How to know the progressive state of mind in insight meditation

I believe the speed of letting go of things is one of the indicators from Indriya-bhavana Sutta

  There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises
  in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable &
  disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me,
  this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has
  arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen.
  But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that,
  the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable &
  disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a
  man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or having
  opened them, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how
  easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing...
  disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and
  equanimity takes its stance.


Sitting Meditation: not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen

You can put your hand on your abdomen at first. After awhile you could probably spot the sensation without the hand.

You could lay down on your back and put your hand on your stomach for a stronger view of the rise and fall.

You could make your anchor focus on the sensation of your bottom and legs making contact with the floor or cushion instead of the abdomen.

Hope this helps :) Metta


No. Fortune telling, astrology, palmistry, divination etc. are considered to be "animal" arts by the Buddha, which is forbidden to monks in DN 2 (quoted below).
From DN 2:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.


First, from Tsongkhapa's viewpoint, there are three types of karmic results. One of them is the result similar to the cause. It is often thought that cancer or other deadly ones result from having taken life/lives in past life. A reason for thinking this way is that it may help the meditator to lessen anger (that would come from feeling that it's unfair or underserved). Thinking "cancer comes from such a negative action" is meant to generate regret (not incredible guilt or remorse that will have you paralyzed), and apply antidotes so as to stop engaging in negativities. One has to be careful with this way of thinking. For instance, telling a third person "it's just karma" or "it's because you killed in the past" might not be the best thing to do. It is first and foremost something to take for oneself, to improve one's own practice. To be taken and given carefully. These considerations are not so much to be taken as descriptive than instructive, so as to meditate, dwell on them, and generate within one's own continuum, antidotes to anger and so forth. Dwelling on the notion that "one created the causes of whatever awful turn of event occur" would otherwise be sterile or even possibly dangerous.

Also, a ripening of a karmic imprint is always "karma getting exhausted" but is not necessarily a sign of purification.

As to prayers, in Tibetan monasteries, we perform pujas ("ceremonies, rituals, prayers") on a regular basis, dedicating to specific people who requested (some giving donation, some not). The most common in this setting are Medicine Buddha Puja and Cittamani Tara Puja. This said, the practice we consider the best in these cases is animal liberation (i.e. saving life, as directly opposed to the cause that was taking lives).


The planes are closer to what we mean by dimensions of a system.
All that can be known to exist can be measured & thought about as a system of information, energy or just formation.
The conception & perception of the system occurs within the system. It is a closed system of all information. We can not have information about a beyond the scope of information, can't know the unknowable.
if one could infer information about something which is analogical to the system of energy or information wherein thinking occurs then that would make the two systems conjoined & connected by inference, it would create a paradox where one conceives of two general systems of information which are neither connected nor are separated.
It's a fallacy and is proven by contradiction to be an impossible assertion.
There is one system, it is perceived & conceived in & by itself here or there by this or that being.
Planes are fields & classes of perception which are a scope of the alliness of formation.
The system is thought to change as it persists and has one most powerful percepient at it's any given state, in the doctrine of self that is either a Buddha or a Brahma.
There are sub systems within this system and these collectively are what is spoken of as a ten thousandfold world system, each is said to have earth, sun, humans, four kings & a sakka god.
When a Buddha arises in the world the this 10 thousandfold system is said to shake.
But we don't see a Buddha or anyone go from one human like system to another, eg we don't see Buddha meeting multiple Sakkas kings of gods.
It is philosophically difficult to work out why not. I have some idea but i don't think this has been addressed anywhere in the texts. I don't see much point in going to detail as to my understanding at this point.
The cosmology of Buddhism isn't philosophically simple and is closer to astrophysics theory. Eg sutta speak of dark cosmic voids where the light of the moon & sun doesn't reach and nobody seems to know what is being spoken of.


Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much?

Buddhsim doesn't focus on suffering, it only tells that suffering is essential part of life.

  Other religions criticize Buddhism

Because they haven't understood Buddhism. They may think that Buddhism makes person to think life is full of suffering and lets person feel bad by making them think this things. But what Buddha told is only that suffering is essential part of life but it also can be removed, that's all. And he started to search for a way from which this remaining of suffering can also be removed. As a result he understood the four noble truths i.e:

Suffering is always coming in your life not life is suffering. All the suffering has some reason. all the upcoming suffering and unhappiness and negative experience can be stopped/decreased. and finally the 8 methods which if any human being follows he will feel no suffering in future. That's all. simple. Its just a simple psychology of human mind. Because Buddha himself was just a master scientist/psychologist who have carefully observed and examined everything related to mind. Surprisingly he also discovered that everything what we call universe is just part of mind and other unbelievable things related to parapsychology which truth seekers may find interested. But he also found that involving in other fruits of meditation ignoring the main goal is only stupid thing. So it can be see that what other religious people say about Buddhism is total 100% ignorance and lack of understanding of Buddhism.

  ... but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult.

  Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

It only means that those who are practicing the 8 noble paths: i.e

will start to feel less suffering than other normal people. Because those people who are practicing Buddhism will realize that what they were thinking as suffering, loss and unhappiness were only their thoughts created by their own mind and nothing else.  It should be noted that anyone who knowingly or unknowingly follow this natural laws, not Buddhas teaching he will live more happier life.

So the meaning of following this path is to just increase the level of awareness, realization, happiness and joyfullness. So it doesn't means that average follower will feel more suffering. You can watch the videos made by the 10 day course meditators, they'll explain the difference in before and after experience of following this 8 fold paths.


Depersonalization phenomenon as described in the Pali Canon

It's hard to be sure what he's talking about, because obviously the Pali canon doesn't use the modern definition of DP/DR.

In the video he says a few things to describe what he's talking about:

That it's "DP/DR"
That it's very rare (so very rare that it shouldn't be used as a reason for not meditating)
That whereas enlightenment is liberating and makes your life bigger or fear-free, the "Falling into the Pit of the Void" experience/phenomenon that he's talking is the exact opposite of that
That it might even be the same (the usual) realization (of emptiness) as enlightenment/liberation, however in these (allegedly rare) cases the person reacts to it differently
That he (as a teacher) treats it by saying to such a student, "That's good! Now that you know emptiness you can rebuild yourself better than before" and then (like a physiotherapist would with an injured person) forces them to exercise (e.g. to concentrate on positive virtues)
He uses the word "nihilism"

I suspect that the description in the Pali canon (of derealization if not of depersonalization) might be of bhanga, see for example the descriptions in this answer.

I find it difficult to think of any place in the suttas where the results of meditation are described as pathological -- but one place might be the Vesali Sutta (which might be a description of nihlism).

The video doesn't say so but I wonder whether pathology/disorder might be understood as some imbalance (see for example, Balancing the spiritual faculties).

