What are the things to do get large amount of merits?

It is a very important question. Accumulating merit.
If you can undo all your past wrong doings then that will accrue merit.
For example if you have lied in the past and now you have taken an oath to never lie again that brings merit.
If you have collected money by wrongful means and now if you decide to donate all your money then that brings merit.
If you have hurt someone and now you decide to help him by applying balm to his wounds both metaphorically and literally then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to be punished for your past misdeeds then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to self sacrifice for the benefit of mankind then that brings merit.
If you have decided to deeply love the ugliest creature on the planet then that brings merit.
If you have decided to look at all beings with deep love then that brings merit.
If you have decided to fulfil wishes of others then that brings merit.
If you have decided to surrender to Buddha or any other equally compassionate being then that brings merit.
If you have to decided to make others happy then that brings merit.
If you have decided to provide solutions to entangled beings then that brings merit.
If you have decided to face every situation with courage then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to follow the path of Truth then that brings merit.
If you have chosen to maintain integrity then that brings merit.


What is the meaning of the pali word "Viveko"?

According to this wisdomlib.org page, "viveka" in Pali means:

  viveka : (m.) detachment; seclusion.

  (Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

  Viveka, (fr. vi+vic) detachment, loneliness, separation, seclusion;
  “singleness” (of heart), discrimination (of thought) D. I, 37, 182;
  III, 222, 226, 283=S. IV, 191 (°ninna citta); S. I, 2, 194; IV, 365
  sq.; V, 6, 240 sq.; A. I, 53; III, 329; IV, 224; Vin. IV, 241; Sn.
  474, 772, 822, 851, 915, 1065; Nd1 158, 222; J. I, 79; III, 31; Dhs.
  160; Pug. 59, 68; Nett 16, 50; DhsA. 164, 166; ThA. 64; PvA. 43; Sdhp.
  471.—viveka is given as fivefold at Ps. II, 220 sq. and VbhA. 316, cp. K. S. I. 321 (Bdhgh on S. III, 2, 8), viz. tadaṅga°, vikkhambhana°,
  samuccheda° paṭippassaddhi°, nissaraṇa°; as threefold at Vism. 140,
  viz. kāya°, citta°, vikkhambhana°, i.e. physically, mentally,
  ethically; which division amounts to the same as that given at Nd1 26
  with kāya°, citta°, upadhi°, the latter equivalent to “nibbāna. ” Cp.
  on term Dial. I. 84. See also jhāna. Cp. pa°. (Page 638)

  (Source): Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

There is a sutta by this name, Viveka Sutta, or the sutta on seclusion.

According to Palikanon.com on viveka:

  viveka

  'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds:

  (1) bodily detachment (kāya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free
  from alluring sensuous objects;

  (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from
  sensuous things;

  (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka).

  In the description of the 1st absorption,

  the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kāmehi) refer,
  according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment';

  the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca
  akusalehi dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment';

  the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5
  hindrances.

This book excerpt discusses "viveka" and its different meanings in Pali and Sanskrit. It's too long to quote here.


single word for metta in English language

Mettā means Goodwill, goodwill (german: Wohlwollen, wish for wellbeing/aspiration for heal), wishing the best, is possible the best rendering for best path effects.

In such a way goodness is not binding but gives way and release, freedom.

Friend (mitta), german Freund, assosiated with Freud, joy, pleasure, heal: e.g. giving sukha, ease.

(Special Met[t]a-Note: Let my person add that the common used excuse "oh, it's difficult to translate" or "there is no similar word in engl.", people hear all to often, is also pointless in regard of metta. Metta in buddhist countries is a common used word and is used like the word love by people, right or wrong, depending on their understanding, context... And what sounds/signs/pixels/bits are used to try to express a certain experience, vision or idea: just one who knows, knows, by direct experians. Nothing can be really explained either by one or million words. Sometimes not even one word is required to understand. So watch out.

This just that one might be careful if hearing someone using the word love (generally: other words as used to), not to be preoccupied "wrong! He/she does not know". Listen further and try to see context and preoccupation in regard of a conventional level first. Wisdom is not found in forms of expression, whether in Pali, Sanskrit, English... signs, smells, taste, bodily touch, and again ideas.

Todays liberal and creative use of words might make it easier for wise but much more difficult for fools, not to speak about 'common sense' dictionaries and encyclopedias... Use "mojo" as translation if you wish (if you endless mojo is already killed), but don't lose it and take care of it "like a mother takes care of here only son". Worthy to read in regard of this: Methuna Sutta to find out where metta becomes really an attitude of Brahmacariya.)

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Can you actually focus on how birth leads to aging, death, suffering, stress as direct experience in dependent co-arising?

Dependent origination is the truth that the Buddha himself saw under the Bodhi tree at the moment of his enlightenment in the third watch of the night. This after recollecting countless past lives in the first watch and observing countless beings being born and passing away in the second watch. So yeah, it probably entails a lot of abstract thought about past and future.

This is controversial, though - many Buddhists would have you believe that DO is an entirely momentary teaching to be understood as referring to a single moment in time, rather than multiple lifetimes. This seems unwarranted given the context mentioned above.

So, if you want to become a Buddha, then full understanding of DO is essential. Unfortunately, it seems to come after (at least) four uncountable aeons plus 100,000 great aeons (great aeons being the smaller of the two types and perhaps equivalent to a big bang).

Ordinary individuals are not required to understand DO in its entirety, though it is useful as a framework for understanding reality intellectually. In terms of practice, it is enough to understand that all arisen phenomena are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. This removes any craving for arisen phenomena and frees one from ignorance, thereby severing the connection to becoming and birth.


Nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used?

According to my experience, there are two main meanings of the term "mind" in Buddhist context. It's important to understand those meanings, in order to avoid confusion and misconceptions.

First meaning is "mind in general", which means limitless space where all the reality manifests.

It's related to notions of Buddha-mind, Dharmakaya, Universal Mind, Consciousness.

There are many kinds of consciousnesses. In the philosophical Buddhist tradition of Chittamatra (or Cittamatra), which means "Consciousness Only", there are eight consciousnesses. (Some schools count few more or less).

These eight consciousnesses are:

The five primary - the consciousnesses of:

eye
ear
body
nose
tongue.

The sixth is the mental consciousness, which processes the data from the previous five. Our practice deals with this, the sixth consciousness. Sometimes it might be referred as "mind".

The seventh is manas. As I understand, it's like consciousness in post-freudian psychology: a part of the space centered on our personal perceptions.

The eight is alaya-vijnana, or Store Consciousness. I understand it as limitless ocean where our seventh consciousnesses floats like a crystal ball.

Alaya-vijnana stores our karmic seeds - imprints of past actions - kinetic energies of our intentions.

It is related to the notion of vijnana as the fifth group of phenomena (dharmas). (The fifth skandha).

Please don't feel overwhelmed with all these concepts. They are just pretty simple ways to describe our experiences. If you study them in practice, it all becomes not so complex.

Note that for the most part I spoke of consciousness rather than mind; I distinguish these terms.

So basically the first major meaning of "mind" is limitless space where dharmas appear.

Perhaps the most important and praised philosophical school of Buddhism, Madhyamaka ("Middle Way"), emphasizes emptiness of all phenomena, conditional nature of all notions and objects.

Even the mind - as that limitless space, or in any other meaning - is not really existent. (Though also not really non-existent).

In that sense, Buddhists speak of awakening as realization of No-Mind. As long as we cling to ideas of mind or self or whatever else, we rely on the level of ideas, production of the sixth consciousness, rather than the original reality.

Therefore, what is actual Buddha-mind? Nothing real. Not even that limitless space I mentioned before.

In awakening, we see all such things as mental generalizations, nothing more.

Now what is the second major meaning of "mind"?

When Zen teacher asks you, "What's your mind?" - what would you answer?

Maybe you would describe your experience you are living through, right now.

In that sense, "mind" is the experience now. It can be clouded, with vexations, or very clear and bright...

This meaning of "mind" relates somehow to the notion of consciousness from Twelve nidanas (links of dependent origination).

Consciousness from Twelve nidanas is depicted as monkey jumping among fruits on a tree. From one fruit to another. It's consciousness engaged in activities formed by samskaras (mental constructing).

Being limited by our mental creations, consciousness becomes entangled in samsara.

So liberation can be explained as dropping the limits of mental constructions, opening the mind to being unlimited, dropping even the notions of "mind" and "unlimited" and "awakening" and "liberation".

I'm not sure I answered the question completely - as you see, I have no idea what they meant by "nine meanings of the term mind".

Theories are endless. I hope I pointed at some key ideas which can help you in the practice.

Use the mind well, and through practice of exploration you will always find some useful understanding, eventually helping all beings in liberation.


Tibetan lineage teachers usually say, meditation should be like spending time with a best friend. You meet joyfully, you spend time effortlessly, and you separate easily, knowing you can't lose each other and will meet again soon.

Don't try to squeeze too much value out of that meeting, because you don't want to burden your friendship and turn it into a job.

