What reference to other powers are there in Buddhism?

Pigeonholing Buddhism into theistic or atheistic category betrays ignorance of the relationship between reality and its description.
Theistic concepts such as gods, souls, afterlife, other realms etc. are all descriptions referring to certain phenomena observable in the real life.
Most of these phenomena are of such nature that speaking about them in other terms is hard or impossible. So over the centuries humanity developed a kind of partially metaphorical / partially exaggerated / partially simplified vocabulary that we now know as "the supernatural" and "the metaphysical".
Then, on top of that useful if a little inaccurate vocabulary, a hundred generations of people overlaid their fairy tales and anecdotes. Then on top of this folklore came systematizers who wrote down the canons and catechisms. The mixture of these three layers is what we know as a religion.
When we talk about Buddhism, the conversation would get a lot more clear if we were to drop the two later layers and focus on the original set of ideas used to describe phenomena that don't have adequate representation in materialistic let alone scientific vocabularies.
I claim that ideas such as gods, spirits, other worlds, and other seemingly fictional elements are simplified descriptions or real things going on in the real world you and I live in. There's no room in this answer for going in details but at least I have made the claim.
If we suspend our judgment and assume (hypothetically) that my claim is grounded in reality, then we will have to say that the difference between theistic and non theistic Buddhism is moot. In fact we would have to say that what we know as traditional Buddhism is probably more complete while secular Buddhism artificially restricts itself to a subset of reality that is included in the modern materialistic description while leaving the other important phenomena out just because we are not aware of them and don't understand them enough to describe in our own words.


Possible to get stomach discomfort because of meditation?

Possible Causes:

You are eating too much and too soon to doing sitting meditation. While meditating or doing any relaxing activity, your digestive system functions much better thus producing more gas along with other things. Solutions: eat less and have at least an hour or two gap for meditation or try a different posture like standing/non-lotus.
You are stresing out (more than normal) while you are trying to relax (meditate) thus causing intenstinal ineffectiveness. Let go of those thinkings and be present and pleasant.
You are already quite gassy. Have some probiotics in the form of yogurt, kombucha, or fermented food.


How is Vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?

First of all, the Buddha didn't die from eating pork at least in the Theravada point of view. In fact, his last meal was sukara maddava, translated to English dug by pigs, a mushroom which still grows in India.

Also, vegetarianism is not considered morally superior to eating meat in Theravada. The general guideline followed with regards to eating meat by both monastics and laity is,

  I say that there are three occasions in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been killed for sake of the bhikkhu, I say: Meat may be eaten on these three occasions.
  MN 55

On the other hand, a person can be a strict vegetarian while craving for tastier food and could be strengthening his ego considering his higher morality, both of which are not good.


You are referring to a full book comprising of 27 chapters, with at least ten different translations. That makes it hard to know what the "positive or extreme metaphysical positions" are for someone unfamiliar with his writings, so the question may be difficult to answer without specific references.
Anyway, with all due respect for Nagarjuna, from a fundamentalist approach here are some suggestions for demarcation criterias from the nikayas.
AN 4.77:

Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?
The scope of the Buddhas …
The scope of one in absorption …
The results of deeds …
Speculation about the world …
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/sujato
MN 63:

These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
MN 2:

'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past? In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?'
Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?'
In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive non-self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through non-self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, he has the view thus: 'That self of mine speaks, knows and experiences the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions. That self of mine is permanent, stable, durable, incorruptible and will be eternal like all things permanent.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html


From The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’

So the "sustain" will cease all by itself when you stop "striking", there is no need to do anything separate.

As for your question about "review and see how gross the first jhana really is", this idea of "review and see as gross" comes from an entirely different context that was designed to explain Jhanas as steps of gradual removal of (initially coarse and then progressively finer instances of) Craving/Kleshas/Asavas towards cessation of dukkha and achieving perfect suchness. The first two Jhanas in this sequence can be further illustrated with a following allegory:

Let's say there once was a boy, who heard about this Luna Park coming to town that was rumored to have the best rides and the tastiest ice-cream. Everyone in town was talking about it, buying the tickets, and getting ready to enjoy. Just like the other people, the boy really wanted to go to that Luna Park and try the rides for himself. However, it happened so that he could not obtain the ticket and ended up staying alone in an almost empty town.

At first he was upset at his apparently bad luck, but then he said to himself: look, I can imagine how it is like at that Luna Park. It must be extremely crowded, with people pushing each other, hot and sweaty. The lines to the rides are probably very long. There is a lot of noise and screaming children are everywhere. The rides are nothing special, just going up and down, and the ice-cream is not different from what I can buy here any day. I, on the other hand, get to enjoy this entire town all to myself. I can walk in the park. I can gaze at the statues. I can sit on the benches. I can even walk into a city hall and sit on the mayor's chair - because everyone's gone to the Luna Park. How much better it is to not be at the Luna Park! How happy am I to have this quiet and peace all to myself. Can any Luna Park in the world be better than this quiet and peace? No, that would be logically impossible. It's a mathematical impossibility that something could be better than this quiet and peace. A Luna Park can be exciting at best, with lots of ups and downs - but it can't ever feel as sublime as this quiet and peace. And since I understand this fact, I'm not just lucky, I'm also wise. I understand what other people do not understand, and I can enjoy at a whole other level than they can.

-- As he thought so to himself, the boy immediately felt relieved, and the more he replayed these thoughts while going around the empty town, the more joyful he felt. Whenever he felt the joy was subsiding, he would look around and think up another reason for being glad. "Look!" he would say - "people at Luna Park are waiting in line to go to a toilet, while I have all toilets in town available to myself". He would then keep walking around, smiling to himself at that thought.

Until at some point the very effort of convincing himself started to feel redundant. "Why am I even repeating these thoughts to myself?" -- thought the boy. "This empty town is clearly much more enjoyable than the Luna Park, it's just a fact. Why don't I stop convincing myself and enjoy this beautiful town in peace?" -- and he did just like he said, stopped convincing himself and enjoyed the town in quiet and peace.

In this allegory, the boy is a meditator. The Luna Park is an idea of success. Enjoying the empty town is the first jhana. Thinking up another reason for being glad is vitakka. Pondering and smiling to oneself about that reason is vicara. Letting go of the effort of convincing oneself and just enjoying the town in quiet and peace - is the second jhana.

As you can see, in the First Jhana vitakka-vicara plays the role of a "peg" used to "push out" the unskillful mindstates:

  Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way [...] when he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts [about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV] — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

The resulting withdrawal from the unskillful mindstates gives birth to "rapture and pleasure", and this process is repeated until "the entire body" is "pervaded" with it:

  Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal [from the thoughts about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV]. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...
  (from AN 5.28)

...once the defilements of mind have been washed away with joy to a sufficient degree, vitakka-vicara itself is seen as unskillful/redundant and is eliminated in turn:

  Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking so quickly? Why don't I slow down?' So he slows down.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

the resulting state is called the Second Jhana:

  ...with the stilling of vitakka & vicara, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from vitakka and vicara — internal assurance.
  (from AN 5.28)

and then the other jhanas:

  Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking? Why don't I stop?' So he stops. Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. Then the  thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)


How can one apply the skills developed through Vipassana meditation to overcome FMO/PMO (fantasy, porn, masturbation, orgasm) addiction?

As you keep practicing vipassana correctly,  you will discover more and more subtle habits and addictions.

There are supportive practices for lessening sensual craving too such as  breaking the body up into pieces and contemplating them like hair, muscle, skin, blood, urine, feces, marrow,cartilage, bone, sweat, saliva, bile, snot. Viewing a decomposing body will lessen sensual craving and make you more aware of death too. It's very important to be aware of death.


Is samatha meditation more suited to lay people than vipassana?

Can't conclude a lot from the sutta but accrding to my personal experience as a lay buddhist,

Vipassana needs higher levels of concentration and mindfulness.
Instructions for Vipassana are little bit more complicated and difficult to follow than Samatha.
Vipassana involves using the mind to sense the bodily feelings. Mind usually wanders.
Learning Vipassana for first time requires a 10 day commitment to a retreat. But Samatha meditation can be learned at a days retreat.

