Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna - it's all the same word)

  Extinguishing the fires

  In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause suffering.
  These fires are typically identified as the fires of attachment
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya).   For
  example, Rupert Gethin states:  Literally nirvāṇa means ‘blowing out’
  or ‘extinguishing’ [...] What the Pali and Sanskrit expression
  primarily indicates is the event or process of the extinction of the
  ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. At the moment the Buddha
  understood suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the path leading
  to its cessation, these fires were extinguished. This process is the
  same for all who reach awakening, and the early texts term it either
  nirvāṇa or parinirvāṇa, the complete ‘blowing out’ or ‘extinguishing’
  of the ‘fires’ of greed, aversion, and delusion. This is not a ‘thing’
  but an event or experience.  Contemporary Buddhist scholar Ajahn
  Sucitto emphasizes that when these fires are extinguished, the mind is
  freed. Ajahn Sucitto states:  The metaphors associated with nibbāna
  often liken it to the blowing out of a fire. When it is no longer
  burning, the fire has “nibbāna’d”—the elements on which it was based
  are no longer in a state of combustion. This may seem like sterility
  and lifelessness from the viewpoint of the fire, but from the
  perspective of the elements it means life and potential. That is, when
  the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are extinguished, the mind is
  free to operate in terms of its fullest capacity.

  Freedom from suffering

  In the Buddhist view, when the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya)
  are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to an end. The cessation of
  suffering is described as complete peace. Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  The
  state of perfect peace that comes when craving is eliminated is
  Nibbāna (nirvāṇa), the unconditioned state experienced while alive
  with the extinguishing of the flames of greed, aversion, and delusion.

  Freedom from rebirth

  In the Buddhist view, the fires of attachment (raga), aversion
  (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya) are the forces which propel
  the cycle of rebirth (samsara). When these fires are extinguished,
  freedom from rebirth is attained.   Bhikkhu Bodhi states:  For as long
  as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the
  cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated,
  one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death.
  Paul Williams states:  Nirvana is broadly speaking the result of
  letting-go, letting-go the very forces of craving which power
  continued experiences of pleasure and inevitably suffering throughout
  this life, death, rebirth, and redeath. That, in a nutshell, is what
  nirvana is. It is the complete and permanent cessation of samsara,
  thence the cessation of all types of suffering, resulting from
  letting-go the forces which power samsara, due to overcoming ignorance
  (thence also hatred and delusion, the 'three root poisons') through
  seeing things the way they really are.

  During life and after death

  In the Buddhist tradition, a distinction is made between a person's experience of nirvana during
  their life and after their death. These two aspects of nirvana are
  described as:  Nirvana during life Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also translated as: nirvana with
  remainder; nirvana with residue  Indicates the experience of someone
  who has experienced nirvana in their lifetime but still remains in
  their physical body   Nirvana after death Pali: an-up ādisesa-nibbāna
  Sanskrit: nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa  Also referred to as: nirvana without
  remainder; nirvana without residue; or parinirvana  Indicates the
  experience of nirvana for someone after their death

  Nirvana in this life

  In the Buddhist tradition, it is believed that a practitioner can achieve nirvana during their life, or at the
  moment of death. When a practitioner experiences nirvana during their
  life, this experience is referred as nirvana-in-this-life, or more
  traditionally, "nirvana with remainder" (Pali: sa-upādisesa-nibbāna;
  Sanskrit: sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).   Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin
  explains:  Like the Buddha, any person who attains nirvāṇa does not
  remain thereafter forever absorbed in some transcendental state of
  mind. On the contrary he or she continues to live in the world; he or
  she continues to think, speak, and act as other people do—with the
  difference that all his or her thoughts, words, and deeds are
  completely free of the motivations of greed, aversion, and delusion,
  and motivated instead entirely by generosity, friendliness, and
  wisdom. This condition of having extinguished the defilements can be
  termed ‘nirvāṇa with the remainder [of life]’
  (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/sa-upādisesa-nibbāna): the nirvāṇa that comes
  from ending the occurrence of the defilements (kleśa/kilesa) of the
  mind; what the Pali commentaries call for short kilesa-parinibbāna.
  And this is what the Buddha achieved on the night of his awakening.
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to result in a
  transformed mind that has the following qualities:  free from negative
  mental states  peaceful  non-reactive

  Free from negative mental states

  The experience of nirvana-in-this-life is said to be free from all negative mental
  states. For example, Walpola Rahula states that one who has achieved
  nirvana is "free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and
  troubles that torment others."   Damien Keown states:  Nirvana [...]
  involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free
  of the obsession with ‘me and mine’.  Rupert Gethin states:  Any
  person who attains nirvāṇa [...] continues to think, speak, and act as
  other people do—with the difference that all his or her thoughts,
  words, and deeds are completely free of the motivations of greed,
  aversion, and delusion, and motivated instead entirely by generosity,
  friendliness, and wisdom.  Contemporary Buddhist teacher Ajahn Sucitto
  states:  When the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion are
  extinguished, the mind is free to operate in terms of its fullest
  capacity.  Anam Thubten states:  Nirvana or whatever you want to call
  it means the complete deconstruction of all of our rigid mental
  patterns and habits as well the deconstruction of all of our limiting
  beliefs. This deconstruction creates a space for true inquiry. When we
  open our hearts and our minds completely, we are in a place where we
  can experience something new, a new truth, a new reality, a miracle
  that we haven't experienced in the past. We can see things differently
  and they present new, expanded opportunities, new horizons.

  Peaceful

  Nirvana is described as a state of perfect peace that comes when all negative mental states are eliminated. For example,
  Walpola Rahula states:  He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the
  happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and
  obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental
  health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over
  the future. He lives fully in the present. Therefore he appreciates
  and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is
  joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free
  from anxiety, serene and peaceful.  Damien Keown states:  It is clear
  that nirvana-in-this-life is a psychological and ethical reality, a
  transformed state of personality characterized by peace, deep
  spiritual joy, compassion, and a refined and subtle awareness.
  Negative mental states and emotions such as doubt, worry, anxiety, and
  fear are absent from the enlightened mind. Saints in many religious
  traditions exhibit some or all of these qualities, and ordinary people
  also possess them to some degree, although imperfectly developed. An
  enlightened person, however, such as a Buddha or an Arhat, possesses
  them all completely.

  Non-reactive

  In the state of nirvana, the mind is no longer reactive. Phillip Moffitt states:  Nibbana literally means "cooled"
  and is analogous to a fire that's no longer burning. Thus, when there
  is cessation, your mind no longer burns in response to the arising of
  pleasant and unpleasant in your life; it isn't reactive or controlled
  by what you like or dislike.  Ringu Tulku explains:  Someone who has
  attained [...] the state of nirvana, will no longer react within the
  pattern of aversion and attachment. The way such a person sees things
  will be nondualistic and therefore non-conceptual. [...] When this
  dual reaction is gone, nothing is haunting or fearful anymore. We see
  clearly, and nothing seems imposing, since nothing is imposed from our
  part. When there is nothing we do not like, there is nothing to fear.
  Being free from fear, we are peaceful. There is no need to run away
  from anything, and therefore no need to run after anything either. In
  this way there is no burden. We can have inner peace, strength, and
  clarity, almost independent from circumstances and situations. This is
  complete freedom of mind without any circumstantial entanglement; the
  state is called "nirvana" [...]. Someone who has reached this state
  has gone beyond our usual way of being imprisoned in habitual patterns
  and distorted ways of seeing these things.  Ajahn Sucitto states
  "qualities like calm, clarity, and kindness are all enhanced [...] the
  tinder and the sparkiness of the heart are removed."

  Nirvana after death

  In the Buddhist view, when an ordinary person dies and their physical body disintegrates, the person's
  consciousness passes onto a new birth; and the person is reborn in one
  of the six realms of samsara. However, when a person attains nirvana,
  they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies,
  their physical body disintegrates and their consciousness is said to
  be completely liberated. They are not reborn in the ordinary sense.
  Their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form.
  Contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin explains:  Eventually ‘the
  remainder of life’ will be exhausted and, like all beings, such a
  person must die. But unlike other beings, who have not experienced
  ‘nirvāṇa’, he or she will not be reborn into some new life, the
  physical and mental constituents of being will not come together in
  some new existence, there will be no new being or person. Instead of
  being reborn, the person ‘parinirvāṇa-s’, meaning in this context that
  the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being cease to occur. This is the condition of ‘nirvāṇa without
  remainder [of life]’ (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/an-up ādisesa-nibbāna):
  nirvāṇa that comes from ending the occurrence of the aggregates
  (skandha/khandha) of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a
  being; or, for short, khandha-parinibbāna.[f] Modern Buddhist usage
  tends to restrict ‘nirvāṇa’ to the awakening experience and reserve
  ‘parinirvāṇa’ for the death experience.  The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (paranirvana) is said to be beyond words or
  description. Walpola Rahula explains:  Nirvāṇa is beyond all terms of
  duality and relativity. It is therefore beyond our conceptions of good
  and evil, right and wrong, existence and non-existence. Even the word
  ‘happiness’ (sukha) which is used to describe Nirvāṇa has an entirely
  different sense here. Sāriputta once said: ‘O friend, Nirvāṇa is
  happiness! Nirvāṇa is happiness!’ Then Udāyi asked: ‘But, friend
  Sāriputta, what happiness can it be if there is no sensation?’
  Sāriputta’s reply was highly philosophical and beyond ordinary
  comprehension: “That there is no sensation itself is happiness’.

