It is about establishing three-dimensional model of the mind. Such models differ between schools. For example, Theravada or Yogacara have many more dimensions to it described.

First dimension is the ordinary mind (psyche), it is equivalent of chitta. It is the dualistic mind responsible for Self-personality grasping. This part is also your base of imagination, rational thinking, intellectualisation. This dimension is switched off when we sleep or are in the coma, or dying.

Second dimension is substrate consciousness that is equivalent of alayavijnana which is storehouse consciousness in Yogacara school, or in Theravada, this corresponds to bhavanga. Storehouse consciousness is essentially your subconsciousness - it always processes information no matter what. It also stores everything, biologically (from your father), and experientially (past actions). Relation with chitta is that chitta allows you to transform and store good or bad seeds back into the storehouse that will one day blossom and re-manifest in psyche again. It is the relative vacuum of consciousness.

Lastly, bare awareness, primordial awareness that is Rigpa. It is equivalent to experiences of Buddha nature or wisdom of Dharmadhatu, or Dharmakaya, also Tathata or even Jhana. Rigpa is based on intuition (jnana as opposed to prajna) coming from touch with suchness. This is seeing things as they are. There are many terms that describe it. For Dzogchen practitioners, the whole singular experience of it is best seen as last remnant after two other layers dissolve at the time of death - the clear light. It is the absolute vacuum of consciousness.

Each one of these layers goes deeper and such is the relation between them, each one emerges from the lower layer. Concepts arise from being in touch with suchness and so on.

Alan Wallace's commentary on Vajra Essence:

  For clarification let’s refer to the three-tiered model of the mind
  presented earlier. The first and most superficial level is the psyche,
  in which thoughts, fantasies, images, and so forth appear. If you sit
  quietly and watch your mind, the phenomena you observe manifest in
  your psyche. We access the second level, the substrate consciousness,
  in deep sleep, the blackout period of death, and in the practice of
  shamatha. During shamatha meditation the phenomena observed do not
  necessarily emanate solely from the psyche, which is encapsulated
  within this lifetime. Having accessed the substrate consciousness,
  there is the potential for tapping into memories from past lifetimes, phenomena entangled within a vast network of experiences. These may appear in the form of dreams, visions, desires, or fears whose origin is not to be found in this lifetime. In the case of fear, for example, the anxiety may be very real, yet its origin may be a past-life experience. Such fear is an expression of imprints stored in the substrate consciousness.

  Then, having broken through to the third tier of the mind—primordial
  consciousness—what emerges, the phenomena that appear, are not
  manifestations of mind and mental processes. From this deeper vantage
  point, such manifestations and mental processes, which comprise the
  psyche, are surface phenomena. For the same reason it would also be
  misleading to depict these primordial experiences as manifestations of
  the substrate consciousness. Appearances originating in primordial
  consciousness are the spontaneous, natural effulgence of pristine
  awareness. Being neither the mind nor mental processes, “these
  appearances are by nature the play of the manifest space of
  awareness”—dharmadhatu.

  (...)

  For example, if you truly fathom the
  nature of anger as it arises—even something as slight as a mild
  irritation—it is seen to be nothing other than an expression of
  pristine awareness. Of course we don’t normally do that. We grasp on
  to anger, reify it, and then act out within the sphere of the psyche
  and of ordinary appearances, in which case anger is an afflictive
  emotion. Therefore, if you fathom the nature of the mental
  processes—the eight kinds of consciousness—it is seen that they have
  never been anything other than expressions of primordial
  consciousness. However, not fathoming their nature, they are then seen
  either as expressions of the substrate consciousness or expressions of
  the psyche, indicating that you are locked within samsara.

You can clearly see there is nothing special that cannot be experienced outside Dzogchen and that same experience is also spoken of in Mahayana in great detail.


The idea of "sharing merit" or "transferring merit" is very popular in Theravāda Buddhism. I do not believe that it has a basis in the Suttas. I have read that this concept was introduced much later because of folk beliefs.

The closest thing in the Suttas to sharing or transferring of merit is in Pv 1.5 / Khp 7, which talks about food / drink and ghosts:

  Outside the walls they stand and at crossroads. At door posts they stand, returning to their old homes.
  But when a meal with plentiful food & drink is served, no one remembers them: Such is the kamma of living beings.

  Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives give timely donations of proper food & drink — exquisite, clean — [thinking:] "May this be for our relatives. May our relatives be happy!"

  And those who have gathered there, the assembled ghosts of the relatives, with appreciation give their blessing for the plentiful food & drink: "May our relatives live long because of whom we have gained [this gift]. We have been honored, and the donors are not without reward!"

  For there [in the ghost realm] there's no farming, no herding of cattle, no commerce, no trading with money. They live on what is given here, hungry ghosts whose time here is done.

  As water raining on a hill flows down to the valley, even so does what is given here benefit the dead. As rivers full of water fill the ocean full, even so does what is given here benefit the dead.

  "He gave to me, she acted on my behalf, they were my relatives, companions, friends": Offerings should be given for the dead when one reflects thus on things done in the past. For no weeping, no sorrowing no other lamentation benefits the dead whose relatives persist in that way.
  But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha, it works for their long-term benefit and they profit immediately.

  In this way the proper duty to relatives has been shown, great honor has been done to the dead, and monks have been given strength: The merit you've acquired isn't small.

Here is how I understand this Sutta... Dead relatives hang around things to which they were attached during their lives (places and relatives), but nobody cares. When you see good food and drink, you should think "May my deceased relatives be happy". When this is done, your deceased relatives will rejoice because they have been honoured. Ghosts lead a difficult life and offering the thought "May my deceased relatives be happy" helps and sustains the ghosts. Crying and lamentation does not help the deceased relatives, but offering the thought "May my deceased relatives be happy" helps and sustains the ghosts. If the food and drink is offered to the Sangha, the there is even more merit because the monks gain strength as well.

There is another popular chant sometimes called "Sharing Merit with Devas" (not sure where this originated... can't find it in the Tipiṭaka or commentaries):

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu sāsanaṃ.

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu desanaṃ.

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu maṃ paran"ti.

The key word here is "anumoditvā", which is sometimes incorrectly translated as "sharing"; what it really means is "to rejoice" / "to be thankful" / "to appreciate". In other words, we are inviting the Devā to rejoice in what merit we have done... we are not transferring anything to them. Anyway, Devā have lots of merits of their own, so why would they need ours? :-)


Can someone please guide me to theravada buddhist monastery in France or Netherland?

I just checked the link. Actually i don't have idea which monastery i should go. I will only two days in france and already have full schedule for city tour. I think I just have time night time. Are you from france @ChrisW

I am in France, but not near Paris. I can read French, if that's any help: if you want me to search for something specific on the internet. Two days with already a full schedule isn't very much time.

This page, Les Centres et les Temples Bouddhistes à Paris (75) says it lists Buddhist centres and temples in Paris. Almost all of them are either Zen or Tibetan.

This one is Theravada (Thai Forest):

18. Association Bouddhique Theravâda "Vivekârâma"
école : Theravâda (tradition des "moines de forêt" de Thaïlande)

lieu de pratique : 14 rue Philibert Lucot 75013 Paris

siège social : c/o Michel-Henri Dufour
22 rue de la Grange Aubel 71000 Sancé Tél. 03.85.20.14.42

Their web site is at http://vivekarama.fr/activites-3/activites-paris
which says they have 3-hour guided sessions every third Sunday, and free sessions once a month on Fridays (it's not a temple, they meet in a room somewhere).

They have a calendar here and they ask you to contact them (by email I suppose) first.

So that's not a monastery.

This search finds no Theravada in Paris.

There's a centre that's near Paris: http://centrebouddhique.fr/ It's near the "Le Bourget" airport. They have a calendar here.

There's a Pagoda in Vincennes which is virtually inside Paris (Vincennes are a wood or park, on the south east edge of Paris): it's not Theravada and not a monastery but is a multi-denominational Buddhist place (without a teacher) that might be within your reach if you have limited time in Paris.

If you're looking for Theravada monasteries, this map says it shows the Theravada monasteries in Europe.

The two which are near Paris have these web sites:

http://dhammayutta.free.fr/ (located 11 km from Paris, beware that the web site is 2012)
http://www.burmeseclassic.org/dir.php

U Kumara Association Bouddhiste Birmane
63 Avenue Maurice Thorez 94200 Ivry sur seine France.
Tel: 33 (0) 146717240, 33 (0) 677463943

In summary I don't know whether you'll be able to go to a Theravada Buddhist monastery in France.