So I will say, yes. Samatha meditation more suited to lay people than Vipassana.


Buddhadasa and the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, without rebirth

My comments are as follows. I have posted these basic matters many times:

Existence (bhava) is a defilement (asava). It does not mean life existence. This matter of "bhava" is the most basic & unambiguous here. "Bhava" is officially defined as one of three asava, the other two being "sensual desire" and "ignorance". There is absolutely no scope to regard "bhava" as "rebirth", as Sujato does, or life existence, as Bhikkhu Bodhi does.
The definition of birth (jati) in SN 12.2 includes the word "beings" ("sattanam") but does not define it. Therefore, it is a ordinary scholarly practise to find definitions of words. The definition of 'satta' is found SN 23.2 & also SN 5.10. If alternative definitions are not found, we should follow the official definition in SN 23.2. We need to respect the suttas rather than engage in our own personal defiled interpretations. We need to be honest and not misrepresent the suttas.
The word "kaya" does not necessarily mean "physical body" ("rupa"); such as when used in "sakkaya" and "Nikaya". There are many suttas, such as SN 12.19, where "kaya" does not mean "physical body". It means "collection" or "group". Therefore, when the suttas say: "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared", this does not necessarily refer to the physical body. We should not insist "kaya" means "physical body"; and we should also not insist it means "collection of aggregates". In these mundane teachings about kamma, each person can choose the interpretation they wish.
"Eternalism" & "Annihilationism" are defined in DN 1, Iti 49, etc, as 'self-views', that is, beliefs that a self will continue after death or a self will end at death. They are not about the continuity or discontinuity of consciousness or suffering at the termination of life. If Annihilationism meant the ending of consciousness at the termination of life then the teaching of anicca (impermanence) would be wrong. SN 22.85 is about why a Buddha is not annihilated with death. SN 22.85 clearly says the ending of the life of a Buddha is merely the ending of the aggregates. The words "annihilation" and "death" have no relevance to an Arahant, as explained in many suttas. "Death" does not mean the termination of life. It means the "death of a self".
As for Buddhadasa, he is famous for his rejection of post-mortem rebirth (however, I heard him personally but reluctantly say in a private discussion to a young German monk who kept asking him the same question that rebirth view can help people maintain morality). Some quotes of Buddhadasa are:

  Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and
  nothing to do with Buddhism at all.

  Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching. The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.

  Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth". In everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into the world from the mother's womb. A person is the born physically only once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and enters the coffin. Physical birth  happens to each of us only once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth" in everyday language. In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of "I"  in one form or another is called a "birth". Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day.   As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me," and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb. The word "birth'' is very common in the Buddha's discourses. When he was speaking of everyday things, he used the word "birth" with its everyday meaning. But when he was expounding Higher Dhamma-for instance, when discussing conditioned arising - he used the word "birth" with the meaning it has in Dhamma language. In his description of conditioned arising, he wasn't talking about physical birth. He was talking about the birth of attachment to ideas of "me" and "mine," "myself" and "my own".


Wikipedia's Ashoka article includes this map:

Its western border is the Seleucid empire which appears to be where modern-day Iran is (note that Iran I think might be ethnically Persian rather than Arabian).

It also includes modern-day countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan (which are Islamic but not exactly Arabic).

This map is labelled "Buddhist proselytism at the time of king Ashoka (260–218 BCE)":

It shows Buddhist proselytism reaching (beyond the Maurya empire) to Alexandria (which is in modern-day Egypt), and Antioch (modern Turkey).

This may not be "expansion of Buddhism" though, it's more like "envoys from the Buddhist empire".


A hammer has two ends for a reason; one end is great for pounding nails, but not at taking them out. The nose is avoided in Vipassana for a reason; it is too apt to lead to calm.

That being said, it is of course technically possible to cultivate insight at the nose, if you insist. Vipassana takes as its base the four elements, earth, air, water, and fire. As per the Visuddhimagga:

  But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements.

  -- Path of Purification XVIII.5

So, you have to find the elements at the nose; there is some faint pressure, which is the air element, and there is heat and cold, which is the fire element. The breath itself is a concept, so you can't use that as an object of Vipassana. You might note "hot, hot" or "cold, cold" or "hot, cold", as it presents itself. Also, "feeling, feeling" for the pressure.

Having taken that as a base, you would then note whatever other experiences arose, based on the four foundations of mindfulness, as per the instruction given by a teacher.

And, what Anthony said :)


When the Dharma will have been forgotten by most

The definition of "most" is indeed rather ambiguous. But if you think about it, the very notion of "Dharma have been forgotten" is also rather ambiguous, too: should we consider it forgotten when there's no-one left who can clearly explain phases of gradual arising of self-centred consciousness? Or is it when most Buddhists don't understand the unifying theme behind the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path? Or is it when only a few understand the nature of Dukkha and the exact conditions when it arises? Or is it when no-one seem to remember what Liberation and Nirvana actually refer to and what the word 'suchness' supposed to mean? Or when even the most of the so-called monks can't clearly explain the progression of Jhanas and how it fits with the rest of the teaching?
It seems to me, based on these basic criteria, I can hardly say that Dharma hasn't been forgotten already. I wish I was wrong but it will take some serious effort to convince me.


When is 'dependent origination' broken, in meditation?

You have to see impermanence, suffering and non-self with direct knowledge. Not by intellectual thinking.  That realization should be all encompassing. In other words, you should attain absolute certainty that all condition realities come under the three characteristics. At this moment the mind should have the concentration level comparable to the first Jhana, even though it is not the first Samatha Jhana. Read more here


The difference between the geshe degrees is comparable to the grade you get on an exam.

From TibetCulture.net:

  Geshe Lharampa is the highest degree of the Geshe system, equivalent to the doctorate degree in Buddhist studies. The other three lower-level degrees, namely Dorampa, Lingtse and Tsorampa, will also be conferred according to candidates' performance in the dialectical debate.

And:

  Such a challenge as it is, it usually takes decades for a few distinguished lamas to succeed.


How to differentiate between a spiritual experience and a mental disorder or delusion?

If you suffer and make others suffer, that's a disorder. If you are happy and make others happy, that's a good result. Although sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better.


I pay homage to the Buddha, my Karma and the Sangha.

I pay homage to the Buddha, the Karma and the Sangha.

I don't know...

I never heard anyone refer to the Dhamma as a possession or something that is spoken of  dualistically  like karma (my good dhamma, my bad dhamma). So just grammatically it doesn't really fit.

Really, these are just words. Ultimately we don't possess anything and there is more to the Dharma than just karma.

On the other hand, concepts in Buddhism fit together with such incredible grace that it can sort of seem like one concept is the same as the next concept but from another perspective or in another context.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question and I hope this helps.-metta


Other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada?

Are there any other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses?

According to Theravada perspective, there are only six types of consciousness (which you've already mentioned). This is a categorization of consciousness based on its sense base. Every consciousness falls into one of these six. In Abhidhamma, there are many categorizations [based on wholesomeness, sphere of the being (kāma-loka, rūpa-loka, arūpa-loka), worldliness, etc...] can be seen of same consciousness which mentioned in Suttanta desana.

In Abhidhamma,

Considering all the consciousness, there are 89 consciousness in brief and 121 consciousness in detail.
By considering wholesomeness and unwholesomeness, there are 12 unwholesome consciousness and 21 wholesome consciousness in brief (37 in detail).
By considering worldliness, there are 81 mundane consciousness and 8 super-mundane consciousness in brief (40 in detail).
By considering the sphere, there are 54 sense-sphere consciousness, 15 form-sphere consciousness, and 12 formless-sphere consciousness.
There are 20 functional consciousness and 36 resultant consciousness in brief (52 in detail). [Note: These consciousness won't make kamma.]

  What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media?

No, it falls under mind consciousness and we can say it also falls under resultant consciousness more precisely according to Abhidhamma.

There are 10 consciousness (*) arise in eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body sense bases (2 consciousness in each with the division of wholesome resultant and unwholesome resultant). All the other consciousness arise in mind base.