  No words to describe the experience

  In the Buddhist view, there are no words to describe the experience of nirvana-after-death.
  Walpola Rahula explains:  Now another question arises: What happens to
  the Buddha or an Arahant after his death, parinirvāṇa? This comes
  under the category of unanswered questions (avyākata). [Samyutta
  Nikaya IV (PTS), p. 375] Even when the Buddha spoke about this, he
  indicated that no words in our vocabulary could express what happens
  to an Arahant after his death. In reply to a Parivrājaka named Vaccha,
  the Buddha said that terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in
  the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation,
  perception, mental activities, consciousness—with which the terms like
  ‘born’ and ‘not born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and
  uprooted, never to rise again after his death. [Majjhima Nikaya I
  (PTS), p. 486]

  Physical existence is like a fire gone out

  When a person who has reached nirvana dies, their physical existence is compared to a fire
  that has gone out. Walpola Rahula explains:  An Arahant after his
  death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is
  over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are
  finished.[Majjhima Nikaya I (PTS), p. 487] Here it should be clearly
  and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is
  compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’
  composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has
  to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have
  misunderstood and misinterpreted this simile as referring to Nirvāṇa.
  Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out.

  Source: Wikipedia


Mahayana - Advaita - Theravada realisations

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.

In Theravada, Nirvana is defined as the ending of greed, hatred & delusion or the destruction of craving. In Theravada, in Nirvana, all phenomena, internal & external, including Nirvana itself, are viewed as without an inherent "self". In Theravada, in Nirvana, everything, including Nirvana itself, is viewed as mere "elements" ("dhatu"). In follows notions of "dual" & "non-dual" are not relevant to Theravada Nirvana. Theravada Nirvana acknowledges there are "internal" ("ajjhattika") and "external" ("bāhirā") phenomena (refer MN 148, for example). MN 1, for example, clearly says "oneness" ("ekatta") is not Nibbana.

  I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana.

"Mahayana" is the "Great Vehicle"; formulating teachings for the largest audience of people of different dispositions. Mahayana took many Hindu notions, such as "advaita" & various deities, and transformed them into so-called "Buddhist" & "Vajrayana" doctrines of "non-duality" & "Bodhisattvas" (such as Tara, Yellow Jambala, Medicine Buddha, Avalokiteśvara, etc) to appeal to a wider audience of people.

In Hinduism, the word "advaita" means "non-secondness" and has its roots in "idealist monism" (refer to link). Mahayana, including influenced by Chinese Taosim, adapted "advaita" to be "non-duality" or "oneness", such as in Hsin Hsin Ming sutra.

  Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness --

This might definitely be the case in the Yogachara school. Apart from that; best to ask the Mahayana gurus such as Andrei Volkov. As an adherent of Pali Buddhism, I do not waste my time with Mahayana, such as with Narjaguna & The Heart Sutra, which I regard as having wrong views.


"Without wisdom, effort, restraint of the senses, without giving up everything, I see no well-being for beings."

  -- The Buddha (SN 2.17)

You can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately. The truth is the truth whether it is convenient or not. In this case, there are some fairly important truths that you have to consider when trying to decide what to do.

First is the truth that being a nuisance is a far lesser evil than murder in cold-blood... the mouse has the moral higher ground over the mouse-trapper.

Second is the truth that you don't want to be murdered yourself; knowing this, how can you contemplate it for a fellow being?

  All tremble at violence; life is dear to all.
  Putting oneself in the place of another,
  one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

  -- The Buddha (Dhp. 130)

Third is the truth that killing makes you a killer; it changes the direction of your life in a significant way that will have potentially far-reaching consequences, far beyond feeling a little guilty for a little while. There are karmically significant mind-states involved in killing that may not be evident to you until you actually kill. Once you've begun to kill, you start to desensitize yourself to killing; it gets easier and easier, and your mind becomes further and further sullied.

Fourth is the truth that the reason you can't sleep has little to do with the mouse and much to do with your own state of mind. In fact, lack of sleep itself isn't really the problem either; if your mind is clear, you can stay awake all night and not suffer harmful consequences.

My advice is first, to come to terms with your mind's reaction to noise that keeps you from finding peace; reminding yourself "hearing, hearing" is a good way to keep yourself objective and alert.

  “In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus:
  In what is seen there will be only what is seen,
  in what is heard there will be only what is heard,
  in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed,
  in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized.
  In this way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself.

  And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen,
  in what is heard there will be only what is heard,
  in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed,
  in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized,
  therefore, Bāhiya, you will not come to be because that;
  and since, Bāhiya, you will not come to be because that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in regards to that;
  and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in regards to that, therefore, Bāhiya, you
  will not be here or hereafter or in between the two - just this is the end of suffering.”

  -- The Buddha (Ud. 10)

Second, consider whether it is your duty as a householder to take care of the mouse, or whether you can just as well leave it be. Unless it is destroying insulation or wiring, I don't think there is a compelling reason to remove a mouse; a rat, maybe... Either way, there are many ways of relocating a mouse humanly.

In regards to cats, if you in any way encourage a cat to catch and kill a mouse, well, it's not categorically different from killing it yourself...


How to practice Metta without a Benefactor?

You don't need a benefactor to practice that type of metta; you just need someone who is dear to you;  it just shouldn't be someone you could potentially desire sexually, or whom you are partial towards, like your children.

The stages, according to the Visuddhimagga are as follows:

cultivate metta towards yourself (useless, but a good example)
cultivate metta towards someone you hold dear
cultivate metta towards a neutral party
cultivate metta towards someone you dislike (optional, only for those who have such a person)

Having someone dear to you seems important, as there is no advice given for what to do if such a person does not exist. Ostensibly, you could skip that step and try to immediately cultivate metta towards a neutral party, but the dear one is useful for returning to when difficulty arises with the other objects.

Alternatively, you could try cultivating metta in order of proximity; may I be happy, may all beings in this room be happy, this building, this city, this country, this world, the universe. Also, by direction; may all beings to the East be happy, etc. Or finally, by class: may all women be happy, men, animals, angels, etc.

Mahasi Sayadaw has a detailed exposition of the four brahmaviharas that is both practical and informative:

http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Brahmavihara%20Dhamma.htm

As he says,

  "Mettā can also be developed towards any other person deserving of affection and respect, if not towards your teacher, grand-parents, mother, father and so on."


"clear darkness with peace of mind" is an experience of Samadhi. It's neither Sothapanna nor Sakadagami. When you attain Sothapanna, it makes a permanent change in you. The self view, attachment to rites and rituals and doubt are removed permanently. It's not any kind of peaceful feeling that you get while meditating. Same goes for Sakadagami. When you attain it your craving towards sensual pleasure and aversion are permanently weakened regardless of if you are meditating or not.


How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.
Identity view, sakkāya-diṭṭhi, is the belief that the aggregates are self; it is this belief that gives rise to conceit, greed, anger, etc., but it is seperate from all of these. It is useful to remember that, while one without sakkāya-diṭṭhi can still give rise to defilement, such defilements are only remnants of past belief in self and are certain to disappear within seven lifetimes at most.
Mahasi Sayadaw discusses the difference and as always has interesting things to say:

At the stage of Sotāpanna, Stream Enterer, the fetters of Personality-belief (false view of individuality), doubts and uncertainty, and adherence to rites and rituals have been completely eradicated. But a Stream Enterer is not yet free from Asmi-māna, the I-conceit. To take pride in one's ability, one's status, "I can do; I am noble," is to hold on to the I-conceit. But a Stream Winner's conceit relates only to the genuine qualities and virtues, he actually possesses and is not false pride based on non-existing qualities and virtues.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

What he is referring to is that fact that of the nine types of conceit, only three can arise in a sotapanna. The factors are:

thinking one is superior
thinking one equal
thinking one lesser

and

one is superior
one is equal
one is lesser

(3x3=9)
and a Sotapanna can only give rise to true conceit, viz:

thinking one is superior when one is superior
thinking one is equal when one is equal
thinking one is lesser when one is lesser

Mahasi Sayadaw also discusses the curious case of Khemaka, who was struggling with the difference himself (asmi means "I am", māna is conceit):