If you have questions about travel rather than Buddhism there's a Travel.SE site which may be useful.


Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil

The following sutta is not about kamma (but is about internal defilements).

  Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? One
  person with a blemish (aṅgaṇa) doesn’t truly understand: ‘There is a blemish in
  me.’ But another person with a blemish does truly understand: ‘There
  is a blemish in me.’ One person without a blemish doesn’t truly
  understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ But another person without a
  blemish does truly understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ In this
  case, of the two persons with a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better. And of the two persons without a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better.

  MN 5

I cannot imagine knowingly doing evil wicked kamma is better than not knowingly doing evil wicked kamma (such as the wicked Mara kamma of reviling Noble Ones & making false declarations of jhana attainment). Knowingly doing evil wicked kamma sounds psychopathic.


That's Cleary's translation of "bodhisattva":

Compare that with this translation:

The Four Holy Truths
At that time, Manjushri Bodhisattva Mahasattva told all the Bodhisattvas: “All of you Disciples of the Buddha, in this Saha world, the Holy Truth of Suffering is


How does Ajita Kesakambali compare to the Buddha?

his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided

This refers to the mental activity in this body. It doesn't mean that there's no next life after death, unless we are talking about an Arahanth. This is why having a good teacher is important. If someone with materialistic views try to interpret this sutta by himself, he might conclude that it all ends after death.


How to combine Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism?

Okay, for the purpose of providing an answer, I've gone to this site:

http://www.antiochian.org/whatorthodoxbelieve

which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to present the views of the Eastern Orthodox church, from their POV.

The only thing I can see as being a problem, would be the phrase, taken a bit out of context from Timothy:

  "From such withdraw yourself' (1 Timothy 6:5).

said to refer to cults. The actual passage (KJV) is:

  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Obviously, it is up to the person doing the interpreting as to whether or not Buddhism is "destitute of the truth", and whether that would then be enough to require you to "withdraw thyself".

Either way, your question is actually about strategy, so, given the assumption that you don't really care what the church has to say as long as you aren't subject to their censure, I imagine it would be enough to just not speak about it to them. I don't assume you'd be found out otherwise.

It's really the best, I think; speech that is unpleasant, e.g. telling a devout Christian that you are participating in what they view as a cult, should only be delivered with care. (See the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, for a discussion of unpleasant speech).

So, td;lr: unless you think you can convince your fellow Christians that you are not really committing sin by participating in Buddhism, best would be to just avoid mentioning it. Or, you know, leave Christianity and become Buddhist ;)


Did the Buddha discourage antropomorphic representations of himself?

A direct quote from the Digha Nikaya that explicitly expresses a prohibition or even a discouragement concerning his antropomorphic representations has not been found yet, as far as I know.

In Religions of the Silk Road (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1996), Yuvraj Krishan maintains that the aniconic period is due to a Vedic heritage: Vedism was aniconic because it considered the highest gods as ultimately transcendent and formless. His contention is that when Buddhism was in its infancy, those who were faithful to the growing tradition were careful to act within to the Vedic tradition to avoid any normative displacement. So it should not surprise us that the earliest representational art appears at the geographical fringes of the Indian subcontinent (Sri Lanka and Gandhara). The earliest source for this thesis that I know is John C. Huntington's 1977 paper titled "The origin of the Buddha image".

Although there seems to be no known explicit doctrinal injunctions against the representation of the Buddha in anthropomorphic form, there is an  oblique statement in the Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins (first called attention to by Arthur Waley) which may be interpreted as a prohibition and consists the only textual source I have found to this effect. In this passage, which deals with the decoration of monasteries, Anathapindika asks:

  World-honoured one, if  images  of yours  are  not allowed  to be made, pray  may we not at least  make images  of Bodhisattvas in attendance  upon you? (apud Waley, 1931/2)

Although this statement addresses the theme of iconic representation of Buddha, it is an isolated case and cannot really be construed as a prohibition. Therefore, Huntington's theory that the aniconic representation of the Buddha in early Buddhism was a result of Vedic traditions and not specific doctrinal prohibitions seems to be the best explanation.

Further reading:

Rob Linrothe, 'Inquiries into the origin of the Buddha image: a review', East and West 43, 1/4 (December 1993), pp. 241-256.


How do you properly practice the more abstract precepts?

Because of the immense depth of the teaching, different skillsets/levels of students, and complexity/multidimensionallity of life in general, Buddhist theory and practice is a set of incremental approximations, from very coarse to more refined and precise. The provisional teachings are formulated in the narrative that makes sense to each particular student, such as the eastern religious narrative, or the narrative of shamanic mysticism, or the narrative of the mainstream society. More advanced teachings make use of the phenomenological narrative, the narrative of the subtle energies, and others. Some of the very advanced teachings require stepping outside of all narratives.

Since all people are different, all operate in different contexts, it is very difficult to make universal statements that mean the same thing to all people, have the motivating/inspiring effect in all the different contexts, and generally lead to positive outcomes in all of the endless "realities" (personal narratives).

The precepts are the lowest common denominator designed to work in all these different worlds. That is, they are meant to be the basic rule of thumb that works well enough regardless of the exact interpretation.

As individual practitioner, your understanding of precepts and of Dharma in general grows and matures - and transforms - during the entire journey. This is known as the transmutation of vows.

On the very basic level, you take precepts as is, without much thinking, and implement whatever they mean to you.
Then, you realize that precepts require you to control your mind and emotions: your "want" and "hate". So your context changes, instead of thinking in terms of external actions you think in terms of your mind states. At this point you don't painstakingly deliberate about individual precepts, you make sure your mind stays sober - as long as you do this, the precepts are "automatically" interpreted and executed in the right way.
Then, you get to the level where you no longer worry about your own goodness. Instead, your concern is about suffering and happiness of others. Just like on the previous level you stopped obsessing over individual precepts, on this level you're no longer obsessed with your mind state. You know, as long as you don't seek personal benefit, don't worry about personal difficulties, as long as you sincerely wish benefit for the others, then your mindstate will be alright, and your precepts will be taken care of.
Then, as you spend some significant time practicing the above, just as you hopefully did with every level (skipping levels in Buddhism is rarely a good idea) your understanding of ethics matures to the point when you understand the relative nature of any reference point. Because you now see that nothing has the absolute truth or the absolute value, you tend to be pretty cool about things, pretty dispassionate. So in your decision-making, you don't cling to any onesided position and you tend to prefer to act in such ways that helps others be less attached to their one-sided positions. So your ethical decisions of do/dont are now guided by your desire to promote wisdom, in-depth analysis, and certainly reduce possibilities of confrontation and conflict due to radicalized opinions, onesided judgements, attachments, and other forms of non-enlightened behavior, because you see that it leads to suffering. Just like the previous levels subsumed and transcended each other, on this level you abandon the notion of "doing good to others" - since good is not something that can be universally defined. So you no longer painstakingly obsess over the calculations of how much goodness will your actions bring to each of the affected participants of your action. Instead, your new rule of thumb is: as long as my actions are expressive of wisdom, promote non-attachment due to wisdom, dispassion due to wisdom - then the net effect will be good in all the different subjective universes.
At this point, you may realize that your personal karma limits your ability to be an expression of wisdom, and under direction of qualified teacher you decide to undertake Vajrayana deity generation practice or one of the other advanced practices. Because your understanding of emptiness has matured, you are no longer worried about getting stuck in any of the relative view points. So you learn to take on a particular relative point and hold on to that until you overcome your weakness in that area. At this point your precept is to maintain integrity of the relative point you have taken, regardless of what it does to the previous 4 levels. Once you complete your training, you can use various relative points effectively when dealing with people and students in different mental contexts. In other words, #5 is just a training trick to get better with #4. In reality #4 is the top level, so that's where you want to be.

You see? So you don't have to think in terms of the 5 precepts all the time. As your insight and practice matures, your context will change - but if your understanding is right then your actions that come from your new mental context will still be correct fulfillment of the vows taken on the previous levels. Generally speaking, if you do something on your current level that looks obviously wrong on a previous level - it means you got something very confused.

Makes sense? Sorry, I know you want clarity, you want clear guidelines that can help with your day to day decision making in support of your practice. This may not be the answer you expected, but I hope it will make things clearer for you. Let me know if you have specific examples you want to analyze.


