The three characteristics are not meant to be understood through analysis; they are meant to be understood through direct realization (paññā). Once you truly see anatta for yourself, the next moment is the realization of nibbana. So there is no reason or benefit in seeking out this knowledge intellectually; it has to come by itself through mindfulness.

  “sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.

  -- Dhp 279

In truth, you are seeing anatta at every moment - because the experiences arise and cease without remainder, they are not self or anything belonging to self. Eventually, through the practice of mindfulness, you begin to understand this clearly, and give up any attachment to experiences as me, mine, etc.

  He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on.

  -- Vism XXI.48 (Nyanamoli, trans)

  then, seeing nothing to be taken as “I” or “mine,” he abandons both terror and delight and becomes indifferent and neutral towards all formations.

  -- Vism XXI.61 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Mahasi Sayadaw acknowledges the difficulty in understanding the characteristic of non-self in comparison to understanding the other two characteristics, referring to the commentaries and sub-commentaries who acknowledge the same. The sub-commentary points out, however, that this is simply because intellectual knowledge is inadequate to truly understand any of the three characteristics:

  The commentary states that the non-self doctrine is so deep that even the Enlightened One had to employ either the characteristics of impermanence or the characteristics of suffering or both of them to facilitate the teaching of the doctrine of non-self.

  The sub-commentary explained further that: 'In the above statement of the commentary, the anicca and dukkha known outside the Dispensation are mere conventional terms, by means of which idea of non-self could not be known. Only the anicca and dukkha realized in the absolute sense could be useful in explaining the doctrine of non-self.

  Mahasi Sayadaw, Anattalakkhana Sutta

If you want to understand the teaching on non-self intellectually, then, you can do so by reflecting on the characteristics of impermanence and suffering and inferring the characteristic of non-self in a way similar to the Buddha's exposition in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:

  "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

  -- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)

This will not, however, constitute true understanding of any of the characteristics, for which the culmination of insight meditation is required.


Can someone be Buddhist and Christian at the same time?

From my knowledge, it night be quite difficult to practice both, but still might be possible. The Buddha had a few quotes that contradict the teachings of Jesus.

The Buddha said:

  ‘There are some monks and priests who believe that whatever pleasant, painful or neutral experience someone has, all that is due to a supreme god. I approached them and asked if they believed this and they said they did. Then I said, “So according to you, if someone is a murderer, thief, adulterer or liar, a foul-mouth, greedy, hate-filled heretic, all that must be due to a supreme god.” When someone falls back on a supreme god as the answer, there (should logically be) no will to do, no desire to do, no necessity to do this or avoid that. Such a person is confused, vulnerable and cannot honestly call themselves a true monk or priest. This is my rightful refutation to those who believe such ideas, such views.’ -The Buddha (Tittha Sutta)

The other one I know about is the following:

  ‘Why does God not straighten out the world? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is the whole world in such a mess? Why did he not make the world happy? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is there so much deceit, lies, pride and unrighteousness? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, then he must be unrighteous and cruel because it was he who made everything.’ -The Buddha (Ja. VI,208

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha makes it clear of when a teaching should be accepted:

  "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything just because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything  merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been passed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis. When you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." -The Buddha (Kalama Sutta)

Here the Buddha makes it clear that you must not believe in anything on faith, and Christianity takes a little faith, no? I am also sure that there are Bible verses, and denominations of Christianity that might not allow you to follow Christianity with other religions.

Now don't get me wrong. One could still follow the Eightfold Path that was taught by the Buddha while believing in Jesus Christ.

Right view
Right intention
Right action
Right speech
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration


After the Buddha's enlightenment, did he receive any teachings?

I found a sutta where the Buddha had asked one of his disciples for a teaching

Consider this

Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks."
"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him.
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].' - AN 5:165

He whose victory cannot be undone,whose victory no one here approaches, the Buddha, whose range is endless,by what path can you lead the pathless one? - Dhp


Is this desire, to not be friendless anymore, healthy?

Any desire that cannot be achieved will cause suffering. Therefore, if (for some rare reason) you are intrinsically unable to make friends, you should accept this situation rather than suffer over it.

That said, the luminous or clear part of our mind is not the same as the bad traits of the mind. If your mind is actually able to see it has bad traits then that part of the mind that can see is luminous & clear. That is why Buddhism teaches we have the capacity to comprehend, work with & change the bad traits of the mind.

The very fact that you have concern about your personal situation shows you have the trait of friendship towards yourself.

If you are uncomfortable with pursuing friendship in an ordinary way, you can find a good Buddhist centre or temple to visit & discuss your personal concerns with a monk or teacher there. The Buddhist centre can be a place where you can learn to develop better traits & friendship skills with others.

The Buddha called himself the 'Kalyanamitta' or 'Noble Spiritual Friend', who does not offer superficial friendship but the gift of skilful methods & wisdom leading to peace.


Why intake of intoxicating substances is not included in 10 unwholesome actions?

In a way, the 10 unwholesome actions already take into account the intaking of intoxicants in the sense that intoxicant is a condition for the manifestation of any one of those 10 unwholesome actions. When one is drunk, it could serve as the condition that leads to killing, stealing, raping, etc.. OR it could just cause him to throw up and then pass out. In other words the 10 unwholesome actions are listed because they're all manifested explicit actions while taking intoxicants is a to-be-manifested action..


Did Buddha know the properties and behaviour of the matter fully?

No, the Buddha lived in an age where things such as germs, atoms, nuclei, molecules, thermodynamics, neurology, etc. were unknown. This is largely irrelevant to Buddhism, though there are similarities in their values and approach.
Science attempts to create theories and experiments that are independent of the human range of senses and way of thinking. The best example is quantum mechanics, which is beyond both our sensory range and our intuition. Science is therefore objective and experimental in nature.
Buddhism is a path to seeing the true nature of things through the human perspective, in particular the mind. It is therefore anthropocentric and experiential. Trying to describe or analyze the path is counterproductive, it is to be esperienced.

Joshu asked Nansen: ‘What is the path?’

Nansen said: ‘Everyday life is the path’.

Joshu asked: ‘Can it be studied?’

Nansen said: ‘If you try to study, you will be far away from it’.

The question then remains, does attaining Nirvana/Kensho/Satori render a complete understanding of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, neurology, etc? The answer is no. While this attainment does give the practitioner a new (and very important) understanding about the one-ness, interconnectivity, and emptiness of all phenomena, it does not endow with knowledge equal to or beyond the body of science.
Again, this is not central or essential to Buddhism, just like it is not essential to know about thermonuclear reaction to feel the warmth of the sun on your face, or to know neurology to lift your arm. It is possible to experience Mind without understanding Mind. The (mythical) discourse between Bodhidharma and the Chinese emperor illustrates this very well:

The emperor asked: “What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths of
Buddhism?”

“Vast emptiness, no holiness,” replied Bodhidharma.

“Who stands here before me?” asked Emperor Wu.

“I do not know” said Bodhidharma.

The question “Who stands here before me?” is taken as "who are you in essence, as an enlightened person?", i.e. "what is the nature of Mind"?


How is prayer different in Buddhism when compared to theistic religions?

Why is it so common for Buddhists to pray?

Generally speaking, before going into the specifics of Buddhist practice, people pray because they are looking for a support, because they want to be happy and free from suffering; they pray when things are out of their control, in order to help bring about desired results. Ordinary Buddhists are just people looking for a good future.

As in all things, one can't judge a religion by what is "common" among its followers; it stands to reason that the majority of practitioners in any religion will  not be serious about their religion and practice it only insofar as it supports their worldly pursuits. Hence the popularity of prayer over say meditation.

The Buddha's attitude towards theistic supplication is well-summarized in the Jaataka commentary:

  These greedy liars propagate deceit,
  And fools believe the fictions they repeat;

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

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

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

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

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

  Jāt. 543

He also implicitly pokes fun at the concept of supplication in the Ratana Sutta, acknowledging the prevalence of prayer and encouraging higher beings to respond positively:

  O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html

Does prayer in Buddhism have a different meaning when compared to for example Christianity?

In Theravada Buddhism, the word used is adhiṭṭhāna, which means "determination" or "resolution", in the sense of setting one's mind (ṭhāna) firmly (adhi) on something, e.g. "May I be free from suffering". Though the translation makes it sound like a request, it is actually just a means of reaffirming one's commitment to something - one's own happiness, the happiness of others, the attainment of enlightenment, etc.

An example of a core Buddhist determination, one made by the Buddha himself, is:

  ‘Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.’

  MN 70 (Bodhi, trans.)

In other Buddhist traditions, prayer may actually be used as a means of supplication, e.g. to a bodhisatta or even a presumed Buddha.


How to do a long meditation of "death contemplation"?

In the Tibetan Geluk tradition, contemplation of death would usually involve the two:

Analytical meditation on death
Placement meditation on a specific mind induced by analytical meditation

A beginner would start with 24 minutes meditation sessions. The point is to do it every day.