On the subject of "mindfulness" as a possible antidote, according to modern psychology "feelings of unreality (depersonalization or derealization)" can be among the symptoms of "panic disorder" and "acute stress reaction" ... and (to some extent Westernized) "mindfulness based stress reduction programs" is one of the clinical techniques that psychological therapists use to help to treat that.


If all that is impermanent is unsatisfactory, then is all that is permanent satisfactory?

All 'things' are impermanent and unsatisfactory (and without self - these are the first three of the Four Dharma Seals). Your subsequent reasoning is wrong* and not Buddhist teaching either - Buddhism teaches neither nihilism nor permanence (one aspect of the Middle Way).

The point of the teaching of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness (and no-self) is to encourage you to give up your attachment to things as a source of happiness and security, and live within the fourth Dharma Seal, 'Nirvana is tranquility'.

Wrong in standard logic ('All Americans are mortal, therefore all non-Americans are immortal' - a fallacy known as 'denying the antecedent': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent ), and wrong with respect to the 'four possibilities', which are brought up in Madhyamaka philosophy simply for the purpose of being denied.


Looking for info on the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw tradition

If you are looking for reading material, here are some good resources:

http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings
http://www.saraniya.com/page/ebooks/ebooks-mahasi-sayadaw.html
http://www.yellowrobe.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/237-books-by-mahasi-sayadaw.html

If you are looking to follow a course, it depends on where you are or where you can travel to.
If you are in Canada, checkout the courses page at sirimangalo.org
If you come to Asia, there are many choices. Here are a few:

Sri Lanka
Myanmar
Thailand (besides Wat Chom Tong, where Ajahn Tong is the abbot, there is also Wat Ram Poeng and Doi Suthep - same tradition, all have instruction in English)


Can somebody remove their bad karma by believing that it doesn't exist?

You are expressing the stock definition of 'wrong view':

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong
view, and right view as right view. This is one's right 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 brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after
having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong
view... MN117

More graphically, it is described as:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit. MN60

You may choose not to believe in cosmic Karma, as in Hinduism, but kamma in Buddhism is only accrued due to intentional actions. Denying intention is denying agency, in one way or another. AN 3.61 deals with that issue, and with respect to God and kamma's place if God is to be believed in.
The Buddha did say:

Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
people. AN 2.21

So confession is understood as wise, and acceptance of such is also, but this confession is to a human being.


I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point

Well, simply by going with what's described in sutta MN 21, it doesn't seem like Vedehika was really that gentle and peaceful. Let's see her reaction the very first time her maid Kali got up late:

  “So the maid Kalı got up late. Then Mistress Vedehika said: ‘Hey, Kalı!’—‘What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up so late?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up so late!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she scowled."

And then what she did the last time being tested:

  ‘What is the matter that you get up still later in the day?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up still later in the day!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she took a rolling-pin, gave her a blow on the head, and cut her head. Then the maid Kalı, with blood running from her cut head..."

Now whether it was a true story doesn't matter much for it was a simple analogy the Buddha used to really drive home the point of a very real issue for many monks:

  So too, bhikkhus, some bhikkhu is extremely gentle, extremely meek, extremely peaceful, so long as disagreeable courses of speech do not touch him. But it is when disagreeable courses of speech touch him that it can be understood whether that bhikkhu is really kind, gentle, and peaceful."


Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as  and .

From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47 when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign.

  The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art.

So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now) as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state. As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.


I think it is wrong to say that either insight (panna) or concetration (samadhi) comes through Vipassana. They both come through Vipassana, they both aid each other in their "coming through" and further growth. Of course, it is relativly easier to develop samadhi as compared to panna; nonetheless samadhi is perfected only when one has panna and panna cannot be perfected without having perfected samadhi.
It is unclear what you mean when you say 'comes as a vehicle'. But if I were to take vehicle as that which carries you over the river of samsar- then 'vehicle' is vipassana. Concentration and Insight both go in hand in hand. A yogi who has perfected samadhi has more chances of perfecting panna, and therefore, is closer to Nirvana; than a yogi who is yet to perfect samadhi (for perfection of panna without perfection of samadhi is not possible).

DO note that these are not the only two things to be perfected. These are only two Paramitas. There are more.

Since the vehicle is Vipasssana only, one 'sees' the three marks of existence (anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), dukhha(suffering)) as anyone else would see-through insight build on a foundation of samadhi and other perfections (paramitas).


If you experience dullness, it's because your thinking mind (little mind) has gotten bored and is trying to put itself to sleep. You can alleviate the dulness by movement, sure — there's nothing wrong with that, exactly — but it's a sideways transition. The more productive approach is to recognize that your thinking mind wants to go to sleep, and that you can detach from it and let it sleep while you remain alert and awake. The thinking mind is just confused: it thinks it's you, and that if it goes to sleep you should go to sleep with it. All you need to do is break that association.


All thought is movement and a still mind is one that has no movement in it except when required.

When you need to use the memory - "what's 1+1" or "where's my car keys" - the mind provides the answer. It's only the innecessary thinking that stops. Innecessary thinking is thinking that isn't required by the immediate situation.

This also means thoughts don't have the same energy anymore - the energy to make you feel emotional for example.

99.9% of thoughts in a normal undisciplined mind are created by habit, circumstances and old emotional pains.


Is a Theravada Buddhist permitted/able to take a Bodhisattva vow?

The term theravāda means "doctrine" (vāda) of the elders (thera). It generally refers to the teachings found in the Pali Canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries. Anything laid down as doctrine in this large body of literature should be considered as theravada.

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?

The Buddha did not, as far as the theravada goes (and as far as I'm aware), teach his followers to become Buddhas, since his focus was on leading beings to freedom from suffering as soon as possible. It is acknowledged as a valid path, however, since that is obviously the only way a Buddha can arise. In many places the Buddha talked about how great was the arising of a Buddha in the world, for the benefit of many.

Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?

Again, there is no doctrinal teaching on the matter; the closest you'll get is in the Jataka commentary, translated in Buddhism in Translations, which talks about the perfections and characteristics of a Bodhisatta.

Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The theravada doesn't recognize the term "Mahayana"; it recognizes three paths:

sammā-sambuddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves and is able to teach others to become enlightened due to their limitless knowledge.
pacceka-buddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves but is unable to teach others to become enlightened due to their limited knowledge.
sāvaka-buddha one who becomes enlightened through the teaching of a sammā-sambuddha.

  While thus I lay upon the ground, Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire, I my corruptions might
  consume.

  "But why thus in an unknown guise Should I the Doctrine's fruit
  secure? Omniscience first will I achieve, And be a Buddha in
  the world.

  "Or why should I, a valorous man, The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve, And men and gods convey
  across.

  "Since now I make this earnest wish, In presence of this Best of
  Men, Omniscience sometime I'll achieve, And multitudes
  convey across.

  "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest, Destroy existence's three
  modes; I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship, And men and
  gods convey across.