When you watch a sad movie, you may feel sad at some points. But you won't carry the sadness with you and become depressed, would you? When you stop watching the movie, you immediately forget about it.

Similarly, you treat the evil unskillful thoughts here like they were some movie appearing in your mind, and ignore them.


In simple words, how are body sensations linked to moods and feelings?

In simple words, emotion has three parts: the root, the stem, and the flower. The root is an imprint (samskara). The stem is a physical reaction. The flower is a psychosomatic sensation (vedana).

Emotion is a precursor of thought, it is like a very fuzzy/blurry thought. Before humans, animals already had some basic intelligence -- that's emotions. When a deer is grazing, her brain is watching for signs of danger. When she hears sudden noise, her brain creates a basic impulse to run away. The heart beats faster, the lungs breath faster, the muscles of the stomach contract, the legs start shaking. A basic formula like "sudden noise == danger" is an imprint or preconception -- the root of the emotion. The physical reaction is the stem of the emotion. And the way the physical reaction (heart, breathing, muscles) feels to you -- is vedana, the flower.

If you inspect your psychosomatic environment, you will surely notice subtle sensations in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. Subjectively, these feelings are often not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it. Some of the emotions most obviously accompanied by such sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness.

If we examine the root of the emotion more carefully, we can see that it works through evaluation (appraisal) by the mind of the present situation, against the basic assumptions and expectations (formulas, imprints, preconceptions) about how things are supposed to be. If the actual situation ("is") seems to be matching the expected situation ("should"), a positive emotion is generated (sukha), and if the two mismatch -- a negative emotion is generated (dukkha). By dropping the preconception, we prevent (nirodha) the emotion from arising.

For example, if you fall in love with a woman, and want to be with her, but she loves another man, and does not want to be with you -- you may feel depressed. If you look carefully at your somatic sensations, you may notice e.g. burning in your chest or dull pain in your belly etc. When you stare at this burning/pain long enough, you will eventually realize that it is caused by a mismatch between the mental picture of being with her, on one hand, and her not being available, on the other hand. This mismatch is called unsatisfied thirst, or tanha. If you keep looking, you will realize that the root of the emotion is your preconception that e.g. the woman has a perfect character on account of the way she moves, smiles, laughs, and flips her hair. (When you keep visualizing those attributes of her, and keep mentally connecting those with her - fictional - perfection, that is called "feeding the preconception", or upadana.) In order to stop suffering, you have to clearly see the preconception, and let go of it.

This is why Buddha taught kayagata-smrti (mindfulness rooted in the body) and anapana-smrti (mindfulness of breathing) -- because the root would be too hard to see under the ground, but the flower is highly visible. Once you notice the flower, you can start tracing it down to its roots (preconceptions) in meditation, and by extracting the roots (letting go of attachments, dropping identifications, dismissing the formulas, dissolving samskaras) you liberate from dukkha. Then you attain the state of suchness (tathata), when all your experience is basically sukha, because in suchness your "is" always matches your "should". When this practice matures, you go beyond dichotomy of right-and-wrong, beyond sukha-and-dukkha, and even beyond the beyond -- then you become completely rooted in tathata, and become what's called a tathagata.

Anyway, to get back to your question, emotions are always accompanied by sensations, however subtle. Somatic sensation is the most visible component of emotion. (The other component of emotion -- the mental obscuration or klesha -- is usually invisible, because it obscures the very ability to see oneself objectively.) So sensations, especially ones in the diaphragm area, but also in lower abdomen, throat, and forehead, are great windows into the "subconscious" mind.


Are there problems from mixing different sources of teachings?

The Teaching is just one but there might be many interpretations. That's why the Buddha advised us to always verify a teacher's words, no matter how famous or well respected he is, against the Buddha's original Words in the Suttas and the Books of Discipline:

  1) “Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

  2) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind. ~ DN 16 ~


Is there a mistranslation of definition of ignorance?

There are 3 types of wisdom

suta-maya panna: wisdom gained by listening to others
cinta-maya panna: intellectual, analytical understanding
bhavana-maya panna: wisdom based on direct knowledge or meditative(Vipassana) wisdom

Knowing here means the third type. When a monk preaches or when you read a sutta on your own you usually gain type 1 and type 2. Those are not strong enough to cut off craving. You need to see the four noble truths based on direct knowledge. In other words, through Vipassana meditation.


Does buying meat equate to approving of killing an animal?

"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 heard, or suspected (that living beng has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)..."
Furthermore, the Buddha added: "If anyone slaughters a living being for the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) or his disciple, he lays up much demerit in five instances... (i) When he says:'Go and fetch that living being'... (ii) When that living being experiences pain and grief on being led along with a neck-halter... (iii) When he says: 'Go and slaughter that living being'... (iv) When that living bieng experiences pain and grief on being slaughter... (v) When he provides the Tathagata or his disciple with food that is not permissible..."

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained in sensuality,
greedy for flavors,
mixed together with what’s impure, annihilationists,
discordant1 & indomitable:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are rough, pitiless,
eating the flesh off your back,betraying their friends,uncompassionate,
arrogant,
habitually ungenerous,
giving to no one:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Anger, intoxication,
stubbornness, hostility,
deceptiveness, resentment,
boasting, conceit & pride,
befriending those of no integrity:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those of evil habits,
debt-repudiators, informers,
cheats in trading, counterfeiters,
vile men who do evil things:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those people here
who are unrestrained toward beings,
taking what’s others’,
intent on injury,
immoral hunters, harsh, disrespectful:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Those who are very greedy,
constantly intent
on hindering and killing;
beings who, after passing away, go to darkness,
fall headfirst into hell:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_2.html


I'm familiar with visualization meditation, in the context of Tibetan Buddhist meditation.

Those specific meditations were good for my mood as well as a training in concentration. For me it was a very useful start into meditation, though I have stopped doing it for now.

I think it's a mistake to avoid something you're good at, just because you heard that the Buddha is against mental fabrication. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively (though not exhaustively) and I have not heard that one before.

It is a Buddhist truth that thoughts can be misleading, but that should not stop you from thinking. It is merely a useful hint that not all your thoughts are true.

One difference between fantasy and visualization is that in visualization you take control of your mental processes and visualize what YOU want to visualize (or what the instruction is).
Fantasies are basically day-dreams: you let your mind go where it will. Observing those thoughts can also be meditation - but then it becomes mindfulness.

What makes it meditation is that it is deliberate.

So if you are doing visualization meditation - you focus on (in two steps)

making the image clear
concentrating on that image.

If you're doing mindfulness meditation, you will simply note you are fantasizing when you are in fact fantasizing. The noting itself will take you out of the fantasy for a bit, by the way.

There is also Buddhist analytical meditation: it means analyzing a Buddhist truth from all sides. It does go back all the way to the Buddha. And if that is a good thing, then surely ordinary analysis ought to be OK too. It falls under the heading of seeking wisdom.

More about Buddhist meditation: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/thought.htm


Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

The Buddha himself did not cease having thoughts, although he was fully enlightened. Please see this question for details.

In this answer, there is a quote from the Ayacana Sutta, where it says:

  Then, while he (the Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of
  thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained
  is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. ....."

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta, we find that unskillful thoughts "imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion" have to be removed.

In the Vina Sutta:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

And the same applies to the other senses.

You can find a similar discussion in the Aparihani Sutta where it talks about removing "evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress".

There is a slightly different message in the Sacitta Sutta, but also teaching us to remove unskillful thoughts:

  "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with
  thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless,
  uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or
  unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort,
  diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the
  abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

Hence the recommendation here is to remove unskillful thoughts, but not stop thinking altogether.

Of course, if one is meditating and trying to achieve the state of jhana, then in that situation, he has to concentrate his mind and cease thinking. Even this is only for the second jhana and beyond. In the first jhana, there is still directed thought and evaluation. From the Maha-satipatthana Sutta:

  "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk —
  quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure
  born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
  With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure,
  unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation —
  internal assurance.

So, it is inaccurate to say that the Buddha taught to stop thinking altogether (when you're not meditating). He only taught to remove unskillful thoughts.

Constantly ensuring that you don't have unskillful thoughts, is considered a practice of heedfulness (or appamada). Please see this question for details.


Is there an anicca→anatta→dukkha description of the three marks?