Asmi māna was once the subject of discussion between the sixty elder monks and Ashin Khemaka, an Anāgāmi, on the question of Arahatship. The latter told them through their intermediary, Dasaka, that he could not discover atta-self, or its attributes in any of the upādānakkhandhās, aggregates of clinging. The elders then concluded that he had become an Arahat and asked him if he was. This called for further elucidation and so he said, "I cannot as yet own myself an Arahat, but I have the notion that I am still in the realm of the five aggregates of clinging (asmīti adhigatam), although I would hesitate to say that this particular thing is 'I'. Then the elders again enquired, "Does I exist in feeling, or perception, or mental formations or consciousness?"
This drove Ashin Khemaka to the presence of the elders so that he could offer a personal explanation which runs as follows-
"Brothers! I cannot say I am matter; nor can I say I am feeling or perception or mental formation: or consciousness or any other beyond the five aggregates. But there still clings to me the notion that I am still in the realm of the five aggregates. But at the same time I cannot say, "This is I."
Ashin Khemaka did not consider any one of the upādānakkhandhās as asmī in the conventional sense. This term suggests that he thought, "I know. I can. I am great." This is self-conceit which grows out of the accomplishment of virtue that he had truly achieved. Consider the fragrance of a water-lily. Does it originate from its stem? From its petals? From its anothers? One can say only conventionally that it emanates from the lily, but one cannot find any rūpa matter that produces fragrance. The notion of asmī is there; but I cannot say, "This is I".
Ashin Khemaka then continued, "An Ariya (the Noble One) destroys the bonds of individuality, doubts, false religious practices, lust and animosity. But at this stage he cannot break away from asmī māna, asmī chanda and anusaya māna. They are subtle kinds of attachment to self, desire for self and inclination toward self. If, however the Ariyan disciple notes with mindfulness the arising and passing away of the five aggregates of clinging, such subtle passions will subside.
"Consider this metaphor of a washerwoman. She washes clothes with soap and water and they become clean-white. Still they smell of soap. Only when they are kept in a scented box they lose their odour. If one continually meditates on the five aggregates of clinging, all these subtle passions will be washed away clean and one can remain without any vestiges of such passions.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Silavanta Sutta


When will a Buddhist accept doing analysis?

In the Hindu tradition they talk about four different yogas, or spiritual learning styles (the following adapted from the Vedanta Society, of whom I am fond):

Bhakti Yoga: the path of love and devotion. This path emphasizes practices such as prayer, chanting, and meditation on the loving presence in our lives.
Jnana Yoga: the path of knowledge. This path uses reason and discernment to discover the divine nature within by casting off all that is false, or unreal.
Karma Yoga: the path of selfless work. Those who follow this path do work as an offering and expect nothing personal in return, practicing detachment and equanimity.
Raja Yoga: the path of meditation. This path allows us to experience higher states of consciousness where we achieve a deeper understanding.

The Hindu tradition sees these as equally valid and non-exclusive, and while this can cause some confusion and consternation at times, it rarely leads to outright disputes.

The Buddhist path focuses on what the Hindus would call raja yoga. There are many examples of the other modes — e.g. the Bodhisattva vow, which is karma yoga; metta practices, which are bhakti; and studying the precepts and teachings, which is jnana — but since Buddhism has always been (to coin a term) 'anagnostic' (rising up out of innate knowledge), the other modes have always held a lesser place in its worldview.

All of which is to say: you cannot expect everyone to follow your path, or to agree with you that it is correct, and if you wish to challenge a dominant paradigm you must first respect that paradigm and the people who practice it.

I see you have a bee in your bonnet on this issue. You want to 'fight' a 'bias', and that attitude is itself problematic. The best way you can serve others is by understanding what they are trying to offer you. When you understand them, then you will be in a position to change their minds; not before.


What's the relation between feelings of neither-pleasure-nor-pain and ignorance?

The definition of the 3 feelings come in MN 44 and their relationships to the 3 underlying tendencies towards greed, repulsion and ignorance:

  “Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
  perishes.
  “Sukhā kho, āvuso visākha, vedanā ṭhitisukhā vipariṇāmadukkhā;

  Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when it
  perishes.
  dukkhā vedanā ṭhitidukkhā vipariṇāmasukhā;

  Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and painful when
  there is ignorance.”
  adukkhamasukhā vedanā ñāṇasukhā aññāṇadukkhā”ti.

  “The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
  underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
  underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”
  “Sukhāya kho, āvuso visākha, vedanāya rāgānusayo anuseti, dukkhāya
  vedanāya paṭighānusayo anuseti, adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayo
  anusetī”ti.

In Contemplation of Feeling, Nyanaponika Thera explained this:

  Pleasant feeling is habitually linked with enjoyment and desire;
  unpleasant feeling with aversion; neutral feeling with boredom and
  confusion, but also serving as background for wrong views.

Also in SN 36.5:

  “Mendicants, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant,
  painful, and neutral feeling. Pleasant feeling should be seen as
  suffering. Painful feeling should be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling
  should be seen as impermanent. When a mendicant has seen these three
  feelings in this way, they’re called a mendicant who has cut off
  craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has
  made an end of suffering.

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction.

No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction. From the same article by Nyanaponika Thera, we read the commentary of the suttas and his comment:

  Comy.: "From the fourth Jhana onwards, it is the
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (that is present in these
  meditative states). But this neutral feeling, too, is called
  'pleasure' (sukha), on account of its being peaceful and sublime. What
  arises by way of the five cords of sensual desire and by way of the
  eight meditative attainments is called 'pleasure as being felt'
  (vedayita-sukha). The state of Cessation of Perception and Feeling is
  a 'pleasure, not being felt' (avedayita-sukha). Hence, whether it be
  pleasure felt or not felt, both are assuredly 'pleasure,' in the sense
  of their being painfree states (niddukkhabhava-sankhatena sukhena)."

  In AN 9.34, the venerable Sariputta exclaims: "Nibbana is happiness,
  friend; Nibbana is happiness, indeed!" The monk Udayi then asked: "How
  can there be happiness when there is no feeling?" The venerable
  Sariputta replied: "Just this is happiness, friend, that therein there
  is no feeling."

To the arahant, neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana are all pleasant.


Gautama Buddha, the traditional Buddha is thought to have lived towards the end of the 5th century BC, about 480-400 BC. This date is the scholarly consensus. Traditional groups accept other dates, and there are a number of these.

The previous Buddhas are a myth. By which I mean that no one thinks that they actually lived. The previous Buddhas were probably an invention along the lines of the Jain myth of the Jinas. The Buddha's mentioned in the Pāḷi Canon lived in the universes that preceded this one - an incalculably long time ago. This is based on the idea that the universe goes through cycles of creation, evolution, devolution and destruction over incredibly long periods of time (much longer than scientists give for the present age of our universe).


Those are two sentences. Perhaps the first is the statement and the second the analysis.

Also in the Pali it's a single compound word:

Mendicants, I shall teach you the analysis of a recitation passage.
uddesavibhaṅgaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi.

uddesa

recitation, instruction; indication; brief indication, brief statement;
summary exposition instructing, specifying; inviting; food for a specific person

vibhaṅga
distribution; division; classification

So maybe there's no promise of a separate analysis -- it's just the word they use, like "explanation" or "dhamma-talk" or something like that, and this one happened to be a very short one.
Also I wonder whether uddesa is necessarily always verbal (apparently they often are, so often that one was expected) -- whether this might be a teaching-by-example instead of a verbal analysis.


Science, the largest current religion, is it truth or does one follow actually on blind faith?

Science is not a religion, it is a method. Science does not "preach", has no hierarchy, ultimate authorities, dogmas, axioms, faith, nor any principle or concept that cannot be questioned and criticized. Any student is free to prove his teacher wrong. In fact, science values being proven wrong as much as being proven right, as both indicate the direction of further inquiry. Science goes where the evidence takes us, not where we would prefer the path to go.
In this regard, science is similar to these words from the Kalama Sutra:

Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other
wonderful being.
Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and
benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as
true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

To assert that science is blind faith, based on nothing more than scripture - written down before we understood atoms & particles, microbes, evolution, neurology, etc. - would be a textbook example of attachment and clinging to concepts. It would be willful ignorance, not in line with the Kalama Sutra.

“Suppose that something is definitely proven through scientific
investigation, that a certain hypothesis is verified or a certain fact
emerges as a result of scientific investigation. And
suppose, furthermore, that that fact is incompatible with Buddhist
theory. There is no doubt that we must accept the result of the
scientific research.” - The 14th Dalai Lama


Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist?

Maybe yes, or, "yes in some (or most) forms of Buddhism". Look at this answer for example:

A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.

I'm not sure whether that meets your definition: I think that there the deva is sentient (and has an immaterial body), the tree not considered "sentient" (iirc perhaps it's called three-factored), and the tree is somehow the deva's home.
I think this type of belief is known to the West as Animism ... and some people posit that Buddhist doctrine was admixed into indigenous (non-Buddhist) beliefs, such that forms (e.g. national forms, like Thai) include elements of both.
I think devas and so on are a feature of all traditional forms of Buddhism -- I'm only unsure of whether they're associated with "nature".
As for "Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?", you might like to read this (or other writings related to such a topic):
“Thou shall not cut these trees” --
They are ordained now --
The story of Tree ordination in Sri Lanka
That's written by someone associated with "the Friends of the Earth" (which I think is an international organization of environmental activists, who are not necessarily Buddhist, so maybe biased somewhat and not a reliable editor of Buddhist doctrine).
As for what's "harmless" it would be an idea to check the Vinaya. I think that breaking (or killing) a living plant is not "allowable" to a monk, is a fault requiring confession -- "taking what's not given" might be an issue too.

