When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one.
Yes! allowed as per human rights.
As per buddhist scriptures, " Respect other philosophies, compare them with my(buddha's) teachings and follow me only when you find my teachings to be better ".

I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal
Good, because sometimes(most of times, to be precise) philosophers dwelling in thoughts about anatta start breaking 5 percepts at mental level and become dishonest to closed-ones at body-speech level.

•••and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it.
Good, because your behaviour seemed to satisfy you and others in doing so. It doesn't mean that there is anything more to know beyond anatta.

Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?
Theoritically, as per buddhist scriptures-- when seeker stops even seeing/feeling/realizing h-im/er-self as 'seeker', when a state is reached where, "causes&conditions are interacting with causes&conditions", then
What seems to be yonder stops seeming because there is/was nothing to yonder to from the start.

Does the beauty of Buddhism lie in letting seekers seek beyond the bounds of religion?
Finally, yes if religion is binding you with 'Ignorance' of some atta.

May you be free from your confusion.
Metta.


Major differences between breath meditation and body scan meditation?

For starters i am not sure how you differentiate between the two. The literal content of anapanasati sutta teaches us to examine several different aspects including but not limited to bodily sensations or breathing.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g.
Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e
Anapana Sati meditation)?

Besides the obvious difference in meditation objects, there will likely be a wider range of experiences perceived during a body scan, as you become more receptive to any/all body functions, aches, hunger, et c, compared to focusing solely on the breath.
Also, scanning the body systematically too quickly can make you less perceptive to anicca - i.e. the non-permanence of a singular sensation - compared to being attentive to your breath only where you'll be gradually more attentive to subtle changes. On the other hand, shifting your attention as taught in anapanasati can aid you in practicing the discernment of mental factors.

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to
focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware
of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my
breathing simultaneously?

Choose one object at a time. It will train you in maintaining singular focus (ekagatta), and will also enable you to examine how bodily phenomena transforms, or whether they are successively stilled (or not), for instance. If other sensations arises you will likely shift your attention regardless of whether you intend to or not, so focus on practicing returning your attention to your initial meditation object.


How do monastic rules differ in each tradition?

All Buddhist traditions including the now extinct ones derived their rules from the original Prātimokṣa (path to liberation).

A number of prātimokṣa codes are extant, including those contained in the Theravāda, Mahāsāṃghika, Mahīśāsaka, Dharmaguptaka, Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda vinayas. Prātimokṣa texts may also circulate in separate prātimokṣa sūtras, which are extracts from their respective vinayas.

The Wikipedia article on the Prātimokṣa covers the current and extinct derivatives in a little detail.
The monastic rules aren't inviolable, though generally through the ages their importance has been largely respected, and only modified in exigent circumstances. Philosophical stances of the founders have often influenced how closely they stayed to the original.
For example,

The Dharmaguptaka sect are known to have rejected the authority of the Sarvāstivāda pratimokṣa rules on the grounds that the original teachings of the Buddha had been lost.

When the Buddha began teaching there were no rules, the rules were added on as the need arose. For example, the prohibition on alcohol began when there was an incident of drunkenness that reflected badly on the monks.
Given the organic growth of these rules, as times and cultures changed some might have felt the need to change the rules to keep the tradition living and not turn into an anachronism. As Buddhism spread to new cultures the original rules as they applied to the Gangetic plains of India may not have made sense. For example, in lands with snowy winters like Japan obviously the robes needed to be warmer and with more layers than in India.
One other example would be the leave to allow monks to cook for themselves when Buddhism had just entered China. There was no Chinese precedent of donating food to mendicants and beggars like in India, so in order to maintain the respect of the monks in the eyes of the community, cooking was allowed. This continues today in modern Zen monasteries, like Plum Village in France, for much the same reason.
Some other times it may have been corrupted transmission or interpretation as the religion traveled across hundreds of years, several thousand miles and cultures.

The Buddhist scholar Tripitakamala felt the overall goal of Buddhahood overrides concerns for monastic vows.
cite: Gray, David (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra. New York, NY: Columbia University. p. 124.

Buddhism continues to evolve even today. The spread of Dharma in the West has brought with it changes to meet the unique challenges of the West. For example many modern Zen roshis in the US have dispensed with their robes except on ceremonial occasions, and wear every day lay person clothes. Chogyam Trungpa, the Tibetan master was a firm believer in such pragmatic change when he set up Naropa University and wore suits to lectures.