No. The idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha is common on the internet, particularly on DW.

The characteristic of 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha') is directly related to impermanence (anicca) given the Buddha asked in SN 22.59: "Can that which is impermanent bring (lasting) happiness?"

  Yaṃ panāniccaṃ, dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā'ti? SN 22.59

Also, the realisations of anicca & dukkha were used to support the realisation of anatta.

Also, the realisation of 'anatta' brings liberation rather than 'dukkha'.

Therefore, the idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha has no basis in the teachings.

To be free from doubt here, the following suttas which mentioned dukkha with anicca, alone:

  If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is dukkha (unsatisfactory); what is
  dukkha has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is dukkha; what is dukkha has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

  “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

  SN 22.85

  Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā

  What is impermanent is dukkhaṃ. What is dukkhaṃ is nonself.

  SN 22.45 & 46

  Soṇa, when any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of form—which is
  impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves
  thus....

  SN 22.49

  Bhikkhus, attend carefully to form. Recognize the impermanence of form
  as it really is. When a bhikkhu attends carefully to form and
  recognizes the impermanence of form as it really is, he experiences
  revulsion towards form...

  SN 22.52

  He does not understand as it really is impermanent form as
  ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent feeling as ‘impermanent feeling’ …
  impermanent perception as ‘impermanent perception’ … impermanent
  volitional formations as ‘impermanent volitional formations’ …
  impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’

  Dukkhaṃ rūpaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, dukkhaṃ
  vedanaṃ … dukkhaṃ saññaṃ … dukkhe saṅkhāre … dukkhaṃ viññāṇaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ
  viññāṇan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti.

  He does not understand as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’
  … painful feeling as ‘painful feeling’ … painful perception as
  ‘painful perception’ … painful volitional formations as ‘painful
  volitional formations’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful
  consciousness.’

  SN 22.55

  “Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever is dukkhaṃ.” … SN
  22.67


Ego death and stream entry is it the same thing?

I wish it were so complete.  Stream entry, while a major event in one's practice, is by no means the death of the ego.  In fact, it only releases one from the lower three fetters (e.g. belief in a self, doubt, and attachment to rites and rituals).  There's much more to go.  I'd go so far to say that it's not until one becomes an arhant that the "ego", as we understand in the Western sense, is finally put to rest.

It's important to understand, however, that "stream entry" is category term for a collection of insights.  While these insights can happen as the result of a single event, that event and the experiences surrounding it like feelings of oneness, visions, and the like are really inconsequential.  What is important is the shift in perspective that follows.  This is fundamentally what distinguishes Buddhism from other mystical traditions.


If teacher punishing student is also supposed bad karma?

Buddha did not do any violence. The suttas say:

  it is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.


Is there a defined sequence of events when a Buddhist enters a temple?

It depends on the temple and what part of it you're entering.

For instance, I used to be involved with my local Mahayana Temple.  Whenever we entered the meditation hall, we did the following..

Took off our shoes
Bowed to the altar, with our hands together in front of our chest.
After meditation, bowed each time the meditation leader rang a bell (some leaders had us do full prostrations instead).
When leaving, we turned to face the altar and repeated #2.

1, 2 and 4 were common to all the Buddhist Temple meditation halls I visited.


Why do I rock/sway when people pass me meditating outdoors, and stop when they're gone?

Rocking and swaying is caused by the arising of Rapture (Pīti) which is one of the 10 Imperfections of Insight and one of the 5 Jhana Factors.
If practicing Vipassana meditation just note it until it passes away. If it doesn't stop after a long time, make the resolution to make it stop by saying "stop" in your mind. It will then stop either after the first resolution or after a couple of them.
If practicing Samatha meditation just return to the primary meditation object, ie. the breath at the anapana-spot. Don't take either of the Jhana factors as an meditation object. It will not strengthen them but instead weaken them, thereby not leading to Jhana.


That sounds like the simile in AN 3.130 below.
This describes three types of individuals and their anger. Anger is a sankhara (volition, mental formation).

"Monks, there are these three types of individuals to be found
existing in the world. Which three? An individual like an inscription
in rock, an individual like an inscription in soil, and an individual
like an inscription in water.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in rock? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays
with him a long time. Just as an inscription in rock is not quickly
effaced by wind or water and lasts a long time, in the same way a
certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays with him a
long time. This is called an individual like an inscription in rock.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in soil? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, but his anger
doesn't stay with him a long time. Just as an inscription in soil is
quickly effaced by wind or water and doesn't last a long time, in the
same way a certain individual is often angered, but his anger doesn't
stay with him a long time. This is called an individual like an
inscription in soil.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in water? There is the
case where a certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to
harshly, spoken to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial,
companionable, & courteous. Just as an inscription in water
immediately disappears and doesn't last a long time, in the same way a
certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to harshly, spoken
to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial, companionable, &
courteous. This is called an individual like an inscription in water.
"These are the three types of individuals to be found existing in the
world."
AN 3.130


In the wheel of life, how can death be a condition for ignorance?

Bhava-chakra, the wheel of life, or, as I would translate it, "the wheel of individuation" is a relatively late depiction of the 12 Nidanas. In the suttas of Pali Canon, the nidanas are usually presented as a list, that is reviewed both in forward as well as in reverse direction -- but never (to my knowledge!) as an infinite loop.

If you read the wheel clock-wise, the 12 nidanas are:

avidya -> samskara -> vijnana -> nama-rupa -> six ayatana -> phassa -> vedana -> tanha -> upadana -> bhava -> jati -> jaramarana & dukkha

Although the interpretation of the wheel as depicting the cycle of death-and-rebirth is accepted by most schools, according to Triyana framework it represents the basic/literal ("hinayana") level of understanding.

Instead, some instructors, including Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, taught twelve nidanas as a process of gradual individuation, or emerging and hardening of the illusory ego.

In this line of thinking, avidya is the innate ignorance, samskaras are the arbitrary imprints of sensory stimulation, vijnana is inductive intelligence born from the imprints, nama-rupa are inductively postulated external objects, six ayatanas are the implied "windows" onto the world, phassa is a subjective experience of contact with the postulated objects, vedana is a sensation attributed to the contact, tanha is an obsessive replay of the contact and sensation, upadana is feeding the obsession by making its object one's goal, bhava is becoming the "this" of here-and-now, dependently-co-arisen with the twofold "that" of space-and-time, jati is identifying with a living organism, and jaramarana is experiencing the organism's perspective culminating in death.

(Because the list shows subjective experience, not an objective physical process, the physical birth is not shown, but if it were, it would fit right before Ignorance. The Birth that is shown, is not a physical birth, but conceptual (subjective) assumption that one is an individual living organism.)

Although 12 nidanas explained this way describe subjective experience of one sentient being, which begins with physical birth and ends with death, we could say that after death the cycle logically "restarts" from scratch, again starting from ignorance, progressing through individuation, and culminating in death of another "being" and so forth indefinitely.

To be sure, objectively there is no cycle, beings arise and cease asynchronously, but in some sense we could say that death of a (unenlightened) being is a return to innate ignorance.

@ChrisW found a tremendously elegant quote in Wikipedia:

  When the cessation of the continuity of experience occurs, we speak of death. It is the total breakdown and dissolution of experience and experiencer. The process of disintegration, destructuring, and entropic scattering yields a nexus of vibratory murkiness which is the condition of avidyā, the first motif. Thus the entire structure of patterning feeds back on itself.


Well, technically dharma (Pali dhamma) means any tradition (a particular view of the world and a lifestyle passed down through generations) such as, for example, baker dharma, trader dharma, knight dharma etc. So buddha dharma is just one possible dharma out of many.


For a puthujjana (ordinary unenlightened person), the results of sinful kamma is rebirth in hell.

These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, in hell.
MN 4

For a Noble One, the results of past sinful kamma is merely feelings (vedana) felt (vedaniyaṃ).

Bhikkhus, this group [of aggregates] is not yours, nor does it belong
to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by
volition, as something to be felt (vedaniyaṃ).
SN 12.37

AN 3.99 says:

Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress.
But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt (vedanīyaṃ) in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is
the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right
ending of stress.


Where does the Dalai Lama say '... be a better whatever you already are'?

I think I found a reference to the source and it sounds more accurate. This is from Amazing Grace by Kathleen Norris -- it is relating an Inter-Faith dialog some years before the writing of her book in 1999 and here is the quote.