When you turn meditation into a job your mind will secretly hate it. Instead, turn it into a vacation from all neuroses.


Having difficulty logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming

The Pali suttas define three types of 'becoming', as follows:

  And what is becoming? There are three kinds of becoming: sensual becoming, fine-material becoming & immaterial becoming. This is called
  becoming. ~ SN 12.2 ~

In AN 3.76, ‘becoming’ (bhava) is defined  as the mind "established" in a sense object:

  “the consciousness of beings (sattānaṃ), hindered by ignorance and bound by craving, that is established (patiṭṭhitaṃ) in the sensuality,
  materiality or immateriality element/sphere”

Therefore, these three types of becoming simply reflect the levels of sustained & continued attachment to: (i) the physical body and its sensations; (ii) attachment to fine-material states of meditative absorption (rupa jhana); and (iii) attachment to the immaterial states of meditative absorption (arupa jhana).

For example, the mind of a man sees (has sense contact with) a certain woman (sense object) and due to pleasant feelings & craving/lust towards the woman, the male mind gets stuck on or "picks up"/"carries" the sense object in his mind & starts thinking about the woman. This beginning to be mentally pre-occupied with the woman is attachment or grasping (upadana). The male mind then becomes fixated or obsessed with the woman, falling in love, thinking about the woman all the time & dreaming about how they will live romantically forever. This continued establishing & transforming of the mind in relation to the sense object is "becoming". Then the man & woman have a marriage ceremony and the man "becomes" the woman's husband and the woman "becomes" the man's wife. The marriage ceremony is "becoming" and the finality of actually being a "husband" or being a "wife" is called "birth" ("jati").

"Jati" ("birth") is defined as the mental creation of the ideas or social conventions of "beings" & the "various orders of beings", such as "man", "woman", "husband", "wife", "lawyer", "doctor", "me", "you" etc.

Therefore, in summary, 'becoming' is just the continuation of 'attachment', however more intensely, to the point that the mind 'transforms' itself into something different to what is was previously.


If no sentient being exists, for whom is there compassion? 'A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Santideva

First, you have to keep in mind that Shantideva's work is versified. This implies that it is not always technically accurate, because words are missing for the sake of poetry. For instance, we will read "sentient beings do not exist" as "sentient beings do not exist inherently" implying "but they do exist conventionally." What does not exist is a mode of existence.

Second, Shantideva was a Prasangika. This is his view of emptiness that neither persons nor phenomena exist inherently. They do exist conventionally. Prasangika also posit that conventional valid cognizers in the continuum of ordinary beings are valid with regard to the entity of the thing, but mistaken with regard to the mode of existence of said things. This all helps you understand that we do not negate conventions.

Third, Gyaltsab Je wrote a Prasangika commentary to Shantideva. He explains verse 9.75 as follows:

  Gyaltsab Je: Realist: If there is absolutely no inherently existing
  person, then, as there is no focal object for compassion, for whom
  should one practice meditation on compassion? Madhyamaka: If there is
  no inherently existing person, then it follows there is no such fault
  that the focal object of compassion is non-existent, because that
  nominally existing sentient being, labelled by mental darkness, which
  is accepted for the purpose of achieving the result of liberation, is
  valid to be the focal object of compassion.

While part of his commentary on verse 9.76 says:

  The opponent says that if sentient beings do not exist inherently they
  do not exist at all. The question is that if sentient beings do not
  exist, who would experience the result of meditation on compassion
  that is buddhahood? It is clear that the object of observation as well
  as the result of the meditation on compassion do not exist truly, but
  the problem as posited by the opponent does not exist for us, in that
  sentient beings still exist conventionally, and therefore
  conventionally it makes sense to meditate on compassion.

Now, to answer your questions more directly:

1) Sentient beings do not exist
They do not exist inherently (or truly), they do exist conventionally. A valid eye consciousness apprehending a person is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. Compassion towards a person is valid with regard to the entity of the thing as well. Compassion towards a unicorn, however, is not.

2)For one to be compassionate he has to be deluded to believe that sentient beings exist.
No. For one to be compassionate, he has to have some sort of insight into the four noble truths. Also, he who believes that sentient beings are utterly non-existent is deluded. So is he who believes they exist inherently (which is the whole topic here).

3)Compassion itself is a delusion
It is not, because a delusion is never valid with regard to the entity of the thing. For instance, anger does not engage its object correctly. The object [of engagement] of anger is as non-existent as a unicorn. In addition, delusions take away the peace of the mind (it's their definition) and superimpose.

4)One should remain deluded to alleviate the nonexisting suffering of nonexisting sentient beings.
This is not the case, since the conventionally existent buddhas do alleviate the conventionally existing suffering of conventionally existent sentient beings.

Non-versified books you can read on the topic are:

1. Commentary on Shantiva

Gyaltsab Dharma Rinchen, The Entrance for the Children of the Conquerors, A Commentary on Shantideva’s Introduction to the Actions of Bodhisattvas

2. Madhyamika

Elizabeth Napper, Dependent‑Arising and Emptiness

3. Special Insight

Je Tsongkhapa, Lam Rim Chen Mo, Volume 3, Part 2
Je Tsongkhapa, Middle Length Lam Rim, Chapter Five
Guy Newland, Introduction to Emptiness
Guy Newland, The two truths
Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom
Khedrup Je - A Dose of Emptiness


That would be yab-yum.  I think the wikipedia entry will more than answer your question.  You can find that here.  The one thing the entry only hints at, however, is that this is an actual practice in Tibetan Tantra.  In fact, it's generally what comes to mind, for a popular audience anyway, when the word "tantra" is used.  I think it's an exercise in futility to try and justify this practice according to Theravada or Mahayana ethics.  Within a tantric context, it just is what it is.


Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?

is there any difference between 32 phy.characteristics and 32 physical marks. there are many hindrance to be encountered ,out of which one is doubt .a slightest of it can ruin our walking on the path.  a little effort to clear the same is as follows----the answer has arisen after giving a slight thought upon and is not backed by any reference pl. The physical characteristics when asked upon by subhuti, buddha replies that they are impermanent and cannot be treated as lighthouse to know buddha. here he may mean about the nature ,traits,habits of person . in the other instance when subhuti asks about physical marks buddha says yes. here may mean that a person who is going to become a enlightened buddha has some physical marks on the body sya a lotus mark on toes, high forehead,hands reaching  below the knees etc.i don't know them exactly how many and what they are really. but a slight surfing will fetch inf of the same. the point to be searched as physical marks on a reincarnated soul(avatar), enlightened yogi "s physical body.answer may put forth a slight light to clear your doubt.


How do we help people who have wrong views?

Before proceeding further, we should note that miracles should not play any role in convincing intelligent and rational people. Devadatta, the monk who tried to injure the Buddha and cause a schism in the monastic order, was reportedly able to perform miraculous feats. Buddhism does not teach that miracles are any kind of proof of correctness or enlightenment.

When you see people around you, you may think some of them hold wrong views and some of them hold right views, and you want to help them.

Of the people whom you think hold wrong views, I think we should separate them into two categories.

The first category are people who act in obviously unvirtuous ways, causing harm to themselves and others. For e.g. people who kill sentient beings, intentionally harm others, steal from others, deceive others etc. These are people who need urgent help, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.

If these people are close to you, like your friends or family members, you can try to help them. After all, sharing of Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) is considered the greatest type of sharing according to Itivuttaka 100.

You could gently influence them to think in this way (according to AN 5.57):

  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

The second category would be those who you think do not understand the teachings of the Buddha, as well as you do. I think we should tread carefully on this, because it might lead to some Buddhists pointing fingers at other Buddhists, creating a culture of accusing others of heresy and having hostile debates, as we have seen even right here on Buddhism.SE.

According to MN 28, to understand dependent origination, is to understand the Dhamma fully. Also see this answer.

According to DN 15:

  There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's
  astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its
  appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."

  [The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this
  dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not
  understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is
  like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and
  reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of
  deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Dependent origination or dependent co-arising is not a simple topic and many people who think they understand it, may not fully understand it. Without understanding dependent origination completely, it may not be possible to have complete and unblemished Right View.

But to gain a complete understanding of dependent origination and the Dhamma is a long journey that involves studying the Dhamma, practising the Dhamma and gaining insight into the nature of things. An afternoon of reading or discussion may not be sufficient.

With regards to the topic of rebirth, you can direct others to read the essays "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and "Rebirth" and "Does Rebirth Make Sense?" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think they are clear enough. Also this answer on Buddhism.SE is pretty concise and accurate.


How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta?

There's no cutting corners nor shortcuts in Theravada. SN 5.10 speaks the truth. But to actually attain direct knowledge to this truth as opposed to mere conceptual understanding, one has to perfect the Gradual trainings of Sila-Samadhi-Panna, which Ven. Bodhi did a great job of explaining in his "Noble Eightfold Path". And to each aspect of the gradual trainings, there are many different suttas one'd need to read, study, contemplate, and put into practice (ie: for Sila: AN 8.39-43, 3.70, Sn 2.4, SN 3.5; for Samadhi: Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta; for Panna: MN 43, AN 8.2, AN 3.73, AN 7.6, and many more as detailed in Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words"). There're no shortage of teachers in the world who can eloquently speak at great length about all the ins and outs of anatta/shunyata and stuff. But when facing some young voluptuous beautiful women, some title, some power, some cash, etc. then the number start dropping like flies! Why? Because they're the experts of Anatta who fail the basics of Sila-Samadhi-Panna.