For instance, by engaging in analytical meditation on "death is certain, but its time is most uncertain, and at death only karma will follow", a mind of non-attachment to your goods will arise, or a mind of non-anger towards your so called-enemies will arise, or a mind of loving kindness for friends you are presently angry with will arise, or a mind wishing to practice dharma and a sense of urgency will arise.

When this or that mind arises, we are advised to take it to mind, concentrate on it, stay with it without analyzing anymore. This is to dwell in these "places" and familiarizing with it. Every time you dwell on non-attachment, you make it easier to dwell on it again. Moreover, every time you manage to make a mind of non-attachment arise, finding your way there (so to speak) becomes easier.

When you loose your object of concentration (be it a mind of love, non-attachment, urgency, etc) you engage in analysis again for it to arise again. The purpose is to find your way to these "places" and dwell on them again. We are very skilled in doing so with anger, feeding it, finding reasons to be unhappy and angry, and staying with it.

In the Geluk tradition, this type of meditation (alternating analytical and placement) are laid out in the Lam Rim (i.e. Stages of the Path). Venerable Karin Valham compiled an outline of it: Lam.Rim Outlines – Beginners' Meditation Guide. Whether you want to meditate on impermanence and death, or precious human rebirth, or suffering, etc. this is just food for thought.


Traits of a person manifesting in certain ways in the next life

For the physical appearances you should read Lakkhaṇa Sutta. But it is not guaranteed that you can have specific physical appearance in next life because how much extent averse effects you did previous lives and current life. Buddha only have this exceptional and scientifically impossible physical characteristics by practicing specific wholesome acts in many uncountable lives. By practicing the Sila, Samadi and Panna taught by Buddha in this sutta you can attain Nirvana as Buddha or student of Buddha, that is for sure.


What are the main schools of Tibetan Buddhism?

Rather simplified, somewhat caricatured presentation based on my own very limited knowledge:

Nyingma - "the old (translation) tradition", based on prehistoric transmissions of B into Tibet as early as 8th century. Characterized by loose "democratic" organization (until the exile each monastery was independent, with no central figurehead a-la Dalai Lama) and by a very abstract main teaching intended to plant the student into an already-enlightened perspective. Historically situated in Eastern Tibet. Before the communist invasion this was a very deep, very conservative school, very proud of its archaic methods.

Kagyu - "the oral linage" from mostly Eastern (with some important monasteries in Central) Tibet, from 12th century. Characterized by emphasis on effort and various transformative / cleansing practices, this school takes pride in live transmission of fundamental sanity and teaching by personal example that is not shy of adapting to the spirit of times.

Sakya - the study school, historically in close affinity with rich secular rulers of Central and Eastern Tibet since 13-14cc. Emphasizes thorough knowledge of Dharma through study of texts. Not always considered a mature monastic tradition by the above two schools.
The head role is passed down the family line, as in hereditary monarchy.

Gelug - the new reform school, founded in Central Tibet in 14th century, on the textual basis of the then extinct Kadam school (11-12cc). The doctrinal foundation of the Central Tibetan government that saw itself in charge of Tibet from 15th to 20th century. Characterized by relatively more rigid orgstructure. Emphasizes logic and study of Madhyamaka. The Gelug is the most recent and perforce drew upon the prior schools (Nyingma/Kagyu/Sakya) in many ways.

Bon - an ancient shamanic tradition germinated by influx of Buddhism, specifically Nyingma teachings. Leads with shamanism as upaya in lower yanas, elevating to sutra-, tantra-, and Dzogchen-level teachings depending on student's capacity.

Ri-me - a universalistic movement in Tibetan Buddhism intended to harmonize the various views and styles of the different traditions while preserving their individual features. Voiced by leading Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya scholars of 19th century, Ri-me re-established the non-sectarian principle that had been always present in Tibetan Buddhism despite the ongoing political struggle between the schools.


Is listening to a Dharma talk while walking considered a form of walking meditation?

Yes, in walking meditation we can use any of the 40 objects of meditation.

Listening to Dhamma talks would put it under recollection of the dhamma  as it gave you a sense of appreciation of the truth of the dhamma, IMHO,rather than the investigation of Dhamma (Dhammavicaya).

  "Mahanama, you should develop this recollection of the Dhamma while you are walking, while you are standing, while you are sitting, while you are lying down, while you are busy at work, while you are resting in your home crowded with children.


Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated?

The first and perhaps most famous sutta like that which comes to mind is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN22.59) translated here and here.
I think that says that if something (e.g. form or consciousness or feeling or perception) is impermanent, then it's "not fit" to be regarded as "self".
The word translated as "not fit" is kalla ("clever", "healthy", etc.).


As far as my curiosity managed to spread to far, I think Ajaan Fuang is a great example. Not much is known about him except for a few transcribed talks and some quotes here and there, and some stories told by his students of their experiences with him.

One thing I remember about him, as far as being different goes, was that one time some Thai Monk Magazine (or something along those lines) went after him, trying to get an interview. When he heard about this, he avoided them at all cost. Finally they managed to pin him down somewhere, and asked him, "Could you give us a dhamma talk?" His response was, "Yes. Today's dhamma talk is one word: 'buddho.' If you can't keep this in mind, there really isn't any point in my telling you anything else."

Another great quote is,

  If I have to explain everything, you'll get used to having things handed to you on a platter. And then what will you do when problems come up in your meditation and you don't have any experience in figuring things out on your own?

I highly recommend the book Awareness Itself available for free at DhammaTalks.org.


Does rebirth or reincarnation occur in Buddhism?

Simple answers for last three questions as far as I know,

Does it occur ? Yes it is

Will everyone ? Yes until someone attain Nibbana

always as people ? No, it can be any(animals/human etc)

But the first question is too broad to answer.

You can find more details in this article about recantation.

Simple explanation for recantation as according to that article,

  Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for
  instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. In this case
  John possesses an immortal soul which transforms to the form of a cat
  after his death. This cycle is repeated over and over again. Or if he
  is lucky, he will be reborn as a human being.


Why doesn't a person cease to exist as soon as becoming an arahant?

The mind cannot exist without a body except in the Arupa Brahma realms.
Arahanths have no desire to die. So becoming enlightened does not imply that they have to immediately die. It's like when you are driving a car, if it runs out of fuel, it's not going to stop immediately. The momentum will take it some distance before stopping.


How to deal with distractions during meditation?

Close the eyes properly?
Usually there appear various sensations like ie;

posture not being straight
legs not being very comfortable
odd sensations in the face or body
itching, numbing etc
wanting to adjust posture etc

Usually when some odd sensation appears, it distracts you from the breath but if you were to switch your focus to the sensation the perception of breath would distract you from the sensation.
So there is not that much you can do as you will get distracted either way, so i try to do as little as possible.
Eventually the distracting sensations will change & subside, so you can just observe that arising, persisting and cessation in that.
What i do is aknowledging that ie 'a painful bodily feeling has arisen' and just observe it distracting me whilst maintaining focus on the breath and whatever else is going on.
When distracted just acknowledge that a distracting feeling, thought or perception (however it appears to you) has arisen and go back to breath. Keep observing the arising, persistence and cessation of both perceptions (breath + distraction) whilst reapplying the focus and keeping it connected to breathing.
One can't really do anything about various thoughts, feelings & perceptions claiming focus so one just aknowledges their arising, persistence and the cessation.
I don't necessarily take note as in verbalizing thoughts as is taught by ie Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu but i do it occasionally. I don't think it's a mistake to do it but i think it is eventually somewhat distracting and is not something you do in the 2nd jhana but it's ok up until that point if one finds it useful to keep focused.
I tend to be less "hands on" in general and tend to stay mindful of the arising, persisting & cessation of thoughts feelings & perceptions by applying mind to something and keeping it applied without intentionally giving rise to thoughts.
If i notice particular hindrances then i drop the perception of breathing to counter the hindrance lest it can be well countered by the perception of breath (ie general restlessness).


Can one become so sensitive by an enlightenment that one can't have people near/around you?

Yes, it is certainly possible to be spiritually hyper-sensitive however this is more related to expanded states of consciousness rather than Buddhist enlightenment. In Buddhist enlightenment, all things, both internally & externally are viewed as not-self (anatta) and with dispassion (viraga) & equanimity (upekkha). Some spiritually/consciously expanded people live their lives is solitude however this does not mean they are enlightened in a Buddhist sense.


The Buddha never avoided it. All that occurred here is there was a teaching (SN 44.10) where the Buddha refused to answer certain wrongly put questions by a confused individual.

The Buddha taught:

The underlying tendency to form "self-views" lies within every new born baby (MN 64)
"Self" is an ignorant assumption that is a mental fabrication or deluded thought (SN 22.81)
The arising of this "self" thought or view is the arising of suffering (SN 12.15; SN 5.10)
This "self" idea is a "disease" - Ud 3.10
This "self" idea is a cancer, dart & affliction - MN 140

  This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a 'self.'