  -- The Story of Sumedha


Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow

In indo-european folklore the common expression "the same in happiness and sorrow" usually means one who stays a loyal friend not only in happy times but also in times of trouble, when having all responsibilities of a true friend could be taxing. This corresponds with #3 on the list, "in misfortune he does not forsake one".

By extension, "the same in happiness and sorrow" means one who is not seeking a benefit for oneself from the friendship, but sincerely gives oneself away to the friend. This is where the other three come from:

  (i) he reveals his secrets,
  (ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
  ...
  (iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.

"Warm-hearted" means a friend whose relationship of trust and commitment comes from the heart, is unforced and natural. Such friend would not have to make an effort to "sacrifice his life for one's sake", it would come naturally.

Altogether, the above is not to be understood literally, but is meant to portray the attitude of uncalculated selfless fondness, almost love, as the perfection of friendship.


What is the difference between approaching the idea 'no-self' and the act to 'depersonalize'?

Depersonalisation as a psychiatric disorder is something traumatic.

Depersonalisation as enlightenment is calming, blissful & liberating; based in the wisdom of seeing the stress & abandoning of attachment & aversion.

It follows the depersonalised enlightened person can act, behave or interact harmoniously in the world.

The depersonalisation of the enlightened person can be a “secret” only know to them. An external person may never ever suspect or know the enlightened person is depersonalised; let alone enlightened.


Buddhism is about enlightened self interest - to sharpen one's focus onto the important things - and not just the things that are efficient distractions for most people. So, self improvement or societal improvement is definitely not a problem with Buddhism.

If you woke me up at my deepest sleep, when I am the groggiest, I am of little use to anyone, until I wake up fully. Similarly, to be of use to anyone, whether ourselves or others in our lives, or the world at large, we must first be awakened to reality of life. Or we compound errors, like someone who's just woken up, and can't open his eyes too well.

Take the case of a professional, say a doctor. A junior doctor will likely lose sleep over a mishap, like the loss of a patient, she will agonize over what went wrong, what could have been done to save him, and so on. Whereas, a senior doctor would know nothing more could have been done, and goes about life after a moment's reflection. Nothing surprises the senior professional in her sphere of competence.

It may be a whole another story outside their sphere of competence - if the senior doctor lost a lot of money on the stock market, she may react like a child, crying over it, while the senior banker shuffles off home equanimously after a similar loss because this loss and gain happens to him every day.

  Life happens to all of us everyday but we cry like little children at
  life's agonies, and squeal at life's pleasures. We aren't very mature
  about life.

An enlightened Buddhist looks at all life like a senior professional. With maturity. If something needs doing it is done, if something remains undone despite doing everything, there is no panic, it is just life.

We are in no hurry to arrive, we are in no reluctance to depart.

Buddhism isn't only about denial of the self. That would be an extreme view. Just like belief in a self is an extreme view. Initially when people are unenlightened they can't even conceptualize the idea of a world without a self. At the next stage of awakening, they come to terms with the world that is empty of the self. At the next stage they come to terms with the world where a self is and isn't. They have successfully let go of either extreme.

At this final stage they are neither obsessed about lack of self improvement, nor are they lazing about without self improvement. They have developed a capacity to accept things for what they are, and react suitably. This doesn't mean they let life happen to them like an immobile rock, nor are they supermen who dodge everything life throws at them.

They are in one word - very mature. Like a consummate master of life who has seen it all, stepping out of the way of problems that can be avoided, and accepting what cannot be avoided as necessary.


Observing sensations during normal time.

The experiences are based on the sum total of your past fabrications and what has surfaced in a given time.

In the different times the fabrications that has surfaced are different hence the diversity of the experience.

Dwelling on matters like this will inevitably make you crave or be averse to some types of sensation hence regress in your pratice. You should just be aware regardless of if it is strong or not.

Having said this some times the strong sensations can be due to rapture.


Is raping a male arahant or a non-arahant less immoral/less serious than raping a female arahant?

The passage doesn't imply that at all. It's just that homosexual misbehavior or other abnormal ways of breaking the 3rd precept are not discussed here.

Gravity of the offence also depends on the purity of the being who's subjected to it. Not on how he/she deals with it. It's similar to how merits of giving dependent on the virtuousness of the recipient. Not on how much he/she craves for what is given.


Bare awareness while meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition

The noting shouldn't stop one from seeing things with bare awareness. One doesn't focus on the noting, one focuses on the meditation object.

...at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling...

If one isn't  consciously aware of the noting then one will be unconsciously (un)aware of the noting. We note no matter what we do.

When we need to listen, speak, read, write or study then it is more difficult to note consciously. Some don't note consciously in these situations but they do continue mindfulness of bare experience.

I've never heard of an end to noting(conscious or otherwise) made by conscious effort or made by a non-volitional event.


Where is careless attention (ayonisomanasikāro) in Dependent Origination?

MN 148 (my emphasis added) ...

  Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for what is felt as pleasant, painful, or neutral. When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you don’t approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it, the underlying tendency to greed does not underlie that. When you experience a painful feeling, if you don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion, the underlying tendency to repulsion does not underlie that. When you experience a neutral feeling, if you truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape, the underlying tendency to ignorance does not underlie that. Mendicants, after giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, after dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, after eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, after giving up ignorance and giving rise to knowledge, it’s totally possible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

... so maybe unwise attention happens at the "feeling" stage (and the converse is "guarding the senses").

You could probably say it's associated with other nidanas too, e.g. ignorance (which is arguably the "root"); and/or namarupa (per the definition you referenced here, i.e. that nama includes "Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention").

Also MN 2 says that the "thicket of views" associated with self-views arises when attending inappropriately -- and MN 148 (quoted above) also says it's possible (but wrong) to identify with eye, eye-object, eye-consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, etc. -- so maybe that would be some inappropriate attention associated with all of these nidanas.

But because AN 10.6 says it results in "restraint of the sense faculties" I think that's talking about "guarding the senses" and therefore e.g. not delighting in feeling.

Maybe not "before" sense contact though -- before and after. I think the DO relationship is more complicated than strictly chronological e.g. "once around the clock, clockwise".


In the beginning the practitioner is generally learning the mindfulness practise. And this happens to everybody who starts this path. All of the mindfulness objects are valid and when the practitioner becomes trained in the practise, all of the mindfulness objects would be ok. for him/her.

Also in the beginning all kinds of thoughts can come to the practitioner's mind. "I'm not practising right" or "I must do something different" etc. Learning to live in the now is challenging because human mind is opposite of the "now", it is always running to the future or to the past. So it is better to be patient and insist on the practise. Seeing, hearing, washing the hands, walking, wearing the socks, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, driving the car, sitting on the bus, observing the feelings, emotions, thoughts, doing the job, listening to a dhamma talk, doing formal sitting or walking meditation etc. Every moment of life is a big opportunity to be in the now. The practise must be done all the time and If the practitioner forgets the practise, s/he must return to the practise any time in daily life. This is the only way to learn mindfulness and eventually realize Nibbana. Ofcourse becoming free from the physical and mental addictions, staying away from the crazy parts of the life and "being a good person" are parts of this process. The Buddhist precepts and principles are very helpful for a person to have these qualities so the mindfulness practise can be really fruitful.

