta.

There's no 'soul-mate' concept among Buddhists as they don't believe in a soul. But the general advice is to stay celibate until you get married and limit yourself only to one partner afterwards.

There's no encouragement to get divorced in Buddhism. You can make a case with the verse in the Dhammapada Balavagga which says:

  Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him
  resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the
  fool.

But that's for finding friends in general. In case of marriage, it should be applied in the first place, when you are looking for a partner to get married to.


Still, calm, tranquilize your mind. Talk to this entity as though it were a person in your ordinary world.

Such things can happen by accident. Generally we have 'shields' (really just agreements between peoples ... now being ignored wholesale by data miners ... that are usually not breached, but sometimes two people can have such complimentary thoughts that one can slip into the consciousness of another.

One also becomes aware of the non-existence of real barriers between minds when practicing meditation. This is why training in good will and ethical conduct is so important a prerequisite for successful meditating. Become aware of your thoughts and trim them up properly.

Example: you may find yourself worked up about politics and focus on some leader with anger at his positions. Think about what the results of that would be if you were face-to-face with this leader. Your interactions with 'phantom' beings in meditation must be as carefully conducted as are your relations in the so-called 'real' world.

Invasion of another's mind is really only contact with another's mind. This being is not 'inside' your mind, but is only able to influence it as in a face-to-face conversation. But when the invadee is unaware (and almost everyone is unaware), a malicious invader can pretend to be the other's mind and this will be perceived as 'my thoughts' by the victim. If you feel the force is malicious, practice metta: "May you be well and happy!" With Feeling! And, oh yes, I nearly forgot: ulimately, no thoughts are 'your thoughts'; if you can see that, your problem is solved. Short of that you need to strengthen your identity with the Dhamma such that outside forces are easily recognized by you.

If you are being attacked because you have done something harmful to this entity, apologize. If you don't know what you may have done, ask. The answer should make your symptoms look like a simile for the problem and its results. Figure out what you should have done and let this entity know you are attempting to change.

This is likely also to be physical. The idea of an invading entity and physical disability is not mutually exclusive. But throwing off heat is frequently a symptom of purging of poisons (which could be the result of some bad deed done to this entity) and is a good thing when the throwing off is complete. If you cannot get any response from this 'entity (but be careful, response may not be as you expect; the communication may not be verbal, it may be pictorial, it may be a startling intuition) assume it is internal to yourself and look for either a habit you should break or a habit you are breaking that has withdrawal symptoms. Age too can cause symptoms such as you describe.

Take the Refuges. Find a Bhikkhu near you and ask to be given the refuges. This is the first step in becoming a Buddhist and, doubt it if you will, is powerful protective magic power. Then get involved in Sutta Study. The mind recognizes the superior power of the clear thinking that is contained in the suttas and by attention to that rises above the scope of malicious entities. Guaranteed!

Here is a link to the Sutta Index of multiple sets of sutta translations. Start from the first, or jump in anywhere: most suttas were given to people who would never see the Buddha a second time and so were constructed such as to lead to the goal no matter how brief the instruction.
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

Of course you can also stick with the consensus reality that such things do not exist and end up in an asylum because you are crazy.


Would a world full of good Buddhists seeking enlightenment would never have developed technology?

The minimum standard of a good Buddhist would be someone who has taken refuge in the triple gem and keeps to the 5 precepts. Such a person wouldn't necessarily lack enthusiasm to develop technology.


Seeking explanation of this image's iconography

The things I'm sure about - it's tough to see everything with the picture size, but this is a depiction of the Buddha's moment of enlightenment.  The fingers pointed down and the palm up are the "world witnessing" mudra - the Buddha's response to Mara the tempter when asked who would bear witness to his spiritual accomplishments.  The naked women on the lower right are Mara's three daughters - craving, passion, and antagonism (Tanha, Raga, Arati) who came to tempt the Buddha.  All the wacky looking beasts raging around the Buddha is Mara's army.

Less sure about - the "Buddha" up top is probably Maitreya - the Buddha who will supposedly follow the Shakyamuni.  I'm thinking maybe the folks in the two upper corners are depictions of the six paramitas (giving, concentration, energy, virtue, patience, wisdom)?  No idea about the stuff at the bottom.  Maybe that's Dipankara (the Buddha before the current one) in the middle with the attendants?

PS - This should be a comment, but I don't have enough text space!


What to do before correcting regrettable life choices?

In Buddhism, unwholesome action bears unpleasant fruit in this or a future life. But when and how intensely such fruit arises is mediated by what we do now and henceforth.  The most efficacious means for reducing such negative consequences are through developing our virtue, our mental capacities and our wisdom.  Below, I'll ground this response in the teachings of Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (known to many as "Bhante G," Abbot of the Bhavana Society, author of "Mindfulness in Plain English," etc., see, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henepola_Gunaratana) who anchors his advice in the oldest Buddhist texts and commentaries.