  Ud 3.10

  Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace.

  MN 140


Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings?

I have read a remark by Ajahn Sumedho on Krishnamurti. I don't recall much of the details. But I can tell you that Krishnamurti 's teachings are different from Buddhism, although he has practiced Vipassana himself.
Edit: My answer relates to Jiddu Krishnamurthi, not U. G. Krishnamurthi. I am unfamiliar with U.G.

Sometimes you hear monks or nuns or lay people here saying, 'Don't attach to anything.' So we attach to the view that we shouldn't be attached! 'I'm not going to attach to Ajahn Sumedho; I can learn from anybody. I'm going to leave, just to prove I'm not attached to Venerable Sumedho.' Then you're attaching to the idea that you shouldn't be attached to me, or that you've got to go away to prove that you're not attached – which isn't it at all. That's not being wise, is it? You're just attaching to something else. You may go to Brockwood Park and hear Krishnamurti' and then you think – 'I'm not going to attach to those religious conventions, all that bowing, Buddha images, monks and all that stuff. Krishnamurti says it is all poppycock: "Don't have anything to do with it, all that is useless." ' So you attach to the view that religious conventions are all useless, and you shouldn't have anything to do with them. But that's also an attachment, isn't it? – attachment to views and opinions – and if you attach to what Krishnamurti says, or you attach to what I say, it's still an attachment.
Ajahn Sumedho
You can be attached to the idea of not being attached. Krishnamurti, for example, would always emphasise not to be attached to anything. He would say, 'Monks, this is all wrong. Religion, monks, all this is wrong. It's not the way.' Then people listening to that would attach to his view, and they weren't aware of the attachment they had to Krishnamurti's view. So the problem is not the view, but the attachment. A view is a view. You can see if you're attached to a view, for or against it. Then the actual practice is to not being attached to any view, and you are very much investigating what's going on.
Ajahn Sumedho

Edit: I added a separate answer on U. G. Krishnamurthi.


What were the last word of Lord Buddha according to different schools of Buddhism?

I believe the Buddha expressed the Dharmaparyaya of the True Law (the Lotus Sutra) before becoming completely exctinct. Best regards.


sīlabheda is not a common used term, I don't think. More common is sīlavipatti - transgression of morality. Another is vītikkama - transgression.

  tattha katamā sīlavipatti? yo kāyiko vītikkamo, vācasiko vītikkamo , kāyikavācasiko vītikkamo -- ayaṃ vuccati sīlavipatti. sabbampi dussilyaṃ sīlavipatti.
  (dhammasaṅgaṇī, nikkhepakaṇḍaṃ, suttantikadukanikkhepaṃ)

The common Pali term for an offence against the rules of the vinaya is āpatti. Another common, related word is dussīla, a person with bad moral character.


Any advice for beginners about Vipassana traditions?

Beginners would benefit most from having an attitude of being a beginner. According to the Zen tradition of the Soto branch, the object of practice is not to achieve great knowledge, powers or concentration but to discover and weed out things that block the experience of what Shunryu Suzuki calls beginners mind. He is not talking to Soto Zen students. He is talking to Buddhists everywhere in all traditions. Every Buddhist tradition can lead to that fresh perception of reality that awakening reveals. If a tradition only provides you with a set of beliefs and does not point the way to awakening then keep looking. Everyone has the right to choose their own path, and if it serves its purpose or does not help you, move on.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf

I ask myself daily, am I ready to be a beginner. There are no advanced students in Buddhism. We are all beginners. Some beginners have walked the path longer and are aware of the inner mysteries to a greater degree. The Buddha never said I am enlightened and you are just mere mortals. He recognized the Buddha consciousness in all.

When I came to Buddhism I attended meditations in as many traditions as possible. Sometimes I clicked when I read a book but did not click at a local meditation. It does not matter what path you choose as long as it is one that is in harmony with your inner self and one that you practice every day in your meditation and in your living. It is a path of yielding and melting away any sense of separate self so we do not need to attain or accomplish great things
"just flow like the river
going to the sea,
flow around every bend and turn
Until all that's left is eternity."


It's probably to do with the absence of tension. When you're relaxed, your voice tends to be lower. If you meditate or do yoga the voice naturaly goes in that direction. It's possible something similar happens when you eat very healthy and remove other kinds of tensions.


How to find specific lessons in Zen Buddhism?

From my U.S. perspective... Try using the word "Dharma" in your search terms. Most large Zen centers have web sites that list recommended reading, and other resources. Focus on translations of, or by ordained Zen Roshis (cross reference American Zen Teachers Association).  Ask a librarian.


Can someone provide online resources to learn Vipassana and Metta?

Here I am listing some useful resources for an introduction to Vipassana as taught by S. N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin:

An Introduction to Vipassana
S. N. Goenka's Inspiring Speech at United Nations
Eilona Ariel's (A documentary filmmaker and Vipassana meditator) TedX Talk
Doing Time, Doing Vipassana - a documentary on use of Vipassana in Tihar Jail
Dhamma.org - link for 10 day course registration at one of many centres in the world
Introduction to the technique of Vipassana and Code of Discipline for the meditation courses


In the Pali suttas, the word "dukkha" is used in three different ways:

(i) Unpleasant/painful feelings, which are not "suffering". Refer to SN 36.6, MN 37, MN 38, MN 148 and countless other suttas that explain "feelings" ("vedana") in themselves are not suffering.

(ii) The inability of impermanent things to bring true & lasting happiness (refer to SN 22.59), often loosely translated as "unsatisfactoriness", which is not "suffering". Refer to SN 22.1, which clearly explains how change (vipariṇamanti) or impermanence itself is not "suffering".

(iii) Mental suffering from mental proliferating, which is "suffering". In the 1st noble truth, all "suffering" was summarised as "attachment" ('upadana') to the five aggregates, as follows: "saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā."

In summary, the "Ariya" ("Noble") perspective of what "Dukkha" is refers to "upadana" ("attachment"). It is not related to impermanence. Impermanence only contributes to suffering when impermanence is attached to as "I", "me" & "mine" (again, refer to SN 22.1).

  He does not assume the body, feelings, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing, or as in the self, or the self
  as in.... He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  the body... consciousness' or 'the body... consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his body... consciousness changes & alters, but he does not
  fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its
  change & alteration.

  SN 22.1


Buddhism teaches that all misbeliefs(beliefs that block the path to Nibbana) are variations of 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Sasvatha Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

What Jesus preached falls under Sasvatha Vada. Hinduism and Islam are also in the same category. So he couldn't have been even an average Buddhist teacher, let alone a Buddha. Besides, the next Buddha to appear is Maitreya Buddha, the last Buddha of this aeon. After that many aeons will come to pass without even a single Sammasambuddha. So there won't be another Buddha for a long time.


Is it correct to say that true compassion (not trying to be) only manifest when there is wisdom?

Correct. True compassion comes from being able to relate, to see things from the perspective of the object of compassion. While this may partially exist before wisdom, only complete realization of Emptiness gives unlimited insight into other perspectives. Normally, this ability is hindered by ego's attachments, biases, fixed views etc. The enlightened mind is completely free from these and can truly see from all perspectives, without distortion. This "knowledge of all modes" is what gives rise to true compassion.

Although, of course partial wisdom and partial compassion can develop together in lock-step.


Did the Buddha say that practitioners inclined towards hate rather than greed are closer to nibbana?

I have seen this discussed at length in a traditional Buddhist text, but I don't remember in which one
To be precise it was not "hate" vs "greed" but "aversion" vs "attachment" ( or "indulging").
Basically, the logic went as follows: aversion is by its nature unpleasant and so the person naturally wants to get rid of the feeling it generates, while indulging is pleasant and so is more difficult to abandon, because there's no motivation to do so.
That's the basic logic, I'll try to find the text but can't promise.


If someone have experienced supernatural abilities through meditation, than why don't he shows it to world?

The objective of Dhamma is the work yourself out of stress and misery which is to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path. These kinds of practices diverts from this focus. If someone start practicing being attached by such display then most likely their goal will not be tied with the Buddhist goal.

Perhaps for this reason monks are not supposed to display such abilities. Even for lay, through there is not rule, it is not advisable as you are diverting the attention and focus from the true purpose of the practice. Also then meditation practitioners will be no different from magicians and illusionist, like David Copperfield. People will go to them to learn magic tricks and not to learn the dhamma with a view to Nirvana. People go to see David Copperfield for entertainment and not spiritual guidance! Also when displaying these abilities one might develop pride which would lead to one's downfall.

Displaying these abilities may attract a following and belief, but for the wrong reason.


Answering Other's Questions About Oneself

tl;dr: I think it is normal, you just need time to get used to it. It will pass. I think it will be useful for you to investigate, why do you feel the desire to be "normal"? What part of you feels insecure?