I found that what I quoted above is a paraphrase of the story associated with Dhp 222 -- which may also be the origin story for the Vinaya rule against Bhikkhus cutting plants:

Once, a bhikkhu from Alavi wanted to build a monastery for himself and so he began to cut down a tree. The deva dwelling in that tree (rukkha devata) tried to stop him, saying that she and her infant son had nowhere to go. Failing to stop the bhikkhu she put her son on a branch, hoping that it would stop him from felling the tree. By then, the bhikkhu was already swinging his axe and he could not stop it in time and unintentionally cut off an arm of the child. Seeing her child being harmed in this way, the mother flew in a rage and was about to kill the bhikkhu. As she raised her hands to strike the bhikkhu, she suddenly checked herself and thought, "If I were to kill a bhikkhu, I would be killing one who observes the moral precepts (sila); in that case, I would surely suffer in niraya. Other guardian devas of the trees would be following my example and other bhikkhus would also be killed. But this bhikkhu has a master; I must go and see his master." So she went weeping to the Buddha and related all that had happened.
To her the Buddha said,

"O rukkha devata! You have done well to control yourself."

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 222: He who restrains his rising anger as a skilful charioteer checks a speeding chariot, — him I call a true charioteer; other charioteers only hold the reins.

At the end of the discourse the deva attained Sotapatti Fruition, and for her dwelling place she was offered a tree near the Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha. After this incident, the Buddha forbade bhikkhus to cut vegetation, such as grass, plants, shrubs and trees.


In the top left corner there is a Tibetan Buddhist praying. Can you translate this prayer?

Actually, it doesn't look like Tibetan, but rather like Sanskrit or Pali. It's a little hard to make out, but it could be part of the Prajna-Paramita (Heart) Sutra.

Having said that, Buddhism (and especially Mahayana Buddhism from which this Sutra originates) has little to do with faith. As opposed to the Abrahamic religions depicted here, Mahayana Buddhism is experiential, not axiomatic. The Buddha famously said in the Kalama Sutra:

  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
  nor upon tradition,
  nor upon rumor,
  nor upon what is in a scripture,
  nor upon surmise,
  nor upon an axiom,
  nor upon specious reasoning,
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
  nor upon another's seeming ability,
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher.


Meditation "thinking" "imagining" mental note : Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition

I would advise three things:
First, given that you experience the thoughts as bad, it is possible that you are ignoring the emotions surrounding the thoughts. If you are upset by the thoughts that arise, it is also important to acknowledge that as "disliking" or "upset", etc.

According to the satipaṭṭhāna suttaṃ, Buddha had stated that any consciousness, thought or impression associated with lust must be recognized and mentally noted as such. One must recognize and be aware of Citta (consciousness, thought or impression) which is associated with or dissociated from (a) lust or craving: (b) anger or hatred; and (c) ignorance or delusion.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Vipassana

Second, the practice of insight meditation isn't to make thoughts or memories go away; what you are experiencing is the characteristic of non-self - that you can't control your mind, no matter how you try. Insight meditation helps you to see this, so you are less affected by the experiences.

Next, the yogī will become convinced that all these psycho-physical phenomena are occurring of their own accord, following nobody's will and subject to nobody's control. They constitute no individual or ego-entity. This realization is anattānupassanā-ñāṇa.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Practical Vipassana Meditation Excercises

Third, meditation is a gradual training; just like any training, it takes time to become proficient.  As the Mahasi Sayadaw says:

As the yogī goes on noting thus, he will be able to note more and more of these happenings. In the beginning, as his mind wanders here and there, the yogī may miss noting many things. But he should not be disheartened. Every beginner in meditation encounters the same difficulty, but as he becomes more practised, he becomes aware of every act of mind wandering till eventually the mind does not wander any more.
-- Ibid


In which language or languages were most of the sutras compiled?

Shakyamuni Buddha spoke in a language known as Magadhi Prakrit. According to this article https://www.quora.com/What-language-did-Gautama-Buddha-speak-according-to-Indian-mythology-and-why-is-it-significant there are no written records in his language. Instead, they were later written down in Pali, Sinhalese, and Sanskrit.


Humbled by fate, punishment or push to right path?

Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ?

Kamma doesn't need some divine intervention to take place. It's a natural law like physics. You throw a ball against the wall with a certain force and angle, and it'll bounce back and hit you. You touch a hot kettle, and it'll burn your hand.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. ~~ Dhp I ~~


Shamata and vipassana - loss of willpower

I can relate to your question. I too come from a software background and have had a similar set of experiences.

Even though we have had similar experiences, the underlying cause could be different. I'll share with you why I think I have had these experiences; perhaps some of my thoughts/insights might be useful to you.

You mention being interested in a variety of things: music, martial arts, software, etc. According to me all of these things -- even when they are interesting --  take a slice of your mental space. They take up space in the memory as well as the mind's computing cycles.

Software development, among all these activities is a bit different, in that it is the most stressful. Most programmers start of with a lot of passion and try to keep track of several things in their field. This is a very commendable attitude, but the rate at which stuff changes has become absolutely insane in the last few years. So IMO, regardless of passion, you are developing stress under the surface, just by having to keep up with so much. I think many of us have a silent inner fear of becoming out of touch with current knowledge. This stress works on the brain silently, till a point where something's got to break. This is not just my opinion - I have read several blog posts by developers who feel the same way.

A reason why sometimes we try to do a variety of things is because we have an achievement oriented mindset. Such a mindset unfortunately always comes with an underlying stress of not having achieved enough, and it pushes a person to achieve more, to do more. Maybe such a person cannot feel comfortable until they have spent themselves totally in trying to do things. If that is true, then fatigue and stress is bound to accumulate in the mind - and show it's impact at some point.

Now let's come to your spiritual practice. A very nice (but sometimes undesirable from a worldly perspective) effect of meditation is, that it makes you start calling out those things that are stressing you without adding any value to your life. Sure, meditation brings authentic joy, but the path to authentic joy for some/many people is through the process of calling out those things that are sapping on the spirit.

Once you start calling out things that have become part of your daily routing, suddenly everything might feel meaningless. There sets in a form of exhaustion and detachment from everything.

I am not saying this is a healthy state, but it may be part of the landscape. Even though joy and energy are some of the factors of enlightenment, not everyone experiences them right away. Very often growth happens through a tunnel of hopelessness.

This moment is perfect the way it is - just breathe -- A Zen Saying

Does this saying feel liberating to you? If it does and if you feel that you have an achievement mindset, then tempering it with a certain calm acceptance of the present might help.

Try doing fewer things and don't feel compelled to fill your day with something or the other. See if that helps. Give yourself the luxury of feeling happy even when you are not doing tasks that are in some way adding to your knowledge, etc.

I would like to respectfully disagree with the fact that joy, energy and calmness are factors which develop once someone starts meditating. Sure, they will and should develop, but nobody can say when. Different people come to meditation at different points in their life and with different backgrounds. They are certainly going to have different experiences.

IMO and with a disclaimer that it comes purely from my subjective experiences, I don't think there is anything wrong in the way you feel. Examine why you are feeling listless. Could it be that you have been over extending yourself from several years. Are you feeling tired from having to do so many things? It's possible that this is a phase, or it's possible it might be a time to introspect and find out if you are leading the kind of life that is authentic to you.

There are many mediators whose journey involves dark and difficult periods. I think it's important to be honest with yourself and also maintain a sense of humor.

I'll say, honor your journey and examine your reactions. I am sure your own self examination will show you the right way.

Great question - and an important one. Thanks for asking.


What are the Eighteen Buddha Attributes?

The Eighteen Unshared Features of a Buddha:

The eighteen features of a Buddha that are not shared with those of lesser attainment – specifically, with shravaka or pratyekabuddha arhats – concern four general aspects of a Buddha: his behavior, realization, enlightening influence (‘ phrin-las, Skt. samudacara, Buddha-activity), and deep awareness.

The Six Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Behavior

(1) A Buddha’s physical composure can never be ruffled. Wherever he goes and whatever he meets, he is never fooled by appearances. He is always calm and clear.
(2) A Buddha’s enlightening speech never cries out or makes meaningless sounds. No matter what happens, he is never shocked or surprised, and never exclaims anything in anger, pain, or pleasure. Furthermore, a Buddha does not have any melodies, songs, or meaningless phrases compulsively going through his head, and he never mindlessly hums or mutters to himself.
(3) An omniscient Buddha’s enlightening mind never forgets anything or anyone.
(4) There is never a time when his mind is not totally absorbed on voidness.
(5) He never has even the slightest recognition or feeling of anything existing in a way other than the way in which it actually exists. Having rid himself of his cognitive obscurations concerning all knowables, he never experiences his mind giving rise to discordant, deceptive appearances of true existence.
(6) A Buddha is never so indifferent as not to check on others. He always cares about everyone equally and keeps a constant watch to see who is ready to make spiritual progress so as to help him or her accordingly. When someone is ripe, he never forgets to show him or her the way.