A report asked the Dalai Lama what he would say to Americans who want to become Buddhists,
"Don't bother" he said, Learn from Buddhism if that is good for you. But do it as Christians, a Jew or whatever you are. And be a good friend to us.

The quote was cleaned up by someone a long time ago and now though the sense is the same the quote is wrong.  It should not have quotation marks.
And "whatever you are" is in the next paragraph.


Mr. Jonas Bystöm might read Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile especially the introduction, which gives a good overview and the "Six View-Positions" section. The seven parts soul thing is a common folk believe even is SEAsia and has Tantric roots, one could say Hindu, and has influence especially many Mahayana approaches.

To be or not to be is no question. There is no such as any self-theory to be found in Dhamma since it has simply the liberation form suffering, so to understand its cause, as objective and aim. Do not waste your time with such, 99% of beings do so.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Sunyata is the truth and compassion is not an illusion?

This answer is from the Theravada perspective.
You are thinking about this from the frame of reference of Vedanta, where there is only one thing real and eternal, and the others are illusion (maya) which are not eternal and changing.
In Vedanta, this one thing that is real and eternal is God, whereas you replace this with shunyata (emptiness), which means the great emptiness is the only real and eternal thing, or that the ultimate reality of the universe is voidness.
Next, you say that compassion is the really good emotion compared to others, and this moves one towards emptiness. Then you ask why only such a positive quality moves one towards emptiness, and why not other emotions?
Now, let's change our frame of reference to the Buddha's.
He doesn't ask, "what is the only thing real and eternal?". This was not important to him.
In the Acintita Sutta, he states that metaphysics should not be conjectured, otherwise it will lead to madness. In Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, he says to focus on the immediate problem (i.e. suffering) and not on how it all originated. In the Sabba Sutta, he taught to not speculate about things that's beyond The All.
The Buddha's frame of reference is really the Four Noble Truths - stating that there is suffering, identifying the cause of and solution to suffering, and teaching the Noble Eightfold Path as the method to realize the solution to suffering.
Emptiness in the original teachings of the Buddha refers to all phenomena being empty of a self. This is explained in this answer. This is not metaphysics. It explains that the self is really a mental idea - the illusion, that results in suffering. It doesn't mean that the ultimate reality of the universe is voidness.
It's true that Nirvana is what is attained by the enlightened ones. Maybe you might then say that this is the eternal thing or the ultimate reality of the universe. But Nirvana is just the extinguishment of suffering - it is that which is experienced by the mind when it is completely free of defilements and fetters. It is the only stable source of happiness and peace. It's not any kind of ultimate reality. It's not a supernatural state of consciousness. It's not immortality.
And what about compassion? Compassion is not the only positive mental factor. There are 25 beautiful mental factors listed in the Abhidhamma, in this answer.
Why do positive mental states lead to Nirvana but not negative ones?
That is explained in the Kimattha Sutta - skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, and the sutta explains how this leads to Nirvana.
The negative states of mind which are basically combinations of greed or lust, aversion and delusion, that enslave the mind and keep it clinging to sensual pleasures and existence of the self. When one does unskillful things or has unskillful thoughts, this also leads to remorse, and reinforces suffering.
Skillful virtues and positive states of mind brings one freedom from remorse and joy, but this is only one of the three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path called virtue (Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood). There are still the other two parts that need to be cultivated - concentration/ meditation and wisdom.
Without the five precepts and cultivation of virtue, it is impossible to practise concentration/ meditation or deepen wisdom. With the mind becoming positive and virtuous, it can then calm down, concentrate and experience insight and wisdom.
From the perspective of karma, virtues and positive mind also reduces or removes future consequences of bad actions, and therefore reduces suffering.
So, you have to change your frame of reference:
Vedanta talks about the metaphysical reality of the universe (real/ eternal i.e. God vs. the illusion), and it talks about how to go from illusion to real/ eternal. Vedanta also postulates the individual self as being part of, or identical to, God.
Buddhism addresses the problem of suffering and how to end suffering. Buddhism is not concerned with the metaphysical reality of the universe. Buddhism also takes the self as an idea conjured by the mind - which leads to suffering.
From SN 22.86:

In the past, as today, I describe suffering and the cessation of
suffering.


The 25 beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa cetasika) from the Abhidhamma (which is not sutta but is derived from the Buddha's teachings):

  The beautiful mental factors. There are twenty-five beautiful factors.
  Nineteen are common to all beautiful thoughts, six are variable. The
  latter are the three "abstinence factors," two "illimitables," and the
  wisdom factor.

  The common beautiful factors (sobhanaa saadhaaranaa) are as follows:

  Confidence (saddhaa), also called faith, which for a Buddhist means
  trust in the Three Jewels — the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and in the
  principles of the Buddha's teachings.
  Mindfulness (sati): this is alertness, which makes us aware of what is
  happening to us, from moment to moment, through the five physical
  senses and the mind. Mindfulness is essential to insight meditation,
  when it must be conjoined with a clear comprehension of the
  suitability, purpose, and conformity with reality of any action. Then
  it is called right mindfulness (sammaa sati). Usually the average
  person acts without any form of mindfulness; his acts are prompted by
  force of habit. Right mindfulness has two functions: one is to
  increase the power of recollection and the other is to evaluate what
  is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Right mindfulness is a spiritual
  faculty that maintains a proper balance of the other faculties —
  faith, energy, concentration and wisdom.
  Shame of evil (hiri) and
  fear of evil (ottappa) are the opposites
  of the second and third unwholesome mental factors, already discussed.
  Non-attachment (alobha) restrains attachment and fosters generosity.
  Good-will (adosa) is synonymous with loving kindness (mettaa). It
  keeps a person free from resentment and anger.
  Equanimity (tatramajjhattaa, upekkhaa) is balance of mind, a quality
  of neutrality free from attachment and repulsion.

  The other twelve common beautiful factors fall into six pairs, one member affecting the "body" of mental factors (kaaya), the other
  affecting consciousness as a whole (citta). The six are as follows,
  the terms themselves indicating their nature:

  composure (passaddhi) of the mental factors
  composure (passaddhi) of consciousness
  buoyancy (lakhutaa) of the mental factors
  buoyancy (lakhutaa) of consciousness
  pliancy (mudutaa) of the mental factors
  pliancy (mudutaa) of consciousness
  efficiency (kammaññataa) of the mental factors
  efficiency (kammaññataa) of consciousness
  proficiency (paguññataa) of the mental factors
  proficiency (paguññataa) of consciousness
  rectitude (ujukataa) of the mental factors
  rectitude (ujukataa) of consciousness

  The abstinence factors (virati) restrain a person from committing evil
  acts. These are three in number:

  Right speech (sammaa vacaa) is abstinence from lying, slandering,
  abusive language, and idle talk.
  Right action (sammaa kammantaa) is abstinence from killing, taking
  what is not given, and wrong conduct with regard to sense pleasures.
  Right livelihood (sammaa aajiiva) is abstinence from any livelihood
  that brings harm to other living beings.

  The illimitable factors (appamaññaa) are compassion and sympathetic
  joy; they are called illimitable because they are boundless and extend
  to all living beings.

  Compassion (karu.naa) has the nature of being moved by the suffering
  of others. The sadness we might experience over the suffering or loss
  of a loved one is not true compassion. Such sadness is sentimental, a
  manifestation of grief. Real compassion arises when the mind, detached
  from self-referential concerns, is stirred by the suffering of others,
  feeling the suffering as its own.
  Sympathetic joy (muditaa) has the nature of rejoicing in other's
  happiness. Usually people rejoice at the success of someone who is
  near and dear to them, but it is rare for them to rejoice when success
  and prosperity are enjoyed by someone unknown, not to speak of an
  adversary. Muditaa embraces all beings and cannot coexist with the
  unwholesome mental factor of jealousy.

  Compassion and sympathetic joy, together with goodwill and equanimity,
  form the Four Sublime Abodes (brahma vihaara). Goodwill and equanimity
  were mentioned under the common beautiful factors.

  The wisdom factor (paññaa) enables one to see things as they truly
  are, that is, in the light of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
  selflessness.


What Gautam Buddha said about "self", in Chapter Three of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra?