It is better to not differentiate the mindfulness objects but keeping on the same mindfulness object/doing simples things(like just being mindful of "walking" instead of looking all around) makes the practise easier. But a practitioner must be ok. of all of the mindfulness objects.

So it is gradual process and learning to be mindful in daily life takes time. With practise and insistence mindfulness practise would become a learned habit for a practitioner.


Buddhism view regarding happiness and contentment

This sort of happiness is certainly recognized by the Buddha; it is encouraged in many places as being conducive to concentration, e.g.:

2.“I thought: ‘Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?’ I thought: ‘I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

In final analysis, however, it must be discarded as useless - unstable, unsatisfying and uncontrollable:

(i) “And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of feelings? Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
33–35.“Again, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…With the fading away as well of rapture…he enters upon and abides in the third jhāna…With the abandoning of pleasure and pain he enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna…On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
36.(ii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the danger in the case of feelings? Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change. This is the danger in the case of feelings.
37.(iii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the escape in the case of feelings? It is the removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for feelings. This is the escape in the case of feelings.
-- MN 13 (Bodhi, trans)


Discussion with Chih-Tao in the Platform Sutra

From the Platform Sutra in Classical Chinese:

  T48n2008_p0357a19(05)║...剎那無有生相，剎那無有滅相，
  T48n2008_p0357a20(04)║更無生滅可滅，是則寂滅現前。當現前時，
  T48n2008_p0357a21(05)║亦無現前之量，乃謂常樂。此樂無有受者，亦無不受者，
  T48n2008_p0357a22(01)║豈有一體五用之名？何況更言涅槃禁伏諸法，
  T48n2008_p0357a23(00)║令永不生。斯乃謗佛毀法。聽吾偈曰：
  T48n2008_p0357a24(00)║「無上大涅槃，　　圓明常寂照，
  T48n2008_p0357a25(00)║凡愚謂之死，　　外道執為斷，
  T48n2008_p0357a26(00)║諸求二乘人，　　目以為無作，
  ...

In 'a split second' (ksaṇa (क्षण)) there is no sign (相, logo, form, nama) of arising; in a split second there is no sign of ceasing; further, there is no arising-ceasing [impermanent activities] to be annihilated (extinguished, ceased, terminated, stopped); thus 'absolute annihilation' (寂滅 Nirvana) emerges. When this emerged, it does not have the quality of emerging {亦無現前之量}, thus this is called constant bliss. For this bliss that is not obtainable, nor that is not unobtainable...

The above is equivalent to your quoted "... does not have.... not experienced by anyone". The bold Chinese quote are the words that's been translated.

This comes from the episode about Chih-Tao inquired the 6th Great Huineng his unable to understand the Mahanirvana Sutra (涅槃經), about the "arising-ceasing (or birthing-dying) annihilated, absolute annihilation as the constant bliss" (生滅滅已，寂滅為樂). It's too much too complex to explain in full. In short, in Nirvana, all signs (logos) created or conceived by the intellect and consciousness ceased (extinguished, annihilated). There, it is not even intellect or consciousness. In the whole one Ksana, it is constant bliss, this is Nirvana. Ksana has to be hinted for our intellect and consciousness created the space/time, Ksana is the minimal unit we could infer when using words to explain ideas. In the other way to say, in Nirvana there is no space/time; no space/time, thus no birth/death, for any change must have the element of either space or time, but space/time is an illusion, the absolute is Śūnyatā, Emptiness, it is beyond all the human intellect categories. Therefore "Maha Nirvana" has nothing to do with death. Death is only applicable to body, form, sign, existence, impermenance, and it's viability depended on the Birth.

Remark:

The newly bold are:

無上大涅槃，圓明常寂照，
凡愚謂之死，外道執為斷，
諸求二乘人，目以為無作， ...

These are part of the lines of Buddhist Hymn (偈) given by Great Huineng, to summerize what he taught Chih-Tao. The purpose of Hymns is to let students easily memorize, thus it's always concise, poetic and rhythmic in nature, for at that time people used to learn by heart instead of using CPU for data and search engine!

It goes as:

The unsurpassed Maha Nirvana, Perfect and bright, in constant absolute splendor;
unenlightened laity said that is death {凡愚謂之死}, heretical stuck that is cessation;
those secondary practitioners, regarded it as non-Doing...

In simplicity, Great Huineng commented those laity (your "oridnary fools") said death is Nirvana, which is incorrect.


Bringing 'Atta' concept to Buddha's teachings

It is possible to bend the Buddha's message (if you so wish to do) because the Buddha never denied Atta in an Essential sense, he only pointed out that within empirical experience (all the way up to the perception of cessation) no 'thing' can be said to be constant and unchanging, as a self would be required to be.. hence the Mulapariyaya Sutta.

Whilst the Buddha was very clear with regards to the lack of evidence for Atta within the empirical world, the Brahmajala and Potthapada Suttas shows that with regards to the Transcendental Atta (which is the Atta that most darshanas went for - Brahman/Atta is usually seen as beyond experience, commonly stated as 'neti neti' - 'not this, not that'), he asked people to avoid speculation (because whatever that 'transcendental' is inferred to be, it cannot be perceived and therefore cannot be verified)

The Anatta doctorine is very subtle, a not insignificant number of schools of Buddhism have gone towards either essentialism (brahmanism) or annihalationism (nihilism) at some point. Yogachara has the nature of Parinispanna, which is a transcendental Atta. Mahayana developed the Tathagatagharba, which makes the Buddha a kind of Atta for Existence. The Buddha would have likely not concurred with these though!


Where in the Pali Canon does it give examples of right livelihood and it's opposite

An introduction to Right Livelihood on accesstoinsight references very short definitions of right and wrong livelihood for lay followers. And in fact I've never yet found a detailed description of right and wrong livelihood, beyond these quotes. You can also infer some ethical rules from what the Sigalovada Sutta says about Workers; and from RIght Livelihood being on the "ethics" branch of the Eight-fold path.

The "not right livelihood which include things like fortune tellers in the list" might be from here, The Great Section on Virtue in Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life (note that these are said to be 'wrong' for "contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith"):

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

  "A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.


Who said 'if you are too busy meditate for two hours'?

Isn't this notion from meditation traditions in general?
James Altucher, in his Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Reinventing Yourself:

What if I don’t have time to sit in silence [for one hour a day]?
Then sit in silence for two hours a day.

which he adapted (with an entrepreneurial slant) from a story about Mahatma Gandhi.


Why are some bodily fluids missing from the "Thirty Two Parts of the Body" teaching?

You could probably contemplate on it as blood. Women entered the Sangha somewhat later. So I would presume this meditation was taught to monks before that happened. You might have also noticed that seminal fluid is missing from the list.
Women having to contemplate on that might actually arouse their lust. Maybe it's the same case with men having to contemplate on women's period.