The founder of Shin Buddhism, Shinran, assumed that a person of shinjin (grounded faith) would naturally be inclined to refrain from harmful actions. These quotes are all from various letters that Shinran wrote:

...When people come to have faith in the Buddha deep in their heart, they genuinely renounce this life, they lament their transmigration in Samsara, they have deep faith in Amida's Vow, and they delight in saying Amida Buddha. If these people truly desire not to commit the evil deeds that they may be inclined to do, it is an indication of their renunciation of this world...
...thinking of the Buddha's benevolence, devote himself to the Nembutsu in order to respond with gratitude for that benevolence, and should hope for peace in the world...
...Do not take a liking to poison just because there is an antidote.

It's not really a rationalization, since ethical behavior in Shin Buddhism isn't done to gain something, even though it generally results in a more peaceful, happy life. It is more like a result of the transformative power of shinjin.
Reference: Living in Amida's Universal Vow, "Ethics in American Jodo-Shinshu: Trans-ethical Responsibility", pg. 201


What leisure activities did the Buddha partake in?

I recommend a few words:

divāvihāra -- for example the page-long description of that here which starts ...

  an expression which ... I consider to correspond to the “day’s abiding”, divāvihāra, mentioned in MN 35 at MN I 229, 23, instead of intending a “heavenly abiding”.

It's used in many suttas to indicate what monks do (or at least, where or when or for what purpose they go somewhere) in the afternoon.

That footnote also mentions some activities like "the divine eye" -- which is mentioned in suttas sometimes, in the context of the Buddha seeing that someone somewhere might benefit from his help -- I'm not sure what the best example of that is, Ud 3.3 was the first I find ("Then, encompassing with his awareness the awareness of the monks staying on the bank...").
also, sukhavihāra (dwelling pleasantly)
suññatāvihāra -- e.g. from MN 121

  ‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’
  ‘suññatāvihārenāhaṃ, ānanda, etarahi bahulaṃ viharāmī’ti.

Ditto in MN 151, which also calls that
Mahāpurisavihāra ("the meditation of a great man.")
Eventually, in DN 16:

  Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, [19] that his body is more comfortable.


Ajahn Brahm stated that he ate snakes and frogs during his training, does this mean that it is acceptable to kill animals?

Here's an extract from an article by Ajahn Brahm, What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat,

Towards the end of the Buddha's life, his cousin Devadatta attempted to usurp the leadership of the Order of monks. In order to win support from other monks, Devadatta tried to be more strict than the Buddha and show Him up as indulgent. Devadatta proposed to the Buddha that all the monks should henceforth be vegetarians.The Buddha refused and repeated once again the regulation that he had established years before, that monks and nuns may eat fish or meat as long as it is not from an animal whose meat is specifically forbidden, and as long as they had no reason to believe that the animal was slaughtered specifically for them.
The Vinaya, then, is quite clear on this matter. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Unfortunately, meat eating is often seen by westerners as an indulgence on the part of the monks. Nothing could be further from the truth - I was a strict vegetarian for three years before I became a monk. In my first years as a monk in North-East Thailand, when I bravely faced many a meal of sticky rice and boiled frog (the whole body bones and all), or rubbery snails, red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I would have given ANYTHING to be a vegetarian again! On my first Christmas in N.E. Thailand an American came to visit the monastery a week or so before the 25th. It seemed too good to be true, he had a turkey farm and yes, he quickly understood how we lived and promised us a turkey for Christmas. He said that he would choose a nice fat one especially for us... and my heart sank. We cannot accept meat knowing it was killed especially for monks. We refused his offer. So I had to settle for part of the villager's meal - frogs again.
Monks may not exercise choice when it comes to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we may encourage vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only vegetarian food and no meat, well... monks may not complain either!
May you take the hint and be kind to animals.

My understanding therefore is that "frogs" is what the villagers shared, as alms.
Wikipedia's Thai Forest Tradition article talks of a morning alms round (and not of monks catching animals and killing them and cooking their own food).
Other Google search results say things like, "Thai forest tradition monks cannot handle money or cultivate, cook or store ...", and "The monk does not store or cook food but daily enters the nearby village ...".


Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma?

Fabrication (Sankhara), consists of 50 of the 52 Mental Factors (cetasika). Mindfulness appears in the 25 mental factors which arise with wholesome consciousness. Mindfulness is wholesome as it aids liberation. Unlike some factors which accumulates Fabrication which is one which aids in not creating new fabrication which keeps a being in misery. Also what every is Wholesome is not necessary accumulation of positive Karmic Fabrications. The reduction in accumulated Karma is also Wholesome are you are more closer to liberation. Also note the 50 cetasikas are not all wholesome and they influence karmic accumulation.


Is it fair to ordain a child even when they refuse?

I live in Asia and i am aware of the situation. Yes it is sad and here is how and why it is happening.

The horoscope matter happens because South Asian ideology is dominated by "Astrology". Most of South Asians choose almost everything based on it, child's name,who they are going to marry,their future & etc.
Specially Indians are very obsessed in this whole Astrology thing.