The Buddha would have spoken about self as reference point. This is using conventional language and terms to explain something. Without using conventional language as medium you cannot communicate and when using conventional languages you end up using conventional terms. It is very had to have a vocabulary in terms of ultimate realities since  only few have experienced it any terms coined will not have bearing on people who has not experienced it. Since the Dhamma is taught for people who has not experienced the ultimate realities it should be in conventional terms.

Having said that any conception that there is a self or there is not self is an extreme view and also conceptual construction.

  The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

Alagaddupama Sutta - Translator's Introduction by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts


So the Blessed One, putting on his robe and taking up his bowl & outer
  robe, went together with a community of monks to the reception hall.
  On arrival he washed his feet, entered the hall, and sat with his back
  to the central post, facing east. The community of monks washed their
  feet, entered the hall, and sat with their backs to the western wall,
  facing east, ranged around the Blessed One. The Kapilavatthu Sakyans
  washed their feet, entered the hall, and sat with their backs to the
  eastern wall, facing west, ranged around the Blessed One. Then the
  Blessed One — having spent most of the night instructing, urging,
  rousing, & encouraging the Kapilavatthu Sakyans with a Dhamma talk —
  said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about
  the person who follows the practice for one in training. [2] My back
  aches. I will rest it." - Sekha-patipada Sutta : MN 53

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html


What is the Buddhist approach of admitting a mistake?

Confessing and pardon are very importand matter, as for monks there are even many formal ways to do, which can be appopted by good other communities patly as well.
Generally the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone might be useful.

And in regard of the added related question by Chris, no, addmitting and apologize will not easen or even make deeds and their results undone but it straightens your view and thoughts and allows you to walk on, aside the fact that such is nessesary for any good relation or community.

Something people seldom practice any more, caught in wrong views of having primaly rights and feeling independent.

How ever, it is needed to know what is a wrong deed. If somebody is hurt does not mean that you made something wrong. Such a desire for apologise is then merely founded in ones desire to be liked or in certain ways estimated by others.

So admit should be not used for politics, since such causes confusion of what is right and wrong in communities and relations in long therms.
Feel free to ask more here

  Ravindranath Akila in addition:
  I just read the sutta. It is useful to reflect ones own mistake. I'm looking at how I can apologize and make amends. Is there such a way?

Not always. And as told, sometimes its merely a desire in regard of relation to a person. Such desire is human, of coures, but not nessesary skillful. Sometimes beings are no more interested at all. There aversion is theirs. For you it good then to practice good will, not love or desire. A good talk on: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong

While most believe that unity is the highers, Buddhas account was not so. Nothing is worthy to give up real benefical things and he told clearly its better to loses relations, wealth and even health for such things as right view and withdraw from anything else. Why? With the break apart of the body, one would not fall into low existences. The lose of others will come anyway, sooner or later.

We can say that there are three kinds of desire for reconciliation:

Unskilfull: connected with (wrong) fear, desire (for wodlily gain), aversion (caused by desire), not-knowing (that a reconciliation is urgend, for example)

Skillful: connected with (right) fear of wrongdoing, desire (for skillfulness), aversion (of unclear situations and hindrences to walk on), knowing (of what is skilfull and unskilfull)

Beyound: no more desire for any lose or gain and therefore no more seek for reconciiation actively, but accepting apologize.

The skillful can be divided into:
Wordly: to maintain one world an relations
Contuctive for the path to liberation: to maintain a good relation in regard of those worthy to associate.

Of course, in each case, one should always confess mistakes and accept the "punishment" accordingly, and of course one should always investigate ones own actions first and propably seek for advices from admirable friends for certain cases (See talk to Rahula) and Bala-pandita Sutta: Fools & Wise People

Wothy to note! (Since often overseen) There is no need of confessing or reconciliation for mental deeds. Here being ashamed for yourself and lso determination to do not again is enought (is't not part of Sila/Vinaya).

(Good for now, there is no reconciliation with the team here as well as no such as an invitation to share Dhamma, so its just an short fly by.)

An extended and modified answer, builded up on this, can be found here: What is the Buddhas approach of admitting a mistake?

Seeing the necessarity: One may fight lifetimes, spend lifetimes to justify ones deeds, will win and lose for lifetimes again and again, as long there is no real admiting one will not realky progress and do it again and again. Think of how long Devatata and his fellow still turns around and will "win" for many lifetimes birth again and again, and Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen (German, you may translate it if you feel inspired)

Requesting Forgiveness

Usually chanted after having made merits:

  Kāyena vācāya va cetasā vā, Buddhe kukammaṃ pakataṃ mayā yaṃ,
  Buddho paṭiggaṇhatu accayantaṃ,
  Kālantare saṃvarituṃ va buddhe.
  Whatever bad kamma I have done to the Buddha
  by body, by speech, or by mind,
  may the Buddha accept my admission of it,
  so that in the future I may show restraint toward the Buddha. (Same for Dhamma and Sangha)


Can we rely on Buddha's quotes found on internet?

On the same site -- http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/better-than-a-thousand-hollow-words-is-one-word-that-brings-peace/ -- the author identifies the second quote as a slightly inaccurate or poetic translation of the 100th verse of the Dhammapada:

  Sahassamapi ce vaca
  anatthapadasamhita
  ekam atthapadam seyyo
  yam sutva upasammati.

  Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed.

That too is not a literal translation into English -- http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/index.php says they refer to the commentary if the literal meaning is vague or unintelligible or perplexing -- they added to the translation the phrase "unconnected with the realization of Nibbana" to clarify the difference between what they called senseless and sensible, i.e. between anatthapadasaṃhitā and atthapadam.

Here is maybe a more literal translation:

  Better than a thousand useless words is one useful word, hearing which one attains peace.

Note that's close to the version you quoted in the OP (it's so close that I don't see why what you quoted is listed as a "fake" quote, instead of being listed among the "real" quotes).

If you still don't understand it, I recommend the commentary/story which accompanies each verse (see here), and/or reading the whole chapter of the Dhammapada (see here).


What is the meaning of the "one mind" in the awakening of faith?

'One mind' means reality, the reality which is in front of you now and which you are part of. It manifests in two ways - as the absolute, when you don't concieve in terms of self and others; and the phenomenal, when you do.


Difference between Buddhist and materialist views of no self?

Apart from what you have mentioned,  materialists usually think that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. In other words, electrical traces stored in neurons. This is not the case in Buddhism. Brain is a concept according to Buddhism. The reality is fundamentally grouped into 2 categories: the mental(Nama) and the physical(Rupa).

The four noble truths hold true at all times regardless of what one believes. But one is not able to attain enlightenment, if one holds to the view that all mental activities end at death. This belief is called Saggawarana & Maggawarana:  conceals the path to heavens and conceals the path to enlightenment.

Here's a related answer by ven.Yuttadhammo.


I'm guessing it sounded better in the original Burmese. "Imagining" seems more reasonable than "meeting", since the latter is not real. On the other hand, it is not so important whether the experience is "real", but that the experience is occurring, so it could potentially be beneficial to remind yourself of what is going on in your head as "meeting".  Still, I wouldn't encourage it.

My teacher recommends against "sweet", etc., though I don't imagine it would be particularly harmful, since it seems fairly "real".

Acknowledging "mother" or "cat" is not appropriate, since they are concepts and can't lead to insight into reality.  "Thinking about my mother" wouldn't be terrible, as long as the focus was on the thinking and not the mother. Focussing the mind on the concept would likely lead to either samatha jhana in the case of simple objects or distraction in the case of complex ones.


Are all of the five aggregates saṅkhāras?

If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)?

Please read this answer for more info on sankharas based on Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay "Anicca Vata Sankhara". I quote the TL;DR version from that answer:

  Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other
  things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven.
  Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred
  translation.

  There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

  Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions
  of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce
  results, including "rebirth".
  The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all
  factors of mind except feeling and perception.
  All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and
  computers.

  The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?

Yes, in all the different meanings of sankhara, they are always impermanent and conditioned (depend on other things for their arising and ceasing).

Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?

MN 148 explains the arising of consciousness:

  "Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there
  arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there
  arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors
  there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body &
  tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent
  on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
  'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'

Meanwhile, form as one of the five aggregates refers to body, and it being conditioned and compounded is explained in MN 74:

  Now, Aggivessana, this body — endowed with form, composed of the four
  primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice &
  porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and
  dispersion — should be envisioned as inconstant, stressful, a disease,
  a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration,
  an emptiness, not-self.

Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?