If you mean by this definition:

Astral projection (or astral travel), is a term used in esotericism to
describe an intentional out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the
existence of a soul called an "astral body" that is separate from the
physical body and capable of travelling outside it throughout the
universe

Then there are only a few verses that can be interpreted as such in the Pali Canon, for example in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made
body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made
of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought
would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath
is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from
the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard.
The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the
scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword
has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a
snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is
the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough
another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the
same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright,
unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and
attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to
creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body,
endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not
inferior in its faculties.
...
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of
supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been
one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He
vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as
if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were
water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With
his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and
powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the
Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft
from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or
as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from
well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled
goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any
kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He
exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds."

The term used here is translated as "Mind-Made Body" (S. manomaya-kāya, C. yisheng shen 意生身). This text also details supernatural features, such as clairaudience and mind reading. Manomaya-kāya appears in various contexts in the Pali canon, which provide it with different shades of meaning. These are divided into three categories with nine subcategories:

Buddhist practice and attainment,

the body as part of a path of practice by practitioners bound for arhatship,
the body as the post-mortem destiny of disciples who achieve a certain level of attainment,
the body in which the Buddha visits the heaven of
Brahmā,
the form in which the Buddha comes to a disciple to teach him (once),
the kind of body of a generous lay person reborn in a certain heaven.

cosmology,

the form in which certain devas are incarnated in some heavens
the form in which certain beings are reincarnated in the early part of a kalpa in various cosmogonic accounts

views of other schools

one of a range of objects of identification that can be mistaken for a permanent self, in a teaching where the Buddha refutes the notion of such a self,
part of one of seven nihilist views refuted by the Buddha in the
Brahmajāla Sutta

In Mahayana texts, the term manomaya-kāya is frequently associated with the dharmakāya (Sanskrit: धर्म काय, "truth body" or "reality body", Chinese: 法身; pinyin: Fǎshēn, Tibetan: ཆོས་སྐུ་, Wylie: chos sku, rdzogs sku). This is one of the three bodies (trikāya) of a Buddha in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The dharmakāya constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a buddha out of which buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. Buddhas are manifestations of the dharmakāya called the nirmāṇakāya, "transformation body"
Note that this is only a short summary to answer your question for textual references that could be interpreted as OBE. These texts are not taken literally by the majority of Buddhist schools. For an in-depth scholarly analysis of the term, I recommend the following studies:
The Meaning of ‘Mind-made Body’ in Buddhist Cosmological and Soteriological systems
Early Buddhist Dhammakāya: Its Philosophical and Soteriological Significance


Can someone help me to find suttas on Self compassion

You may be interested in AN 3.99, which states that by developing yourself in body, virtue and mind, a trifling evil deed that is done, will not bog you down:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e.,
painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
[i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.

From SN 42.8, we get a similar message:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this
doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a
state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal...
All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are
destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A
disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him,
'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take
life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell."
There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a
state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that
view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state
of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be
carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds
this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit
sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of
deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told.
I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.'
He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine,
doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then
as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world,
worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing &
conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of
those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened,
blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of
life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' He criticizes & censures
stealing, and says, 'Abstain from stealing.' He criticizes & censures
indulging in illicit sex, and says, 'Abstain from indulging in illicit
sex.' He criticizes & censures the telling of lies, and says, 'Abstain
from the telling of lies.'
"A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One
in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and
says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have
killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life.
This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This
is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"[He reflects:] 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes &
censures stealing... indulging in illicit sex... the telling of lies,
and says, "Abstain from the telling of lies." There are lies that I
have told, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the telling of lies, and in the future refrains from telling
lies. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed.
This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"Having abandoned the taking of life, he refrains from taking life.
Having abandoned stealing, he refrains from stealing. Having abandoned
illicit sex, he refrains from illicit sex. Having abandoned lies, he
refrains from lies. Having abandoned divisive speech, he refrains from
divisive speech. Having abandoned harsh speech, he refrains from harsh
speech. Having abandoned idle chatter, he refrains from idle chatter.
Having abandoned covetousness, he becomes uncovetous. Having abandoned
ill will & anger, he becomes one with a mind of no ill will. Having
abandoned wrong views, he becomes one who has right views.
"That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of
covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps
pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with
good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through good will is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there.
"That disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid
of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first
direction with an awareness imbued with compassion... appreciation...
equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with equanimity — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there."


How is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima connected to the Buddhist community?

The founder of the Gelug tradition, Lama Je Tsongkhapa, had two main disciples:

Gyaltsab Je and
Khedrup Je

While Khedrup Je was the 1st Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was recognized, by H.H. the Dalaï-Lama, as the 11th Panchen Lama. He was also recognized as such by the Chinese government that decided to have a say in the so-called “Tulku system [of recognition]”.

Although Gyaltsab Je was the Spiritual Leader of the Gelug tradition (Ganden Tripa) after Tsongkhapa, Khedup Je also became the Ganden Tripa in time, after Gyaltsab Je's passing.

As a result, their philosophical work is highly regarded by Gelug teachers and students. Gelug students still study the 1st Panchen Lama's commenteries, along with Gyaltsab Je's.

Khedrup Je was also a teacher of Gendün Druppa, the 1st Dalaï-Lama. From the time of the 5th Dalaï-Lama, the Dalaï-Lama & the Panchen Lama held the responsibility of recognizing one another['s reincarnation].

It is believed that Khedrup Je was a reincarnation of Subhuti (the one depicted in the Vajra Cutter Sutra, a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha).

Whether his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community, and if so, in what way, is difficult to tell. His imprisonment means:
… a teacher of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… a candidate to the regency of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… one of the main disciples of the founder of the Geluk tradition being imprisoned
… a candidate to the position of Ganden Tripa being imprisoned
… a potentially influential of textual commentaries being imprisoned

Most Tibetans still mourn him. If you go to McLeod Ganj or Boudhanath, you will see plenty of posters with his pictures, and printed characters such as “Give back the Panchen Lama!”

Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche (that many think of as clairvoyant, or even enlightened and thus omniscient) said that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (from whom we have never heard of again otherwise) is still alive, safe and sound.


Why do I feel irritated after sitting for long hours?

These can arise if you do not develop the right type of concentration and awareness

If your meditation is an active struggle to keep your focus on a particular meditation subject stress arise
If you are not equanimous to sensations (and reacting to them with dislike or liking) during meditation your will get stressed

If you abandon the above two meditation will reduce stress.

Kindness meditation also can help. 1st you should create peace and serenity in your mind and then wish you share this with other. If this is not there in your mind and / or you are not sincere, this will be just repeating words. So 1st examine your self to see if you have happiness within you then start kindness meditation.

Being week in morality also causes agitations and leads to manifestation of the hindrances. So you base of morality should be strong.