I recall during two different week-long meditation retreats with Bhante Gunaratana his being asked this same question, What to do when we've done regretful acts in the past?, by two different people.  One person was a innocent-looking young woman, the other a middle aged man who mentioned he had served time in prison and who appeared stooped over and brow-furrowed by deep remorse.  To each of these people, Bhante G gave the same response.  He first quoted from the "Lump of Salt Sutta" and then told the story of the mass-murder-turned-monk Angulimala.

In the Lump of Salt Sutta (in Pali, Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99 or 3.100, depending on which redaction; here's an English translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html; and, here's a Pali redaction: https://suttacentral.net/pi/an3.100), the Buddha essentially asks his disciples, would a lump of salt have the same taste in a small bowl of water as it would in the river Ganges?  The disciples state that the lump of salt would make the bowl of water undrinkable but would not affect the taste of the Ganges.  The Buddha then reveals that the lump of salt is a metaphor for bad karma and that the water reflects ones spiritual development.  More specifically, bad kamma will have a harsher impact on one who is "undeveloped" (represented by the small bowl of water) while it will have a nominal impact on one who is "developed."  Developed in what way?  To quote from the sutta:

developed in body (bhavita-kaya)
developed in virtue (bhavita-sila)
developed in mind (bhavita-citta)
developed in wisdom (bhavita-panna)

(An earlier part of the sutta adds, "He is unlimited and has a lofty character, and he dwells without measure" [trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi], which some commentators associate with ones practicing lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity, for instance, as indicated in the Bramha-vihrara Sutta, AN 10.208 [for which here is a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html; also see Piya Tan's article, "How loving kindness can limit bad karma" available at https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/an3-100-lo-akapalla-how-loving-kindess-can-limit-bad-karma-by-piya-tan/1801].)

Just a quick side note, if I may, the notion of developing ones virtue, mind and wisdom finds resonance in the more general Buddhist framework known as the Threefold Training (see, for example, this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training).  The notion of "developed in body" is often interpreted in terms of sense restraint (Pali, samvara; for a more detailed exposition, see, for instance, the Samvara Sutta, AN 4.14, an English translation of which is available at https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.14).

As for Bhante G's retelling of the story of Angulimala, a mass murderer whose very name refers to the necklace (mala) made of his victims' fingers (anguli), the most important canonical source is MN 86 (Thanissaro Bhikku's translation can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html).  Realizing the endless cycle of suffering he has created for himself and others, Angulimala disavows his murderous ways and becomes a follower of the Buddha.  (As Angulimala recites in this sutta and in Th. 16.8  [e.g., Norman's translation can be found at https://suttacentral.net/en/thag16.8 ]: "Swept away in a great flood, I went to Buddha as a refuge.")  Once, when going for almsrounds, Angulimala saw a woman in painful labor and was overwhelmed by how to respond.  The Buddha taught Angulimala the protective verse: "Sister, since I was born in the noble birth [that is, became a monk], I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus."  This exemplifies how Angulimala's new commitment to a harmless life enables him to both liberate himself and give comfort to others.

As an addendum to what I have learned from the wondrous Bhante G, I'd like to add two observations.  The first is that, among monks and nuns, there are communal processes for addressing interpersonal (and other) wrongs that include bimonthly communal confessions.  (See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha#Monastic_practice .)  I don't know if any such process is established in Buddhist lay communities and would, of course, welcome others sharing their knowledge about such.

Secondly, our regret is often intermingled with our own natural, understandable desire to be forgiven.  In Buddhism though, seeking such forgiveness is not achieved through debasing ourselves or some form of ritualized self-flagellation.  Instead, this impulse for forgiveness reminds me of a chant generally found in post-canoncial Theravada liturgies, "Khama Yacana" (see, for instance, http://chantpali.org/closing.html#khama_yacana), where the verses state in part:  "If by deeds, speech or thoughts heedlessly I have committed any wrong-doing, forgive me, O Bhante ... O Dhamma ... O Sangha ...."  In such a way, beyond the desire to resolve our karmic consequences and our desire to create communal harmony, we can try to temporarily ease within ourselves any excessive burden, facilitating the realization of liberation.


Which early canonical references help one find a skillful teacher?

(Disclaimer: Bear in mind that this answer is structured for the purpose of providing references. This structure is entirely my own way of putting the answer together. I'd emphasize taking the references on their -own terms- without giving too much importance to this structure.)

To find a skillful teacher, one could approach the matter prudently by investigating the teacher for the following points:

Doesn't accept money, especially for teaching.1
Doesn't show traces of greed, hatred or delusion in their behavior.2
Meditates frequently and for lengthy periods.3
Eats once a day before noon.4
Is content with very little.5
Is bent on solitude & seclusion.6

Note that these points are just good guidelines and should be taken as a supplement to one's own discernment. A skillful teacher doesn't need to fulfill all of the points, but if he does, great, stick with him.

For further references, the following discourses might be of great aid:

DN 12: Teachers that are worthy & unworthy of criticism.
MN 8: The whole discourse is worth reading but I linked to the specific section about instruction called "Quenching".
MN 47: This discourse addresses the issue head-on. (Recommended)
AN 4.73: Qualities of a person of integrity. (Recommended)
AN 4.192: Shows how one finds a person's virtue, purity, endurance & wisdom. (Recommended)
AN 5.100: Teachers being covered up by their pupils.
AN 5.159: Five qualities a teacher should set up. (Recommended)
Dhp 158-159: Two verses about teachers.