Note 1:
(*) :-

Rootless Wholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant body consciousness with pleasant feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant body consciousness with painful feeling.

Hence,

Eye consciousness = 2
Ear consciousness = 2
Nose consciousness = 2
Tongue consciousness = 2
Body consciousness = 2
Mind consciousness = 79 in brief (111 in detail)

Note 2:

One consciousness may fall into more than one category above mentioned.
In abhidhamma, the word citta used instead of viññāṇa to mention consciousness.
This Dhamma is well preached. So there's no contradiction between Suttanta desana and Abhidhamma desana. Hence every sutta can be explained with Abhidhamma.

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


Was Vipassana discovered by the Buddha (Siddhartha)?

The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.

On the origins of samatha meditation:
Besides the fact that other teachers at the time of the Buddha and before were practicing what appears to be samatha and jhana, we have the fact that the Bodhisatta went into the first jhana as a young boy, and the fact that he learned jhana from two teachers before his enlightenment:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to enlightenment.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

and

“I considered: ‘It was not through mere faith alone that Rāma declared: “By realising for myself with direct knowledge, I enter upon and abide in this Dhamma.” Certainly Rāma abided knowing and seeing this Dhamma.’ Then I went to Uddaka Rāmaputta and asked him: ‘Friend, in what way did Rāma declare that by realising for himself with direct knowledge he entered upon and abided in this Dhamma?ʹ In reply Uddaka Rāmaputta declared the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
-- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

The confusion seems to stem from some poorly constructed arguments from proponents of the necessity of practicing samatha meditation that what the Bodhisatta's teachers taught was not jhana, but something else. For example:

Some might raise an objection that the teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta preached on Jhana, because the texts state that they taught the Bodhisatta (the Buddha-to-be) the attainment of the state of nothingness and the attainment of the state of neither perception nor non-perception. However, those two attainments could not have been connected to Jhana, because the Bodhisatta recalled, just prior to sitting under the Bodhi Tree, that the only time in his life that he had experienced any Jhana was as a young boy, while sitting under a Rose Apple Tree as his father conducted the first-ploughing ceremony (MN 36). That spontaneous early experience of Jhana had been untaught, unplanned and since forgotten. If that was the only Jhana experienced by the Bodhisatta prior to his experience under the Bodhi Tree, then the two teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta could not have taught Jhana at all.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm

The problem with this argument is that it misrepresents the Buddha (the part in bold). I have already quoted above what the Buddha actually said, and he is clearly not suggesting that he only experienced jhana once under the rose apple tree.
The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation countless times in his past lives before finally discovering vipassana.

On the origins of vipassana meditation:
There are many references to vipassana in the suttas; the word itself is most often used in conjunction with samatha, as in:

“Bhikkhus, these two things pertain to true knowledge. What two? Serenity and insight. When serenity is developed, what benefit does one experience? The mind is developed. When the mind is developed, what benefit does one experience? Lust is abandoned. When insight is developed, what benefit does one experience? Wisdom is developed. When wisdom is developed, what benefit does one experience? Ignorance is abandoned.
-- AN 2.31 (Bodhi, trans)

(The word for serenity is samatha, and insight is vipassana)
But what is less acknowledged is the frequent use of other forms of the root √pas with the prefix vi, e.g.:

paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati.
And what ever dhammas arise in the present, one sees clearly therein.
-- MN 131

or

andhabhūto ayaṃ loko, tanukettha vipassati.
Blind is this world; few here see clearly.
-- Dhp. 174

Further, the root √pas is used together with the noun paññā in a way that leaves no doubt as to the meaning being the same as vipassana:

evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passati
Thus one sees this as it is with right wisdom.
-- MN 35

So, the question of whether vipassana was something the Buddha taught is easy to answer.
The question of whether the Buddha discovered vipassana is a bit more complicated. What do you mean by vipassana? It is a term that means "clear seeing". If, by clear seeing, you include seeing shapes in front of your eyes, or being able to understand logical arguments, or empathizing with others, or any number of things that are called clear seeing by the world, then of course no, the Buddha didn't discover that for himself.
The clear seeing that the Buddha discovered was in regards to the three characteristics and the four noble truths; this is something he discovered that had been hidden to the world, and was the core of his teaching, for example:

“sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
'All formations are suffering.' When one sees this with wisdom,
Becoming thereupon disenchanted in regards to what is suffering, this is the path to purity.
-- Dhp. 278

Notice the use of a construct similar to vipassati.  As to the Buddha discovering this fact, we have:

uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti — ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.
“Bhikkhus, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, there persists that law, that stableness of the Dhamma, that fixed course of the Dhamma: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’ A Tathāgata awakens to this and breaks through to it, and then he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyzes it, and elucidates it thus: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’
-- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

And finally, in relation to seeing the four noble truths:

“‘idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.
'This is the noble truth of suffering." arose for me, bhikkhus, in regards to previously unheard dhammas; an eye arose, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, understanding arose, light arose.
-- SN. 56.11

All of this refers to the type of vipassana that the Buddha realized for himself before anyone else in the world.


There are a lot of scientifically proven benefits of fasting for short periods of time.

Within the earliest form of Buddhism, fasting after noon is recommended way of life.

This means they would get done with the "taking care of the body" part of their life out of the way early and can devote the most time to what is truly important: spiritual cultivation.

This is a fast of 16 hours. On the other hand, very long fasts that are weeks long is not the Middle Way and Buddha recommended against that.

Eating 3 meals a day is actually falling further on the opposite spectrum: eating too much, so be wary.


As well as extraordinary personal qualities, I suspect that one of the things which helped him to be free of "distraction by worldly behaviour" was 'renunciation'.
For example, Tapussa Sutta: To Tapussa:

"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
"As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality. That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset me was an affliction for me.

It's worth reading that whole sutta. It describes a series of deepening revelations. He practices (practices 'renunciation' to begin with), reaches a stage, ... but it isn't complete, his "heart doesn't leap", until he thinks or realizes something which completes that state and sees him enter the beginning of the next.
Also there are many adjectives in that sutta which seem to me to describe desirable or pleasant mental states; for example, "confident", "internal assurance", "equanimity", "pleasant abiding", "peace", "infinite space / non-resistance", etc.
The Buddha had a keen sense of dukkha (the first noble truth). Assuming that he found a way to escape or avoid dukkha, to find states of being/mind which are 'better' than unsatisfactory, that seems to me a strong and perpetual incentive for him to remain enlightened (i.e. not distracted, and his living as a monk means there is also not worldly behaviour).

My idea is that the Buddha found his 'awareness' to be rewarding; for example, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? starts,

"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

... and ends ...

Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge
& vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the
consummation of arahantship."

My guess is that:

If his awareness is rewarding and gives him positive feedback I think that's a reason why he would keep it.
Our mundane awareness (chasing sense-objects and mental formations) is, comparatively, not very satisfactory (it's dukkha and impermanent), which is a reason why we don't retain it.


How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination?

As explained in oral Mahayana tradition, the twelve Nidanas schematically describe gradual process of emerging subjective experience of the world and a sense of self.
The actual process is not linear and does not have 12 well-defined steps. Instead, 12 links should be considered as key milestones or features. The process itself is made of thousands or even millions of events. Every event follows the same basic pattern: something is perceived, recognized, identified, categorized, evaluated, either liked or disliked, either craved  or avoided, then there is some action, then the resulting experience is aggregated. This basic cycle occurs thousands or millions of times - each iteration slowly, slowly contributing to the developing sense of self (and the world).
There are many ways this process can be analytically explained in order to aid understanding. The challenge any description must solve is to show how each iteration follows the same basic pattern, but at the same time, to show that the whole thing grows over time, becoming more and more clear. In the beginning, there are very vague tendencies for generalization, and then slowly, slowly, very blurry outlines begin to emerge.
Another challenge is to show how and why this process is self-sustaining and self-clarifying. What forces are at play that make the whole thing evolve. What we're trying to show is how the growing subjectivity shapes the agent-centric action and how action feeds the grows of subjectivity.
This is what the triple-round model tries to illustrate. In this model we say that basically, D.O. has three main forces at play: the force of  "murkiness", the force of action, and the force of growing subjectivity. These three forces support each other and push each other forward, thereby making the whole situation evolve.
Murkiness feeds and supports the growth of primitive, confused, naive subjectivity. Confused subjectivity feeds and supports defiled activity. Defiled activity feeds and supports murkiness. The three forces feed and support each other and help each other develop.