So what actually happens?

There is a Bad Habit among some people, they dump unwanted Cats & Dogs near temples. Sadly some children got so called "Bad horoscopes" with predictions like This child is a lethal danger to the father or mother or something like that.

As some people are obsessed with this so called "scientific practice" they tend to go to extremes. You would be surprised to know people walk away from marriages & relationships based on these predictions too.

So now the "Puppy situation" comes into play. They take children to temples and make them become monks. The temple has no choice here because the temple can't send someone away when the situation is like that.

There is another side to this....

Some parents can't take care of their children. So they would take boys to the temple to become monks. As the temple take care of their education and every other need.The parents are happy that their children are going to have what they would not have if they stay home.

Knowing that some children would not stay in monkhood after they are old enough, the temple still to all that needs to be done for them. There is no bind keeping them from going back. Temples finance the learning of these new monks until  they get a "Bachelor's degree".

This may be a situation in which a child's views or hopes are neglected, But if it wasn't for the temple who knows what will happen to these children?

In my own country we had some terrible incidents, some single parents killing their own children and killing themselves. These events occurred in a short period of time and all these incidents happened because of either Family or Financial trouble.

The Temples provide a roof over these children and give them education. Temples do not hold these children against their will and do not force monkhood. If the children wish to stay without being a monk that is allowed too.


Your question is on how to show that one is offering help or support. But I'm assuming that what you really meant is how to actually help or support and not just show that one is helping or supporting.

Since Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of a God or Supreme Being to whom one can pray, prayer in the sense practised in other religions may not be applicable in Buddhism. This therefore, eliminates the need for any rites, rituals, ceremonies or prayer to any particular entity for the well being of others.

But, one can help or support others by practising Metta meditation. The effectiveness of Metta meditation depends on both the level of purity of your mind and that of the receiver. Therefore, practise of Vipassana meditation to purify one's mind may be considered to be a pre-requisite for effective Metta meditation. Metta meditation is essentially about sharing the good vibrations and energy that one generates by purifying one's own mind with others for their well being.

Wikipedia has an overview of Mettā:

  The cultivation of benevolence (mettā bhāvanā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating benevolence towards themselves, then one's loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, this practice is associated with tonglen (cf.), whereby one breathes out ("sends") happiness and breathes in ("receives") suffering. Tibetan Buddhists also practice contemplation of the Brahmavihāras, also called the four immeasurables, which is sometimes called 'compassion meditation'.


How to think about the four immeasurable minds?

Maybe you find it helpful, but I'm not sure it's appropriate:

Because you don't want to be, especially, thinking about yourself
Because you might tend to have more than enough self-love anyway, without trying to develop more

Consider compassion, for example. Would you burn your hand? No, because it would hurt. Would you burn someone else's hand? No, because it would hurt. It's the same hurt and so the same compassion, the same reason.

Also I read that part of the point of the Brahmaviharas is in a social situation:

  They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence.

If they're for "situations arising from social contact" maybe they're not applicable when you're alone; and if they are applicable to you, then apply them in the same way that you'd apply them to anyone else.

The metta-bhavana practice (i.e. thinking of someone dear to you, then of someone who is less dear) is I think trying to develop metta (the same metta) towards all: so I see no benefit, see it as counter-productive, to create/view/distinguish two categories of metta, one for yourself and another for others.

I don't want to say that yours is a bad suggestion, I only don't see how to apply it. Maybe your suggestion is especially appropriate when you are alone and not with other people, to "help us to remember to have self-compassion" as you said. But maybe it's more beneficial to not hold a view-of-self.


What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta?

It is 'anatta' that means our inability to control the five aggregate, as found in the Pali as follows, where the word 'anicca' is not found at all:

  Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ
  hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ
  anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me
  rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.

  Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to disease, and it would be possible to have it
  of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because
  form is nonself, form leads to disease, and it is not possible to
  have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

  SN 22.59

It is 'anicca' that means the futile nature ('dukkha') of the five aggregates, as also explained in SN 22.59:

  "What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent (niccaṃ) or
  impermanent (aniccaṃ)?"

  "Impermanent (aniccaṃ), O Lord (O Bhante)."

  "Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"

  "Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

  "Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self (attā)'?"

  "Indeed, not that, O Lord."

Anatta (not-self) is the recognition that conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) do not belong to you (i.e., are not "mine") and cannot be an intrinsic permanent "you" (i.e., are not "me") due to their impermanent (anicca) nature.