I can only offer my anecdotal support - yes, I've felt like this too.

At one point I couldn't even fill out the "About me" section of my social media profile, or a form for a retreat that asked me to describe myself. I mean, what do I put there? I couldn't really define myself by my samsaric interests of the past, and I didn't identify as a Buddhist or some other "ist" either because it's my present vehicle to the truth, it is not me.

Then I began to wonder if my friends will consider me weird. And I also realized it didn't matter much to me what anyone thought.

It took me a while to accept totally that this identity-less person is who I am, and I am fine with it. What helped me was to listen to several interviews of spiritually awakening people on batgap.com - after hearing several hundred interviews I had the confidence that this is quite okay. I was not very different from the people being interviewed in my mind state and experiences, and they all seemed pretty together in their external identities after a few years of being lost, so I felt okay.

These days if someone asks me who I am, I don't have the deer in the headlights look - instead I try to imagine what the person wants to hear, and reveal that aspect of my externally visible identity, even though internally I have none.

And yes, being okay with dying is pretty normal at this stage of acceptance.


Can one meditate in the "anechoic" chamber?

Yes in a video ajahn brahm said that ajahn chah went into such a room. I think he said there was nothing special according to ajahn Chah.
The video was some Q&A, but you can ask for more on his forum https://bswa.org/forum/


Why did Yamaka have wrong view in SN 22.85?

The first view is wrong because ven. Yamaka thought that there is a self that ends at Nibbana. In other words, he thought that the five aggregates is a self.

The seconds view is right because it doesn't  take the five aggregates as a self.

Also the second view is talking about an Arahath. Not an ordinary being. So this has nothing to do with Annihilationism.


How do I let go the ownership of the mind?

This is due to subtle Upadana. (clinging)
There are three kinds of clinging.
-Kama Upadana (it seems you have less of this)
-Dithi upadana
-Atta upadana. (perhaps this is your problem)
-Silabbatha Upadana

upādāna:
Clinging; attachment; sustenance for becoming and birth — attachment to sensuality, to views, to precepts and practices, and to theories of the self.

The way to eliminate Upadana is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. It is a gradual training of Sila (virtues), Samadhi (concentration) and Panna (wisdom).


What is this personality split I'm feeling since practicing Vipassana?

I would say dont bother with any of them. Simply note them as mental formations. They belong to the 4th aggregate and are under the effect of the 3 signs of existence.

Note them and see how they arise and cease like all other conditioned phenomena. There is no "self" experiencing this - there is only the arising and cessation of mental and physical phenomena.

Dont identify with them. Dont take ownership of them. These phenomena are impersonal and empty of any substance.

You should look up Conventional & Ultimate reality - Sammuti sacca & Paramattha sacca.

Or

Check out the discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta by Mahasi Sayadaw. In this discourse it is described thoroughly and in detail why the 5 aggregates cannot be taken as a "self".


Shiva's 112 ways to attain enlightenment and Buddha's way

Buddha explicitly said that the only way to attain enlightenment is following the Noble Eightfold path. However, the way you enter Nibbana may have many doors. Hinduism doe not fitting to any of these as they do not have Noble Eightfold Path.

Eleven doors. Dasama Sutta.

When this was said, Dasama the householder from Atthakanagara said to Ven. Ananda, "Venerable Ananda, just as if a man seeking a single opening onto treasure were all at once to come upon eleven openings onto treasure, in the same way I — seeking a single doorway to the Deathless — have all at once come to hear of eleven doorways to the Deathless. And just as if a man whose house had eleven doors could take himself to safety by means of any one of those doors, in the same way I can take myself to safety by means of any one of these eleven doors to the Deathless. Venerable sir, when sectarians search for a teacher's fee for their teachers, why shouldn't I pay homage to Ven. Ananda?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.017.than.html


How to find an appropriate sex partner for a sakadagami?

With all due respect, many people overestimate their "achievements". Just because a once-returner has remainders of sensual pleasure & anger, doesn't mean that he/she will act on those. It's of course all really speculation because none of this has been mentioned in the suttas, but I believe a sotapanna and even moreso a sakadagami has such profound level of anatta, that enables them to detach from sensual desire and anger quickly.

A Buddha would have no interest in being in a relationship.

Since you also mentioned that you are a misanthrop, I doubt that you achieved higher states because misanthropy is a generalized hatred towards human beings.

With regards to sex I guess no one can give you a definite answer because humans are way too complex, have different wants & preferences in different life periods, and also their personal attitudes (and former experiences) can influence their relationship life & sexual life.

If you seek for a more loving relationship, make sure to look for a person who has somewhat same interests and goals as you do, and ideally both should practise Buddhism (or some other spiritual endeavor).


Is being entertained always considered a negative thing?

There are wholesome actions that are not caused by boredom.

Any action arising out of compassion (karuna), loving kindness (maithri), sympathetic joy (mudita), equanimity (upeksha) is not born of boredom. (See: Bramhaviharas)

Being resident in the rupa jhanas (absorptions of form), and even deriving joy from them is not considered unwholesome, because it leads to insight.

When one enters a state of abhaya (fearlessness) one notices a total cessation of boredom. The mind is very content to stay idle, and do nothing. It isn't searching for peace in someone or something, it finds peace within itself.

The mind thus stilled doesn't engage in thoughtless action, such as humming a tune, or thinking about the past or future, or making idle gestures with the limbs and so on.

A mind thus stilled has no need for sensory entertainment, and will find it an idle and wasteful use of energy.

Dreams and intellectual or ambitious ideation can occupy one's mind too, but it is unwholesome, and could be viewed as forms of entertainment.

Hence my statement - "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom"

There are several ways to describe enlightenment [SN 35.204] - one can describe it as a lack of need for external entertainment, but there are other descriptions. I'll offer one more here.

Enlightenment as an energy conservation model of the central nervous system.

All actions are born out of some root emotion, even so called neutral actions.

Let's examine some principal emotions in ascending order of fuel efficiency.

At the least fuel efficient and even dangerous end, there are anger and fear.

Anger - this is perhaps the most energetic of emotions, but also the least fuel efficient - it offers a sudden burst of energy but can deplete one's vital energy reserve (some systems call it qi or prana) rather quickly.

As an example, notice that in boxing matches, and 100m sprints, the athletes typically produce a lot of energy through anger and bravado, and one even notices this in their pre-game interviews. However they cannot sustain this energy for very long, and grow tired quickly, thus these events are short and furious. At the opposite end, marathon runners are generally mild mannered and don't carry the same kind of hatred towards the opponent - an angry and furious marathoner will find it hard to even complete the event.

Fear is similar to anger, and anger is in fact derived from fear, but it doesn't end when energy runs out. One can be too tired to be angry, but one is never too tired to be afraid, and this leads to depression where the sufferer totally lacks any energy. An angry person who grows tired will sustain that anger as fear.

At the most efficient end there are the peaceful emotions of compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy and equanimity. One can sustain compassion for a long while (even indefinitely) provided one doesn't let other emotions like despair eat into the energy body.

There is a psychological concept of compassion fatigue, but this isn't pure compassion, it is compassion tinged with fear. The fear depletes energy reserves and even compassion becomes impossible. This is why there are records of field surgeons in WW2 committing suicide after saving hundreds of lives.

Thus enlightenment is about having maximum energy in the CNS through the wise use of highly efficient emotional states.

The unenlightened who are unwise in their use of emotions will need the use of CNS stimulants to sustain their energy levels. Caffeine is the most common, anti-depressants and pharma drugs are in the middle, and at the extreme end there are psychotropics like Cocaine and other drugs.

Entertainment is a CNS stimulant like coffee. Some people wake up to dance music to feel happy, or dull their emotional pain with death metal.

To one who has control over their emotions, and already conserves the vital energy of prana or qi, all entertainment is frivolous, because it messes with what is already perfect.

Enlightenment can thus be also viewed as a lack of need for CNS stimulants, including entertainment.

In Buddhism, anything that doesn't lead to enlightenment must be eschewed.


How can a lay person approach the learning process of Buddhism?

There are many specific ways, giving you the best way requires a scientific study done on every possible way buddism can be taught and then finding a distinct right answer from that, which is currently, and probably never be available. I will give you a source that teaches you in a very specific and effect way of practicing buddism:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ActualizedOrg/videos

Specifically his meditation videos guide you through to enlightenment very effectively.


Does (bad) karma have to be depleted to be able to attain enlightenment?

While some of the past karma may fruit as obstacles to liberation, not all karma has to fruit before liberation, as even Buddha himself famously experienced results of his past karma after his enlightenment (e.g. when Devadatta wounded the Buddha's foot with a rock).

As I explained in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1672/43 Buddha rejected the theory of intentionally "burning" past karma through exertion and austerity. Instead, liberation is achieved by "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now".

Basically, Buddha's advice to people of difficult backgrounds has usually been to leave the past in the past, and focus on the choices to be made and the state of mind to be maintained from now on.