The Six Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Realizations

(7) His intention to help everyone never declines. This is due to the force of his great compassion, as he cares for everyone as a mother would for her only child.
(8) His joyful perseverance to help everyone never declines. He is never reluctant to go anywhere or do anything, even for the sake of one wandering being.
(9) His mindfulness of everyone’s situation never declines. It requires no effort for an omniscient one to be aware of all beings. His awareness is like an enormous clear mirror reflecting the total extent of what exists.
(10) His absorbed concentration never declines. He is always totally focused on voidness, no matter what he does.
In the list of these unshared features given in The Furthest Everlasting Continuum, this feature is omitted and replaced by the fact that the sight of his deep awareness, which is utterly freed from all mental obscuration, never declines.
(11) His discriminating awareness of voidness never declines.
(12) His state of being utterly freed from the two types of mental obscuration never declines.

The Three Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Enlightening Influence

All the actions of a Buddha’s enlightening (13) physical, (14) verbal, and (15) mental faculties are preceded upon and carried through with deep awareness.
Because he has deep awareness simultaneously of both appearances and their voidness of true existence, he can exert an enlightening influence on everything around him while always maintaining his omniscient awareness.

The Three Unshared Features Grouped under a Buddha’s Deep Awareness

A Buddha’s deep awareness permeates everything, in seeing (16) the time already-passed (‘ das-pa’i dus), (17) the time not-yet-come (ma-‘ongs-pa’i dus), and (18) the time presently-happening (da-lta-ba’i dus), all without any attachment or impediment.
Time is an amount or length of duration measured in the continuum of the occurrence of a karmic causal action and its result, and is a nonconcomitant affecting variable (ldan-min ‘ du-byed) – a nonstatic (impermanent) factor that is neither a form of physical phenomenon nor a way of being aware of something and which is imputable on the mental continuum of a being.
A Buddha has no attachment to what he can see because he has rid himself of all emotional obscuration, and no impediment because he has no cognitive obscuration.


Does Dhp 256-257 condone judging others?

Householder Ruben, interested,

Don't confuse judging (discrimination) with acting on (execution of) a judgement.

Right judgement is most important, and of course always approved and encouraged. It's different in relation to acting in certain ways on a judgement, or to believing that ones judgement could change things afterwards.

So one who has the duty to judge others' acts should of course not lie, nor judge improperly out of affection or other reasons, taking side. However, it would be improper to approve harmful acts executed on account of one's judgement (even proper judgement), not to mention if harm occurs on account of improper judgement.

In how far one could act properly in certain circumstances, relying on certain societies with their proper or improper means, would be different from case to case.

Again, there is never any real duty if it violates the basic precepts, either lying or physical harming, depriving... by body, signs or thoughts.

And even a monk would be called to judge cases in their society -- yet the execution on those acts have no physical harming as it's consequence, or does it make what's done undone, but it's to support the further practice and headed to reestablishment in the community.

So these two things -- judging, and acting on a judgement -- should be divided, so that it may not be taken wrongly.

(Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade or entertainment, but as means for doing merits toward release.)


This article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero discusses this topic. But the comments are not from him.

  Majjhima Nikaya 55:
  After paying homage, he said: “Venerable sir, I have heard this: ‘They
  slaughter living beings for the monk Gotama (i.e. the Buddha); the
  monk Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared for him from animals killed
  for his sake’….”; and asked if this was true. The Buddha denied this,
  adding “Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat
  should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the
  living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say
  that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is
  not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”

This means that meat (already dead) that was purchased from the supermarket does not break the first precept. But if you see, select the animal to be killed or if somebody purposely killed a particular animal for you, then it breaks the first precept.

This is discussed in this question.


Buddhist view on out of body experience (OBE)

Why it does not adhere to Buddhism? It does! In all the cases of astral body projection, they were able to see things. What is seeing? Seeing is the union of the light, the eye and the eye consciousness. They had thoughts about what they were seeing and they were aware of what they were seeing. In other words Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, Vinnana. Which means both Nama and Rupa were present. Astral projection does not mean that the mind wanders out without a body. There is a subtle body that goes with the mind. One can't have sensations, if there are no sense doors. Nama cannot be without Rupa except in Arupa realms. That's why beings in the Arupa realms can't see, hear, taste, smell, feel anything.


Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

Mahavedalla Sutta


The original Buddhist teachings do not include a doctrine of non-duality. The Buddha's enlightenment came from ending craving & attachment rather than from ending dualistic perceptions & thoughts.

Understanding good & bad for moral/social purposes is one kind of knowledge.

Seeing & understanding the true nature of reality for liberation is another kind of knowledge.

The Buddha taught: (1) avoid evil; (2) do good; & (3) purify the mind. Purifying the mind means ending egotistic attachment towards good & bad rather than giving up the understanding of good & bad.

  'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there,
  released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse. These are the two
  Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened
  — has given in sequence.

  Itivuttaka 39


Sutta Question - Three Ways of Making Merit

AN8.36 is mainly dealing with giving as it comes under the category of Dana Vagga.

https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.36


Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions?

Not sure if there is anything like "official Mahayana doctrine" about dreams, but the examples of dreaming are used in the verbal tradition all the time. For example, from this lecture by Thrangu Rinpoche:

  [Speaking about the first link of Twelve Nidanas.] This basic ignorance concerns two things: external phenomena
  and mind. First we believe the appearances such as trees and rocks
  that we see in our mind are external and real objects. That is the
  nature of mistaken appearance. Second, we believe that internal
  mind is truly existent.

  For example, when we sleep dreams are an
  appearance that arise out of the luminosity of the mind. The
  luminosity of mind does not stop just because we go to sleep; the mind's luminosity when we dream appears in our mind which "sees"
  those various appearances as external objects. We know, however,
  that those mountains and elephants that appear in our dreams were
  created by the luminosity of the mind and do not exist. Since we
  know that they do not exist, we can also understand that the "I" or
  the mind seeing all these appearances in the dream does not exist
  either.

  Now when we apply this example of our experience of dreaming
  to our experience while awake, we can see that there are external
  appearances and internal appearances (thoughts and feelings) and
  that these also do not exist.

  ...

  [Speaking about the second link, Sankharas, which he calls "latencies".] Let us take an example of an elephant — one that we see while we are asleep and dreaming and one that we see while we are awake. In both cases an elephant appears to us as a real elephant. While we are awake, the outside sensory impression of an elephant appears real, because our impression of an elephant
  matches these internal latencies which come from the eighth consciousness. In a dream the latencies of the elephant also come from the eighth consciousness and appear to us, and we see it at the time as real. So we see that the dream elephant and the real elephant are the same in two respects: they really do appear due to latencies, and they are both truly empty.

Paraphrasing, according to this presentation, so-called external objects as well as internal mind (=thoughts & feelings) arise out of the luminosity of the mind. External objects arise when outside sensory impressions match internal latencies, while internal objects arise out of the same internal latencies without any sensory impressions. This is usually summarized as "appearances are mind". At the same time, to say that "mind is a real entity" or that "mind is truly existent" is a mistake. The true nature of mind is emptiness which has the "quality of luminous clarity", "quality of knowing" and "spontaneous presence". So all our experiences, both when dreaming and when awake, are projections of mind's "latencies"; these "latencies" or "tendencies" are imprints from the previous experiences -- and this is how the cycle of ignorance feeds itself.

I guess the point of comparison between dreaming and wakeful states, at least as used in this presentation, is that both types of experiences are projections of imprints from the previous experiences and in this sense are equally unreal.

How is the doctrine meant to be used?

I think the practical side here, is that: once we know that the desirable or the frightening object (or situation) is a projection of our mind, we stop reifying it as something separate from the mind and so it loses it's power and grasp.

For example, I recently saw a dream in which I was physically attacked by someone stronger than myself. While I (kinda) knew it was a dream, I did not realize the enemy was actually my own projection. Then, as I knew I could not win that fight, I paused and contemplated an idea that both the villain in that dream as well as my sense of "I, the victim" were actually two parts of the same mind which was, therefore, fighting with itself! At this point my feeling of fear towards the attacker was gone and at the same time the attacker himself seemingly lost his hostility towards me. I was able to touch his forehead with mine and he was sucked into my head as a drop of melted metal from Terminator 2.

Several months after that dream, I had a conversation with someone intellectually smarter and emotionally tougher than me, whose judgement I was always afraid of. Habitually, I reflected on something I just said and thought that I must be looking very stupid from his perspective. Then suddenly, I remembered my dream and realized that my idea of his judgement was actually my own projection, since the guy actually never ever said anything or otherwise non-verbally indicated any negative opinion about my intellectual or emotional inferiority. As soon as I realized that this was my own projection, I was able to integrate the two parts of my mind (the judging one and the one being judged).