Source of quotation from Buddhaghosa about Buddha being trackless

Radhakrishnan is not a wholly reliable guide to the Dhammapada. One must read him with care. The Pāḷi is

  Kena padenāti yassa hi rāgapadādīsu ekapadampi atthi, taṃ tumhe tena
  padena nessatha. Buddhassa pana ekapadampi natthi, taṃ apadaṃ buddhaṃ tumhe kena padena nessatha. Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā, 3.196.

It's from Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Dhammapada (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā). This section comments on the words "by what pada" (kena padena). My rough translation is:

  If he has even one from amongst the padas such as desire (rāga), then he can be led by that pada. But the Buddha has not even one of them, the Buddha is without a pada, there is no pada by which you can lead him.

The question then is what pada means here. If we read this along with Dhp 180 then it becomes clear that pada means desire etc (rāgapadādi). And it seems to me that "track" is a poor translation of pada here. It does not convey that in this context pada is referring to desire etc. I suggest that "sign" is somewhat better, but that even this is less than entirely satisfactory. Only the context can help us in this case.

In what sense craving is a "path" or a "track" or even a "sign" is moot. But then these verses are rather esoteric and a simple answer might be misleading anyway.


One of the beauty about Buddhism is "Don't just believe, but find the truth by yourself" (as I paste below).

  The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
  nor upon tradition (paramparā),
  nor upon rumor (itikirā),
  nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
  nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
  nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
  nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
  nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'


The word translated as 'human' namely, 'manussa' means 'high minded'. It does not mean a 'homo sapien'. SN 56.47 describes the meaning of what is not the human state, as follows:

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus...

  ...there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails
  mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.

Therefore, it can be discerned quite plainly, without any dispute or contraversy, the human state refers to living a harmless righteous enlightened life, which is indeed extremely rare in this world of people devouring, exploiting, abusing, raping & harming themselves & each other.


We should meditate upon all ending of life, including the termination of the aggregates conventionally called 'me' & 'you'. For example, meditation upon death should also be done towards cute little children.

As for being "thankful", this is morally inappropriate and shows the mind is unable to truly let go and enter into the Emptiness of impermanence. Being "thankful" is similar to wanting to drink champagne at a funeral.

This said, meditating on the death of a friend is not selfish. It is reality. The scriptures instruct:

  Bhikkhus, there are these five themes that should often be reflected upon by a woman or a man, by a householder or one gone forth. What five? (1) ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’ (2) ‘I am subject to illness; I am not exempt from illness.’ (3) ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’ (4) ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (5) ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

  AN 5.57

  And what may be said to be subject to death? Wife and children are subject to death, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to death. These acquisitions are subject to death; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to death, seeks what is also subject to death.

  MN 26


How open are current Zen Buddhism masters to teaching westerners?

Thich Nhat Hanh is a world renowned Zen master who has monasteries in France, USA and several other countries. He teaches and ordains students and monks from all cultures and ethnicities.

His method of teaching is especially suited for the modern age, since Eastern or Western, cultures are increasingly all the same thanks to globalization.

I believe Western students will benefit most from working with such teachers, who understand both cultures. Firstly, there's no language barrier, secondly, the western manners and habits won't cause offense or impede progress, and thirdly, the teaching is especially suited for the intellectual Westernized person.

I believe Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh to be no less than a living Bodhisattva, a jewel among teachers. He doesn't teach anymore after an illness a couple of years ago, but his Plum Village tradition still carries on along the path he charted.

One could also travel to Japan or China, many do, but finding a good teacher there can be hit or miss without knowledge of the language, culture and traditions. Ultimately though it is not the teacher, but the student who plays the largest role in enlightenment.

There has been no one who has not been enlightened for want of a good teacher. When there is ardent desire to learn the Dharma, the Dharma will seek the seeker out.