How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it?

The Visuddhimmagga defines upacāra samadhi in IV 32-34:

  Now concentration is of two kinds [access and absorption]. [...] The difference between the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. [...] just as when a young child is lifted up and stood on its feet , it repeatedly falls down on the ground. [...] The arousing of the counterpart sign, which arises together with access concentration, is very difficult.

The process of concentration as described in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (IX 17, 18):

  When that sign has been throughly aprehended and enters into range of the mind door just as if it were seen by the eye, then it is called the learning sign, and that meditation becomes concentrated. When one is thus concentrated, one then applies oneself to meditation by means of that preliminary [parikamma] concentration  based on the learning sign. As one does so, an object which is the counterpart of that (learning sign) becomes well established and fixed in the mind -- (an object) which is freed of the flaws of the original object, reckoned as a concept, born of meditation. Then it is said that the counterpart sign has arisen.

  Thereafter, access [upacāra] development is accomplished, consisting in concentration of the sense sphere in which the obstacles have been abandoned.

Fast forward to our current century:

  Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of jhāna factors. [...] It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator's continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and "bright". [...] In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna.

  -- Stephen Snyder & Tina Rasmussen (Practicing the Jhānas)

or more broadly speaking:

  The Buddhist tradition has introduced the term upacāra samadhi [...] to refer to a non absorptive experience of concentration that begins with the arising of the counterpart sign and endures until consciousness enters into full absorption. Upacāra samadhi implies concentration that is in the vicinity of jhāna [...] and describes the experiences that precede absorption, but it does not necessarily leads to jhāna. It may refer to the conditions that precede jhāna; it may refer to experiences that are reminiscent of first jhāna mental factors, but without the seclusion of absorption; and it may describe the mature concentration that accompanies those meditation objects (such as discernment of the body parts, and various recollections) that do not have the potential to reach full absorption. [...] Some meditators use the term upacāra samādhi so loosely that it merely describes the feeling of being concentrated and a mind that is stable and happy during meditation.

  -- Shaila Catherine (Wisdom Wide and Deep)


Effectiveness of Body Contemplation (Asubha Bhavana)

I didn't practise it for a 'longer' time, but I did practise it, it didn't worked because contempletion needs active memory and we really don't have memories of revulsive aspects of bodies.

Then I changed the way, I switched to looking in real world. Following are the things I saw...

Meet old people be aware of their bodies, facial features especially, pay attention to the wrinkled skin, stinky weak teeth, bad eye sight, feel the repulsiveness.
If you ever happen to be in India visit the place called Varanasi, its the dead body burning ghat for the hindus. Not only they burn it they also just throw it in river to rot, if they are poor. There are also half burned bodies all over. See that sight.
Try and attend a stomach surgery or a post mortem at a hospital.

I think this will take you too far with the body contempletion meditation.

And if nothing works contemplate on this story of buddha.


Are there any unique or special versions of meththa meditation?

There's the Ahina Sutta: By a Snake, which includes (I won't quote it all),

  I have good will for footless beings,
      good will for two-footed beings,
      good will for four-footed beings,
      good will for many-footed beings.

It's previously mentioned in this answer, which quotes a note that says, "This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use".


Is is better to search for the stages of insight while meditating or to allow them to arise "naturally"?

Aware of stage - If you develop craving to move to the next stage this will make excessive Effort and Striving, which isn't balanced by Focus and Concentration, which will lead to Restlessness and Worry.
Unaware of stage - You might not know what is happening. Also you may not know what to do next.

So best is to balance both. Occasionally look into the stage you are, but not frequently. Perhaps once a month review would be OK.

NB: any stage of Insight Meditation happens naturally. You cannot force it. Trying to force if you will not reach the insight you are trying to achieve.


Does the Buddhist text Alankarabuddhi still exist?

This may be a "lost in translation" issue. The term "alankar" usually refers to an instrument or ornament. It also refers to a ritual of rhythmic clapping in Tala. Since the Sutras are traditionally recited in rhythm, this might just be a reference to this practice of reciting the teachings. A modern-day equivalent would be "rap", referring to both the rhythm and the actual text.


How does Buddhism reconcile evolution with reincarnation?

It's important to keep in mind the true pupose of a reincarnated Teacher: "As long as sentient being remain, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world". If there was no one left, then the teacher's job would've been completed and there would be no further need to come back to this world. From a bigger cosmos perspective, there're uncountable other places for sentient existence, so if our planet will no longer be habitable to sentient beings in the future, a great teacher will just simply move on to other places to dispel the miseries of those "other worlds".


What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?

It's a "false dichotomy" to ask, "Is it this or that?" -- because it's both: they're related.

Given the "three poisons" (ignorance, desire, and aversion) I think that ignorance is described as the "root" of the other two -- it's because of ignorance that there's desire.

The word "ignorance" has a range of meanings: What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)?

I think that the four noble truths talk about the cessation of craving; and that the doctrine of the twelve nidanas say that craving is conditioned by sensation -- that it's caused or fuelled by e.g. "delighting" in pleasant sensations, aversion to unpleasant sensations, ignorance during neutral sensations.

So instead there should be "just seeing" and so on.

Another (more complicated) answer is that it's caused by habits or habitual tendencies, different kinds of desires and ignorance and wrong views: see for example What is effluent?

--

A more literal answer, I read that the 12 nidanas can be divided into groups:

Causal process of previous life:

Ignorance
Sankharas

Process of effect in the present life:

Consciousness
Name-and-form
Six sense-bases
Contact
Feeling/sensation

Causal process in the present life

Greed
Appropriation
Becoming

Process of effect of future life:

Birth
Death

According to that model it's the link between 7 and 8 which you can affect, i.e. that where it's possible to "stop the wheel" -- because that's the part of it which happens in the present.


You wrote, "just try to create some interests here and prepare to answer if someone challenges this" -- so I assume this is like your previous question, where you're looking for how to answer if a skeptical evangelical challenges the belief as being incredible.
Incidentally I asked a similar question about "rebirth" -- Is rebirth a delusional belief? -- not because the doctrine of rebirth is necessarily the first or most important thing to know about Buddhist doctrine, but because I thought it was one of the most famous aspects and difficult to understand, and so a reason why people might reject or not investigate the whole doctrine.
Anyway if you are asked about miracles, one way to answer might be by referencing the Kevatta or Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11).
First read for yourself the text of that sutta.
Then maybe read this answer which says, "most Buddhists [...] believe in the miracles mentioned in the scriptures literally" -- I think that the author (Sankha Kulathantille) saying "most Buddhists" means "in Sri Lanka" for example.
I think that (i.e. literally") is certainly one way to understand the sutta.
But perhaps also read what Piya Tan writes about DN 11 here (Piya Tan is a former monk, from Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand).

This discourse belongs to a rare category of religious literature: religious humour,
of which it is
one of the finest examples. Its import is nonetheless serious in terms of reflecting the true nature of
religion and of spiritual development. The discourse clearly does not advocate any feeling of awe towards
an inexplicably mysterious universe [etc]

There's a partial answer to your question in part 3:

3. The Buddhist attitude to miracles
3.1 MIRACLES ARE NOT A MARK OF SPIRITUALITY. Midway through the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha expresses to Kevaḍḍha his disapproval of miracles or psychic wonders (pāṭihāriya), especially the
wonder of miraculos power (iddhi,pāṭihāriya) [§§4-5] and of mind-reading (ādesana,pāṭihāriya) [§§6-7].
In fact, the Buddha disapproves of them in the strongest terms, using the well known stock phrase or formula, “I am troubled, ashamed, disgusted” (aṭṭiyāmi harāyāmi jigucchāmi).
Apparently, this is the
only time in the Suttas that we find the Buddha doing so in these words.
However, the Vinaya, too, records his unequivocal disapproval of such a display, in the story of Piṇḍola Bhāra,dvāja.
In the Kevaḍḍha Sutta, the Buddha first defines the miracle [§§4, 6], and goes on to mention the reaction of one with faith and one without faith regarding it. The one who has faith in the miracle speaks of
it to an unbeliever, who is unimpressed, claiming that in the case of the wonder of miraculous power (or
thaumaturgy), he knows of the Gandhāri charm [§5], and in the case of mind-reading, he knows of the
Manika charm [§7].
In a contemporary or a futuristic scenario, this can be explained in this way. The unbeliever sees no
special merit in the talk of psychic power because it could be done with, say, holographic images, airplanes, antigravity devices, etc; nor any the merit in the talk of mind-reading because this could be done
by a mind-imaging machine. Or, as Luis O Gomez puts it: “they are not the exclusive property of the
enlightened, or other people could come into possession of these powers by other means, such as the
magical arts of Gandhāra (gandhārī nāma vijjā)” (1977:221). It should be added that, as pointed out in
the Susīma Sutta (S 12.70), there are also arhats who do not possess any psychic power,
and that their
spiritual status is in no way inferior to any other arhat.