The first round is called the round of defilement (kilesa-vaṭṭa) which includes ignorance (avijjā), craving (tanha) and clinging (upādāna).

This part talks about the force of murkiness. When we look at the 12-fold description of D.O. we can see 3 features that can be primarily associated with murkiness. The initial ignorance is murkiness in its most obvious original form. Craving is murkiness in its developed phase. Updana is murkiness in its most active phase.

The second round is called the round of action (kamma-vaṭṭa) which includes mental formations (saṅkhāra) and becoming (bhava).

This part talks about the force of action. Murkiness contributes to propensity or tendency to act and react in a certain way. On the initial stages, when things are very vague and unclear, these propensities are very ambiguous generalizations, inclining to seek some experiences and to avoid others. On the mature stages of D.O. the propensity to act in pursuit of likeable experience and to avoid its opposite gets much more deliberate, so now we can talk about "bhava" or individual purposeful planned activity in
pursuit of personal plans. On this stage we actively shape our environment by achieving our dreams and making them come true - in other words we actively construct ourselves and our world.

The third round is called the round of results (vipāka-vaṭṭa) which includes consciousness (viññāṇa), name-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). Sometimes, it also includes birth (jāti), death and the rest of suffering (jarāmaraṇa).

The remaining group describes the elements that develop to comprise our subjective experience. This is the gradually emerging experience of myself looking out, this is what we see: external objects slowly take shape, our feelings, the sense of the world and of self, and the interaction between the two.
In (protomahayana) Salistamba Sutra this is explained very similarly, except there they split the Defilement (Murkiness) factor into two separate factors: Ignorance and Desire:

... Four limbs of this twelve-fold Dependent Origination [are] ignorance, desire, karma and consciousness.
Here, consciousness [is like a] seed. Action [is like a] field. Ignorance and desire are defilement. Without these conditions, the development of the consciousness-seed does not occur. And so, the seed of consciousness grows, standing in the field of action, scattered by the wind of ignorance, watered by the moisture of desire.


The Buddha did in fact teach just this practice:

Bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the first watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the middle watch of the night we will lie down on the right side in the lion’s pose with one foot overlapping the other, mindful and fully aware, after noting in our minds the time for rising. After rising, in the third watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states.’
-- MN 39 (Bodhi, trans)

This passage occurs frequently in the suttas. The Buddha taught there are five benefits to walking meditation:

addhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate long-distance travel
padhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate exertion
appābādho hoti - one has little sickness
asitaṃ pītaṃ khāyitaṃ sāyitaṃ sammā pariṇāmaṃ gacchati - what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted goes to proper digestion
caṅkamādhigato samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko hoti - walking-produced concentration is of long duration.

-- AN 5.29


Is the attainment of natural wisdom exclusive to Buddhism?

Dhamma isn't exclusive to Buddhism. As the story goes, wherever there are apple trees, there are apples; but one can't expect to find apples where there aren't apple trees. Likewise, can't expect to find wisdom teaching where wisdom is not being properly taught.

  While sitting on one side the wanderer Subhadda said this to the Gracious One: “Those ascetics and brahmins, dear Gotama, who have a community, a group, who teach a group, well-known, famous, religious founders, agreed upon as good for the people, such as: Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambala, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, have they all understood, according to their own avowal? Have they all not understood? Or, have some understood? Or, have some not understood?”

  “Enough, Subhadda, stop this: ‘Have they all understood, according to their own avowal? Have they all not understood? Or, have some understood? Or, have some not understood?’ I will teach the Teaching to you, Subhadda, listen to it, apply your mind well, and I will speak.”

  “Very well, reverend Sir,” the wanderer Subhadda replied to the Gracious One, and the Gracious One said this: “Wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is not found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is not found, there a second true ascetic is not found, there a third true ascetic is not found, there a fourth true ascetic is not found.

  But wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is found, there a second true ascetic is found, there a third true ascetic is found, there a fourth true ascetic is found.

  -- Mahāparinibbāna sutta, DN 16


Did the Buddha endorse a cyclical cosmology?

DN 1 states:

There comes a time, monks, when after the lapse of a long period
this world contracts (disintegrates) ...
But sooner or later, monks, after the lapse of a long period, there
comes a time when this world begins to expand once again.

This may or may not correspond to the Big Bounce model of physics.
For more info, please read the 2020 Wired article "What If the Big Bang Was Actually a Big Bounce?", by Charlie Wood.
Despite this, if you look at the whole body of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha discouraged such speculation.
He preferred the seeker to focus on the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, the path that leads to the permanent cessation of suffering (dukkha).
Speculating on the origin of the universe is totally unimportant in Buddhism. Whether it was a Big Bang or Big Bounce or an infinitely existing universe, the validity of the Four Noble Truths does not change in any way.
Please read the wikipedia article on the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.
In AN 4.77, he taught:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

In AN 10.70, he taught:

As he was sitting there, he addressed the monks: "For
what topic of conversation are you gathered together here? In the
midst of what topic of conversation have you been interrupted?"
"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we
gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial
topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers
of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing,
furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns,
cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street &
the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the
world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."
"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone
forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged
in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings,
robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.


What is a "thought?" (Particularly in reference to thoughts that arise during meditation)

According to Buddhism thought to arise from the consciousness. Which are called Vitakka and Vicara. There are many types of wholesome and unwholesome thoughts. A person should have a good grasp of Abhidhamma to understand the differences completely.

Abhidhamma in practice:
http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf


Who was the buddhist figure who forbade writing what he said, and whose disciples instead wore paper robes?

Yúnmén Wényǎn (862 or 864 – 949 CE), (雲門文偃; Japanese: うんもんぶんえん, Ummon Bun'en; also known in English as "Unmon", "Ummon Daishi", "Ummon Zenji"), was a major[a] Chinese Zen master in Tang-era China. He was a dharma-heir of Xuefeng Yicun


Is it necessary to use a whole variety of meditation techniques?

I found experimentation helpful before I realised that some meditations require some form of mental application or you could refer to it as volitional noise. This, as I learned, became averse to me and so my practice is meditating while 'not doing'. This means I am just simply an observer of bodily phenomenon. It goes much deeper than this as one can observe with a kind of gentle organic intuitive processing which is helpful when seeing the threes marks of existence within the skandhas. Many people have given this meditation different names but I don't concern myself with that. Find your own comfortable technique but use Buddha's guidance as a framework. Here's a beautiful quote from the Diamond Sutra that illustrates this message.

  Awakening does not come from a set method of teachings but an internally intuitive process which is spontaneous and part of one's own inner nature.

Here's an audio version of the Diamond Sutra...

https://youtu.be/HK9u7Jz-vNA


Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?

Because buddhist morality is not about regulations and punishments for bad deeds. It's about the effect actions have on your well being, and others' well being. It's "medicinal morality", rather than "legalist morality". And what is bad for the mind's health is to act with malicious intentions.

This perspective on morality is completely different from our western morality which is still influenced by a christian view of exterior punishment for bad deeds. The punishment comes from you alone and is thus rooted in your intentions behind the deeds.

In this case, this is just one more instance of how suffering in the world is innevitable. It's not that being vegetarian is irrelevant. It is obviously a wholesome thing to do. But there are far more important things to worry about regarding what is good and what is bad for the mind, because when you buy meat you don't have the intention to kill animals. Just like when you walk the street you have no intention to kill bugs, even though that is completely innevitable in the long run.


How should one look at buddhist mythologies and cosmologies from a scientific perspective

... reconcile with modern science? ...