1. AN 5.159 has five qualities a teacher should set up. The fourth one is that he will not teach for the purpose of material reward.
2. MN 150 mentions that recluses without greed, hatred & delusion are those that should be respected, venerated & honored.
3. DN 29 mentions that buddhist recluses live addicted to the pleasure of meditation.
4. MN 65 is a good reference about the Buddha's thoughts concerning this issue.
5. AN 4.27 is a good reminder about contentment with the bare minimum but I wouldn't advocate it as a necessary guideline.
6. AN 8.53 has the qualities that make-up the Buddha's teaching and one of them is solitude\seclusion.


Is Maithree meditation a recommended practice?

Metta meditation will help you to reduce stress caused by hatred. But it won't be much effective against stress caused by craving or clinging. Anapanasati meditation can be used to get away from all kinds of stress and calm the mind. But it may require Metta meditation at the start as it is hard to concentrate, if you get irritated a lot. Ultimately, it is Vipassana meditation that will give a lasting solution for stress. There is no end to other meditation types. You will have to keep practicing them to maintain whatever peaceful state you may attain.

You can use all these meditations in combination.
ex:

Start with Metta and then do Anapanasati.
Start with Metta and then do Vipassana.
Start with Metta and then Anapanasati to attain Samadhi and then turn it to Vipassana.
Or just do one of those meditations from the start.

If you don't have a teacher, you can experiment and see what works best for you.


An awakened mind no longer has any desires, ambitions, fear, anger and so on.

I do understand the fear. It is quite normal and natural. And functional in the sense that the mind won't let go. So long as you fear you are attached to what you are used to.
Basically there is no need to worry. You won't suddenly wake up, not knowing how to react or something like that. The mind only lets go when it's ready, and that means that there will be no fear.

Practice is, in my humble opinion, key. Intellectualising and thinking and reasoning can get you only this far. Only by experiencing will fear subside, because your mind get's used to new experiences. It will familiarise itself with the yet unknown. And understanding and wisdom will grow... and so on.. and so on.


Detachment : What are we really parting from?

Attachment (and the other things you mention) are described among the Twelve Nidānas.

For example chocolate exists as:

Name ("chocolate") and Form (the form of chocolate)
Sensuality (sight, taste, touch, smell, idea)
Contact (between our consciousness, our senses, and chocolate's form)
Desire
Attachment
Memories

You're right if you're saying that the specific/single answer is difficult to discern. I think that's because:

Attachment isn't to a single thing
Attachment doesn't have a single cause

When I say "not a single thing" I mean that chocolate exists as name, form, sensual contact, mindfulness (or the lack of it), sensual desire, memory and other fabrications; it's not a single thing.

When I say "doesn't have a single cause" I mean that attachment depends on a lot of conditions: sensuality, desire, form, contact, and fabrication.

Instead of "single cause" I think it's better to understand it as "dependent co-arising" ... e.g. "attachment to chocolate arises with (sensuality, desire, memory, etc.)".

It might be better to see the whole chain as a single system rather than as separate bits.

Your question is a bit like asking, "What is the 'chariot' exactly? Is it the wheels, the yoke, the thing it carries, or its destination?" To understand it correctly, it's kind of all of these.

So perhaps you can discern attachment as an active component within the whole: e.g. it's something which affects the 'way' in which people travel.

Also if I look at some of the various definitions of Kleshas (defilements) then sometimes it's listed and sometimes it's not. If the list is detailed then it's a 'separate thing', if it's a shorter list then I think it's just included (presumably along with Taṇhā/craving) in the category of Lobha/desire.


How is the pendulum understood in Buddhism?

The only thing I heard about pendulum in Buddhism was a metaphor used by my first teacher. He said, in the past people used to fluctuate, like a pendulum, between being extremely spiritual in one life and extremely materialistic in another life. He said, in ancient times the pendulum swung a lot slower, maybe over the course of 50 lives. But in our times, the pendulum is so fast that it is effectively in a quantum state - in both extremes at the same time. This is why, he said, now it is appropriate and even desirable to be both spiritual and successful in the world.

Never heard of any other mention of pendulum in any Buddhist context.


3 marks of existence: conditioned vs unconditioned things?

All compounded and/ or conditioned things are impermanent or changing. This applies to the five aggregates, physical objects, matter, energy, physical space, time, most mental concepts and ideas etc.
All matter can be broken down to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. That we know from Einstein's E=mc2. Matter can convert into different forms and so can energy.
Physical space and time can be warped by matter. This we know from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Conditioned things are impermanent and a source of suffering.
Nibbana is not impermanent. It is not conditioned or compounded. It does not depend on anything else. From this answer, we read:

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.

However, all things including Nibbana, Buddha's teachings, matter, physical space, time, thoughts, concepts are not self. There is no permanent, standalone, independent thing called self, just as you cannot find a thing called music when you breakdown a musical instrument into its constituent parts. Please also see this answer.