I realise this doesn't exactly answer your question -- but I think it's a canonical answer, i.e. it's what the canon says about the topic, i.e. that it's like of the wrong question to be asking, the wrong topic to be interested in when you're asking about Buddhism.
Piya Tan's article then goes on, to say what a miracle is (i.e. how it's defined in the sutta), and to say what the Vinaya says about them.
It may be incidentally that your Christian evangelical friends seem to show a "black and white" kind of thinking, e.g. "either you believe or you don't", or, "either it's the work of God or the work of the Devil". Personally I suppose that "believing in miracles" is a kind of an "extreme", and "not believing in miracles" is another extreme -- Buddhism often offers a "middle way" between extremes, avoid either extreme, so maybe both of these two extremes aren't exactly right. By the same token though I don't want to say someone is wrong for believing or for not believing.
Similarly I think that "interpreting every sutta literally" might be a bit of an extreme (and "not believing what the suttas says" another kind of extreme). It seems to me that some suttas -- for example DN 27 -- is pretty clearly something I'm inclined to recognise as a parable or allegory.
You might find it informative to read the answers to this topic too -- Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?


Recently started mediation,on my own,had a weird sensation

All kinds of weird experiences arise in meditation. If you react with craving or aversion then you are regressing in your meditation. Be progressive by giving it not importance and experiencing the vibrating sensation and the impermanent or arsing and passing nature of the experience.


I saw a cat killing a mouse. Could have stopped it, but didn't

"Chethanaham Bikkhawe Kammam Wadami" - volition is Karma

Did you not prevent it because mice are usually an annoyance and 1 less mouse makes your life better? If so, it's bad Karma. Later you may make up an excuse like "not wanting to interfere with nature". But what matters is the intention at the time.  If you were wishing for the mouse to escape, it is good Karma. If you actually saved the mouse, it's more good Karma. If you were neutral based on Upekkha(contemplating on Karma and Vipaka), it's good Karma. If you were neutral based on indifference born of ignorance, it is bad Karma.


I've seen meditators of many different schools talking about the importance of not walking away from a "bad" sitting. All books I've read reflect this commitment. All monks I've heard too. Conversely, I never heard or read a single meditator to take this issue lightly as in "well, if you are not much up to it, sure, maybe some other day".

There are certainly a number of reasons for abandoning a specific practice. A big one, is that we might be doing it in some improper way, or in a way that increases unwholesome states, hindrances and/or decreases faculties associated to meditation.

  "As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I considered thus: 'Excessive meditation upon forms arose in me, and because of excessive meditation upon forms my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt, nor inattention, ..., nor perception of diversity, nor excessive meditation upon forms will arise in me again."

  -- MN 128 (Bodhi Trans.)

On a personal note, this is how I worked with this issue: if I identify the unwillingness to meditate as a hindrance, I do not make concession. Otherwise, I stop, or do not meditate  -- at least formally, sitting. (I'll make an adendum to this at the end of the post).

For example, in an individual sitting, if it's just hard, I'm in discomfort, or I wish to be doing something else, I make all the effort necessary to continue until my clock tells me to get up.

If I'm in "unbearable" pain, I stop -- I had to discover what is "unbearable" pain for myself, so today I'm roughly aware of how much I can push making progress (and without turning the meditation into a nightmare; been there, done that, a lot!).

Similarly, if I start a meditation carelessly and then feel very hungry, I prefer to stop, have my lunch and then do a proper sitting -- no need for unnecessary suffering. But only as long as this is the real reason, and not a hindrance. I remember a few times when I had to interrupt a sitting, but two reasons compelled me to do so simultaneously. One was very reasonable, the other was a hindrance. At one time, I only interrupted once the hindrance subsided. Another time, I wasn't able to do so, and I got up. And I could tell I got up because of the hindrance, not because of the counterpart. I blamed my inattentive mind and this compelled me to be more careful and practice more.

I've observed that this -- not giving to hindrances -- is extremely important for two reasons:

Giving away to hindrances may hurt future sittings considerably.

Personally, I know all I need is one single "walk away" followed by some half-baked excuse in my mind to make the future sittings much harder -- as it will be much easier to stop.
The difficult sittings (the ones in discomfort, with a strained, confused, non-concentrated and noisy mind, in "non-ideal" places or circumstances, etc), may be instrumental for upcoming progress.

I've personally had experiences with periods (days, months) of meditation that seemed like walking in the desert, going nowhere, and individual sittings that felt just terrible, but were so very important.

Years later, I noticed the "desert" was due to me not knowing some basics of meditation (for instance, what to do with hindrances...as a zen trainee, unfortunately, I was never introduced to these basic concepts and what to do about them). In other words, I'd say I was unskillful.

But when skills are in place, that's the whole point of meditating when hindrances are present, however strong: we're supposed to master them. And, I guess, that is what makes these difficult sittings feel so special; when we sit again later and it's....something else entirely.

So, I think once one develops, for example, some minimum skills with hindrances and is able to roughly replicate a "deeper state", these terrible sittings are seen just like the first week at the gym: a warm up (or simply actual work: even though we are displeased, muscles grow stronger -- I've observed the same happening with mind). Provided one is exercising correctly, otherwise it is just painful and possibly damaging.

So, revising (and concluding) from what I stated earlier: I would continue the sittings if (a) I'm seduced to not meditate because of a hindrance; and (b) this is the n-th sitting (for some small n, like 4) that is not good / without progress; otherwise it probably means I'm doing something wrong, and I better figure that out, perhaps, by other means, like studying.


Total number of beings in the entire space as we know is constant? Increases? Decreases?

In DN 9, the Buddha advised not to speculate on certain types of questions:

“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that the cosmos is not eternal, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“Then is it the case that 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 exists & does not exist … after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless?”
“Potthapada, I haven’t expounded that after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist, that only this is true and anything otherwise is worthless.”
“But why hasn’t the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are not conducive to the goal, are not conducive to the Dhamma, are not basic to the holy life. They don’t lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I haven’t expounded them.”
“And what has the Blessed One expounded?”
“I have expounded that, ‘This is stress’ … ‘This is the origination of stress’ … ‘This is the cessation of stress’ … ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’
“And why has the Blessed One expounded these things?”
“Because they are conducive to the goal, conducive to the Dhamma, and basic to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That’s why I have expounded them.”


Is there any benefit in abstaining from listening songs?

If you stop listening to songs, eventualy the odds of fragments of song poping in the mind would shrink, but is that realy what you are looking for ?

A better way to approach this would be to let go of the aversion you feel toward having songs beeing replayed in your mind.

When it occurs, do as you do with any other distraction or thought. Watch is appear and disappear by itself, watch for any sensation or thought that may arise because of it.

Even if you decide not to listen to music anymore, you will be exposed to it against your will from time to time, so you can't really count on "dropping the listening habit" strategy alone.

Please also consider that one can listen to music in order to feel sensual pleasure, which is unskillful, but also to engage with a particular art form which won't prevent your spiritual growth at all. See this question Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist.

Music can increase one's motivation in his spiritual developement, by giving access to particular emotions one would have never felt otherwise.

Just a few examples on the top of my head :
If you are on a bad day, listening to a particular song could uplift your mind and give you the motivation to sit and meditate.
If you have trouble feeling goodwill towards other human beeings, try listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Also 5th symfony can easely be interpreted by the story of a person who gradually overcomes his bad kamma. 6th symphony is about joy associated with nature. And so on.

As with any other actions, you should contemplate the effects of listening to music. With time you will build up discernement, and avoid situations when listening to music is unskillful.
Be good to yourself and don't beat yourself over it unnecessarily. When you see clearly the drawbacks of music, things will resolve quite naturally.


Every life form is born in the world due to craving. Within life forms, there are seeds, such as sperm cells, which are propelled by craving. Parents of children engage in sexual intercourse & reproduce new life propelled by craving. New born children are born with craving to eat, craving to be safe, craving for love, craving for pleasure, etc. The mind wanders due to craving. This 'wandering' is called 'samsara'.


What is the Buddhist Perspective on Dreaming?

According to the Milindapañha there are six causes of dreams:

vātiko supinaṃ passati - one with winds sees a dream
pittiko supinaṃ - one with bile sees a dream
semhiko supinaṃ passati - one with phlegm sees a dream
devatūpasaṃhārato supinaṃ passati - one possessed by a devata sees a dream
samudāciṇṇato supinaṃ passati - I don't know what this one means, maybe something to do with memories?
pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati - one sees a dream as a prophetic vision

  tatra, mahārāja, yaṃ pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati, taṃ yeva saccaṃ, avasesaṃ micchā”ti.

Of these six, only the last type is true, the rest are false.