Modern science is always changing with new theories and discoveries but Buddhism is presented as eternal or timeless which is valid in the past, present and future. Hence these two cannot be fully reconciled. Since is refinement of theories and models getting closer to the truth while Buddhism is based on publically released ultimate realities. As science advance many of the concepts are in harmony and while there are perhaps hardly any scientifically proven discoveries which contradict Buddhism.

  ... which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones ...

If you compare Hindu cosmology with Buddhist cosmology (especially Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there are wast differences. In Hinduism there is a creator but in Buddhism the universe goes through expansionary and contractionary phases.

  ... reconcile with modern science? ...

You cannot. But Buddhism has a theory of cyclical phases of the universe like the big bounce theory, parallel universes (see Parallel universes by Piya Tan), evolution, etc.

Also see: Buddhism and science, Buddhism and Modern Science - by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena (especially the highlighted areas), Is Buddhism the Most Science-Friendly Religion?

  ... including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. ...

Meditation (especially samatha) can lead to psychic powers / supernormal knowledge like clairvoyance (divine eye) which can be give insights to the working of Karma. E.g.

    Thus, by means of the divine eye, may I see beings passing away and reappearing, and how they fare according to their karma.’

Source: Nimitta Sutta similar passage in Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Samanna,phala Sutta, Maha Assa,pura Sutta, Kevaddha Sutta.


Can a Buddhist mix Buddhism with other religions?

It seems significant that HHDL advises us not to abandon the religion of our birth yet also encourages us to strive for realisation. This is the view that religion is a vehicle, not a destination.

All those I know who endorse more than one religion also say, equivalently, that they have no religion. It depends whether we see our religion as a proscribed set of beliefs or a set of methods and practices for transcending belief.

And then, talk to any three Christians and they will probably have three different religions, such is the game of Chinese Whispers.


Is there a major translation error in MN 10?

Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know: ‘I am walking.’

  Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
  gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti

From my very little understanding of Pali, "gacchāmi" means "I am walking" because the verb conjugation -mi is only used for first person singular in present tense, hence the "I am" is optional. The subject is optional.

Similarly, "gacchasi" means "you are walking" but "you are" is optional because the verb conjugation -si is for second person singular in present tense. The subject is optional.

Similarly, "gacchāma" means "we are walking" because the conjugation -ma is for first person plural in present tense. The subject is optional.

However, for "gacchati" which means "he/she/it is walking", and "gacchanti" which means "they are walking", a subject is not optional and must be clearly specified because it is not obvious from the verb conjugation who it is referring to.

Of course, in continuing conversation, third person subject (singular or plural) may be omitted, if it was explicitly stated in the previous part of the conversation i.e. implied. At least, I guess so.

Please see here.


Going from a waking state into the dream state while being conscious

If one is truly mindful during the process of death, then one of two possibilities exist; either one will pass away into complete liberation as an enlightened being or, if there is still some substratum of clinging, one will be reborn as a deva or brahma and be fully conscious of one's previous life.


Are there any sutta references to the way S.N. Goenkaji teaches Vipassana?

There are no suttas that describe the specific technique of Goenka.
However, a natural 'scanning' of the body (including awareness and dissolution of sankharas) will occur when Anapanasati or Kayagatasati are developed.


From the Ajañña Sutta (AN 8.13):

  "In the same way, a monk endowed with eight qualities is worthy of
  gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect,
  an incomparable field of merit for the world. Which eight?

  (1) "There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained
  in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere
  of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules,
  seeing danger in the slightest faults.

  (2) "When given food, whether coarse or refined, he eats it carefully,
  without complaining.

  (3) "He feels disgust at bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental
  misconduct, at the development of evil, unskillful [mental] qualities.

  (4) "He is composed & easy to live with, and doesn't harass the other
  monks.

  (5) "Whatever tricks or deceits or wiles or subterfuges he has, he
  shows them as they actually are to the Teacher or to his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life, so that the Teacher or his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life can try to straighten them out.

  (6) "When in training he gives rise to the thought, 'Whether the other
  monks want to train or not, I'll train here.'

  (7) "When going, he goes the straight path; here the straight path is
  this: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

  (8) "He dwells with his persistence aroused, [thinking,] 'Gladly would
  I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin,
  tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached
  through human steadfastness, human persistence, human striving, there
  will be no relaxing my persistence.'"

From the Ajaniya Sutta (AN 3.94) - please read sutta for elaboration:

  "In the same way, a monk endowed with these three qualities is worthy
  of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which three?
  There is the case where a monk is consummate in beauty, consummate in
  strength, and consummate in speed.

From the Akkhama Sutta (AN 5.139) - please read sutta for elaboration:

  "In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is not deserving
  of gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving
  of respect, nor is he an unexcelled field of merit for the world.
  Which five? There is the case where a monk is not resilient to sights,
  not resilient to sounds, not resilient to aromas, not resilient to
  flavors, not resilient to tactile sensations.

  "In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is resilient to sights, resilient to sounds,
  resilient to aromas, resilient to flavors, resilient to tactile
  sensations.

From the Sotar Sutta (AN 5.140) - please read sutta for elaboration:

  "In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is a listener, a destroyer, a protector, an
  endurer, and a goer.

From the Pathama Atthapuggala Sutta (AN 8.59):

  Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential
  salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?

  The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the
  course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the
  once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the
  realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one
  who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of
  non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course
  for arahantship.


Why difference in karmic effect to same evil deed?

The answer lies in the mind, i.e. to what degree has the mind been cultivated and purified.

The more cultivated and purified a mind is, the lesser the chance is that one will continue to make unwholesome deeds or increase suffering for oneself. Ones mind is simply more inclined towards Nibbana.

If we look at the untrained mind or the novice mind, then that mind is not cultivated or developed, meaning that the defilements are much more present here. Wisdom is absent or present in a much lesser degree, than in the trained mind.

An untrained mind is more likely to dwell in e.g. anger, sadness, happiness and other emotions, thereby enforcing them, like in the snowball-effect. The untrained mind will also in a larger degree identify with and take ownership of phenomena, thinking that there is a self or an experiencing entity, thereby creating further suffering for oneself.

The trained and cultivated mind has attained a lot more wisdom, making it capable of seeing reality as it is, without superimposing qualities onto it. The trained mind will not run after pleasant objects and away from unpleasant objects. It has seen the true nature of conditioned existence, i.e. the 3 marks of existence.

So if an individual with a cultivated and purified mind commits an unwholesome deed, then that individual will realize it much faster and be able to "damage-control" by reciting the precepts, use the unwholesome phenomena that has arisen e.g. mental formations or feelings to cultivate insight, go and commit wholesome deeds, increase the work on the paramitas and other options. In other words, the individual with a trained mind is much more capable of dealing with mistakes and turn them into insights. Also this person has a greater storage of wholesome kamma that will neutralize or lessen the effects of the unwholesome kamma that has been created.

This is different for the individual with the untrained or novice mind, since that person does not yet have the right tools to deal with the effects of unwholesome deeds. His faculties are not yet matured and he might be more liable to dwell, identify, take ownership, react and run away from these effects, thereby increasing the suffering (going to hell) for himself.

Lastly, I want to point out that only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand the workings of kamma. So there might be many more reasons for this difference between an experienced and an inexperienced individual, that non-Buddhas cannot yet understand.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote, let me know.


Circumambulation (Walking around something clockwise) is still a very common practice in most schools of Buddhism as a form of veneration of something.

It is done for Stupas containing relics of the Buddha most famously, but also for other things as well. For example, in the Theravada tradition it is common that on certain occasions one would circumambulate the entire temple or monastery, and I think this sometimes done in other traditions as well.

In Chinese and perhaps Vietnamese Buddhism it is common to circumambulate the main Buddha image of a temple and so temples often have an open path that goes around the image so you can easily do so.


Why Shakyamuni Buddha choose Indian subcontinent as a favorable place to teach Buddhist way of living?

(I think you know about who a Bodhisattva is....)

While a Bodhisattva is in the heavenly realm (Thauthisa) he chooses the
Best time,Best parents,Best cast,Best kingdom,Best country to be born. This is an essential process that all Bodhisattva's go through before being born as a human being.

  Here are the reasons why.....