Can we program or pre-define our last thoughts?

Autopositivity is indeed a great skill, virtue, accomplishment, and in its own way a paradise.  With constant watchfulness and training in the Four Immeasurables (the four Divine Abodes) ones natural and spontaneously occurring thoughts can be patterned and trained to be of a purely helpful and nonharmful nature.

Essentially we are developing the skill of choosing positive conscious states and being patient with nonpositive states.  Anyway, as mentioned above, the four immeasurables are worthy of your immediate attention and application.


This is called Vitakka and Vicara in Buddhism in general.
Antidote for Vitakka and Vicara is discussed in Vitakkasantanasutta.
"When a monk is intent on the heightened mind, there are five themes he should attend to at the appropriate times. Which five?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html


Secular, Tradition or the pathway of the branches

You know, speaking personally, I've never been able to make hats work. I've tried on a lot of different hats, but no matter what, when I put on a hat I end up looking like the world's biggest doof. Some people really rock hats; hats suit them. I have to respect that, but honestly it doesn't help answer the question of whether or not we should all wear hats. It's a contentious point.

We could argue about that, I suppose, but while we do the meal is getting cold.

We all need to develop discrimination: to know what is important, and what is not, and to avoid getting tangled up in the latter. No one can discriminate for us. Spiritual traditions can help keep us on the path or hinder our development; secular independence can free us to advance or get us lost in the woods. Wear a hat, don't wear a hat; in the end it's irrelevant, because a hat has nothing to do with awakening. Either way, it's just a style we adopt for the sake of our egos while we walk the path, and sooner or later we're going to want to slough off matters of style.


Which Buddhist council included the conclusions that there is no creator-god and no day of judgment?

It is incorrect that this is later development. From the onset in the Buddhism teaching did not have the teaching of a Creator God or Judgement Day.

The Buddhist notion of a creator is the stained mind or conditioned mind or unliberated mind. We keep creating our next moment due to Kleshas. This is further explained in Dependent Origination and the Links of Dependent Origination. This is evident from the Udana 'Anekajati samsaram sandhavissam' in which refers to the creator as Ignorance.

  Aneka jati samsaram,
  Sandhavissam anibbisam;
  Gahakarakam gavesanto,
  Dukkha jati punappunam.
  Gahakaraka ditthosi,
  Puna geham na kahasi;
  Sabba te phasuka bhagga,
  Gahakutam visankhitam;
  Visankharagatam cittam,
  Tanhanam khayamajjhaga.

  -Udana uttered by the Buddha after His enlightenment.

  So many births I have taken in this world, seeking in vain the bui1der of this house; in my search over and over, I took new birth, new suffering.

  Oh! house builder, now I have seen you, you cannot make a new house for me; all your beams are broken, the ridge pole is shattered; my mind is freed from all the conditionings of the past, and has no more craving for the future.

  [ The 'house builder' referred to above is avijja (ignorance). 'house' or 'new house' referred to above is nama-rupa (the mind-matter continuum) which is infact the 5 aggregates (pancakkhanda)-matter or body (rupa) and the 4 parts that constitute the mind, consciousness (vinnana) perception (sanna), sensation (vedana), reaction or conditioning (sankhara).]

  This has been discussed in more depth later on under "cause-effect (paticca-Samuppada)".

Above extracted from http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk212a.htm


Was Anuruddha, one of the ten Great Disciples of the Buddha, born in Sri Lanka?

Anuruddha-mahāsāmi (thai:anuruddhācāriya) was one of ancient saṅgarāja in sri lanka. He author abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, that is popular summary of  abhidhamma-pitaka.


Concept of Vedana as expounded in Theravada Buddhism

Vēdanā is conventionally translated as “feelings”, but it is much more than just feelings. The Buddha said that vēdanā can be analyzed in many ways, with simple or deeper meanings. Though you have been told that there are six types of Vēdanā  there are actually 9 types of vēdanā.

A vēdanā can be a dukha vēdanā (due to a past bad kamma), a sukha vēdanā (due to a past good kamma), or a neutral sensation — like feeling the wind on the body — called an upekkha vēdanā. However, normal humans go far beyond that and generate three additional types of their own mind-made “samphassa ja vēdanā”.

A normal human being will mentally generate three more type of vēdanā due to those sukha, dukha, and neutral vēdanā that initially arise due to kamma vipāka via all five physical senses. If it is dukha vēdanā (due to a headache, getting injured, etc. ), one is likely to start worrying about it and add more suffering. Those are dōmanassa vēdanā or āmisa dukha vēdanā.

If it is sukha vēdanā (getting a massage, lying in a luxurious bed, etc. ), one is likely to start generating thoughts about how good it is and how one can enjoy similar sukha vēdanā in the future. Those are sōmanassa vēdanā or āmisa sukha vēdanā ; one could also be generating them by remembering past such sukha vēdanā. These are also added in by the mind. Sōmanassa means “mind-made joyful”. Dōmanassa means “mind-made misery”, which is basically a depressed mindset.

When one stays away from generating too many “samphassa jā vēdanā” of both kinds, one will start feeling three more types of vēdanā. These are called nirāmisa vēdanā, because they arise due to staying away from cravings (and repulsion) to worldly objects. When one prevents the mind from heating up by comprehending the adverse effects of “san” and staying away from them, one’s mind starts “cooling down”. This is the nirāmisa sukha vēdanā. This is what is emphasized by “ätäpi sampajäno” in the Mahā Satipatthāna Sutta; it means “remove the fire or heat from one’s mind by being aware of the ‘san‘ or “immoral tendencies”.

Then there are vēdanā that one experiences when proceeding on the Noble Eightfold Path. Sometimes, one gets a bit discouraged by not advancing “fast enough” on the Path.  Those are not dōmanassa vēdanā (because they are devoid of patigha anusaya); they are nirāmisa dukha vēdanā.

The Sutta references are many, and I will refer you to one – the Ananda Sutta: Leading to Awakening (SAMYUTTA NIKAYA 12:10).

How vēdanā is related to Nibbana will call for a lengthy explanation, and you will not understand it if explained it in a paragraph or two. One day you will get to understand it proper, if you try to make sense of the following:
“Sukha and dukha vedana arise due to kamma vipaka. Somanassa and domanassa vedana arise due to sankhara, which in turn arise due to our gathi and asavas. The more sankhara we do, the stronger a given gathi (habit) becomes, which in turn become asavas (cravings) and fuel the sansaric journey (rebirth process). This vicious cycle can be broken only through comprehending the anicca nature of this world.”


Seems that moderators are expecting a particular style in these answers, and so deleted my initial answer. I'll rephrase...

The reason that the breath is the most important meditation object is that unlike other objects they are always available. For example, you might forget your TM mantra or misplace your mandala. Other objects of meditation, such as decaying corpses, aren't usually freely available in the UK either :-)


In everyday speech, the word "friendship" implies mutual support. One remembers birthdays, celebrates marriages, introduces romantic partners, etc.  And yet many of the things a conventional friend would support become meaningless on the Noble Eightfold Path. For example, the Vinaya prohibits matchmaking, which causes one to become entangled in the cravings of others.

Yet a friend is also one who supports one on a spiritual path, providing encouragement when faith lags and self-doubt causes one to flounder and lose hope. Indeed, from SN45.2 we have:

  Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Given that your friend is a "virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually," there would be common ground in discussing the precepts or observances either one of you has taken. And where the understanding of spiritual goals differs, then much fruitful discussion can unfold to benefit both.  These conversations will naturally develop as you observe your own precepts. Inevitably, those observances will cause surprise in others you interact with. For example, if you are not eating dinner, then being invited to dinner creates some interesting conversations!

In these conversations, compassion will be critical. One's own understanding of a precept and its observance may only be superficial. Our wisdom grows as we apply the precepts compassionately to our own conduct in relating to others.

Perhaps your friend will become a good spiritual companion and associate.

Another important point is your statement about "not feeling much friendliness". As equanimity and tranquility fill your life, it becomes less driven by pleasant or painful feelings. If your friendship was based on pleasant feelings and shared cravings, then that basis for relationship would naturally vanish. For example, choosing celibacy would drastically change the nature of a relationship.

Examine that "not feeling much friendliness" and ask yourself if there might now be an element of unwholesomeness to formerly enjoyed shared activity. Here, too, compassion is crucial because it is the activity you would avoid, not the human being that is your friend.


Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"?

As it was explained to me, dhatu means something like "aspect" or "tier". Meaning, it's a cross-cutting principle found in a whole that's delineated when you analytically disect the whole in a particular way.

So, when you analyze experience, you may delineate "the visual aspect" - present across many rather different experiences. When you analyze external dharmas, you may delineate "the aspect of solidity" present across many very different objects etc.

Today we could delineate e.g. the electromagnetic aspect, the chemical aspect, the  informational aspect. All are elements or principles of the whole observed as different "analytical planes".