Always analysing deeds: sati and samadhi

It seems like you have developed a method of suppression which is favoured in the Theravada tradition - under certain circumstances. This isn't bad if done correctly, but you may find that whatever is suppressed must then find the next path of least resistance, usually through our emotions which, in turn, shapes our behaviour. This might be why you feel your sati has been weakened. These instances require emotional and mental discernment. They must be understood or known and that understanding or knowing must come from an observation that is not informed by our regular mental and emotional conditioning. This is sati. This is correct attention. Sati and Samadhi are very different, but they often  acquaint each other as part of the Nobel Eightfold Path.
Developing healthy emotional intelligence is key because the way in which we respond to emotional upheaval determines the quality of our dhamma path. Virtue and morality (sila) practice is considered a critical and fundamental prelude that serves to strengthen and lubricate the dhamma path in ways that will permanently and radically change the mind, behaviour and feelings. Having healthy emotional intelligence at the outset is similar to servicing your car prior to a long journey - and even along the journey, we stop off and continue to service the car. In the same way, we give correct attention to our emotional and mental state as often as is needed so that we are able to see how our behaviour is influenced by our thoughts and our environment. So, this kind of virtuous pursuit is aided by being open and receptive rather than being trained onto one modality: the single good thought. I'm not saying your method is wrong, just that different situations call upon different forms of sati or a different kind of attention.
In some instances, I have found it helpful to let whatever occurs occur. This often means letting go of dhamma concepts and throwing caution to the wind. I make mistakes and I give my apologies, but I learn valuable lessons about myself, people and the complexity of social dynamics. I think this kind of raw human intimacy cannot be given the substitute we call dhamma, but I think it helps to have a reasonable ability to manage your own emotions.
We all have our different skill sets in dhamma, and you may not have found what's most useful to you at this moment or perhaps something needs tweaking a little. There's a lot to be said for trial and error. Largely, I'm an observer; I watch, study and examine my own behaviour and others' behaviour through the magnifying glass of dhamma. Sometimes I throw myself in there, sometimes I don't. It's nice to have the choice.

Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have
a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have
sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did
during the day.

The general idea of good and bad comes from preconceived notions, man-made conceptions that only produce stress. For example, good and bad define each other and the void in the middle is called stress. In Buddhist thought, we can see this as attraction and aversion leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain and suffering. Having said that, I think it can be helpful to generalize good and bad for the sake of orientation. But, ultimately, whatever knows morality knows it from a place beyond conceptions. Keeping to the basic precepts is enough for most people. I would't discount the single thought practice; it just may not be practical all of the time.
Adjunct to this, some Theravadins have hundreds of ridiculous rule sets that constrict the practitioner such that they lose their autonomy to systematic regimes. Now, sometimes I dwell in arcane regions of the cosmos to try and understand humans from a new perspective, but this I could never understand.

So How am I improve the situation?

Studying the Noble Eightfold Path.


What exactly was the difference between Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta teachings?

The two teachers are in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta.

Alara Kalama taught to focus on 'nothingness' and Uddaka Ramaputta taught to enter the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception'.

Both meditations are only mental stillness & quiet and do not uproot the causes of suffering. The the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception' is very close to unconsciousness. They can only bring temporary peace, which is why the Buddha rejected them. They are not freedom. The Buddha discovered true freedom is having no craving, no attachment and no self.


A person with almost zero sati vs A person with perfect sati

Zero sati is a sad situation:

  AN8.29:7.1: Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world. And a person is reborn in a central country. But they’re witless, dull, stupid, and unable to distinguish what is well said from what is poorly said. This is the seventh lost opportunity …

Yet there is also wrong mindfulness, attending to the unskillful:

  AN10.119:12.1: ‘Wrong mindfulness has a bad result in both this life and the next.’

Right mindfulness is described here:

  SN45.8:9.1: And what is right mindfulness?  It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

A simple example of wrong mindfulness is texting while driving. Minding the text is wrong while driving. It kills people.

Another example is alcohol or drugs, which impair the attentiveness that is the foundation of mindfulness:

  AN5.174:8.1: Anyone who uses alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates dangers and threats both in the present life and in lives to come, and experiences mental pain and sadness. Anyone who refrains from using alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates no dangers and threats either in the present life or in lives to come, and doesn’t experience mental pain and sadness.


Is discussing bad practices of monks a sin?

(Hatthi,gāmaka) Ugga Sutta

In the above Sutta householder, Ugga declares he does not discriminate how he treats the monks based on their attainments or qualities. This is his 6th quality.

But if some monk is doing something wrong it might be worthwhile to report him to a head monk if there is a chance that proper action might be taken.

Ultimately what matters is the motivation. If you talk ill of a monk with intention breaking his good standing with other this is bad karma. If you do it for the betterment of the monk and the sasana then it is positive. In doing so you have to be tactful though so that it does not lead to unintended consequences.


Am I Bearing the pain or observing it, When my leg hurts during Vipassana?

then i was thinking am i observing this pain,

Thinking as such is creates verbal fabrications. The objective is reduce fabrications. You should look as the sensations arising and passing without creating any craving and aversion. There can be no verbalisation, intellectualisation (thinking and pondering), visualisation, etc.

  or am i bearing it

You should just passively observe and not suppress it by diverting your attention to more pleasant thoughts. If this is what you mean by bearing it then, yes, you are bearing it.

If you want you can try breathing meditation if the pain is unbearable in your body. This is fine. You should always limit are diverted to either Ānāpānasati or Satipaṭṭhāna and between them. You should always be calm.

Also use the pain as a tool to reduce latent tendency (see: Anusaya by Piya Tan) of aversion by not rejecting or being averse for the painful feeling.

    the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings

Pahāna Sutta

This also does not mean you should stay with the painful sensations only as you will miss the more subtle sensation but they need to be also felt.