As you know democracy is really new,what existed before is a cast system with nobles and lower casts. Your name sounds Indian so i presume there is no need of explaining the difficulties that a lower cast person will have to go through to get to any higher level in anything. At the age of kings there is no better place to get accepted than being born as a prince and that's why it happened like that in this era.

I have learned that there is an auspicious place on the Human realm that all Bodhisattvas (Who are destined to be A Lord Buddha) reach nirvana and become Lord Buddhas. And this place is the same place every time even after all the destruction that can happen. This time it was India and next time maybe there will be no India, Next time it may be on an island. What we are talking about is a universal position that does not change,its geography,name and other things may change but it will always be the same place in the universe.

Another Buddha can't be born in a particular realm while there is already a previous Buddha's teaching.

(Please not that this is "Theravada Buddhism" and "Mahayana Buddhists" believe in multiple Buddhas in different realms. But even them do not believe that another Buddha can be born in a particular realm while there is already a previous Buddha's teaching.)

  Can Lord Buddha be a woman....

No, As Lord Buddha explained a woman who start the life of a Bodhisattva will soon turn into a male in the most nearby life and continue to be male. Because of this reason a Lord Buddha will always be a male.

Please note that this does not mean that a woman can't be a Lord Buddha. What this means is that when she start her practice as a Bodhisattva she will soon get a life as a male and therefore a woman being a lord Buddha does not happen because of this gender change between births.

  Can Jesus or any other recent teachers be a Buddha....

No, Because as far as my knowledge goes none of the schools accept that two Lord Buddhas will exist in the same planet at the same time or two  teachings would exist at the same time.

  Will Buddhism change or modify to suit the time....

No, Because there is one unique thing about Buddhism. And that is....

Akalika = Timeless

As Lord Buddha said there is no need of updating or changing the teaching as it is timeless and complete.

Also Lord Buddha challenged saying that no one can add or remove a single teaching as too much or non worthy.

So there can be differences in

The Language
The explaining method
The idioms
The examples

when two Lord Buddhas teach the path. But the core will always be the same. The only difference will be Grammatical and explanatory differences.


Is kamma the driving force behind dependent origination

Karma in this case sankhara is what creates the future cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).
Sankhara / Karma is created due to craving. Caving is due to our habitual reaction to sensation/stimuli due to ignorance. If one develops wisdom one does not react to sensation which leads to unwholesome mental states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta
When one creates Sankhara this intern creates the future round of rebirths. If one equanimous while seeing impermanence without generating craving one does not create sankhara / karma.
To train your mind one can try the following a course of meditation:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index or
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html


Why do Buddhism monk hits people in the head?

I don't think it's a usual practice. I found this explanation online:

A monk who was seen forcefully hitting temple-goers' heads with a bundle of dried grass has defended the unorthodox practice, calling it his unique way of blessing the faithful.
Phra Jirapan Analyo, the 53-year-old abbot of Pha Sadej monastery in Saraburi, admitted that the practice may look violent in a video that went viral this week, but insisted that it does not hurt.
"The knocking of heads is a way to cure diseases and illness for the faithful," Phra Jirapan said. "And the knocking may look violent, but it didn't hurt anyone."
...
Phra Benja Papassaro, a monk who oversees temples in Saraburi province, told reporters that he watched the video and believes "his action does not violate the holy doctrines, though it does look excessive." He said he and other senior monks are discussing the issue to find a formal conclusion on the matter.

A more usual form of Thai "blessing" would be "sprinkling" water (see for example here).


How do I recognize the attachment to certain things?

How do I know whether I am attached to my career , exam results or not ?

The evidence for attachment is dukkha (suffering/discomfort/dissatisfaction). In your next sentence you seem to be aware of feeling the attachment (vedana). The answer to your question then lies in how that makes you feel.

  ( Now I am in the university. I have to work for exams. Sometime I feel , I am attached to exam results) If it is, How do I work without attaching to it ?

It's pretty much an either/or deal: You can either attach to a specific outcome, such as exam results, or put your effort into non-attachment according to buddhist dhamma.

To my understanding you can't do both, which can put us in a bit of a difficult existential quandary: The question whether you should be attached to your studies or not is only for you to determine.

In case you want to develop a buddhist practice, getting into the meditation called anapanasati is a good start. Also, it is a meditation that can yield good consequences for a lifetime.

This is a good start:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html

You will find plenty of discussion/instructions here:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=anapanasati


Who were the first followers of the Buddha?

A Sketch of the Buddha's Life quotes
MN 26,
which includes the following passage:

He wonders: To whom should I teach this Dhamma first?
Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

Later, that same MN 26 describes his meeting them and talking with those five, and eventually says,

"And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject themselves to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, they reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in them: 'Unprovoked is our release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

SN 56.11 starts with,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks

SN 56.11 is the story of his giving his first sermon, and it is to that same group of five ascetics (and who were subsequently enlightened when he gave his second sermon, at the end of SN 22.59).
The end of SN 56.11 mentions the name of one of these five, i.e. "Kondañña" (further references here and here).
Wikipedia (which is referencing Encyclopaedia of Buddhism by the Government of Ceylon, pp. 696–698) gives the names of the other four:

Koṇḍañña, along with Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji, variously described as four of the other scholars who had read Siddhartha's future or the sons of those scholars, followed him into the ascetic life, with the approval of Suddhodana, who was worried about Siddhartha's safety. They were known as "the group of five" or "the group of five fortunate ones".

See also this question which has several useful answers about the chronological sequence of suttas.


Why do Buddhists cremate instead of burying?

That answer in the video has a parallel in Sky burial where the body is exposed in the wilderness to be eaten by birds and animals.

That practice is unpopular (and, more to the point, illegal) in countries which don't have enough wilderness etc.

Cremation is a standard practice in India and, apparently, was the practice in the Buddha's time. The Maha-parinibbana Sutta ends with the monks telling the local society to do as they see fit (which included cremation).

I think there is a "religious" aspect to it: a Christian might believe in resurrection of the body and therefore want their body buried instead of destroyed. A Buddhist is more likely to see the body as impermanent and not-self (on the other hand Buddhists do collect relics, see e.g. here and here).

As for ecology I suppose that burial is more carbon-neutral, but it takes land, cemeteries run out of space.


Can we consider any core Buddhist teaching as dogma?

"A principle incontrovertibly true" is not a dogma. E.g. in math the principle of associativity -- a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c -- is incontrovertibly true, so what? A principle must be "incontrovertibly true" within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless.

Instead, dogma is a thesis to be taken on blind faith, with no logical proof nor practical evidence. Another definition of dogma is a thesis mistakenly absolutized outside of domain where it is legitimately valid.

As any science, Buddhism -- the science of Liberation -- has its principles, its truths. And within the context of Buddhism they better be true -- otherwise we'd have to throw them away!

But yeah, we have to be careful not to take Buddhist truths as dogmas. Which means two things: 1) by all means try and map what it really means that e.g. "the origin of dukkha is craving" onto one's direct experience; and 2) not unwittingly absolutize e.g. the celibacy precept for monks to mean that procreation in general is bad.


Vipassana texts and books references request

Buddhanet contain a lot of meditation related ebooks on the topic which you can read. A good introductory book would be:

Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice
MINDFULNESS IN PLAIN ENGLISH
Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path

Also following questions on the site might be of interest also:

Introductory books to Buddhism
Beginner academic text recommendation
Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon


What is the origin of the Buddhist expression "Practice as if your hair is on fire"?

Tissa (Thag 1.39)   {Thag 39}

  As if struck by a sword,
  as if his head were on fire,
  a monk should live the wandering life
      — mindful —
  for the abandoning of sensual passion.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.01.00x.than.html#passage-39


Do we have to let go the "Subha Sanna" completely?

The word subhasaññānuvattinī occurs exactly once in the five Nikayas and it warns of a danger:

Thig5.3:1.1: Due to improper attention,  I was racked by desire for pleasures of the senses.  I was restless in the past, lacking control over my mind.  Overcome by corruptions, pursuing perceptions of the beautiful, I gained no peace of mind.  Under the sway of lustful thoughts,  thin, pale, and wan, for seven years I wandered, full of pain,

Perceptions of the beautiful should not be confused with the third liberation:

AN8.66:3.1: Subhanteva adhimutto hoti.