I think it is possible that possession by a devata could lead to dreams containing truth, but it is just as likely to be misleading. How would you know if your were being deceived? Much better to rely on waking experience. Nagasena says mostly dreams occur when one is kapiniddāpareta - afflicted with monkey sleep.

Source: milindapañha, anumānapañho, vessantaravaggo, supinapañho


What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti?

The answer to this question is found in AN 9.36, as follows:

  Iti kho, bhikkhave, yāvatā saññāsamāpatti tāvatā aññāpaṭivedho.

  And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as
  attainments with perception.

  But the two dimensions that depend on these — the dimension of neither
  perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and
  feeling (saññāvedayitanirodho) —are properly explained by mendicants
  who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from
  them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.

Saññāsamāpatti is attainement with perception and nirodhosamāpatti is attainment without perception.

Therefore, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4h, 5th, 6th & 7th jhana and vipassana resulting in the destruction of the fermentations/taints (asava) & the experience of Nibbana are examples of saññāsamāpatti, as described in MN 111.

  There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality,
  secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed
  thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana
  — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind,
  contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire,
  decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he
  ferreted them out one after another.

  Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended.


The guiding principles of an ideal king it to follow is the Dasavidha-rājadhamma

Dāna (charity) — being prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the public, such as giving away one's belongings or other things to support or assist others, including giving knowledge and serving public interests.

Sīla (morality) — practicing physical and mental morals, and being a good example of others.

Pariccāga (altruism), being generous and avoiding selfishness, practicing altruism.

Ājjava (honesty) — being honest and sincere towards others, performing one's duties with loyalty and sincerity to others.

Maddava (gentleness) — having gentle temperament, avoiding arrogance and never defaming others.

Tapa (self controlling) — destroying passion and performing duties without indolence.

Akkodha (non-anger) — being free from hatred and remaining calm in the midst of confusion.

Avihimsa (non-violence) — exercising non-violence, not being vengeful.

Khanti (forbearance) — practicing patience, and trembling to serve public interests.

Avirodhana (uprightness) — respecting opinions of other persons, avoiding prejudice and promoting public peace and order.

King Asoka incorporated this into his rule and perhaps some other monarchs historically.
Sri Lankan constitution does gives the following provision.

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the
foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State
to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all
religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA (As amended up to 15th May 2015) Revised Edition – 2015
Thai Monarchy seem to have it engrained:

Thai concepts of monarchy have their origins in Sukhothai, founded in the early part of the 13th century and generally regarded as the first truly independent Thai kingdom. Here, particularly under the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng the Great (1275-1317), was born the ideal of a paternalistic ruler alert to the needs of his people and aware of the fact that his duty was to guide them. Such forms part of Dasavidha-rājadhamma, or the ten precepts of kingship, which – rooted in the tradition of Theravada Buddhism – encompasses such virtues as willingness to give and sacrifice for a greater good, morality, honesty, open-mindedness, diligence, compassion, perseverance and righteousness.

Thai Monarchy
But not sure the Dasavidha-rājadhamma is directly found in the constitution or any legislature any of the modern day Buddhist countries. At least it is not the case in Sri Lanka. Mainly because the constitution and legislature is modeled what was inherited from the British rule and constitutions and legislation of other countries.


How to deal with people and handle rude language?

In Kakacupama Sutta, the Buddha says:

"Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate.
In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
[...]
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words [...]' That's how you should train yourselves.
-- Kakacupama Sutta, MN 21

An addendum to this would be when the authors of rude language and idle talk or gossip are buddhist themselves committed to the practice. In that case, with the above in mind, one may, at his/her discretion, chose to bring their attention to this, so as to help them steer back to their practice. Of course, one certainly may chose to intervene in the case of non-buddhists, but since they may not be committed to not perform these kinds of speech, raising the matter can make things worse -- that's when taking responsibility for being timely and beneficial applies specially to ourselves, specifically:

Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech; he speaks truth, adheres to truth, is trustworthy and reliable, one who is no deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from those; thus, he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices on concord, delights on concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and lovable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable by many. Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma, and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.
-- Culahatthipadopama Sutta, MN 27 (Nanamoli/Bodhi)

In the case of monks engaging in these acts, there may be something specific in the Vinaya, the collection of monastic rules, about how to handle these situations.


Have any Buddhist thinkers responded to the critique of the Brahma Sutras?

I think Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the work you are looking for. Just like Brahma-sutras does not mention specific Buddhist sutras it debates with, Mulamadhyamakakarika does not mention Brahma-sutras, but it does methodically address the same points.

As ancient texts go, Mulamadhyamakakarika is way too obscure to be brought in here and contrasted point by point, luckily the details of the polemics between the two commentary traditions are surveyed in the book you mentioned, a modern (1980s) work "An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism". The author concludes (emphasis mine):

  In this work, an attempt has been made to compare the interpretations by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva of those sutras of the Vedantic texts, the Brahma-sutra, devoted to a refutation of Buddhism. An attempt has also been made to compare the interpretation by each Vedantic commentator of a particular Buddhist school's position with the actual Buddhist school's position as set forth in its own texts. It has been discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out of ignorance or deliberate intent, and that the Vedantic commentators proceeded to build their refutations of Buddhism on the basis of incorrect assumptions. It may have been the case that other matters were of more pressing concerns to the Vedantic commentators than the refutation of Buddhism. [...] In any case, however, it may be concluded that Buddhist positions have not been portrayed correctly in the Vedantic commentaries to the Brahma-sutra.

Another work that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta". Instead of debating with Brahma-sutras it addresses Swami Vivekananda's claim that Buddhism was an offshoot of Vedanta. Although it does not directly address your question, the essay is very informative if you are interested in comparative studies:

  In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism has formulated positively. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common cultural matrix and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. Even though they share certain concepts like karma and re-incarnation, their interpretations differ. Hindu concepts of karma and reincarnation tend to be rather linear, whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada. [...] However, all similarities to Hinduism end there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is by no means a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad, Samkara and Vidhyaranya groups.


Difficulty in realizing and actualizing precepts

It's not easy to actualize the high Buddhist ideals in the turbulent waters of everyday living. Three things can help:

It helps to have a very clear understanding what the Buddhist concepts like "right-intention" etc. really refer to. Often the canonical definitions don't provide enough details to latch on in immediate experience. This is where a live teacher can help, or ask specific questions here on Q&A: "how does the right-intention manifest in real-life practice? what are the typical challenges and are there any techniques for overcoming them?". It is said that the most difficult problem in Buddhism is to get the sense of immediacy, and once you got that -- Enlightenment is within reach.
As Shrawaka correctly pointed out, you can't expect to skip from your current karmic situation to a perfect karmic situation - with no intermediate steps. As my first teacher explained, karma exhibits inertia, it is very inertial. So you need to start seeding better karmic seeds now, and patiently hold on until the situation will change. If you seed better seeds more or less consistently over a long time - the external situation will change, I promise -- as I was promised to, back in the day.
As my last teacher said, many of our precept breaches / behavior problems (losing temper or giving in to obsession or panicking etc.) come from not staying inside our bodies (losing what's traditionally called kayagata-sati - "mindfulness of the body"). In simple words, when something non-trivial happens we very often "fly over" from our body to a place "over there" -- that being either the other person's perspective or some imaginary point in abstract space. This somatic disconnect is the first step in the chain of events leading to a loss of control to kleshas (blinding affects). Instead, we should train to retain the sense of our bodies, phenomenologicaly always being "inside" our body (leaving aside the philosophical implications) - esp. continuously staying in touch with our lower abdomen, but also feet and face.


On the one hand, there is logic which is a set of rules for making deductions, inductions, etc. Even in the West, there are various. For instance, (1) classical logic and (2) intuitionistic logic. I believe that they have different ways of dealing with the law of excluded middle. I used to study more philosophy of logic than logic itself, and there are great differences in that respect between formal and intuitionistic.

In Buddhism, when logic is applied, there is no "set of rules for making deductions" that is different from those of classical formal logic.

Ilya Grushevskiy gave an explanation of the law of identity and law of non-contradiction that makes you think that Indian logic is different from classical logic. However, Tibetans give another explanation. We say: X does not exist inherently. Therefore, X is not inherently one with X, but it is conventionally so. It is not inherently different from not-X, but it is conventionally so. And so forth.

In the same way, the first verse of Nagarjuna's Karika says "Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise." We explain: of course, a tree arise from another conventionally, since a sprout, or a seed, is not a tree. But since it is not inherently produced, it does not inherently arise from another. We call that "refuting the four extremes of production."

When you say "Indian Logic should be understood as being a different system of logic than modern classical logic[...]" it could refer, not to logic itself but to:

Dialectic, as for instance that of Nagarjuna. Western scholars tend to describe it as negative, but that is a category that is applied as well to that of Western philosophers (such as Kierkegaard, for instance)
A set of propositions.
Epistemology.