When past fabrications come up it gives different sensations. In this case most likely unpleasant or not being a sensation you crave for, which is causing the problem. What ever sensation or experience you get be equanimous. Then you will not get stressed.


This book whose title is,

BUDDHISM
Critical Concepts in Religious Studies
Edited by Paul Williams
Volume III
The Origins and Nature of Mahayana Buddhism;
Some Mahayana Religious Topics

says on page 365,

  That an adept can employ an advanced meditation technique to create a body made by his or her own mind is an opinion found in ancient Buddhist scripture and elaborated in later treatises. This is a pan-Buddhist notion. The power to transform ones own body into another form and the power to create bodies "made of mind" are two among the ṛddhi, or supernormal powers, explained in the Visuddhimagga.

  Few can achieve vikurvana-rddhi; it is a difficult attainment. But Buddhas,
  Pratyeka-Buddhas and chief disciples are said to attain it automatically when
  they become Arhats, that is, when they attain liberation from the cycle of
  rebirth.

You can use the hyperlink above to read more from those pages of that book, or here is a copy as a PDF.

So, to answer your questions:

Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?

No, apparently not: it's a "difficult attainment".
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?

They're not something you create in order to have an imaginary friend, which you can talk with and which acts a gateway to your own subconscious. Instead they're something which a Bodhisatva might create as a tool to help liberate someone else:

  The Bodhisattva cultivates
  rddhi-Abhijñā in order to advance a great many beings toward liberation;
  without it, relatively few beings can be matured. For this purpose, a Bodhisattva
  can make for him- or herself the body of a cakravartin, a Sakra, a Buddha, or
  whatever is required to effect someone's liberation. Such transformations
  (nirmita) are true and not false, for no dharma has a fixed characteristic

They're created consciously, not subconsciously:

  Having
  entered dhyiina, using one or another meditation-object, one should arise from
  the meditation and contemplate oneself having the form of-for example-a
  boy. Having done this one should re-enter dhyiina and resolve, "May I be such
  and such a boy." With resolve, one becomes so. Similarly, in order to exercise
  manomayii-rddhi, the power of creating a body by mental powers, arising from
  dhyiina and contemplating the body one should resolve "Let the body be a
  hollow." The body becomes a hollow, one contemplates another body within
  one's own, resolves again and there is another body within oneself. One
  removes it, as a reed from its sheath, and the two are distinct but one is the
  duplicate of the other. Thus, one uses a progressive visualization exercise, in
  either case, and the end result is said to be the production of a new body, visible
  to others.

Beware that I'm reading this from a book: I don't know Tibetan Buddhism (and Wikipedia's article on Tibetan Buddhism suggests that it requires a teacher, an "authentic lineage of transmission" from "a lama who is fully qualified to give it"). The footnotes (on page 379) reference the Visuddhimagga.


Feeling concern for others but like my efforts in anything are wasted

I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter?

Act of the betterment of other, but do not be attached to the outcome, as you have to practice equanimity, also as part of the Brahmavihara. Otherwise the practice will become a burden and a stress, than away to unburden yourself. I.e., be concerned but not stressed, when the outcome is not what is intended.

  Caveat: I won't believe in other lives, only karma.

Attachment to beliefs is also attachment which can give arise to stress. Generally it is best to avoid believes in the line "this exits or does not exists, that exists does not exits". But having said this you need a set of Right Beliefs but even to these do not get attached.


Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?

I read that smoking is done.

The Broken Buddha includes these (and other) references to smoking.

  No Sri Lankan monk
  would dare to smoke in public because this is believed to infringe the Vinaya but it is quite
  acceptable for them to chew tobacco. Thailand’s Thammayut sect likewise considers smoking to be
  contrary to Vinaya but the Mahaniky sect does not.

  A study released in
  2002 showed that the leading cause of death amongst Thai monks was smoking related illnesses.

  For example, here in Burma, in the afternoon a
  Bhikkhu can drink iced mineral water but not hot water, must not eat fruit but can smoke a box of
  cigars, can eat jaggary but not onions, beetel nut and not coconut.

  When last in Upper Burma I noticed the
  number of Christian Missions that had sprung up, and when I asked a prominent man the reason he
  replied, ‘These missionaries have opened schools and hospitals and help us in many ways. They are
  doing the work of the Lord Buddha while our own Bhikkhus do nothing but sleep and smoke all
  day.’

  Thirdly. Food. The present food regulations observed by the Sangha do much more harm than good.
  They produce ill health, gluttony, bad habits, and dishonesty. Let me explain what I see almost
  daily. A Monk goes around with a bowl in the morning, gets meat, fish, fowl, rice, etc, food that
  heats the blood and has little nourishment. But he must eat it all before noon and then starve for
  eighteen hours, so he stuffs down much more usually than he can digest and so has to sleep for
  some hours after. Late in the afternoon he gets hungry and then has to chew tobacco, pan leaf and
  jaggery, and smoke innumerable cigarettes and cigars. Bad health often results, and while boys in
  day schools are taught that smoking is ruinous to health, in the Order they are actually encouraged
  to do so.

  In Ceylon
  and Burma for example, a Bhikkhu can smoke but must not drink beer, but in Tibet a monk drinks
  as much native beer as he pleases but never smokes, which is a most serious offence.

Also this answer was from someone who is known as a monk. I think it's defensive about smoking, saying that:

Smoking is less harmful than cars, chocolate, or burgers (I think he means "less harm for others" rather than "less harm for the smoker")
The fifth precept is more about "heedlessness" and smoking (unlike e.g. alcohol) doesn't cause heedlessness
Sila ("virtue") is about not harming others; a recluse, smoking in private, is relatively harmless


I encourage you to read the following: Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali. The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts.
In this work, their project is to investigate the question of authencity systematically. In that, the approach is quiet academic and might be to your liking.
Page 7, they state a feature of the early Buddhist texts:

The Buddha’s presence as a living figure in the EBTs is overwhelming
and unmistakable. It stands in stark contrast with all other Buddhist
literature, where the Buddha has faded to legend.

Page 8, they assert that, although they accord with the meaning of Buddha Dharma...
> We are not denying the obvious fact that the texts bear all the marks
> of redaction and editing, and that they have been optimised for the
> oral tradition.

Page 151, they state what we owe to the early Buddhist texts:
> We know when the Buddha lived, where he lived, who he associated with,
> how he lived, and what he taught. We know these things with greater
> certainty than for almost any other historical figure from a
> comparable period. And we know this because of the EBTs. All other
> historical and archaeological information about the period depends on
> the EBTs to make sense.
Their overall conclusion is that although the Pali canon "bears the marks of redaction and editing", the meaning accord with the intent of the Buddha. Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali expose various argument (sorted out by chapters, that all constitute different angles: geographical, historical, and so forth) in order to highlight the proximity between what is written in the Pali canon and what the Buddha [presumably] said.


There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent?