According to SN 12.44:

  Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The
  meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition
  comes feeling.

"Contact" in this quote refers to mental contact and not physical contact. When there is physical contact between eye and forms (in this context, "form" means visual objects), eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three would result in mental contact.

This is only my speculation, but presumably, a blind person can see darkness or black.

Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay

According to AN 3.134, the Dhamma does not depend on the coming of a Buddha:

  "Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this
  property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. ... All processes are
  stressful. ... All phenomena are not-self.

According to this essay by Ajahn Sumedo:

  Akalikadhamma means that Dhamma is not bound by any time condition.
  The word akala means timeless. Our conceptual mind can’t conceive of
  anything that is timeless, because our conceptions and perceptions are
  time-based conditions, but what we can say is that Dhamma is akala,
  not bound by time.

Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

While the Dhamma (teachings) may not be sankhara, the mental concepts built around it definitely is sankhara, which is why seeing it through wisdom (through vipassana) is needed, as compared to intellectualizing it.


What is the meaning behind different robe colors?

I believe initially the robes were mostly yellow as this was a color of renunciation in the locality at the Buddha's time. As the Dhamma-Vinaya spread the different robe colors occurred due to the local dyes monastics used in their respective localities being different shades and colors.

I do know that in the Theravada tradition at least in Thailand and Sri Lanka there is a differentiation in colors between forest monks and city monks.

This may be helpful : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/robe_txt.htm

The robe dye is allowed to be obtained from six kinds of substances: roots and tubers, plants, bark, leaves, flowers and fruits. They should be boiled in water for a long time to get the dun dye. Saffron and ochre (from the jackfruit's heartwood) are the most prevalent colours today. Though there is a tendency amongst forest monks to wear ochre and city monks to wear saffron, but this is not always the rule.


A question regarding Buddhist world view and sense organs and their objects

In different Buddhist traditions, this may be interpreted differently. My answer here is mainly from the perspective of the Theravada tradition.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.

When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.

Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.

These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence or meaning given to it by the mind.

What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.

What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.

This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.

This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.

What about the Mahayana tradition?

Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs. In my opinion, this is equivalent to papanca of Theravada.


Gautama self torture, holding his breath

In the ancient Hindu tradition, Tapasya or severe asceticism was the practice that was thought to give one special spiritual superhuman powers. There is some truth to that, if you think about it - it all boils down to developing will power.

What Buddha has realized, is that self-mortification and infliction of physical and psychological pain is counterproductive to the goal - however, development of will power - especially as it comes to one's ability to control one's thoughts, emotions, and the state of mind - is confirmed to be as valid as ever.

Holding one's breath is not especially more useful than any other physical exercise involving application of will power, otherwise Buddha would have taught it post-bodhi, but I'm sure there are other physical and mental exercises that can help one develop will power and control over one's attention, emotions, associations, mood, and energy - without risking health issues.


What are the proper relax / Sleep practices for a practitioner of meditation methods?

If you do Metta meditation before sleeping you are better off, as one benefit of Metta is you sleep well. ((Aṭṭha) Mettânisansa Sutta, (Ekā,dasa) Mettânisansa Sutta)

  As to Buddhist point of view what is sleep and how to cope with it?

This is when your Bhavanga is active and the revolutions of the Dependent Origination cycles has momentarily stopped. (The Doctrine of Paticcasamuppada - The Law Of Independent Origination - By U Than Daing, page 32). An essay "The Unconscious" by Piya Tan discusses action action that done when sleeping.

--

Thoughts of others on the subject of sleep:

On deep sleep and bhavanga:

  The idea of an underlying skilful base to the mind is developed further in the
  Abhidhamma, which analyses the constituents of consciousness in detail. For a
  human rebirth to have occurred, the bhavakga, or consciousness to which the
  mind returns at rest, is skilful, whether with the two roots of non-greed and nonhatred,
  or more usually, with three roots, of wisdom, non-greed and non-hatred.
  This consciousness will be present whenever the mind enters bhavakga, either
  momentarily at the end of each thought-process, or during deep sleep. For all born
  as humans, the state of bhavakga is a reflection of the skilful state of mind that
  must have been present at the moment of death as a governing factor for the
  relinking consciousness. It is passive, however, and this predisposition needs
  active cultivation during waking life. Only when skilful consciousness is present
  during daily life, or during meditation, does the mind become actively bright and
  radiant. According to the theory this happens, for instance, at the moment of
  giving, of being alert and interested or when practising jhana: the active part of
  the thought-process ( javana) is then free from defilements. Those practising
  meditation are ‘bringing into being’ a consciousness which is thought to be a kind
  of birthright, but which needs cultivation. In Buddhist countries the human realm
  is considered particularly important for spiritual work. Birth in heaven realms is
  pleasant but lacks the suffering to encourage spiritual work; the realms of
  animals, ghosts and hell beings are considered far too painful for the path, and it
  is difficult, though not impossible, for such beings to find a skilful rebirth. It is
  said that the Buddha always has a human birth as his last existence after many
  lifetimes spent preparing to teach others. One sutta compares rebirth in a hell
  realm as entering into a pit of coals, that of a heaven realm to a stay in a luxurious
  mansion. The human realm, however, is like a man sitting in the shade of a
  tree in a hot climate, also the classic conditions for the practice of meditation
  (see M I 76–7).

Source: Buddhist Meditation: An anthology from the Pali canon, by Sarah Shaw

On reduced need of sleep for meditations

  Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

...

  Firstly, you will need less time for sleep.

The Discourse Summaries

Mental impurities inducing sleepiness:

  Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.

The Discourse Summaries

On involuntary action during sleep:

  Unconscious actions are, however, still regarded as morally motivated, but should be
  understood to differ from involuntary actions or reactions. Sue Hamilton, for example, discusses the
  possibility of involuntary reactions and how it is accounted for:

    I have suggested that if one is not conscious of a sound then one has not heard it. We
    can, however, sometimes react ―involuntarily‖ to a sound without being conscious of it: in sleep,
    for example, a loud sound can cause one to make a movement even if there is absolutely no consciousness
    of the sound at all. We also experience peripheral awareness which we do not seem to
    be conscious of. We regularly avoid obstacles in our path while our attention is wholly elsewhere,
    for example. Though such experiences of peripheral awareness might indicate the minimal level
    to which consciousness of, or awareness, operates, this question is not explicitly dealt with in the
    Sutta Piaka. Nor is the experience of involuntary reactions explained. This is a significant omission
    because involuntary reactions such as wet dreams became the subject of controversy in the
    early Buddhist sangha: if they are unconscious, do they constitute a volition with moral implications?

Source: The Unconscious

Though not in a Buddhist perspective this course also might be of some interest: Sleep: Neurobiology, Medicine, and Society


The single, one hour sit.  The other option is far inferior.  There's some apocryphal story going around...I think Ajahn Brahm might have talked about it.  Or maybe it was Thich Nhat Hanh.  Essentially, imagine yourself sitting beside a forest pool.  You sit there in stillness, quietly.  At first, there's a horde of mosquitoes buzzing and biting.  But yet you remain motionless.  Eventually, they get bored with you and fly off to trouble, I don't know, a water buffalo or something.  Yet you remain, still and quiet.  Next, some sort of song bird lands in the tree next to you.  At first, he was a little shy.  You came in making all this booming racket and you scared the bejesus out of him.  But now that you've been quiet, he lands nearby and starts singing his song.  After a time, he leaves.  Next, a deer comes and starts drinking at that forest pool.  Deer are skittish and there is no bloody way this animal would have gotten within 50 yards of you in the state you were in when you first arrived at the pool.  The damn thing could feel your agitated energy from across the forest.  But now, as you sit still and quiet, he barely notices your presence.  And now you wonder...what other creatures are still waiting in the forest, undiscovered, that might emerge as you continue to sit, still and quiet?

This actually works in the woods, by the way.  If you've ever gone hunting, there is a spectrum of creatures that you will see dependent on how much of a disturbance you're making.  Once you pick your spot and sit down, it takes about a half hour for animals to start ignoring you.  The same goes for meditation.  The first thirty minutes is just a warm up.  Nothing interesting happens during that time.  The next 30 minutes, productive things start to occur.  But really, it's not until you've sat for 90+ minutes that the real meditation happens.


Suffering due to non-self-related preconceived notions in Theravada

I tried to do some research on this, from the Pali Canon, so I will post an answer.