  I could not move my left toe every single time

This happens but perhaps as a beginner you could try using a small chair or cushion if this might help.


Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?

According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?

There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".

I gather from answers and comments to this question that:

There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention
There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)

Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. Eight Consciousnesses).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) sankhara aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) ālāya vijñāna consciousness.

So is the author right or wrong?

I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.

Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.

Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".

What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?

I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.

I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.

Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?

I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "Brahman" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.

Also there's e.g. Brahma (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.


What distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?

Here is a short passage from What the Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula that discusses how consciousness is different than perception. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I found the example given helpful to my own understanding of consciousness.

  It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an
  object. It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object. When
  the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises
  which simply is awareness of the presence of a colour: but it does not recognize that
  it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate
  discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term 'visual consciousness' is a
  philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary
  word 'seeing'. Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other forms of
  consciousness.


Is insecticide treated mosquito nets against 1st precept?

Yes, it is against the first precept since it kills. What you can do is, instead of giving money, buy normal nets and mosquito repellent lotion and donate.


Why should Mahayana practitioners strive for anything at all?

Well in Mahayana, just like in Theravada, we strive for the end of striving. As @ChrisW said, Heart Sutra is written from the perspective of completion, the end of striving. This is called "taking the result as the path". Meaning, instead of discovering the result step by step, you try the result  on, like a hat, until you internalize it through getting used to it.

Another point of Heart Sutra is to serve as an antidote for attachment and reification of the raft of Dharma. Mahayana's issue with Theravada is that they sometimes get so obsessed with Dharma concepts to the point that Dharma becomes a problem, an obstacle in itself. So by reminding of its inherent emptiness we are hoping to help the student come back to the natural state, so they can experience the groundlessness and positionlessness in which there is no more need for striving.

Now, to just abandon all effort without having mastered the peaceful mind would be fooling oneself. Which is why in real life most Mahayana practitioners have to work on essentially the same practices as Theravada, whether before or after realization of emptiness.

Wouldn't it be nice if one could attain dispassion and unbinding upon hearing that everything is contrived and absolutely pointless? But habitual patterns and karmic inertia are difficult to overcome...

Although certainly in the absolute sense the universe does not care if you're enlightened or still suffer. It remains as lacking any solidity or certainty to rely on as it always were.


Vimalakirti Sutra:

  Śāriputra: Goddess, where will you be born when you transmigrate after death?

  Goddess: I will be born where all the magical incarnations of the Tathāgata are born.

  Śāriputra: But the emanated incarnations of the Tathāgata do not transmigrate nor are they born.

  Goddess: All things and living beings are just the same; they do not transmigrate nor are they born!

  Śāriputra: Goddess, how soon will you attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood?

  Goddess: At such time as you, elder, become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual, then will I attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: Goddess, it is impossible that I should become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual.

  Goddess: Just so, reverend Śāriputra, it is impossible that I should attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood! Why? Because perfect enlightenment stands upon the impossible. Because it is impossible, no one attains the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: But the Tathāgata has declared: “The tathāgatas, who are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, have attained perfect buddhahood, are attaining perfect buddhahood, and will go on attaining perfect buddhahood.”

  Goddess: Reverend Śāriputra, the expression “the buddhas of the past, present, and future” is a conventional expression made up of a certain number of syllables. The buddhas are neither past, nor present, nor future. Their enlightenment transcends the three times! But tell me, elder, have you attained the state of arhat?

  Śāriputra: It is attained, because there is no attainment.

  Goddess: Just so, there is perfect enlightenment because there is no attainment of perfect enlightenment.


Yes, Kauva Aatma, for a good, a bad or neither good or bad. Something most are not aware, talking "I know" and do not.
To make it short, best is it to compair it with a pit-fall. As long as it is not removed, if one actually get's trapped, the action is full filled.
Now think of how many debts some accumulate, debts keeping them to come back again and again... think on how much remorse might follow, once finding out a better.
One question, bringing that to awarness was: Pitfalls of answers: what are effects of answers having be received, yet knowing they where …. Nyom Chris gave some practical advices.
Here as a sample directly, indirectly on this matter for understanding:

For instance, if a bhikkhu harboring this sort of general intention builds a trap but then changes his mind, he has to destroy the trap so thoroughly that it cannot be reassembled. Similarly, when a bhikkhu writes a passage describing the advantages of dying (see below) with the thought that anyone who reads it might decide to commit suicide, if he then changes his mind he has to destroy the writing so thoroughly that it cannot be pieced together. If, instead of writing the passage himself, he simply picks up a pre-existing written passage of this sort and then — with a similar intention — puts it in a place where it might be easily seen, he can avoid any penalty simply by returning the passage to the place where he found it.