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty.

The third liberation results from the heart's release by love.

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

The heart's release by love is mettācetovimutti, it is not the heart's release by the perception of beauty.
So although the Triple Gem is certainly beautiful, we should have proper attention towards the Triple Gem instead of merely perceiving them as beautiful.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.


"Monks, I will teach you craving: the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped 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, & bad destinations. Listen well, and I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped 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, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations[1] dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
"This, monks is craving the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped 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, & bad destinations." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.199.than.html


Buddhism and the so called "hard" problem of consciousness

A good question. But hampered, as are many such discussions by mismatched terminology. There is no Buddhist concept that quite matches the idea of "consciousness". We don't really notice this because the early translators used quite imprecise terminology and we're stuck with it. If there is one thing that vijñāna is not, it is "consciousness".

Another factor that one must take into account is that what ancient Buddhists meant by "mind" and what modern philosophers, like David "The Hard problem Chalmers mean by it are two different things. Buddhists for example make no categorical distinction between thought and emotion. There is no word for emotion in either Pāḷi or Sanskrit. See Emotions in Buddhism. Emotion is a kind of citta, as it thought, or perception. And yet the distinction between thoughts and emotions is critical to modern philosophy.

Nor is there any notion of the mind as a container for experience. The metaphor of the "theatre of consciousness" is entirely absent from Buddhist thought. See The 'Mind as Container' Metaphor.

The early Buddhists never claimed to fully explain conscious thought. The project would not have interested them. They were trying to understand dukkha - unenlightened experience. They were interested in the intoxication (pamāda) of ordinary people with sense experience and how to sober up. However as I understand it they would probably have agreed that because experience arises in dependence on sense object, sense faculty and sense cognition, and that most of us proceed without pause to proliferation, that a complete explanation of a conscious thought would be difficult. But I don't think anattā has anything to do with this.

On the other hand experience of samādhi changes the ball game. One can get a kind of insight into the arising of cittas that are as yet not incorporated into the modern theories of mind.

  Consciousness is only explicable by way of an explanation of some particular conscious thought.

The trouble is that what you are calling "consciousness" is almost certainly ruled out in Buddhist thought by anattā. From the early Buddhist point of view there is no such thing as "consciousness" in the sense that, say, David Chalmers uses it. There's just conscious experience. Chalmers own solution that "consciousness" must be different from matter is also ruled out - if something is not accessible to the senses then we can have no knowledge of it. And this is the most important implication of anattā.

It does leave open the question of the Hard Problem though, because there is still something that it is like to have an experience. It's just that solving this problem would not tell us anything interesting about why we suffer. We suffer because we have an aberrant relationship to pleasure/pain.

So it seems to me that you're barking up the wrong philosophical tree with this question. However, it's worth asking because it helps to clarify the distinctions between Buddhism and philosophy.


What does a normal person lose by following the path?

What you gradually lose by practicing the path is:

Taṇhā
Nīvarana see: Nīvaraṇa by Piya Tan
Akusala,mūla
Anusaya see: Anusaya by Piya Tan
Saṁyojana
Kilesa
Asava

None of which are pleasant to have or worthwhile to have or keep around. What you gain is unshakable peace and happiness (free from Dukkha or Nirvana). In addition you end Jarāmaraṇa and the cycle of Dependent Origination.

As per what you said in your text you are able to enjoy more which perhaps is due to reduction of the above undesirables. Once the are completely gone only happiness remain. This happiness is stable and not dependent on anything else and does not end. Therefore, you will be able to enjoy life like never before through not they type of enjoyment you have experienced before (ämisa sukha). This is a more higher type of enjoyment (niramisa sukha).


In "seeing the Dhamma", it's figuratively said, that is he witnessed for him self experientially the nature of reality, as opposed to intellectually understanding it.

  "[A] monk who cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path, who assiduously practices the Noble Eightfold Path, comprehends with higher knowledge those states that are to be so comprehended, abandons with higher knowledge those states that are to be so abandoned, comes to experience with higher knowledge those states that are to be so experienced, and cultivates with higher knowledge those states that are to be so cultivated.

  What, monks, are the states to be comprehended with higher knowledge?
  They are the five groups of clinging. Which five? The body-group, the feeling-group, the perception-group, the mental-formation group, the consciousness-group...

  What, monks, are the states to be abandoned with higher knowledge?
  They are ignorance and the desire for [further] becoming. And what, monks, are the states to be experienced with higher knowledge?
  They are knowledge and liberation. And what, monk, are the states to be cultivated with higher knowledge?
  They are calm and insight."
  SN 45.159

As far as seeing other beings taking birth and dying, I don't have magical powers, but I understand this as being something like the eye of the mind expanding to actually witness this happening. With nimitas, they are lights that appear in the minds eye so are "seen" by the eye within as well.

Ajahn Brahm talks a lot about Nimitas


Seeking guidance on avoiding meditation distractions and sluggishness

A standard beginner's practice for those who get distracted is to count your breaths. You can count them by subvocalizing, or on fingers. I counted by touching my thumb to three phalanges on each finger, and for each full hand - count one phalanges on the other hand.

Another practice to establish the mind in the beginning of the session is to 1) review all body sensations, head to toe and explicitly note every discomfort, then 2) review all breathing tensions and emotional sensations and note all of the preexisting conditions, then 3) review the state of the mind and note the quality of thinking & awareness today. Once the review is complete this way, it helps to set all distractions aside.

Then again, it's not like the distractions and sluggishness is one, and meditation is some perfect state separate from those. The whole point of (Buddhist) meditation is to work with your inner condition, until you learn to manage it, and in the process get some insight. So don't treat the obstacles as something unexpected, working with obstacles is the meat and bones of meditation.


Feelings and kamma and sankhara , am I bound for the rest of my life

Focus on the here and now - your current moment is no trap but choices you make.

If you are depressed, you are trapped in your memories.

If you are anxiety, you are trapped in the future.

You are NOT supposed to control your feelings, because your feelings are nothing but a result of external circumstances, which you can never really control; instead, you are supposed to observe your feelings, observe the causes of your emotions, and understand the fact that all external circumstances are naturally...impermanent.


Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible?

One could equally ask, "why didn't Christianity compile a lengthy and diverse set of canonical texts like the Tripiṭaka?"

The thing is, Buddhism does have a canonical set of texts that are widely viewed by all major Buddhist traditions as canonical (as far as being the teachings given by the Buddha during his life time), organized into books and sections somewhat like the Christian bible. And while the exact makeup of the set differs from tradition to tradition, the core texts (mainly the first four nikayas of the sutta pitaka in Pali - the agamas in Chinese), are agreed upon as canonical. This is not dissimilar to the situation that exists between Judaism and Christianity.

So, there only remains the question, why is the Buddhist canon not "reasonably concise"?

The first reason for the difference in length is a great amount of repetition, brought about both by 1) the fact that Buddhism was orally transmitted for so long and repetition helped with memorization, and 2) the state of having a good number of the same teachings given multiple times in slightly different contexts and faithfully recorded in duplicate, triplicate, etc.

The second reason is the discrepancy in time span. Jesus taught for around three years before getting himself killed; the Buddha lived to the ripe old age of 80, teaching for 45 years from the time of his enlightenment. One scholar (Rhys-Davids, IIRC) estimated that, all repetition removed, the Tipitaka is approximately eleven times the size of the Christian bible. Given that the Buddha taught fifteen times as long as Jesus, this seems like a fairly reasonable difference.

EDIT: removed the third reason.


I think that unwholesome states of mind are conditioned and temporary.

It's difficult to generalise (i.e. I was told there are different results/experiences for different people) but if someone has a mental illness they may have seemingly unwholesome states of mind, and this condition might last for decades, for a lifetime -- but/or, a change in medication, a change in their social situation (friends), might condition a thorough "night and day" change in the states of mind even before the end of this life.