A person may have a preconceived notion like the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, only the heterosexual lifestyle is correct. Or, communism and socialism are wrong, only democracy with capitalism is correct. Or, the view that the government must improve public transportation instead of building more roads is correct, while the view that the government must build more roads instead of improving public transportation instead is wrong.

The Mahayana view in general is that these preconceived notions or views are unrelated to the self and cannot be solved using anatta. Instead, the Mahayana shunyata must be used. If one can see that the sexual orientation, or political ideology, or government policies are truly without inherent substance, then one can avoid clinging to them, and thus be free of suffering.

While this sounds logical at a first glance, if we analyze this from a Theravada perspective, it is actually analyzing the wrong root cause. In my opinion, all types of suffering must have something to do with the self, however obscure this connection is. Why would I feel aversion at a concept or idea if it doesn't have anything to do with ME? There is obviously a clinging and I am clinging to it. I suffer not because a political ideology is real or unreal. I suffer because I cling to it. It has something to do with ME. The problem is that all of a person's views are relative to one's self or associated for or against one's self.

The following quotes from Sutta Nipata 4.5:

  When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost
  thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so
  he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's
  seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he
  sees all else as inferior.

When one makes one view as correct, and all other views as incorrect, it's because he sees some advantage or something related to himself. There's a reason why he clings to it. For e.g. I may have other arguments why new roads should not be built, and instead public transportation must be improved. The real reason could be that I am afraid that if a new noisy highway is built next to my house, the property value of my house will drop. Hence, every argument that I have to support my view, has something to do with me.

For e.g. if I argue why Theravada is better than Mahayana, it may be because I associate myself with Theravada. If someone disparages Theravada, then I feel disparaged, because I assumed my self to be the mental fabrication.

So, this connection, may not be obvious. It may be obscure. But the connection of my view to my self definitely exists. And clinging of anything to the self, is related to one of the three types of craving.

Perhaps a person has strong views and scorn towards homosexuality, because he either feels it as challenging his own heterosexuality, or perhaps he is trying to hide his own closeted homosexuality. Or perhaps it conflicts with the teachings of the religion that he belongs to, or it conflicts with his father's teaching to him, which he clings to, because it comes from "my father". If it has nothing to do with him, then why would he be for or against it?

If news that trees in the Amazon rainforest got chopped down illegally in huge quantities reaches a person who stays in Russia, he might feel angry. Why? He may be a self-identified environmentalist who feels that nature and the environment belongs to him and his descendants, that his descendants are being deprived of their rightful inheritance. So, it has something to do with his self-interests.

A person disagrees with high taxation and good social welfare. Perhaps he works hard and makes a good income and does not want to share it with others. It's HIS income. Perhaps another person is poor and jobless, and would love to receive state help, so he publicly sides high taxation and good social welfare. It always has something to do with self-interests.

To be part of a religion or to be an environmentalist or to identify with a sexual orientation, sounds like craving of becoming. To enjoy sexual pleasures or state help in the form of food stamps, sounds like the craving of sensual pleasures. Craving leads to clinging. Clinging leads to becoming. These are part of dependent origination. Due to clinging, we may feel aversion when what we cling to is removed from us or is challenged.

  That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on
  which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent
  on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor
  should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or
  precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't
  think himself inferior or superlative.

  Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he
  doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge;
  doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back
  on any view whatsoever.

And so the Buddha tells that a monk should not become dependent on what is sensed, conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge and compare himself or his interests against it.

The idea of comparing views and ideas against himself or his interests is continued in Sutta Nipata 4.9:

  Whoever construes 'equal,' 'superior,' or 'inferior,' by that he'd
  dispute; whereas to one unaffected by these three, 'equal,'
  'superior,' do not occur. Of what would the brahman say 'true' or
  'false,' disputing with whom: he in whom 'equal,' 'unequal' are not.

From Sutta Nipata 4.13:

  "Those who, dwelling on views, dispute, saying, 'Only this is true':
  do they all incur blame, or also earn praise there?"

  "[The praise:] It's such a little thing, not at all appeasing. I speak
  of two fruits of dispute; and seeing this, you shouldn't dispute —
  seeing the state where there's no dispute as secure. One who knows
  doesn't get involved in whatever are commonplace conventional views.
  One who is uninvolved: when he's forming no preference for what's
  seen, for what's heard, why would he get involved?

Here, we see that one dwelling on views, saying "only this is true", is actually because he developed a preference to it. Preference indicates that he formed an association with himself i.e. he assumed his self to be a mental fabrication, that is related to his view, or aligned with his self-interests.

From MN 22:

  "What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as
  he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's
  Grove, would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is
  gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

  "No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do
  they belong to our self."

  "Even so, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go
  of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't
  yours? Form isn't yours... Feeling isn't yours... Perception...
  Thought fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your
  letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

If a view has nothing to do with ME, why would I suffer from it? If a person burns leaves in a garden, why would I suffer from it, if I did not feel like those leaves belonged to me some how?

So, we only suffer from thought fabrications, preconceived views and opinions, because we think they are our's, or because they support something that belongs to us, or is aligned to our self-interests. That they are associated with us. We have to let them go. We have to stop clinging to them. They are not associated with our self. That's the way to end suffering from them.

From MN 1:

  “Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has
  no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
  Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he
  conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he
  conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’
  he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
  it, I say.

  “Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
  completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
  earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
  conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
  does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
  to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
  has fully understood it, I say.

Here, earth is just an example. It can be any theme. Any theme is a mental fabrication. The sutta has many more such themes including unity and disunity, and things which are heard or seen or cognized. One should see the theme as-it-is. He should not form associations between his self and the theme.

In AN 10.96, Ananda knew this very well, when he said to another:

  "'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is
  worthless,' is a viewpoint. 'The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos
  is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the
  same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a
  Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After
  death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a
  Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything
  otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are
  viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views,
  the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know.
  That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I
  see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do
  see."

Ananda did take up any of those viewpoints. Instead he knows how one can become obsessed with them and how to remove those obsessions. He does not cling to those views. He does not associate his self with those views.

EDIT:

From Sutta Nipata 4.14:

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

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


How should I respond to people who fake suffering?

Your honesty was not compromised. And don't let your pride grow on you because of these incidents.

Money comes and go. If the money is yours it will eventually come back in any possible way. Be more careful/mindful next time too, of course.


How are/would newly discovered Suttas (and Sutras) be dealt with?

The Pali Sutta Pitaka has multiple editions including the Sri Lankan (PTS), Thai and Burmese (Sixth Council) editions.
Here, I list links to footnotes by the translator (Ven. Thanissaro) commenting on the differences between the three editions for various suttas - SN 42.10, Ud 5.9, Ud 8.6, Ud 3.2, Ud 2.7, Ud 4.8, Ud 1.5, Ud 8.7, Ud 6.10. These footnotes will give you some concrete examples.
The Pali Sutta Pitaka corresponds also to Sanskrit Agamas and the Chinese version of Sanskrit Agamas. There are also the alternative version of the Pali suttas in Sanskrit called sutras.
You can find a very good example in this answer comparing the Pali sutta SN 12.67 with the Sanskrit sutra SF 155 and Chinese Agama SA 288. There's also a scholarly commentary in that answer by Ven. Dr. Analayo.
On this university profile page for Ven. Dr. Analayo, you can find links to more of his scholarly writings, which should give you more examples.
I don't think any such differences are kept hidden from the public. In Buddhism, differences in phrasing is not important, as long as the meaning is unchanged, as evidenced by the following quote from MN 103.

‘The venerable ones agree about the meaning but differ about the
phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason
that there is agreement about the meaning but difference about the
phrasing. But the phrasing is a mere trifle. Let the venerable ones
not fall into a dispute over a mere trifle.’


Could meditation help with reducing memory and concentration problems? As with ADD or ADHD?

One of the problems you're going to find with answering this is that most published studies focus on short duration meditation -- 4 to 8 weeks and the like. I personally have an ADHD diagnosis (although I'm not convinced it's a real pathology), and an issue I've faced is that my ADHD (if that's what it is) is an obstacle to actually getting a practice underway for any length of time; i.e. for more than 4 to 8 weeks at a time. Therefore, if benefit is to be had, but it arises only in the longer term, then few if any of the studies would see it.

That said, there was some work done at UCLA, and a lead in that direction could be Lydia Zylowska. A few pubs are mentioned at the bottom of this page.