On effects of approve and encouragement by speech (eg. signs, gesture, letter) see also:
AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise and 6. Acelakavaggo AN03.157-163.
And that is why if is said:

"Those who point out wrong Dhamma as Dhamma, Bhikkhus, those Bhikkhus archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the thirty third.

"Those who point out Dhamma as wrong Dhamma, those archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the thirty forth.

132-139. "Those who point out wrong Vinaya as Vinaya[2]... Vinaya as wrong Vinaya... not declared by the Tathagāta as declared by the Tathagāta... declared by the Tathagāta as not declared by the Tathagāta... not practised by the Tathagāta as practised by the Tathagāta... practised by the Tathagāta as not practised by the Tathagāta... not made know by the Tathagāta as made know by the Tathagāta... made know by the Tathagāta as not made know by the Tathagāta, those archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the forty second.

And not just for one and now... long time for one to wander on having overestimate one self, not to speak on deliberately account.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

You should not believe or hold a view that:

there is a self
there is no self

But whatever you consider as self is not worthy of being called self as:

you cannot control it to your will
it is impermanent

Since if you take a being as parts in terms of the 5 aggregates or 6 faculties each part which constitutes a being is not self. E.g. the eye is not self, what you see is not self, what you feel is not self, your corporeal body is not self, etc.


What is the best meditation practice to fall asleep?

Maintain extraordinarily sharp attentiveness to your body as you fall asleep.  Your day-time meditation practice will have to be regular and consistent, without a daytime practice dreamtime practice will not really have a foundation to rest upon.

When you fall asleep, train yourself to stay aware of how all your limbs feel, the tension or laxity in your body, and the gentle rise and fall of your breath.

That is, in my experience, the best way to maintain aware levels of mind while falling asleep.  You must be able to observe without interfering too much, and that is why a daytime meditation practice is important.

If you set your intentions just before bed strongly, with the intent to further your practice and realizations in your dreams in order to bring ultimate benefit to all sentient beings and all that lives, you will make progress quickly.  There may be a few days where nothing happens, but if you keep to it, one day you shall break through.  As you fall asleep, keep your mind on your body energy and warmth, and you can use the physical body as an anchoring point for your attention until the falling away of gross perceptions takes place


Buddhism always recommends truthful (sacca) & gentle (soracca) speech in relationship.
Three other qualities emphasised are: (i) training (dama) in self-improvement; (ii) patience (khanti); & (iii) sacrifice (caga). See link.
At this time, the above qualities are obviously crucial in your 'rough spot'.
However, the most important quality of relationship in Buddhism is 'mutual or same needs'.

Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present time but also in the future, they should have the
same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity and the
same wisdom.
Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
with pleasant words,
Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease. When both are the same in virtue.
Samajivina Sutta: The Same in Living

A commentary on this teaching by Thailand's foremost scholar monk is below:

The compatible couple: there are principles for partners in life to ensure their compatibility, providing a firm foundation for a long married life, called the four qualities for a good match (samajivi-dhamma):
1. Sama-saddha: having compatible faith; they uphold the same religion, revere the same objects of worship, concepts, beliefs or principles,
and share the same lines of interest - they are equally firm in all
these or can reach agreement on them.
2. Sama-sila: having compatible morality; they have conduct, morality, ethics, manners and upbringing which are harmonious or compatible.
3. Sama-caga: having compatible generosity; they are in accord, not conflict, with each other in their generosity, hospitality,
munificence, sacrifice, and readiness to help others.
4. Sama-panna: having compatible intelligence; they are sensible and can understand each other; they can at least reason with each other.
A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life

Without same needs or goals, Buddhism would say a relationship is difficult to maintain.


Can one alter the 6th precept to accommodate one's family or daily routines?

Upasaka Brayton

  My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon.

Yes. (if one is very interested, there is a very informative work about the beginning time: When Is Dawn (aruna)? When Is Dawnrise (arunuggamana)? - Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana for astrological and people interested to be strict and informed)

  My question is twofold.
  Firstly, what is the purpose of it. Is it to practice disciplin, to renunciate pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be diligent? Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act upon it?