ChrisW is not wrong to explain it as he did for the purpose of contrasting dhatu with the chemical elements of the periodic table. They are subjective inasmuch as it takes an act of analysis to delineate and "focus" on one dhatu at a time. Of course they are also objective because they are actual aspects of an ontological whole.

As part of the gradual instruction, Buddha taught basic phenomenological analysis, delineating dhatus such as "the seen", "the heard" etc.

The culmination of his teaching, though, is the notion of amrita-dhatu aka dharmadhatu, the most fundamental aspect of everything. Seeing this dhatu is seeing Nirvana. This dhatu can be described as the absolute reference point, substratum of all fluctuation.


Information Technology Careers and Right Livelihood Dharma

I have a slightly less orthodox view on right livelihood than others might. I think for practical purposes right livelihood is

Your means of living doesn't harm others and accords with Buddhist ethics
Your means of living leaves you with enough time and energy to practice the dharma

So I was originally a teacher which is good on point 1 but exhausted me so no Buddhist practice was possible. So it was only when I moved into IT that a practice became possible so really a programmer was more right livelihood than teaching for me with is rather counterintuitive.

That said as things go on then point 2  becomes important. My last job had a big defence contract which although I never worked on it never sat right with me. So I've moved into healthcare computing which I feel is more in keeping with both aspects of right livelihood.

Generally IT is a neutral thing. It's a tool and it is the use that that tool is put to that gives it its ethical dimension. Healthcare, education and charity IT probably good. Gambling, poronography and activities that increase peoples suffering probably not such good uses of IT.


In what situations can letting go of attachments be painful?

From what I understand of the Buddhist path, letting go of attachments shouldn't be painful.

Working through deep-rooted states of stress and mental hindrances can be both unpleasant and painful. The pain is not really a problem. It's just another object to work with, to observe and to cultivate insights from.

The real problem is our reaction to the pain. The judgement, the inclination, the liking/disliking that goes on.

That behavior is what shapes the tendencies of the mind. It will like certain experiences and be aversed towards other experiences. In that way ones happiness and peace of mind, is dependent on a certain set of causes and conditions. The mind is not free as long as it clings.

This shows us that we have work to do and where it has to be done. The goal is to be able to experience the full spectrum of experience without falling into suffering.

  Are there times when letting go will be painful and if there is, why are those times different than the usual?

The suffering one experiences, when renouncing an object, is directly proportional to the attachment one has cultivated towards that particular object/experience.


Tackling Addictions Directly VS Meditation

The hindrence here is Sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), which is the cause of not taking on the right practice.
For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann.
By reminderless up-rooting of this very not-knowing (avijjā), there is the end of suffering, the end of grasping after this and that.
And how is the path for up-rooting this very root of suffering? Just this Noble eightfold path, with right view as it's for-runner.
And what is the prerequisite to develop right view?

Faith

Association with People of Integrity

Listening to the True Dhamma

Appropriate Attention

Practice in Accordance with the Dhamma

Not released now one might think: "I know, but..." In that case there there was the case of improper attention by not having had admirable association out of lack of devotion, out of lack of faith. In that case, if not willing to uproot this by approaching the Juwels in the right way, find access to them by lowering, by giving up, by seeking refuge, there is no way, no short cut that right view could be developed, right release be gained. For such as "knowing" and still doubt, such can not be.
That was why it was sad: "For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann."
And what is the cause, what is the reason for faith? Suffering, being confronted to give up, to seek for release, is the reason why one takes on faith.
For one havving gained right view, had attended proper, listened proper, seen and reminds the Dhamma, just then:

The Tree Pulls Itself Down
Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.
It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.

So focus on gaining right view, it's pre-requisites. For it is not pleasant to be sooner or later confronted with suffering, when sickness, death, lose of beloved, gain of pain... arises and one does not find the way to release, does not know, have not discerned, seen before, here and now.
Asking: Tackling Addictions Directly or Meditation:
Respect, Confidence and Patient as prerequisite means for release from addiction, when and before is effects come into be.
And what are the obstacles,
the Hindrances for devotion, for lowering, Individually?

Sensual Desire

Ill-will

Sloth and Torpor

Restlessness and Remorse

Doubt

May all beings find the way to end suffering by themselves with ease!

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


If I reach absorption concentration are the hindrances fully gone?

It depend on whether you practice Samatha or Vipassana.
In Samatha practice you suppress the hindrances.
They are fully eradicated by Vipassana practice and following Noble Eightfold Path.


The four right efforts in the noble path are:

effort to prevent unwholesome mental states.
effort to abandon unwholesome mental states.
effort to develop wholesome mental states
effort to maintain & increase wholesome mental states

Therefore, when the mind without delusion is discerned, the effort is made to maintain the mind without delusion, which requires governance or supervision by mindfulness.


Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out?

You're probably thinking of Itivuttaka 44:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.

  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)

  And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)

  Note1 and Note2 (commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still
  alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not
  burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else.


What is Generation Stage Meditation also known as Utpattikrama?

Generation stage meditation is meditation targeted at transmuting ones neurotic traits into aspects of enlightened mind. It is done through visualizing (and on more advanced stages through identifying oneself with) a specifically selected yidam deity.

Generation stage meditation is similar to the first jhana, in the sense that it involves deliberate generation of certain mindset.


Is a Mahayana Buddhist *required* to take a Bodhisattva vow?

As per my understanding, formal taking of Bodhisattva vow (with ceremony and all) is not a hard requirement, as long as one eventually internalizes the core message of the vow: that one must surrender the hope of ever attaining Nirvana and get very comfortable with the idea of staying in Samsara for a long, long time.

Here is a version of the vow we chanted, after every meditation session:

  Sentient beings are numberless; we vow to save them.
  Desires are inexhaustible; we vow to end them.
  The Dharmas are boundless; we vow to master them.
  The Buddha's Way is incomparable; we vow to attain it.

See those adjectives -- numberless, inexhaustible and so on? Reciting them again and again makes you question what you're really up to ;)

Of course this trick only works in conjunction with perfectly realizing the rest of six paramitas. Staying in Samsara is an act of murdering the ego, not of easing into worldly pleasures. Murdering the ego is the main prerequisite for Enlightenment, from Mahayana perspective.


There are lot of archaeological evidence align with Buddha's life story. I think those can be considered as the most trusted third party evidence.
Here I am listing some of the web search findings.

  Archaeologists working in Nepal have uncovered evidence of a structure at the birthplace of the Buddha dating to the sixth century B.C. This is the first archaeological material linking the life of the Buddha — and thus the first flowering of Buddhism — to a specific century.

You could find the full story from here and here

Apart from that, king Ashoka built Pillars at Buddhist monasteries, many important sites from the life of the Buddha and places of pilgrimage. This was done around 200 -300 years after the Buddha parinirvana. During that time those important sites and monasteries should have left some sort of evidence to support Buddhas existence that convince King to build the pillers. So it also can be considered as good indication.

Further:

  The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away such as Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was religious Teacher in India known as Gautama the Buddha. Ref: here


Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal?

Traditional Mahayana answer is: because of different "capacities". People of "lower capacity" only care about fulfilling basic desires, perhaps just the animal instincts, - then going up the ladder we get those that want material happiness in this world (e.g. comfortable family life), then those who aspire to greater immaterial (but still this-worldly) achievements and realizations, and then those who aspire to rebirth in a better world.

Then we get to the next level, that of spiritual practitioners, who aspire to find the truth, become saints, attain supernatural abilities etc. like e.g. immortality, then those who strive for Enlightenment/Nirvana (this is considered the middling capacity) - and then, according to Mahayana, the higher capacity, which entails desire to attain Enlightenment in order to help all the rest of sentient beings. Finally, in Vajrayana, we get to people of "highest capacity" who directly see Great Perfection of Everything As Is and do not have any goals or desires.

This is the traditional answer (retold in casual simplification). Now if you ask my personal opinion, I would beg you to notice that all these goals are not really in logical opposition with each other. If you think about it, all goals represent various visions of Happiness, or "The Way Things Should Be" - as it appears to each respective type of person. It's not that the lower levels are wrong about their idea of happiness, it's just that they don't quite realize how much hidden suffering is inherent to success on each of the levels.

So really what Buddhism is after, is realization of one's highest aspirations. And on every level of this pyramid Buddha-Dharma provides very rational, methodical, consistent framework for achieving success. What makes Buddhism cool though, is that the practices for achieving success on every level are not just in no conflict with other levels but actually help the levels above and below it.

For example, if one practices emotional intelligence, one will not only have greater control over events of one's life, but also become able to help others still overwhelmed by stress, and also get a step closer to Enlightenment through understanding the nature of mind-made phenomena.

So, to summarize, it seems like Buddhism has multiple goals - but that's just the way it looks from the perspective of different individuals. In reality there is One Goal ("peace"/"happiness"), and Buddhism is the rational method for achieving it.


Is ignorance eradicated after breakup of the physical body?