Indian and Indo-Tibetan epistemology mainly describes types of consciousnesses. Consciousness is qualified as an object-posessor since it knows its object, and so we speak of seven types (or more or less, depending on the text). For instance, a "wrong consciousness" that engages its object erroneously, an "inferential cognizer", etc. Consciousness is always described in relation to the causes of its arising (a sense power, an object, a immediately preceding condition) and is thus not taken independently.
In the Indo-Tibetan traditions, one studies epistemology so as to know how mind works. It is all aimed at mind training and is not merely "philosophical" in that sense.


Where does one get basic notions of Buddhism when starting with Mahayana?

In Mahayana these kinds of things are learned from the encyclopedic compendiums summarizing the basic concepts by categories, known as "Mahayana Abhidharma" and its predecessor "Sarvastivada Abhidharma".

The main idea to understand here is how Mahayana emphasizes passing-on the intended meaning behind the scripture. So even though the original sutras were available in Mahayana in form of Agamas, the schools almost always preferred to study various summaries trying to organize the Dharma and distill it to its key principles. Lineage-specific commentaries then were used to "unpack" the meaning stored in the summaries and present it in form comprehensible to a contemporary student.

The tradition even has a poetic image for making these summaries. It's called "churning butter from the milk of Dharma". From Mahayana viewpoint the best butter was made just around time when Yogacara school was emerging from Sarvastivada, because that's when this kind of summarizing work was "in vogue", so many best minds spent lots of effort on doing this, resulting in texts some of which are still unsurpassed even to our days.

The exact texts vary by lineage, but the most popular evergreens are:

Abhidharma-samuccaya ("Compendium of Abhidharma") by Asanga
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa with Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya (the autocommentary)

Also, one of my personal favorites - not so popular but in the same genre - is an early work called Tattvasiddhi Śāstra.

In the past, there were many other summary texts, like "Śāriputra Abhidharma Śāstra", "Abhidharma-hṛdaya-sastra", "Jnanaprasthana", "Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra" - but they all slowly fell out of active use, although many of them still exist in Chinese translations.

Anyway, back in the day when it was written, by the time someone would read the Heart Sutra, they would be very familiar with one or more of these works, so all the references to "Shariputra, the five skandhas are empty, and so are the six realms, and the four truths and so forth" - would make immediate sense, because they would speak exactly to the typical "bullet point" lists found in Abhidharma literature.


How many Tibetan monks practiced meditation in "old Tibet"?

Only just pre-1950s, the current Dalai Lama was born in 1935.

Starting half-way through this page, At Home With the Dalai Lama, is an account of his learning to meditate (and probably of being forced to learn to meditate), at age 8.

  I also know that he wasn't a particularly good student when he was
  young. He had a mercurial temper and was impulsive. Monastic
  disciplines like meditation and scriptural study did not come
  naturally to him.

  "Around seven or eight," the Dalai Lama told me in an earlier meeting,
  a mischievous gleam in his eyes, "I had no interest in study. Only
  play. But one thing: my mind since young, quite sharp, can learn
  easily. This brings laziness. So my tutor always keep one whip, a
  yellow whip, by his side. When I saw the yellow whip, the holy whip
  for holy student the Dalai Lama, I studied. Out of fear. Even at that
  age I know, if I study, no holy pain."

  Despite his reluctance to study when he was a child, the Dalai Lama
  applied himself every morning. With perseverance and self-control, he
  learned to sit still for long periods. Gradually he was better able to
  control his errant impulses. Meditation and study came before play;
  delayed gratification became a matter of course.

Reading this gives me the impression that the curriculum which the Dalai Lama learned was passed down through successive generations/incarnations.

The Speech Delivered by His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama to the
Second Gelug Conference
(Dharamsala, June 12th 2000) says,

  Now it is about six hundred years since Lama Tsong Khapa lived in Tibet. About three hundred years
  earlier, Dipamkara Atisha founded the great Kadam tradition. It was this school that Lama Tsong Khapa
  used as his foundation. He started a tradition that emphasised tantric study that concentrated on practices
  of the three deities, Guhyasamaja, Heruka Chakrasamvara and Yamantaka.

    “May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa,
     That teaches the outward, calm and controlled demeanour of the hearer,
     And the internal poise associated with the two stages of the yogic practitioner,
     And adopts both Sutra and Tantra as mutually complementary paths flourish.”

  And as to what is achieved through the adoption of such a practice, we have the words:

    “May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa
     That takes the emptiness explained in the Causal Vehicle (sutra),
     And the great bliss that is achieved through the Resultant Means (tantra),
     Conjoined with the essence of the collection of eighty-four thousand teachings flourish.”4

  Having all of these features then, this doctrine is a consummate one. It incorporates study, contemplation
  and meditation in balanced, equal measure and this is what makes it so remarkable. When it comes to
  detailed study of the great texts, it is the Sakya and Gelug systems which are the most developed.


What does Diamond Way Buddhism say about obstacles at times of becoming more conscious?

There is a saying in Zen:

  When we love them flowers wither; when we hate them creepers bloom.

Meaning, the more you like something, the more your mind gets sensitive to losing that. And the more you hate something, the more painfully aware you become of its unwanted existence.

In Vajrayana Buddhism we usually do not see external events as reward or punishment. That would be too dualistic, almost like in Christianity or Hinduism. But we do see everything as training opportunity. So if some problems occur, we are like: "great! now I can practice even more!" In this sense the more you advance - the bigger are the challenges. Not because the world tests you but because you push yourself, you raise your own bar.

When you raise your bar, you become more aware of the imperfections. There is another saying: "Buddha's heart is sensitive like an eye, feels strongly even a tiny hair".

That said,  for beginner students attachments always manifest as obstacles. Whenever you have a strong attachment you can be sure you will encounter major problems that go against that attachment. And the stronger the attachment, the bigger the problems will be. Especially if the circumstances are very important, like one-in-lifetime events as wedding, major retreat etc. If you let go of attachment, it's almost feels like you "pass the test" - and break through to something new. But if you hold on to your attachment, it almost always fruits as some real-life painful problem - and because you did not drop the attachment you keep going in circles. This is how it usually works.

What's important to understand though, none of this is objective. It's not like the universe conspires against you - or wants to help your practice. Rather, the world you find yourself in, is always a manifestation of your "energy", your state of mind - often at subconscious level.

So, emotionally intensive situations are not as much signs of growth as they are signs of attachments - but certainly as you grow you start encountering more and more of your hidden attachments, so in this sense it's a good sign.

How to get the most benefit of these situations: is to never objectify them ("those damn soccer fans!") -- and always try to identify your attachment and drop it. When you drop your attachment you will see all kinds of magic happen, like demons turning into dharma-friends etc.


We can only propose taxonomy. Plus there is many misuse of the terms. This is how I view things:

school (vada) - It's supposed to be school of thought, so school adherents should share common philosophical view. Probably in ancient times they was. But in modern practice, frequently, any group united by common root is called a school.

sect - sometimes people divide whole Religion into sects, but sometimes they call schools sects. Plus, term inherited from Christianity some negative connotations of heresy. Thus, sometimes word 'sect' is not liked at all.

branch - just general division which is not loaded term as a sect. For example, we can split whole Buddhism into branches (Tibetan, Chinese, etc), but also we can split some tradition into branches (Tibetan into Gelug, Kagyu, etc., or Kagyu into Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu, etc.) It's general classification word like 'part', 'subdivision', etc.

tradition - what is survived (or evolved) to modern day from ancient ages. It's probably region based. But in practice interchangeable with sect or school too.

vehicle (yana) - some theoretical division of the Teaching, used by Buddha in some texts. It's more abstract division than real historical entity. Only historical we have about vehicles is attribution of some texts to vehicles and acceptance or not by some schools of these texts as canonical.

lineage - supposedly unbreaked personal inheritance of some teaching, or student-teacher relationships, from ancient to modern teacher (frequently lineage goes up to the Buddha himself).

vinaya lineage - historically is more important than adherence to philosophy, it's unbreaked succession of ordinance into Sangha by the rules for particular vinaya. Currently only three vinaya lineages are survived.

What else?


Separating meditation into vipāssana or samatha

It is said in the scriptures that depending on the type of person, that person falls into the PATH in four different ways. That happens through insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha). If a person listens to true Dhamma, take part in Dhamma discussions, and practise Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding definitely take place in him/her. That’s a given. If not so, then the fault is in that person. It is because of doing something which appears as correct thinking, or erroneously thinking that what one does is the correct thing. That is where the mistake is and not in the Suttas or in the Noble Eight-fold Path.

In the Yuganaddha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.170), it is said that insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) is developed in Tandem. In this sutta, Ven. Ananda describes the paths to arahantship by which insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) work hand-in-hand.

There are people in whom the other three ways may work. These three are:

Samatha followed by vipassana - after which the path is born in him/her;

Vipassana followed by samatha - after which the path is born in him/her; &

The mind stays fixed internally and become one-pointed - after which the path is born in him/her.


Do Buddhas have precognition?