So I think the point of all this talk about dreams and projections, is that reification of our projections as something objective leads to suffering, and cessation of reification leads to cessation of suffering.

That said, as is shown in my dream example, knowing that objects are unreal is not enough. I too in my dream knew that it was a dream - and yet I kept fighting my attacker out of habit and disgust, following my emotional habits (latencies/imprints). It's only when I made a conscious effort to re-interpret the situation in different terms, to see it from a different perspective - is when the freedom from projections was attained.

For me, this all comes back to my teacher's verbal instruction, that our experience of reality is an interpretation we make, and that Liberation (aka Enlightenment) is freedom from attachment to any single interpretation (or "view").


If the Buddha praised Samatha, why is it losing importance?

The Pali canon and commentaries do indeed carry considerable encouragement to practice the jhanas. The distinction between samatha and vipassanā aren't really spelled out in the original teachings and it was only much later that the doctrine of the two as separate (and separate-ableon) meditation practices arose. By the time of Buddhaghosa (5th century AD) the distinction was pretty firmly established, though some later teachers dismiss the distinction as unnecessary. Ajahn Chah of the Thai Forest tradition liked to say that samatha and vipassanā are like two ends of a stick - when you pick up the stick, both ends come along See Ajahn Chah's essay on this from his book, "Unshakable Peace".

The emphasis on vipassanā which one finds nowadays came about for very practical and pragmatic reasons, but this topic as a bit much to delve into deeply here. The brief overview is that a method was needed that could be undertaken by a lay meditator on a 30 day retreat and provide the practitioner with a reasonable shot at arriving at the first stage of enlightenment - stream entry. Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw is perhaps the main exponent of this method and it seems to work quite well for many people. In contrast to this, to properly develop "Visuddhimagga-style" jhanas is beyond the reach of most lay people (and most monastics) not least because of the time commitment necessary.

There's more to the story of course, but that's a thumbnail sketch of the situation.


Maybe she doesn't need to understand all of that, if she can clearly see that all our problems come from the concepts held by our own mind?


'Dukkha' means 'suffering', that is, mental torment, i.e., a lack of peace. So "reactivity" is certain a type of dukkha since reactivity is disturbing, tormenting & not peaceful. However, other mental experiences are also "dukkha", such as sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. Reactivity or mental concocting is one kind of dukkha (called sankhara-dukkha; see SN 38.14; "stressfulness of fabricating") but it is not a translation of the word "dukkha". "Dukkha" means "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".


The Noble Eightfold Path for monks and for lay disciples?

OP: Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold
path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in
translation?

Yes, it is true that there is indeed a separation of the path for lay followers and for monks. The former is the version with defilements, and the latter is the noble version without defilements i.e. the full-fledged Noble Eightfold Path for monks (and nuns) only.
The path of the lay follower who practises Right Action, Right Speech, Right Thought and Right Livelihood as applicable to lay persons, is a valid path in Buddhism, even if it is not THE noble path that leads to the complete end of suffering. I speculate that the lay follower path may not go beyond stream entry, due to lack of renunciation.
From MN 117 (translated by Ven. Sujato) regarding Right Action:

And what is wrong action? Killing living creatures, stealing, and
sexual misconduct. This is wrong action.
And what is right action? Right action is twofold, I say. There is
right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of
good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right action that
is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? Refraining from
killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct
(kāmesu micchācārā). This is
right action that is accompanied by defilements.
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and
refraining from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble
mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the
noble path. This is right action that is noble.

The word "abrahmacariya" is not used above.
This sutta contains similar dual versions for Right Speech and Right Livelihood. Interestingly, there's also Right Thought (with two versions).

After writing the above answer, I found that a wise lay follower can become an Arahant on his death bed in SN 55.54:

If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the
Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”

Ven. Thanissaro's commentary to SN 55.54 indicates that a wise or discerning lay follower in this sutta, actually refers to a lay follower who has at least achieved stream entry.


Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?

From AN6.63 we understand that:

  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.

If one goes to dating sites looking to acquire, one is practicing greed as "I want this person. I don't want that person." We treat people as things to shop for. We acquire and discard. We become acquired and discarded. We treat each other like plastic bottles of water. Drink and discard.

If one goes to dating sites looking to find good spiritual companions who are generous, kind and ethical, then one may find more friends and perhaps some additional closeness may develop.

Search for good spiritual companions. Dating apps might or might not be the best way to do that. Good spiritual companions often are found doing things that help others. Find a way to help others and you will find good spiritual companions.

The Noble Eight-Fold path starts with Right View. Think about your view as you use that dating app. Is it right?

  The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
  The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
  but a wise one removes desire for them.
  ...

  The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
  right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.


Does the Buddha's concept of Citta contradict the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness?

While citta seems to show some variations according to context, it's literal meaning is "thought", but also has been identified primarily with "state of mind". Here's Sue Hamilton analysis1:

  By this I mean that citta is the term used to refer to the qualitative picture, as it were, of the way all one's mental processes are functioning at any given moment. This is very different from any of the different mental processes of which the whole 'mind' is comprised: citta is neither an entity nor a process (which probably accounts for its not being classified as a khandha, nor mentioned in the paticcasamuppada formula), but is a term which abstractly indicates one's progress on the path, or even more generally, one's mental condition.

  [...]

  Understanding citta to mean 'state of mind' clarifies otherwise confusing passages, such as the following examples: "Without understanding the thoughts of his mind, one is reborn in life after life [...] with a restless state of mind". Likewise: "My state of mind is not of such nature that it will return to kamabhava levels of existence; knowing this, one's state of mind is well acquainted with wisdom". Johansson suggests these (and other similar) passages imply that citta
  "seems to signify a surviving entity". But what they are indicating is that one's state of mind reflects one's progress, or lack of it, on the path to insight.

Claiming that citta is everlasting is not just a challenge to suññatā, but a challenge to anatta, and thus, a contradiction to pretty much the entire canon on that matter (whose summary has been written as sabbe dhamma anatta: all dhammas are not-self). Finally:

  "Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."

  -- MN 22

1 See "Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism"


At what stage / step of development do we start to contemplate on non-self?

Whatever that is unsatisfactory is not self. Whatever is impermanent is not satisfactory. This is a realisation by direct experience not a form of contemplation. This realisation happens at the stage of "knowledge & vision of things as they actually" which in turn triggers the next stage.


The first thing that the story (i.e. "not got a particular position she rightfully deserved due to a conspiracy") reminded me of was verse 3 of the Dhammapada (i.e. "he robbed me" etc.).

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

The associated story is here.
I hesitate to tell this story because it seems like blaming the victim, not sympathetic.
I don't want to say, "you were robbed ... and I expect you to like that!"
But if the friend to whom the injustice was done now continues to hate their situation (or, it's called, aversion), if you're continuing to hold hate, then that's continuing to 'suffer', prolonging the suffering ... and that's maybe part of the types of suffering (see here and see also "not getting what is wanted is stressful") that the Buddha certainly made statements about: not injustice so much as our reaction to it.
Of course he also made statements about justice; for example,

Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built.

There's also,

The Vinaya Pitaka, the first division of the Tipitaka, is the textual framework upon which the monastic community (Sangha) is built. It includes not only the rules governing the life of every Theravada bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun), but also a host of procedures and conventions of etiquette that support harmonious relations, both among the monastics themselves, and between the monastics and their lay supporters, upon whom they depend for all their material needs.

And actually the Dhammapada does say more on the subject of justice. The story behind Verse 331,

Verse 331: It is good to have friends when the need arises; it is good to be content with anything that is available; it is good to have merit when life is about to end; it is good to be rid of all dukkha.

... starts with people being "ill-treated by some wicked kings".


Paradox of the ego - our desire to improve vs Buddhism

I think that views about the self are problematic. For example the Sabbasava Sutta is quoted as describing an "identity view" ...

  This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

  As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... where "identity view" is one of the "fetters" associated with suffering, and "eradicating" this view is one of the stages of enlightenment.

So when I read your question about "ego", I associated the word "ego" with dukkha and with desire; and so I re-read your question, substituting "suffering" and "desire" instead of "ego" into the question:

  Because people have such a strong suffering, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our suffering was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.

  If it wasn't for our suffering, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical?  Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering?

  Because people have such a strong desire, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our desire was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.

  If it wasn't for our desire, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Desire is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our desire

You ask whether that's "paradoxical" and therefore the question reminds me of this question (and the answers to that question) about whether it's "paradoxical" to want to end desire: Stopping Tanha or craving. I recommend you read the answers to that question; but I won't requote those answers here.

If you phrase the question like that (i.e. "Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering") then I don't see see it as paradoxical. Phrasing it like that depends on the idea that "ego" (and/or a process related to ego for example "attachment") contributes to suffering. In the same way that there is wholesome desire and unwholesome desire, perhaps there is unwholesome ego; and to whatever extent ego contributes to suffering, to that extent we might want to forget ego.