We don't know. The Buddha would in each case know if a person possible got rid of ignorance by death, would know the destiny of certain being.


What translation variants exist of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20?

There are two mainstream Mulamadhyamakakarikas (hereafter MMK). There might be one in manuscript form recently dicovered that I am unaware of, but there are two that I am aware of, and they are the Sanskrit reconstructed from Venerable Candrakirti's commentary (which might actually be from Tibetan), and the Chinese version with the nested commentary by Venerable Vimalākṣa. The Chinese source text to do with the Sanskrit you provided is:

涅槃與世間無有少分別世間與涅槃亦無少分別涅槃之實際及與世間際如是二際者無毫釐差別
(T1564.35c27)

In the following list, "Skt" means "from Sanskrit," "Ch" means "from Chinese," and "Tb" means "from Tibetan."
INADA (Skt):

Samsara (i.e., the empirical life-death cycle) is nothing essentially
different from nirvana. Nirvana is nothing essentially different from
samsara. The limits (i.e., realm) of nirvana are the limits of
samsara. Between the two, also, there is not the slightest difference
whatsoever.

JONES (Skt):

There is not the slightest difference of cyclical existence from
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference of nirvana from
cyclical existence. The full extent of nirvana is the full extent of
cyclical existence. There is not slightest interval between them.

KALUPAHANA (Skt):

The life-process has no thing that distinguishes it from freedom.
Freedom has no thing that distinguishes it from the life-process.
Whatever is the extremity of freedom and the extremity of the
life-process, between them not even a subtle something is evident.

MCCAGNEY (Skt):

There is no distinction whatever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is
no distinction whatever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. The limit of
nirvāṇa is that of saṃsāra. The subtlest difference is not found
between the two.

SPRUNG (Skt):

There is no specifiable difference whatever between nirvāṇa and the
everyday world; there is no specifiable difference whatever between
the everyday world and nirvāṇa. The ontic range of nirvāṇa is the
ontic range of the everyday world. There is not even the subtlest
difference between the two.

STRENG (Skt):

There is nothing whatever which differentiates the existence-in-flux
(samsara) from nirvana; And there is nothing whatever which
differentiates nirvana from existence-in-flux. The extreme limit
(koti) of nirvana is also the extreme limit of existence-in-flux;
There is not the slightest bit of difference between these two.

STCHERBATSKY (Skt):

There is no difference at all Between Nirvana and Samsara. There is no
difference at all Between Samsara and Nirvana. What makes the limit of
Nirvana Is also then the limit of Samsara. Between the two we cannot
find The slightest shade of difference.

ROBINSON (Skt):

Samsara has nothing that distinguishes it from nirvana; nirvana has
nothing that distinguishes it from samsara. The limit of nirvana is
the limit of samsara; there is not even the subtlest something
separating the two.

BOCKING (Ch):

Between nirvana and the world There is not the slightest distinction
Between the world and nirvana There is not the slightest distinction.
The real limit of nirvana And the limits of this world Between these
two limits There is not the least distinction

BATCHELOR (Tb):

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana
does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. Whatever is the
end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very
subtle slight distinction between the two.

DOCTOR (Tb):

Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit Different from the
transcendence of suffering Transcendence of suffering is not the
slightest bit Different from cyclic existence. That which is the
condition of transcendence Is the condition of cyclic existence as
well. Between these two there is not The slightest bit of difference.

GARFIELD (Tb):

There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and
cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of nirvana, That is the limit
of cyclic existenence. There is not even the slightest difference
between them, Or even the subtlest thing.

GOLDFIELD (Tb):

Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana. Nirvana is
not the slightest bit different from samsara.  The true nature of
nirvana Is the true nature of samsara, And between these two There is
not even the tiniest, subtlest difference.

HAGEN (paraphrase):

Nothing whatever distinguishes samsara from Nirvana. Nothing whatever
distinguishes Nirvana from samsara. Whatever is the limit of Nirvana
is also the limit of samsara. There is not even the subtlest
difference between them.

NISHIJIMA (paraphrase):

Without leaving the process of wandering, it will become leaving
Nirvana. It does never suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana,
Not belonging to Nirvana, is leaving from the wandering. It does never
suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana, What is included by
Nirvana is just Time, And the Time is also belonging to the wandering
life of ups and downs. The two kinds of substances, that is, Time and
the wandering life of ups and downs, Seems to be as if they were
nothing. Then something excellently delicate is recognized very
clearly...

Two of the "translations" that Korin compiles are paraphrases, not translations. All of the above material is from MMK study notes from Venerable Korin available at https://abhidharmakosa.wordpress.com/.
There is one more translation for me to add.
CAOIMHGHIN (Ch)

Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest
differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the
slightest differentiation.
From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this,
there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.


Equating mindfulness and flow is somewhat problematic.  I would actually go so far as to say that flow has more in common with samadhi than sati.

I'm guessing you are using the term flow as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.  From what I remember of his book, one of the important characteristic of flow inducing activities is that they have an engaging quality to them.  One becomes absorbed in whatever they are doing.  That should set off some bells and whistles immediately as there are some clear similarities (but not an equivalence) between being engaged in an activity and states of meditative absorption.  For one, both activities are, by nature, intrinsically rewarding (well, when you get better at meditation, they are!) and offer direct feedback.  We know when we've had a good sit or not, we know when our mind drifts from the the breath, etc.  On a more technical level, attention is applied and sustained (vicara/vitakka) in both flow and samadhi.  We either need a meditative object to apply our attention to (samadhi) or an activity to which we can apply our efforts (flow).  We also need to do both in a way that isn't distracted (sustained attention).  In flow, however, I just don't think one finds a sustained attention that is nearly as unbroken as it is in jhana or neighboring states of concentration.

When compared to mindfulness practice, flow is lacking some very important qualities.  For one, I just flat out don't think the word mindfulness even can be applied to flow.  The Pali word sati has a number of meanings, but generally implies bringing something into the mind's eye, bringing something into attention, etc.  I just don't see that taking place in flow.  The activity is supplying the mental content.  Secondly, mindfulness practice involves sampajanna - clear comprehension - of the activities one is engaged in.  This is the knowing that a breath is long or short, that an arm is raised, that a feeling is felt, etc.  Once again, I just don't see that happening in flow.  One is caught up in the activity instead of clearing comprehending the component actions that make up that activity.  Perhaps most importantly, flow utterly lacks the potential for insight.  Flow never affords one the opportunity to turn the attention to, say, the seven factors or enlightenment or the four noble truths.  The activities take us into a kind of attention that is other or outer-directed.  The potential for the development of wisdom - the main purpose of mindfulness practice - never factors in.


Personal Geospatial Placement perspective terminology

The first perspective, watching TV, is called "ego-centric".You are using "I" as the central reference point, and all action is described in relation to that. (If you think about it, it's not necessarily that you watch TV. It maybe that a stream of information gets projected at a memory store, triggering reactions and associations.) To think that you are the one watching gives too much credit to the role of being a sink.
The second perspective is called "mixing mind with space". It is what we sometimes use in meditation. To be aware of the space around you helps avoid falling asleep.
The third perspective, people watching you, is called "imaginary importance". You imagine that people's eyes and thoughts must be directed at you, as if you were so important as to occupy the central place in their minds. But the people looking at you in your imagination are not real people, they are your projections, figments of your imagination. Real people are occupied with their own interests. Your importance to them is imaginary and is a sign of vulnerable and hungry ego. Cultivating this perspective is twice as bad as the regular egocentric perspective, so you should avoid it like a plague.
The right way to see things, according to Buddhism, is from thousand-miles-high point of view, the so-called "divine eye". Divine eye is the impersonal perspective, completely neutral, not taking any sides.
The ultimate way to see things is "Buddha's eye". This means, to see things from all perspectives at once.


Was Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara in any way instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha?

I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.

The term 'soul-mates' doesn't make sense in ultimate reality as there are no souls to begin with. But if you simply interpret it as being the perfect husband and wife, it has meaning in Buddhism.

With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?

Once the Buddha Deepankara gave the prediction that the Bodhisatta is going to be a Buddha, it was going to happen one way or the other.
Yashodara Theri herself answers this question in her last words before she passed away.
“me saranam atthano” (“I am my own refuge”).

Nevertheless, she was the perfect wife to the Bodhisatta.

  The relationship between Yashodhara and Prince Siddhartha was long and
  deep-rooted. It had started many, many years ago at the time of the
  Dîpankara Buddha. At that time, the Prince (Bodhisatta) was born as an
  ascetic by the name of Sumedha. After an exceedingly long period of
  practicing the ten virtues, the Bodhisatta Sumedha had finally
  completed the eight requirements to receive the definite proclamation
  of Buddhahood from the Dîpankara Buddha. Yashodhara, at that time, was
  born as a noble lady by the name of Sumitta. She saw the Buddha
  Dîpankara give the Bodhisattva eight handfuls of white jasmine flowers
  and the definite proclamation that He would be a Buddha by the name of
  Gotama, of the Sakyan caste, in the distant future. Cutting off her
  hair, she aspired to be His consort and helpmate and to support Him
  actively in His quest for Buddhahood.