Some Buddhist may have precognition if they develop abhiññā. Precognition is not limited to Buddhism. Hindus also have meditation techniques which develop these kind of powers. Though not frequent there are cases outside Buddhism also which such phenomena has been seen. See studies in parapsychology.

Having said this only a handful of people even among Buddhist have precognition as an ability.


Where in the Vimalakīrti Sutra is this stated?

In this translation, the text quoted below exists about 10% of the way through the text, towards the end of the first chapter ("1. Purification of the Buddha-Field"), a few paragraphs before the start of the secod chapter ("2. Inconceivable Skill in Liberative Technique"):

Thereupon, magically influenced by the Buddha, the venerable Sariputra had this thought: "If the buddha-field is pure only to the extent that the mind of the bodhisattva is pure, then, when Sakyamuni Buddha was engaged in the career of the bodhisattva, his mind must have been impure. Otherwise, how could this buddha-field appear to be so impure?"
The Buddha, knowing telepathically the thought of venerable Sariputra, said to him, "What do you think, Sariputra? Is it because the sun and moon are impure that those blind from birth do not see them?"
Sariputra replied, "No, Lord. It is not so. The fault lies with those blind from birth, and not with the sun and moon."
The Buddha declared, "In the same way, Sariputra, the fact that some living beings do not behold the splendid display of virtues of the buddha-field of the Tathagata is due to their own ignorance. It is not the fault of the Tathagata. Sariputra, the buddha-field of the Tathagata is pure, but you do not see it."
Then the Brahma Sikhin said to the venerable Sariputra, "Reverend Sariputra, do not say that the buddha-field of the Tathagata is impure. Reverend Sariputra, the buddha-field of the Tathagata is pure. I see the splendid expanse of the buddha-field of the Lord Sakyamuni as equal to the splendor of, for example, the abodes of the highest deities."
Then the venerable Sariputra said to the Brahma Sikhin, "As for me, O Brahma, I see this great earth, with its highs and lows, its thorns, its precipices, its peaks, and its abysses, as if it were entirely filled with ordure."
Brahma Sikhin replied, "The fact that you see such a buddha-field as this as if it were so impure, reverend Sariputra, is a sure sign that there are highs and lows in your mind and that your positive thought in regard to the buddha-gnosis is not pure either. Reverend Sariputra, those whose minds are impartial toward all living beings and whose positive thoughts toward the buddha-gnosis are pure see this buddha-field as perfectly pure."

I hope you'll get a better sense of it if you read that whole first chapter.


Meditation technique proposed by the Buddha

If we take the Pali Canon as been the closest we have to the word of the Buddha then there isn't a wealth of specific meditation advice in there when compared to other types of advice such as ethical.

However there are two sutras that do give specific advice these being

Anapanasati Sutra (Mindfulness of breathing)
Satipatthana Sutra (The Way of Mindfulness)

Both these sutras encapsulate samatha and vipassana practices. For example the Anapansati Sutra begins with body contemplation but end up in the forth tetrad contemplating the very stuff of existence

Contemplating impermanence
Contemplating fading of lust
Contemplating cessation
Contemplating relinquishment

The Satipatthana sutra also start with calming practices but ultimately the practioner is asked to comtemplate the four noble truths

  Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands: 'This is suffering,'
  according to reality; he understands: 'This is the origin of
  suffering,' according to reality; he understands: 'This is the
  cessation of suffering,' according to reality; and he understands:
  'This is the road leading to the cessation of suffering,' according to
  realty.

You can't get much more vipassana than that!

If I can also take the opportunity to recommend the book Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization by Analayo. This is a tremendous book for anyone interested in really drilling into the Satipaṭṭhāna sutra and getting to grips with meditation as the Buddha taught it. It's heavy on the footnotes and is more of a heady read other Dharma books but I've read it once and it's certainly on my list to go through again.


Is it important that the reality of things doesn't exist, instead of just behaving like things don't exist?

Whatever that exist outside we experience through our sense doors and paint a picture in our minds. This metal model we construct will not exactly correspond to what is outside will not the exactly the same from person to person depending on many factors like cognitive ability, sharpness of senses, etc. Hence that we know about the world is not perfectly in touch with reality and not always exist as we expect it to be. So it would be safe to say that anything we perceive as such does not exist in such a form that we perceive or expect it to be in. Also our outlook of the world is mentally constructed and does not exist in any form we expect or think it to be in. Also we have no ability to exactly know what exactly the world is as we are limited by cognitive ability and or faculties. So we will never know the world as it is, perhaps unless you become a Buddha as only Buddha can see all phenomena.


four types of beings (reference searched)

affective, slow temperament - body
intellectual, fast temperament - mental contents
affective, fast temperament - sensations
intellectual speculation, slow temperament - mind

Sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana_Sutta

This is not found in the Suttas but in the commentaries. This is taken from Papañcasudani


Is it counter productive to accumulate a lot of ideas while meditating?

There are two types of meditation available in Buddhism. Samatha and Vipassana.

In Samatha, you should concentrate your mind into one target sense. The target sense can be inhale and exhale witch is popular as Anapanasathi. There are more Samatha meditation methods which are targeting difference target senses. Kasina meditation and Asuba meditation are some of them. There you continually get that target sense into mind without allowing any idea, sense or feeling other than that. Then you will feel your mind become more powerful and very high state of calmness. actually Samatha is like sharpening your weapons against a war.

As Buddhists, our main intention is to attain Nibbana. So after performing Samatha we look at the uncertainty of the body and mind. Here what we are doing is not generating ideas. but perform root cause analysis on uncertainty of body and mind. actually wipassana is like use your weapons against enemy.

you cannot get good results if you are not following sila, at least five precepts. My friend, Use five precepts not Headbands.


accepting what i have vs. making plans for better future - good or bad?

Let me give a metaphor for this. Imagine you are standing at the foothill of a great mountain...

And you think, oh how nice would it be, to stand on top of this mountain. It would truly be a great sight, a majestic sight, a big achievement on my part - and what kinds of great friends would I make on the top! they would certainly be much more interesting people than ones I have down here. It would be so awesome to be up there! In comparison to that, how unfortunate I am to be  down here! -- And so forth and so on, this is what goes through your mind.

Now, Buddhism does not say you should stay at the bottom all the time. But just thinking about the top is useless. Moreover, the craving for the top, and comparison with your position at the bottom - creates that painful feeling of wrongness, dukkha.

Instead, if you say: the top is up there. Let me look under my feet. Which little step can I make now? Let me forget about the top for now, let me forget about the levels, let me focus on the steps under my feet. I don't know exactly where I'm going - I've never been there. I don't know the exact path - and I can't spend my whole life planning it or I will never get anywhere. Instead, as long as I have the overall direction right, and start making the steps - I will get there sooner or later, guaranteed.

What do I need to do right here to get over there? Starting right now I must make every step as an investment. I must stop roaming randomly like others who don't have the same goal. Every step I take can get me either 1 inch in the right direction, 12 inches in the right direction, 1 inch in the wrong direction, or 12 inches in the wrong direction. So I must develop this habit of making a better step if possible every time. Start small: I have 10 dollars - no need to figure out the perfect way to spend them, just minimize waste. Minimize going in the wrong direction. Then with time it will come by itself, the knowledge of the best possible step.

Another way to approach this is by imitating the qualities of people who got to the top. How does the owner of the private business behave? Your manager at work asks you to do something - do you act like you are the real business owner? (This is called "taking the goal as the path". Some say this is the more advanced way, the faster way. The two schools keep arguing which way is better ;)

So in short, speculative thinking about the abstract goal is "bad" - it does not get you anywhere, it only generates suffering. Instead, by not going in the wrong direction today, by not going randomly here and there today, by minimizing the waste today, and by imitating the qualities of the people who did it, - we can create the path connecting this place under our feet with the high goal.

I hope this is not too abstract for you. By "going in the wrong direction" I meant spending money on things that will suck your money in the future. By "going in the right direction" I meant spending money on things that will bring you some money in the future. By "going randomly here and there" I meant spending money on other goals and random entertainment. By "minimizing waste" I meant every time you spend your money try to make a small improvement. By "imitating qualities of people who got there" I meant try to imagine how they think and do what they would do. Hope this helps.

And since we are on Buddhism Q&A site, by "wrong direction" I also meant unwholesome thinking, by "right direction" I meant wholesome thinking, by "minimize waste" I meant to watch for and control the hangups manifesting in daily life, and by "imitating" the accomplished people I meant trying to imagine how the Buddha would have reacted to the same life challenges.


How & why can sexual intentions be harmful to others?

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a sensual thought arose. I understood: ‘This sensual thought has arisen in me. It leads to hurting myself, hurting others, and hurting both. It blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment.’ When I reflected that it leads to hurting myself, it went away. When I reflected that it leads to hurting others, it went away.

If one has a sensual thought about another person, one feels an attraction, a craving, a grasping. And as one acts upon that sensual thought, that other person becomes a sense-object, an object of craving. We objectify them, reducing them to mere objects of satisfaction. This is harmful to others in that it diminishes them.