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality.


Karma is a very complicated process. We could in fact say that just about everything affects just about everything else - if a butterfly beats its wings in China, it does probably play some infinitesimal role in causing hurricanes in Florida. If, by karma, you mean any old action whatsoever, then indeed, there are probably certain actions (especially mental ones) that lead one to be reborn as one gender or the other.

Specifically, a man's obsession with women would most likely cause him to be reborn as a woman, and vice versa. This is most likely what happened in the stories we have that have been traditionally interpreted as suggesting that adultery leads to being born a woman. It is far more likely, in my mind, that male adultery with women leads to being born a woman, and female adultery with men leads to being born a man. The cause being the insane obsession.

This, of course, is not what is meant by karma and result in a Buddhist sense. Here the fact that one was born a woman or a man was not a "bad" or "good" result, it was just a case of obsession leading to realization of the object of obsession.  If one were insanely obsessed with cats, one would likely be born a cat.

If, by karma, you are referring to ethical acts, in the sense that, for example, being born gender A is the good result of certain good deeds and being born gender B is the evil result of certain evil deeds, it seems unlikely that one could infer that from the Buddha's teaching - itthindriya and purisindriya are just two of the many aspects of physical being; there is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior between the two, I don't think.

That being said, genders are hardly ever equal, physically or socially, in any species of being; in India at the time of the Buddha and when the commentaries were written, for example, being born a human female would have been a bad thing given their inferior social status, and thus could be taken indirectly as a sign of bad past karma. Too, the physiology of a human female is arguably (though not conclusively so) a cause of greater potential suffering than of its male counterpart, forcing one to deal with menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc., as well as generally inferior strength.

Of course, this need not always be true; nor does it imply that the female faculty itself is inferior to the male faculty, or brought about by bad karma in all cases. Several species of mammal exhibit characteristics of female domination; the human species itself seems to be heading closer to a level of equality between the genders. Thus, it seems erroneous to suggest that one gender is an intrinsic result of good karma and another the intrinsic result of bad karma.

To be perfectly clear, in the abhidhamma, karma refers to one's mental volition or motivation, and the result is always expressed in terms of experience - good karma results in good experience, bad karma results in bad experience (viz. of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). For gender to play any intrinsic role in bringing about the result of good or bad karma, it would have to intrinsically be the cause of specific pleasant or unpleasant experiences. Again, any such relationship seems more related to the evolution of certain species and cultures than the intrinsic nature of the genders.

Finally, the whole concept of karma is suspect; an arahant performs no karma, good or evil, and doesn't see any experience as either pleasant or unpleasant. In ultimate reality, whether certain experiences are "good" or "bad" seems largely subjective, and any volition or motivation that leads one to be reborn as either a male or a female of any species is definitely "bad" or "wrong" in an ultimate sense.


From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Objectification-classification in this translation means the same as "reification".
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, commented on this:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people. So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.
So according to Snp 4.14, to put an end to reification, you must first put an end to the root of reification, which is the mental idea of the self, the thought "I am the thinker". And the way to achieve this is to increase wisdom and weaken ignorance. That would weaken craving, clinging, becoming and birth (of the idea of the self). For this, please see this answer on the South Indian Monkey Trap.
And how do you increase wisdom and weaken ignorance? For that, we have the Noble Eightfold Path.


There had been infinite number of Buddhas before and there will be many more.

In this Kalpa, We already have four Buddhas and there will be one more Buddha. That's why this Kalpa is called Bhadda-kappa.

Extracted it from here.

  In the current kalpa, it is said we are fortunate to have experienced
  five Buddhas. Kusanda Buddha, Konagamana Buddha, Kasyapsa Buddha and
  Buddha Shakyamuni. The Buddha of the future is called Maitreya Buddha.

Read more about Bhadda-kappa from here. At Page 12


Why is only intentional action considered as Karma, which gives rise to corresponding consequences?

What you say or justify do not count. What counts is your volition.

For volition to give result the volition should have any of the 6 roots (3 wholesome - alob, adosa & amoha + 3 un wholesome - lob, dosa & moha ). When you accidentally step on an insect you do not know of its existance non of these roots arise in your mind, as you do not have any intention to kill. You know you are steeping on insects but as iterated before you do not have the intention to step on them, hence there is no un wholesome roots in your mind to create the Karma.

When you do rob someone what ever the justification you are motivated by one of the roots (loba). Even satisfying your hunger is due to loba. What ever the justification there you know and have the intention. Hence there are Karmic results. Every wilful action need intention, even an action which might not generate any karma like lifting your hand. Your body will not sleep walk you into robbing without any intention or thoughts.

Also I asked this related question which might complement the above question: Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned?


Does Paritta/Sutta really have magical power?

In AN 4.67, the Buddha allowed the monks to use the paritta to protect themselves from harm. Notice Ven. Thanissaro's note:

  "This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use (another charm, also allowed to the monks, is contained in DN 32). Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good will with which they are said. It thus differs from charms taught in later forms of Buddhism, where the words themselves are said to contain power."


Does Buddhism allow for true randomness?

Dependent origination is not the same as determinism, and is not incompatible with the hypothesis that some things occur truly randomly.

You may take a look at the question about free will - Buddhism does not say there is no free will. Also the question about dependent origination and right effort may be of use - the following part of the accepted answer shown that it doesn't exclude the possibility of non-determinism:

  When dependent origination is taught in the suttas, often what seems to be stressed are, literally, conditions, not causes as we often understand them (eg. agents that actively produce or directly contribute to a result)


How to meditate before going to bed and after waking up?

Actually there is a reference to this and it is this video where the Dalai Lama advises a group of people to meditate before going to bed and immediately after waking up.

Before after waking up: our mind is filled freshness,you are relaxed and generally this continues to the rest of the day! You can face your obstacles easier!

Before going to bed: The stress built up during the day has to be gradually released before you can fall asleep.You too help your body relax better!


Foundations of Mindfulness • Stages of Awakening

My answer to this question is "no".
The Anapanasati Sutta is about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It says:

Mindfulness with breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfils the four
foundations of mindfulness.