Since then she had been the wife of no other but him during the entire period(100,000 world cycles and four infinite periods).

Another example for a perfect couple is Nakula matha and Nakula pitha.


Does anyone know where it is possible to identify a lama incarnation?

In Tibetan Buddhism, the procedure is AFAIK only documented for Tulku (high-ranking Lamas):

When an old tulku dies, a committee of senior lamas convenes to find
the young reincarnation. The group may employ a number of methods in
their search. First, they will probably look for a letter left behind
by the departed tulku indicating where he intends to be born again.
They will ask the close friends of the departed to recall everything
he said during his last days, in case he may have given hints. Often,
an oracle is consulted. Sometimes a prominent lama has a dream that
reveals details of the child's house, parents, or of geographical
features near his home. Sometimes heaven presents a sign, perhaps a
rainbow, leading the search party to the child.

See The Tibetan Tradition of Recognizing Reincarnate Lamas


The requisites for trade are not requirements for trading, they are four objects which are traded.

They are four items which are required for monastic living, namely clothing, food, medicine and shelter.


In Theravada, there is faith and preferably verified confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. One who has faith is called a faith follower. There is faith, but there is no (Hindu style of) devotion in Theravada. There is however, reverence in Theravada Buddhism for example, through the act of prostration, as pointed out by ChrisW in the comments.

In Mahayana, some schools like Pure Land Buddhism, have devotion to Avalokiteshvara or Amitabha Buddha, with mantras to chant. There is a belief that one can be reborn in the Pure Land, the realm where the Amitabha Buddha resides, in order to continue the journey towards Buddhahood, with the guidance of Amitabha Buddha.

The Hindu style of devotion (bhakti) involve chanting the deity's names, remembering the deity's forms and glories, as well as having a close personal relationship with the deity. There are similar types of devotions in the Abrahamic religions. This is not found in Theravada Buddhism which does not have a Supreme God. Also in Theravada, the Buddha is no longer reborn after Nirvana. I am not sure if the Mahayana devotion in certains schools like Pure Land Buddhism is the same as the Hindu style of devotion.


Do we need to cheat the mind to escape thoughts which would lead to bad habits?

But what if someday I am with some guys, who are always drinking, and there is no pressure of insult?

I agree that friends (the company you keep) are important.

I think that doctrine is found in several suttas:

Upaddha Sutta:

  And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life

Bhikkhuni Sutta

  'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Sigalovada Sutta  (read the whole sutta, not only this quote):

  Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.

Dhammapada;

  If one finds a sagacious friend, who is a virtuous and steadfast companion, one should live with him joyfully and mindfully, overcoming all dangers.
  If one cannot find a sagacious friend, who is a virtuous and steadfast companion, one should live alone like the king who gave up and left the country he had won, and like the elephant Matanga roaming alone in the forest.
  It is better to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. So one should live alone, do no evil, and be carefree like the elephant Matanga roaming alone in the forest.

Is observing the feeling of lust actually helping me to know more about it?

If I tell you to jump off a tall building I think there are two things you could do:

Jump off the building, because I told you to, without thinking about it
Hear the sound of my words but without obeying them (without making them your intentional action)

I think that "observation" is a bit like the second scenario -- it helps you to detach from the impulse ... and/or to experience the sensation (the sound or thought) without that forming much impulse to act.

What is the best way to change a bad habit? Someone told me to know the reason why I want to change it, but would that be enough?

Various ways include:

Avoid the bad habit in the first place. For example if you've reason to believe that smoking is harmful and addictive, don't start smoking (never try smoking) -- if you do you might say, afterwards, "Well once was OK (I survived it), it was new, interesting ... maybe try it again now!"
If you acquire a bad habit, try to stop it as soon as possible. Allowing yourself to continue to practice the bad habit for longer doesn't make it easier to stop!
Change your situation (e.g. avoid living with harmful people)
Understand the harm and the unsatisfying nature of the bad habit -- sometimes it's a habit because it's not satisfying (because "doing it once isn't satisfying" is the reason why you're tempted to do it again)
Consider or search for wholesome alternatives (e.g. if a bad habit is a choice, an option, there may be other other choices, better options)
Beware the "I am special" temptation, i.e. conceit: for example, thinking "drinking is harmful for other people ... but it's OK for me!" -- or the opposite, e.g. "may everyone else be happy ... but I just want to drink myself to death!".
Consider the future: "If I continue to do this, what is the likely consequence?"
Confess (admit) the fault.

For example, in the Vinaya (the monks' rules), many transgressions are labelled "faults of confession". I don't know details but I think that if a monk transgresses they're supposed to confess that (to another monk), "I did such-and-such", and that there are reasons why that's prescribed.
Another example, from secular life, people who are habitual alcoholics might go to a meeting for alcoholics, to discuss and share experiences about what the various problems are, and maybe how and what it's like to overcome them. You can't really do that unless you're willing to say, "Alcoholism is a problem (is one of my problems) and it would be appropriate for me to attend these meetings".
If you don't want to admit you have a problem then avoid committing problematic actions -- that's one of the ways in which social pressure or peer pressure might help you to stay out of trouble. Conversely if you do have a problem then admit it.

Also FYI the thought "Oh Come on, Don't be a child" sounds to me like it has some implicit/unstated assumptions or views: for example that, "Being a child is bad", and that, "Adults drink alcohol". Beware these implicit assumptions or arguments (and others) are not necessarily true -- it may be quite a common line of "reasoning" (argument) among teenagers or young adults, though.

Is there a difference between ego and conceit?

I think that English isn't the "native language" of Buddhist Dharma, and "conceit" is an English translation.

For longer explanations of what the word "conceit" means, see for example the answers to this question, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

and does Bhikkhuni Sutta's Essence means to abandon conceit

I think that conceit includes comparing yourself to others, for example the following are both called forms of conceit:

"I am better than he is"
"He is better than I am"

I think the essence of the Bhikkhuni Sutta is that although conceit is to be abandoned finally, it can be a useful tool, a useful stage on the path.

For example the following is conceit:

"That monk was able to achieve a stage of enlightened. If he could do it then so can I: and if I do what he does then I too will reach that stage!"

That's conceit because it's comparing yourself; but it's useful because it gives you confidence or faith, and gives you a good example (and doesn't give you a bad example).

I also do not understand the impulse thing (Does impulse means the action one takes after sensation)

I'm not sure I do either.

See for example this page:

  Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

  And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

I think that two examples of that are:

I see an apple. The thought occurs, "Supposing I were to eat the apple?" I decide (or accept the impulse) to eat it.
I look over the edge of a tall building. The thought occurs, "Supposing I were to jump off this building?" I decide not to (or refuse or ignore the impulse) to jump.

When the sutta says "Contact is the cause" perhaps that means for example "Seeing the apple" and "Being aware of the thought".

The "intentional action" is when I eat the apple and do so intentionally (knowing that it's an apple, having decided to eat it for some good or bad reason).

Many people say by smoking they are not harming anyone, so they do not have reason to quit, (even spiritual people say that)

I have observed there are people who say that, yes.

What I need to understand of this?

I think that these are people who are less likely to change that habit: because they say it isn't harmful.


What is the opinion of Buddhism on the caste system and untouchability of Hinduism?

Actually, Gautama Buddha was not against the caste system in mainstream non-Buddhist Indian society however he did emphasize social status ('caste'/'jati') was dependent upon here-&-now kamma rather than on physical & social birth (refer to MN 93, MN 98 and other suttas in the Brāhmaṇa Vagga). For example, he often emphasized a Brahman priest or caste member that does not adhere to the five moral precepts is not a Brahmana or Holy Man.

The Pali suttas have the following examples:

It was declared the Buddha "does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins" (MN 95).
The Buddha criticised Brahmans who marry & have sex with non-Brahmans. (AN 5.191)
The Buddha said wives who are immoral are expelled or caste out from families (MN 37.30).

The Pali suttas show no opposition to the non-Buddhist Indian caste distinctions however the Pali suttas do explicitly say when a person joined the Buddhist Community (Sangha) they automatically lost their former caste status or name (AN 8.19).

  (4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the
  great ocean, so too, when members of the four social
  classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas and suddas—go forth from the
  household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline
  proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans
  and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the
  fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this
  Dhamma and discipline….

As for contemporary Asian societies, many of these societies were previously or concurrently Hindu in relation to the arrival of Buddhism. Similar to when the Buddha was alive, Buddhist monks generally do not act to oppose & destroy other religions. Buddhism is not like Judaism or Christianity. Thailand is an excellent example, where most religious people still follow other religions, such as spirit, ancestor or Brahma worship (even though they consider themselves "Buddhist").