And although the person to whom we are attracted may delight in our attention, they may come to crave that attention and seek it again. This is harmful to others in that we lead them astray, tempting them to seek attention.

If the person to whom we are attracted has an unattractive friend, we ignore that unattractive friend in our pursuit of the attractive friend. This is harmful to others in that we treat them with aversion.

These are only some of the ways sensual thoughts can hurt others and why they are unskillful.


The references below give a goods indication of stages of insight leading to enlightenment.

  ... people start laughing without control ... Is this true ?

I am not sure if any one would burst out laughing at any stages of insight. This looks like hysteria to me.

  How is it that just the presence of a teacher is enough for such an experience ?

In a Theravada perspective, this is un true. The Dhamma is something you should realize through your efforts and not something someone can give you. Hence a mere presence of a teacher is not enough.

  Can we say that this experiences are real Enlightenment ?

Looking at the references below this does not look like enlightenment but some other experience induced by a different kind of practice which is neither Samatha or Vipassana in the Theravada Buddhist sense.

The Map of The Journey
The 7 Stages of Insight and Purification
The Progress of Insight


Buddha's views on the origin of the universe

And if no WHY??

The Buddha's explanation using that famous forest leaves simile from SN 56.31:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.


Emotional Support without God in Theravada

You point out several supposed benefits of God and then ask how the godless fare without these benefits. I would first challenge the virtue of the benefits mentioned:

  In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress

Unless you believe God directly intervenes, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, calling on God for help seems as useful as calling on a milk carton for help. This cannot be accurately seen as a benefit, since it most obviously sets one up for disappointment and unreasonable expectation.

  He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

  If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

  Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?

  Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?

  I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.

  -- Jat. 543 (Cowell, trans)

  pray to God to seek emotional relief

Prayer is a lot like meditation so it can certainly have beneficial side effects, but since it relies on the presumption that an imaginary being will prevent harm or bring fortune, it falls under the same pitfalls as the first benefit. It is a lot like depending on a father figure to protect one - it is only beneficial if one's father actually exists.

  find a virtual shoulder to cry on

By virtual, we would understand you to mean "imaginary". There is some benefit, surely, in imaginary friends, but in the end we would see this as a dependence. Catharsis is not recognized as beneficial in Theravada Buddhism; it is habit forming, and thus crying on anyone's shoulder, real or imaginary, is unwholesome behaviour that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music).

We do something similar in Buddhism, praising the virtues of the Buddha, and our chanting is similar in nature to this. So, this I would recognize as a virtue, qualified by the fact that the virtues of God are not all appealing to a Buddhist - believing God to be all-powerful, for example, is a sign of delusion, and not at all wholesome.

Either way, there is a similar practice:

  I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only of me thus:

  "'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men, the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear, terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass away.

  -- SN 11.3 (Piyadassi, trans)

  They also establish a personal relationship with God.

Again the problem of an imaginary friend. Buddhism doesn't rely upon even the Buddha for support; as above, it's not that having imaginary friends is bad, it's that reliance on others is impractical, since all things change, including God, Buddha, etc.

  And those monks who had not yet overcome their passions wept and tore their hair, raising their arms, throwing themselves down and twisting and turning, crying: ‘All too soon the Blessed Lord has passed away, all too soon the Well-Farer has passed away, all too soon the Eye of the World has disappeared!’ But those monks who were free from craving endured mindfully and clearly aware, saying: ‘All compounded things are impermanent — what is the use of this?’

  Then the Venerable Anuruddha said: ‘Friends, enough of your weeping and wailing! Has not the Lord already told you that all things that are pleasant and delightful are changeable, subject to separation and to becoming other? So why all this, friends? Whatever is born, become, compounded is subject to decay, it cannot be that it does not decay. The devas, friends, are grumbling.’

  -- DN 16 (Walshe, trans)

  Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer.

Feeling the presence of God is just a feeling; one's association of one's feelings with the existence of God is merely conjecture. Buddhists have the same sort of feelings, but they recognize them simply as feelings. It is not considered a positive activity to cling to such feelings or ascribe meaning to them beyond their existential nature, since that leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

Seeing the good things that happen to one as miracles is pure speculation; it is often accompanied by (similarly speculative) rationalization when bad things happen. Neither is particularly wholesome, since they lead to unreasonable expectations and disappointment. More directly, they ignore the fact that there are perfectly natural causes and conditions that lead to all of one's experiences, and thus fail to attain understanding about the nature of reality - chalking it all up to "God's handiwork". This is a bad thing, since an understanding of reality is necessary to free oneself from suffering.

  ‘This, monks, the Tathāgata understands: These viewpoints thus grasped and adhered to will lead to such-and-such destinations in another world. This the Tathāgata knows, and more, but he is not attached to that knowledge. And being thus unattached he has experienced for himself perfect peace, and having truly understood the arising and passing away of feelings, their attraction and peril and the deliverance from them, the Tathāgata is liberated without remainder.

  -- DN 1 (Walshe, trans)

So, your supposed benefits are, in all, not very impressive to a Theravada Buddhist. As to your questions:

  For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity?

We don't seek relief from emotions, we seek to understand emotions. It is by understanding something that one becomes free from it. The need for relief implies aversion, which becomes habit forming and leads to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music?

Same. Also, devotional music leads to sensual attachment, thus - you guessed it - craving, clinging, and further becoming.

  With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

There is an underlying assumption here in the importance of relationships. In fact, Theravada Buddhism takes relationships quite seriously. As acknowledged, having a relationship with an imaginary friend can be helpful - a Buddhist's relationship with the Buddha is similar to this. But Theravada Buddhism sees more importance in one's relationship with one's teacher who is a tangible source of knowledge, advice, and exemplary behaviour very much unlike one's mental construction of God or the Buddha.

  "Know I am Nārada by name,—a kassapa; my heavenly rest
  I have just left to tell thee this,—to associate with the wise is best.

  -- Jat. 539 (Cowell, trans)


Traditionally, the criteria for teaching authenticity are:

it must not contradict the observable facts and laws of nature,
it must not contradict commonly recognized moral rules,
it should lead to letting go, cooling down, emancipation, liberation,
it should be traceable to a remark made in the suttas, preferably in multiple places.


Practice of Dhamma and loss of masculinity

What is masculine and what is not is only the product of collective thought, consciousness, and superstition in a given culture. Note how this differs among animals, there, it (masculinity) is not a fixed, unilateral idea.

It is not worth to be caught up by fixed ideas and divide masculine and feminine, for they are one and cannot exist without each other as there wouldn't be continuity of human life as we know it.

Such clinging to polarity brings suffering.

Rather, perceive it in terms of human virtue and nature in general and transcend such limited notion. Such notions lead to generalisations, generalisations lead to prejudice, and prejudice leads to suffering, inequality.


Possible for worldling to practice the Ariyamagga, to walk it?

I think that to ask "Is it possible for a worldling to walk the path?" is similar to asking "Is it possible for a person to become enlightened?"

I think the usual answer to the latter question is that enlightenment isn't personal and that notions of being a person aren't helpful, they're even a hindrance.

But the way the question is phrased -- "people with wrong view" -- sounds definitive, doesn't it.

I suppose it's useful to distinguish right from wrong view, maybe less helpful to judge people like that, to associate that with people, to condemn people, judge them, to assume they can't learn, and so on.

Imagine being a school teacher at the beginning of the year, and asking "Can these students pass the end-of-year exam?" An answer might be, "No they can't" -- because they haven't learned (haven't been taught) the subject yet, and therefore maybe can't practice properly either -- but that isn't the right way to see people (students).

From there I guess there's doctrine about buddha-nature or the seed of enlightenment, including Joshu's Dog

  Has a dog Buddha-nature?
  This is the most serious question of all.
  If you say yes or no,
  You lose your own Buddha-nature.

The answer might be obvious, but the last line suggests that the question wasn't about the dog.


Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?

According to Kagyu understanding, Yogacara's position isn't metaphysical, it is methodological. It's not that the external world does not exist, it is that our experience of the world is 100% always represented by organs and/or mind, there is no experience outside of that, so practically speaking mind-made experience is "all we have"*

Which is why trying to figure out how exactly the experience is generated and mastering the practical skills for working with mind and experience is of key importance in Yogacara (comparing to the earlier Buddhism's focus on discipline/ethics and the Madhyamika's focus on philosophy).

  Yogacarins put so much emphasis on the mind because they are concerned with
  practice. Some people have thought they were saying that everything is in your
  mind. Some of these people were influenced by certain Western philosophies.   -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

Generally speaking Kaguypas seem to prefer to stay away from philosophical discussions and focus on practice, which makes sense given their self-identification as "the practice lineage":

  We are not concerned about whether or not a chair exists. That's
  secondary. Why spend so much time arguing about whether or not a chair exists,
  instead of learning how we experience and relate to the chair, and what sort of
  experience we've got? -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

*Using the modern language we could say, reality is an interpretation we make, there is no reality to be experienced outside of an interpretation. In other words, there is no absolute truth separate from the conventional truth.