This article, Selves & Not-self by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu, says,

  The path begins with discernment — the factors of right view and right resolve — and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: "What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?" [§8] The Buddha's teaching on not-self — and his teaching on self — are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra)." The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the "not-self contemplation (anattānupassanā)." Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?


Can another being/thing be credited or blamed for causing your emotions?

There is a famous parable by a founder of Tibetan Buddhism guru Padmasabhava comparing Right Concentration / Attention with Lion's Gaze. Modern Tibetan Buddhism teacher ven. Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche explains:

Padmasambhava said that when a stick is thrown to a dog, the dog will chase the stick. A dog’s gaze follows the object, the stick. The lion gazes steadily at the source, the thrower. We need to look at our mind, the source of the emotion. An emotion like anger is the stick. The source hurling that emotion is our mind. It is the mind that projects. The source of our experience is our own mind.
Dzogchen [Buddhism] turns our gaze inward toward the source of experience, which is mind. Pristine mind is our lion's gaze.

According to my last teacher, the whole point of the above is to help us get out of "victim consciousness" and attain what he calls "master consciousness". Victim consciousness is when we blame our problems on other people or on the circumstances. Master consciousness is when we take ownership of everything that happens in our lives.
The flip side of the above is, if you are the one exercising the speech, you can't say "according to Buddha your mind is the source of your emotions, so I will say whatever I want, but the onus is on you to not get upset". Indeed, if that was the case, Buddha would only teach the non-attachment and not teach the Right Speech. But Buddha taught both. In all circumstances, the onus, according to Buddha's teaching, is always on us.


When we do any moral act on the basis of greed, we get merit or sin

The Buddha speaks of three sorts of kamma:
Deeds done with the intention to create the experience of pleasure,
deeds done with the intention to create the experience of pain,
and deeds done with the intention to end kamma.

Good deeds, your helpful deeds, are deeds done with the intent to create pleasureable experience. Such deeds will create pleasurable experience.
There is no denying that. Good deeds that produce pleasurable experience tend to result in attachment to the things of this world and the things of this world, being ending things, will result in pain to one who is attached to them. But there is no thing in Buddhism like 'sin'. It is a matter only of personal welfare.

In Buddhism the goal is the ending of kamma, and good deeds are kamma, so the advice for one seeking the goal is not only to eliminate bad deeds, but to eliminate good deeds as well.

Deeds that end kamma are those based on the 8-fold Way. They are intentional deeds of not-doing and letting go. For example, Samma Vaca, High Talk, speaks of training yourself to abstain from saying what is not true. Faced with a desire to get something that is thought to be obtainable only through a lie; one intentionally abstains from that lie. By that abstention from reaction to that desire, that old kamma that resulted in the desire is halted, and that potential stream of kamma that would have resulted from the lie is still-born, dead in its tracks. The whole of the 8-fold Way consists of those places and behaviors and ideas which when followed result in the ending of kamma.


Animisa Locana Pooja. Is it really what it is?

"Animisa Locana Pooja" was indeed an act of gratitude to set an example to the world. It was also done to sanctify the tree as it would become the symbol of the Buddhahood.

The story your friend has told seems to be his own imagination. King Suddhodana was doing all he could to keep prince Siddhartha in lay life. So showing gratitude to him for aiding in the quest of attaining Buddhahood is out of the question. In any case, the Buddha later visited his father and saved him as well.

  But there was still doubt within himself as to whether he was actually
  a Buddha
  Blockquote

The Buddha is omniscient. He has no doubts and needs no 1 week long mental conversation with a tree to know something :)


Is there an Dzogchen monastery in Canada with a accomplished lineage?

I'm not completely sure if this monastery is a Dzogchen monastery, but you can try the Thrangu Monastery in British Columbia, Canada.
This monastery belongs to the Kagyu lineage.
You can find a list of teachers here.
This wikipedia page on Thrangu Rinpoche states that he trained Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.


Is there an eBook reader compatible Tripitaka?

I am presuming you are looking for translations. There is the Buddha Jayanthi edition which has both Sinhala and Pali.

English

http://dharmafarer.org/ - does not have all the Tripitaka but there is a growing number of Suttas in PDF form
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ - this has traslation by many and can be downladed in multiple formats in mulitple languages

Multi languages

https://suttacentral.net/ - no PDF but mobile friendly. But has translations in multiple languages

Pali

http://www.tipitaka.org/ - Pali text is many different scripts with PDF downloads

Sinhala (Since you name sounds like a Sinhalese name including including some in Singhala script)

http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html - Buddha Jayanthi in PDF
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/, http://pitaka.lk/ -  A.P. de Soyza's translations (https://www.facebook.com/pitaka.lk has links to PDFs)
http://www.thripitakaya.org/ - Unicode mobile friendly format.


Auto-suggestion and buddhism and how to use it

A widely used human strategy when someone has to deal with difficulty is autosuggestion.  Whenever anything unpleasant comes up, we convince ourselves that it is pleasant rather than unpleasant. This is auto-suggestion.  But what the Buddha pointed out is quite the opposite. He never wanted us to hide or disguise an unpleasant matter, the Buddha's teaching encourages us to examine it to the fullest. It is important that we confront the less pleasant aspects of existence, and, to see ourselves in an unbiased way, complete with all our sorrows and inadequacies. Confronting unpleasantness when it arises is really being kind to oneself.

Auto-suggestion means implanting feelings that you don't really have or avoid feelings that you do have. The truth of the matter is that if you are miserable, in reality you are miserable.  So rather than avoiding this reality, we have to learn to confront it, to observe it mindfully.  The only way out of such phenomenon is to thoroughly examine it. Do this by taking the phenomenon apart piece by piece. Then you are free from such trappings.

Buddha talked about it in this way not because He is pessimistic but because He is optimistic. He has a solution. Life is suffering and that is the real truth. We have to learn to confront this uncomfortable reality of pain, death and illness. To learn how to deal with it is not pessimism, but a very pragmatic form of optimism. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is not. They are two different things. Life can seem pleasant for most of the time, but there comes a time that we have to face the unpleasant. So it is advisable that we invest some of our time and energy in learning to deal with unpleasantness, because some pain is unavoidable.

There are occasions, as in the case of illness, which weaken the mind, when hetero-suggestion has been found to be more effective if you have not yet learnt to confront the situations by self. Hetero-suggestion is used by one person to influence another at times of great illnesses. Here another will help you to think through the Dhamma. The Buddha has shown that the mind is very closely linked with the body that mental states affect the body's health and wellbeing.  There is no such thing as a purely physical disease. It is possible so to change one’s mental state grounded in reality, as to cause mental health and physical well-being to follow thereafter.

A couple of examples of what I mean by "hetero-suggestion" in the context of Dhamma:
Maha Kassapa Thera Bojjhanga Sutta is a chant that Buddha recited when both both Ven. Maha Kassapa and Ven. Maha Moggallana were sick.  (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html )

Girimananda Sutta was recited when Bhikku Girimananda was diseased, in pain, severely ill. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html)

  The Supreme Buddha never rejected any activity, if that was wholesome and profitable to the people. The Buddha said that if through some kind of incantation or a mantram, or through a well-spoken word, or through a traditional Act of Truth, or through some mystical power of the Three Refuges, good could be done to the people, then an attempt should be made to bring about that kind of blessing.
  - Mahamevnawa Pali-English Paritta Chanting Book

Bhanava is not quite the same thing as auto-suggestion. At some places in the Suttas, the Supreme Buddha explained: “If one does this, these things will happen”. We come across places where Dhamma is explained directly in this manner. In Asavakkhaya Sutta and the Nibbida Sutta, the Supreme Buddha explains, “Oh Bhikkhus, there are five activities which if practiced, if practiced extensively results in the eradication of defilements”. Buddha adviced a bhikku in his deathbed to do this same five meditations. If one feels that there is no possibility of getting liberated from samsara such a person has the fear for samsara. It exists at times of grave illnesses and one has to live in that fear. If an individual is certain that he has a chance of getting liberated from samsara his fear of samsara starts to desipate. The understanding in such a person will turn out to be a realization.

For that you will have to develop the meditation on repulsiveness (Asubha Saññā’) - perceiving the impurity of the body; ‘Ahare Patikkula Saññā’ -perceiving the impurity of material food; ‘Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā’ - not taking delight in worlds; ‘Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Saññā’ -impermanence of all aggregates, and of ‘Marana Sati’ -to be mindful of death. (read Asavakkhaya Sutta where the Supreme Buddha explains these five). I could not find the Access-to-insight link, but you can read it in Bhikku Bodhi’s Book.
If these five meditation activities were to be carried out, dispassionateness will arise in you. When you become dispassionate with understanding, then you will begin to lose the desire and craving for materialistic things and sensual pleasures.  Your mind will become calmer and calmer. Only with such a calmed mind will it be possible to develop the special wisdoms.  Your Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) will leave you. You will see results in this very life.