In the Anapanasati Sutta, each of the last 14 of 16 stages is preceded by the phrase: "a bhikkhu trains thus" or "he trains himself" (in Pali: "sikkhati").
In other words, while the Anapanasati Sutta using four tetrads describes fulfillment of the four foundations of mindfulness, the fact the Anapanasati Sutta uses the term "he trains himself" shows it is not the practise of Arahants because Arahants are no longer engaged in "training" ("sikkha").
This fact is shown in the suttas where the Buddha's own practise of Anapanasati is described, such as in SN 54.11, where the phase: "he trains himself" is not found.
In addition, each stage of Anapanasati is experienced with knowing of breathing. However, knowing of breathing is never mentioned in both the suttas and commentaries by highly esteemed monks as an experience in jhana. In jhana, there is no knowing of breathing, which shows, per Commentary teachings of three types of samadhi, there are different degrees of experiencing rapture.
Thus, while this distinction is not mentioned in respect to the Buddha's meditation in SN 54.11, in SN 54.11 the term anāpānassatisamādhiṃ (concentration due to mindfulness with breathing) is found. In other words, a Buddha or Arahant may start their meditation with Anapanasati but the concentration developed from it will quickly proceed to jhana.
In summary, what distinguishes stream winner, once returner, non returner & arahant appears to be the attainment and use of jhana. The suttas, such as Iti 96 & MN 14, say: (i) a non-returner never returns to sensuality; and (ii) a practitioner that has perfected jhana is no longer tempted by sensuality. Therefore, it appears what results in non-returning is the perfection of jhana.
Bhikkhu Bodhi has made a clear case (i completely agree with) that a stream-enterer has not yet reached jhana. Refer to: The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas.
In conclusion, it appears the progression through the four stages of awakening (stream winner, once returner, non returner, arahant ) is related to whether jhana or not is leading the insight (vipassana) of the four foundations of mindfulness.


The spirit of the Buddha's Teaching has always been: "To come, practice, and experience it for yourself". He had long abandoned the ego to prove anything to anyone:

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' ~ AN 8.53 ~"


Four great elements : what is the other 2 elements?

In the Nikaya Texts, there is a term called 'Cattari Mahabhutani'(four Mahabhuta). These Mahabhutani consitute Rupa. (See Sammaditthi Sutta).

A being (human being is an instance) is defined in terms of six Dhatus. It is Cattari Mahabhutani and Akasa and Vinnana Dhatus (Caddhaturo Ayam Puriso) (See for example Bhahudhatukasuttam.) However, there are no meaningful translations of these Suttas in any language. These Suttas could be understood only by Lord Buddha's direct disciples, who listened to Lord Buddha in person. This non-understanding is the reason for the existence numerous Buddhist traditions and sects.


What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths?

The actual terms for the three aspects (parivaṭṭa) are:

sacca - the truth
kicca - that something must be done
kata - that the kicca has been done

The aspects for each truth are as follows:

Suffering (dukkha)

sacca: the knowledge that suffering is suffering
kicca: the knowledge that suffering must be fully understood (pariññeyya)
kata: the knowledge that suffering has been fully understood (pariññāta)

The Cause of Suffering (dukkha-samudaya)

sacca: the knowledge that craving (taṇhā) is the cause of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that craving must be abandoned (pahātabba)
kata: the knowledge that craving has been abandoned (pahīna)

The Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha)

sacca: the knowledge that the remainderless cessation of craving is the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that cessation must be realized (sacchikātabba)
kata: the knowledge that cessation has been realized (sacchikata)

The Path to the Cessation of Suffering (dukkha-nirodha-gāminī paṭipadā)

sacca: the knowledge that the eight-fold noble path is the path to the cessation of suffering
kicca: the knowledge that the path must be cultivated (bhāvetabba)
kata: the knowledge that the path has been cultivated (bhāvita)

The realization of the four noble truths in these twelve aspects constitutes the attainment of Buddhahood; it is probably not necessary that a student come to full realization of these things, since they only need to do what needs to be done, rather than fully understand the nature of what they have done. Only fully-enlightened Buddhas understand the truths intuitively enough to teach them; even private-buddhas are not able to teach them to others.

As to their practicality, since they constitute the core of Buddhism, understanding them intellectually is of great importance. It will help ensure that your practice is in line with the Buddha's teaching; especially the first and last truths. The first truth reminds us that our intent is not to run away from suffering but to actually study it, so that we stop clinging to it. The last truth should be studied in detail, to understand all eight aspects of the path.

As to whether they differ between traditions, I doubt the understanding as to what the Buddha taught in his first discourse differs much between the Pali and the Chinese, but the interpretation of what they mean may differ, along with their place in one's practice (since Mahayana seems to see them as only 'relatively' true).

If you're interested, Mahasi Sayadaw's book on the first discourse is interesting:

http://www.buddhanet.net/wheeld01.htm

I wrote a (shorter) piece on them as well:

http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/lessons-in-practical-buddhism/simple-truth/


Are attachment, aversion, ignorance Kamma?

There are three types of kamma, namely, bodily, verbal & mental (refer to AN 6.63).

As soon as intention & attachment arise in the mind, this is mental kamma & such mental kamma will have a result or destination.

For example, by mere thinking alone, a neurotic person may have a psychiatric hospital as their destination.

Therefore, as soon as ignorance & aversion result in intention & attachment, this is kamma.


The Buddha put high emphasize on Anicca and thus it shouldn't be dismissed.

The Buddha put an emphasis on many dhammas.

The Buddha did not actually teach to constantly remind oneself of anicca because this would mean the mind is always thinking. Instead, one only reminds oneself of anicca when necessary.

The goal of meditation is to stop thinking so the mind has concentration so it can develop calm and then see anicca directly (rather than reminding oneself about anicca).

Reminding oneself about 'anicca' is called 'anicca sanna'. Where as seeing anicca directly is called 'vipassana'. Reminding oneself about 'anicca' is not 'vipassana'

  Now my question: When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena? I doubt in every occasion.

'Reminding oneself' is called 'mindfulness'.

The wisdom (panna) used with reminding oneself is called 'sampajanna' ('situational wisdom').

'Reminding onself about impermanence' is called 'anicca sanna'.

'Anicca sanna' is a preliminary practice (mentioned in MN 62 & MN 118) & particularly useful when there is a very strong hindrance that one cannot control and thus must endured; patiently waiting for the energy of the hindrance to dissipate & dissolve.

It is also done whenever necessary when something must be endured or when something is lost. Such as when you dislike a poster on the internet or lose a debate on the internet. You can think: "This internet is impermanent; this debate is impermanence".

For example, you have a good meditation, which then ceases, due to hindrances. If the mind clings to the good meditation wishing to have it all the time, one can reflect on impermanence to get rid of the craving.

Or if your mother nags you to do your chores, you reflect: "This nagging is impermanent; the sound is impermanent; doing the chores is impermanent".

  If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking.

No. The purpose of sati is not to remember you are walking. The purpose of sati is to remember to walk with wisdom or to do chores with wisdom.

For example, in a monastery, everyone must do chores. The chores are done with the wisdom that defilements lead to suffering therefore to do chores without defilements.

  So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

Sati is never without wisdom. Sati always has sampajanna. Sati is only remembering or calling something to mind. Mindfulness must remember to apply wisdom. Therefore, mindfulness & wisdom always operate together. There cannot be mindfulness without wisdom. This is why the term 'sati-sampajanna' is often used, as a compound.

Why would we walk or do chores without wisdom? If we do not have any wisdom about the purpose of walking meditation or doing chores & how to do it, why would we do it? For what purpose? With what method? For what benefit?

This video might help: Buddhist Meditation Sati Sampajanna

This book might help: Part II. The Use of Dhamma