Sometimes it may seem that the range of (or the extremes of) experience is wider: i.e. a longer and more acute experience of a hell and/or a heaven (even in this life) than other more "normal" people will experience.

I'm not sure that Buddhism rightly talks about what's "destined" for people, i.e. perhaps it isn't correct to ask about it: because you can't predict the future and it may surprise you; because you should have some faith in the possibility of salvation, of becoming enlightened, of teachers, of refuge, of the three jewels; because there's some scope of agency and good (or bad) intentions, i.e. results are not predestined; and because the ability to see the effects of kamma on specific people is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers (and the fact that he did it sometimes doesn't mean that we should assume that we can).


Can you go through all 7 purifications of insight with walking meditation?

Yes, of course.

  After reciting the Pātimokkha, it seems,
  on the Uposatha day of the full moon, one of the two elders who were brothers
  went to his own dwelling place surrounded by the Community of Bhikkhus.

  As
  he stood on the walk looking at the moonlight, he calculated his own vital
  formations and he said to the Community of Bhikkhus, “In what way have you
  seen bhikkhus attaining Nibbāna up till now?”

  Some answered, “Till now we
  have seen them attain Nibbāna sitting in their seats.” Others answered, “We
  have seen them sitting cross-legged in the air.”

  The elder said, “I shall now
  show you one attaining Nibbāna while walking.” He then drew a line on the
  walk, saying, “I shall go from this end of the walk to the other end and return;
  when I reach this line I shall attain Nibbāna.”

  So saying, he stepped on to the
  walk and went to the far end. On his return he attained Nibbāna in the same
  moment in which he stepped on the line.

  -- Vism. VIII.244 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Note, that the seven purifications are not all related to insight directly. They are simply called the seven purifications, not the seven purifications of insight.


Getting started young with many attachments

Even if you might not see it, you are very lucky to start this journey (Buddhism?) at such a young age. Just having a sense of a direction shapes to some degree the choises you make and the way you approch life situations.

At this age you might not have control of many decisions that affect you,so becomes even more important what you do with the aspects you can control ( who you spend your free time with, the books you read).

I think it's very important to be kind with yourself. Like you've said, it's a long journey. Try to rejoyce for the smallest progress you make (maybe you're controling your temper for 5 minutes longer than you normally do, maybe you are a little bit kinder to stranger than you were before); don't condamne yourself for the mistakes, just make a mental note to try to do it better the next time.

If you are interested in Buddhism, the precepts are very important guides in our life journey. The important thing is they are trainings, aspects we can continuously work on. So maybe you would like to read more about it.

Then there is the Eight Noble Path, the important training in morality, concentration and wisdom. I found very helpful the book of Lama Surya Das - Awakaning the Buddha within. There are many books on the topic, so just give it a try.

Venerable Yuttadhammo has a series of youtube videos on diffrent aspects of life and meditation. I highly recommand theme.

As one last idea, try to focus on the things you can control, understand that continous insight takes a lot of work and meditate.
Good luck!


Can you skip the 7 purifications and gain straight insight into phenomenon?

I'm starting to get the feeling that you haven't studied the seven purifications at all... numbers six and seven are equivalent to "straight insight into phenomena", so no, it is not by definition possible to skip them and still gain insight into phenomena. As per the sutta:

“So too, friend, purification of virtue is for the sake of reaching purification of mind; purification of mind is for the sake of reaching purification of view; purification of view is for the sake of reaching purification by overcoming doubt; purification by overcoming doubt [150] is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path; purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision of the way; purification by knowledge and vision of the way is for the sake of reaching purification by knowledge and vision; purification by knowledge and vision is for the sake of reaching final Nibbāna without clinging. It is for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One.”
-- MN 24 (Bodhi, trans)


This stage is basic but proper mindfulness, which is to be constantly maintained. The suttas say:

  ...that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly
  contemplating... strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily
  and is mindful in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward
  the world.

  Anapanasati Sutta


as you meditate, one of knowledge reveals to you is consciousness (vinnana) can only take place in one thing at a time, tho it rises and falls in one of the other 4 skanda very quickly.    As you pay attention, when you are aware of a thought (could be anything that is not about 5 sensual pleasures or anger) and dwell in it, (that's a power of nandi) you let go of nundi and consciousness raises back in breathing (form), old thought disappeared.  only this much, one recognizes the raise and fall of name-form.   What other dharma reveals in the process?  you would see the feeling of "self" does not disappear along with disappearing thought.  so you know and see for yourself that a thought isn't you.  this is first clear vision of anatta or non-self.  the ultimate goal is to see of non-self in consciousness.  consciousness is the final burden.


Can you reference an article which (dubiously) claims that the Pali Canon is an invention of Western Orientalists?

I have found an article that may be the article I asked for. It certainly seems to approximate to what I remember about the person who made the statement to me that "Western Orientalists invented the Pali Canon" and the academic article I found online (except that I article I saw was not free). It is "The Buddhist Canon and the Canon of Buddhist Studies" by Oliver Freiberger and is published by the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies at https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8951.


What will Most Effect in Next Life Done Good or Bad?

In balance of probability his last though may be 50:50 good or bad. Therefore there is a 50:50 chance the next birth will be good or bad but more biased towards the bad as there always decency that more bad through arise as you minds have the unwholesome roots. Also the action you did near the end may have a significant influence over that happens. Also in this life you might have done 50:50 good and bad but who knows what proportion of Karma you have from previous lives. In absence of a proximate to death or powerful Karma from this life giving arise there might be a chance a Karma from a part life and deciding the final moment. Also if what was done was done low level of volition this might affect the results, e.g., some may give for publicity than benevolent intentions. So it is very difficult to say what the chances are.


What is the most accurate translation of the word 'dukkha'?

As i understand it Dukkha can be derived from the Sanskrit kha, one meaning of which is some sort of opening, ie 'the axle-hole of a wheel', and the antithetic prefix Duk. Meaning that if you were given a wheel to try for a fit and having tried putting it on your chariot axle you would see that the wheel's 'kha' is a bad fit. Someone would then ask you if the wheel is sukha and you would reply; no it's dukkha. So here it's close to unfitting, bad, wrong, incompatible, unsuitable, disagreeable and ill-fitting or of the wrong kind.
Sukha would be the opppsite kind of fit. Well-fitting.
I think the ill or the illness are also good translations for dukkha .
From wikipedia

According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of sukha is "said to be su ['good'] + kha ['aperture'] and to mean originally 'having a good axle-hole'...." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda sukha denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots). Sukha is juxtaposed with duḥkha (Sanskrit; Pali: dukkha; often translated as "suffering"), which was established as the major motivating life principles in early Vedic religion.

In the pali we can see this applied to feelings [vedana] denoting pain as 'dukkha vedana' but it's use is broad.
There is a sutta called Dukkha which illustrates this;

"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..."

Translator's Notes (Thanissaro)

Dukkhataa, an abstract noun denoting "suffering" in the most general sense.

Dukkha-dukkhataa, the actual feeling of physical or mental pain or anguish.

Sankhaara-dukkhataa, the suffering produced by all "conditioned phenomena" (i.e., sankhaaras, in the most general sense: see BD [Buddhist Dictionary (2nd ed.), by Ven. Nyaa.natiloka, Ven. Nyaa.naponika (ed.), Colombo 1972] s.v. sankhaara I, 4). This includes also experiences associated with hedonically neutral feeling. The suffering inherent in the formations has its roots in the imperfectability of all conditioned existence, and in the fact that there cannot be any final satisfaction within the incessant turning of the Wheel of Life. The neutral feeling associated with this type of suffering is especially the indifference of those who do not understand the fact of suffering and are not moved by it.

Viparinaama-dukkhataa, the suffering associated with pleasant bodily and mental feelings: "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (VM XIV, 35).

I think that in regards to #3 It's noteworthy that it's said; 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' [all formations are dukkha] in the texts. So i think the translator made a slip there writing 'suffering produced by sankhara' and that it should be suffering associated with or suffering denoting all formations [sankhara-dukkha].
All formations are inconstant and to that extent they are flawed in as far as happiness goes, what is flawed that is classed categorically as dukkha.