Buddhas vs bodhisattvas vs arhats vs devas vs brahmas

Buddha is a completely self-enlightened one (without help from another Buddha, direct or indirect).
Bodhisattva (in Theravada) is a being on its way to enlightenment.
Bodhisattva (in Mahayana) is an awakened being who vowed to indefinitely stick in Samsara for the sake of others.
Arhat (in Theravada) is a completely enlightened person (thanks to a Buddha's help).
Arhat (in Mahayana) is person who has attained Peace (of enlightenment) for him or herself, but not willing to give it up for the sake of others.
Deva is a non-human being invisible to the human eye.


Buddhism 101? Any first steps one should take to begin their journey as a buddhist?

Finding your path to enlightenment is a personal experience. Everyone's journey is different. But they all start with the first step of seeking refuge in the jewel.

The "jewel" of Buddhism consists first of the seeking refuge in the Buddha. Learn about Siddartha Guatama (Shakyamuni Buddha)- his life and his general philosophy. These days that can be quite a task in and of itself as there is so much available for study. Aside from his life I'd look at his spot in actual history. Read about the ancient history of eastern religion and Buddhism's place in the mix.

If you're sufficiently enticed then learn more about the discipline by seeking the second point in the jewel: the dharma. Here we examine all the teachings and texts and techniques of Buddhism itself.

The last of the 3 aspects of the jewel is the sangha. You seek refuge in the others within the Buddhist community. In short - taking refuge in the "triple gem" means taking refuge in Buddha as founder, dharma as truth, and sangha as mentor. This is essentially how one "declares" himself a Buddhist. Then the real work starts.

After seeking refuge you become a student. Ideally you would seek a teacher within that sangha. At this point everyone's path diverges. Many take oaths as students and commit their lives to following first the 5 precepts. Some will do this within a monastic community and others within their everyday lives. It's all very flexible and the Buddha himself even warned against becoming mired in tradition and technique.

If you're not fortunate enough to have a nice Buddhist influence within your community in which to turn then I'd recommend acquiring a copy of the Upanishads and the Dhammapada. The first contains some of the most ancient religious writings on our planet coming from the Vedas and the second is the actual teachings of the Buddha. One can build a sturdy foundation of knowledge in the dharma by merely digesting the isha, katha, and brihadaranyaka upanishads. I prefer the translations of Eknath Easwaran as my sanskrit is bad.

good fortune and namaste! damyata datta dayadhvam.


In my opinion, you are not misunderstanding something. You are being true.

Many teachers & gurus say thoughts can be observed. I personally disagree here (unless the thoughts are very subtle and very infrequent).

In my experience, thinking & observing are antagonistic. When the mind thinks, it is not particularly observant. When the mind is truly observant, it rarely thinks.

To genuinely observe anxiety, attention should be drawn to the tremblings or vibrations of the body (the nervous system) and shortness of the breathing. Try to feel the emotion, mood or feeling of anxiety; the pressure in the head (brain) & body, etc.

That said, it is not easy to do this. If you try, you may need to regularly let go of observing & do some breathing out. The important thing is to trust it is impermanent or a passing mood; like a storm temporarily clouding a clear sky.


Significance of Bhikkhus uncovering their right shoulder

In Pāḷi texts, the right shoulder is not specified. The standard description of a monk meeting the Buddha says

ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti (Vin 1.46)
he arranged his robe over one shoulder.

However the right side of the body is generally emphasised, e.g.

Atha kho so, bhikkhave, mahābrahmā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā dakkhiṇaṃ jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ pathaviyaṃ nihantvā... (DN ii.36; cf. MN i.168, i.177 etc.)
Then indeed, monks, the Great God, having arranged his robe over one shoulder, placing his right (dakkhiṇaṃ) knee-cap on the earth...

and

Atha kho rājā māgadho ajātasattu vedehiputto ... uṭṭhāyāsanā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā padakkhiṇaṃ katvā pakkāmi.
Then indeed Ajātasattu Son of Vedehi, King of Māgadha... rose from his seat, saluted the Bhagavan, and keeping to the right (padakkhiṇaṃ katvā), he left.

The verb many of these is √kṛ - "doing, making". So ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti literally means "he makes his upper-robe one-shouldered" and  padakkhiṇaṃ katvā means something like "making right-handed".
The connotation of auspiciousness with the right side of the body is something shared with the Romans from whom we get words like "dextrous" from dexter "right, right hand side, south (facing the the rising sun)"; and it's opposite "sinister" (literally "left). In fact the Pāḷi word dakkhina is cognate with Latin "dexterous" (they both come from the same Proto-Indo-European root). And just like it, it can mean "skilful, clever, and quick to learn", but also "lucky, auspicious, etc".
One explanation might be deduced from the modern day Indian practice of using the left hand to wash the backside after defecating. If this is an ancient practice, which it may well be, then the left hand was ritually (and factually)  polluted and the right hand ritual pure.
However, I cannot find a single reference to the robe going over the right shoulder in either the Nikāyas or the Vinaya. It is always simply ekaṃsa "one shoulder". So this is apparently a later tradition.
NOTE Apparently Stack Exchange doesn't allow me to post Chinese characters! So I'm having to give Romanji instead which is much less satisfactory!
I tried to check the Lapis Lazuli citation, but he doesn't give enough information to locate the particular sūtra in the massive “Dàbǎojī jīng” or Mahāratnakuṭa - it runs to 120 fascicles in the CBETA version of the Chinese Tripiṭaka. But plenty of other Mahāyāna texts use this kind of phrase.
eg.

Ěr shí ānán cóng zuò ér qǐ, piān tǎn yòu jiān, yòu xī zhuó dì, (T232 729.b17)
Then Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder (yòu jiān), and knelt on his right knee.

Now we can search for the phrase "yòu jiān" and see when it started appearing in Chinese translations. It turns up in some early translations, e.g. T156 which is an Avadāna Sūtra translated during the Wei Dynasty (220-265 CE); in T1428 and  T1432 some of the Chinese Vinaya Texts. It also turns up in the Āgama texts. So this suggests that the introduction of specifying the right shoulder occurred after the closing of the Pāḷi Canon (which occurred quite early), but still fairly early.


In which ways do anagamis still experience ignorance?

According to MN 9 (below), as long as you still have fermentation or effluents, you would still have ignorance, and vice versa (also see this question). Ignorance is a very deeply ingrained and deeply lingering fetter.

  From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....

  From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

There is a vicious cycle between ignorance and fermentation.

There seems to be four types of fermentations in the Dhammawiki page of fermentation:

  The mental fermentation of sense-desire (kāmāsava), Ex: 'All is pleasant'
  The mental fermentation of desiring existence (bhavāsava), Ex: 'Being is good'
  The mental fermentation of wrong views (ditthāsava), Ex: 'My opinion is best'
  The mental fermentation of ignorance (avijjāsava). Ex: 'Suffering exists not'

According to this wikipedia page on ten fetters, the Anagami still has the fetters of lust for material existence, lust for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance.

So, the Anagami would have overcome the mental fermentation of sense-desire (kāmāsava) and the mental fermentation of wrong views (ditthāsava). However, he would still be challenged by the mental fermentation of desiring existence (bhavāsava). I take it that conceit is related to bhavāsava.

What does this mean?

The Anagami has overcome self-view, attachment to rituals, doubt, sensual desire and ill will. But the Anagami still has the mental fermentation of wanting to exist. And this will cause ignorance to continue.

You know the Four Noble Truths very well, dispelled wrong views (including self-view), overcame sensual desire and overcame ill will. But when someone threatens your life, you may get scared. Why? It's because you still want to exist.


What is wrong speech according to Buddhism?

I don't think the fourth precept is defined in detailed in suttas. Actually I don't think any of the precepts are defined in detail -- perhaps they are in a commentary.

Something like that precept, though, is defined in the vinaya (for monks) -- see Chapter 8, page 298, of The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, which includes:

  Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
  Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

But I don't understand your question saying, "I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false" -- because, how could you "know" something that's false?

I think (I hope) I'd tend to phrase that as, "I think that so-and-so", or "Someone once told me so-and-so", or "I guess that so-and-so", or "Such-and-such a reference says so-and-so" -- not, "I know that so-and-so is true" when I'm not sure.

If I'm not sure about something, then conveying more certainty than I have (e.g. by saying, "X is definitely true") is in my opinion misrepresenting the truth about how good my knowledge is, how much certainty I have, how trust-worthy it is.

Anyway you should probably read that chapter of the vinaya, it includes various details which I won't quote here.

The vinaya says it's wrong to break a promise, too. In my opinion (though, I'd guess, not according to Buddhist scripture) that means you should avoid kind of implying (perhaps an implied promise) that something is true when it isn't -- so for example if you're not certain then don't imply you're certain.

Since you mentioned "wrong speech" you might also want to read about "right speech" more generally, i.e. one of the factors of the noble eightfold path (I don't know whether that's exactly the same as the fourth precept):

Right Speech (quotes from Suttas)
Right Speech (a little essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)