The reasons are many. Yes, the 8 precepts are to reduce sensual pleasure which is the biggest obstacle for meditation.
While doing so, one is naturally forced to keep mindfulness because otherwise he/she would be overwhelmed by sense desire and could not keep the precepts. That means observing them is already much about sati (mindfulness). The next reason is reducing food which means one does not like to harm for just pleasure. This is the metta and karuna aspect of "fasten". A further aspect is the time aspect. One safes a lot of time which are normally used to search and organize food, prepare earn money ... with all its dangers to break basic precepts.
And yes, it is also to learn about dukkha which one does not know when just eating when hunger arises or sense desire. Yet one also learns to know the different between bodily hunger, hunger after pleasure and also what the body needs.
One more reason is that normal people have the most pleasant food in the evening, so one needs to let go of such as barbecue and dinner and such things with all its other most not so good involvements.

  Secondly, if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There is no "pick and choose the most convienient". This sounds silly when expressed, though i've read statements on buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absense of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc.

Silly goes most again clinging on something. There is no such as keeping precepts without giving up and letting go. BUT, it really no problem to start with one precept and step to it and then maybe the next. One would not be called a person who keeps 8 precepts, but that should not be important. Important is that one sticks to his/here resolves. It might be that one has a job where he/she needs to be attractive and is not able to let go of that the specific silas demand in his/her time of work and for now there is no other way. So its really better to make such compromises as to say "I can not keep all". Better 6, 7, 7.5 strict that 8 just literary.

  I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances?

Its no fault and not unwholesome to EAT meat. One does good not to demand it, not to speak about bringing people to organize it or even being involved in killing. That is a thing that comes step be step. Even in a family members start to adopt good behavior and will respect if one members does not like to be involved in demanding meat. But again, there is no problem to eat meat. Just do not develop joy when people still stick to it and maybe give them your portion if they can not let go of desire for meat and eventually problems with it.

  My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon.

If you keep the Uposatha, its usual for mediator to even do not sleep the night before. An its no problem to let go of one night sleep.

Uposatha can be hold (just) on the Uposatha days and Sila days (7 or 8 day after full and half moon) some give it some additional days.

  What are the different categories of observance?

    pakati-uposatha
    pati-jagara-uposatha
    pati-harika-pakkha-uposatha

  The times for keeping the pakati-uposatha are the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the waxing moon and the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the
  waning moon.

  The times for keeping the pati-jagara-uposatha are the five days of the waxing moon, i.e., the 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and the 13th, and
  the six days of the waning moon: the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 12th
  or 13th. That makes eleven days in a month for the observance of this
  type of Uposatha. ... see more: Uposatha Sila

And then there are people who make it akaliko, so with no difference of day, to keep the eight precepts which is normally possible for everyone and most suggested, especially of those who strive for an end of suffering and to go the upward path. No gift is great as this for all being of this world like the gift of silas, the Uposatha-precepts.

Atma has to say that he is not that happy with this very traditional and formal explaining which has adopted much from the Vinaya and much which is out of context. Also Atma is not happy about the factors and many more. So generally its good to stick with the suttas:

Muluposatha Sutta (AN 3.70) — Discourse on the Roots of the Uposatha
Uposatha Sutta (AN 8.41) — Discourse on the Uposatha Observance
Visakhuposatha Sutta (AN 8.43) — Discourse to Visakha on the Uposatha
Sakka Sutta (AN 10.46) — To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha)

Also DN2 give much info about virtue of a eventually yogi. For family life maybe to much.

  It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day. Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

No. If you need that sleep. Eat breakfast, noon. If you than really need to rest, there should be no problem.

More infos Upasaka might find here: Uposatha Observance Days and also a this years calender

If more question arise and certain which for discussions appears, Upasaka and others are always invited to make use of the online monastery sangham which might be in some cases maybe a better place. This environment is certain limited and for some issues not so proper even if most helpful and supportive in many aspects. So it the "invitation" should be not misunderstand.

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


Cessation of Taṇhā through not giving a f*ck

The "craving-crushing voice" sounds like Nibbida, if that's what you're asking.

There's a lot written about it, including this introduction by Piya Tan.


What Buddha taught by his knowledge about human life?

Buddha taught all worldly things are ephemeral but did not teach everything is "grief". "Grief" is an emotion created by the mind rather than a characteristic of things.

The seeker keeps reflecting & examining how all worldly things are ephemeral until the mind realises completely that ephemeral things cannot be any other way or 'suchness' ('tathātā').

This will result in the mind giving up desires & expectations towards ephemeral things.

This is described at the end of the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, as follows:

  O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
  is emancipated.


Is there any extreme of physical pain that a fully enlightened person would find unpleasant on any level?

It's said that enlightened person feels single pain (only physical), while not enlightened feels two pains (physical with mental pain).

SN 36.6, Sallatha Sutta:

  The discerning person, learned, doesn't sense a (mental) feeling of
  pleasure or pain: This is the difference in skillfulness between the
  sage & the person run-of-the-mill.


Animals and humans in Science vs. Buddhism

Some Buddhists regard the realms of existence as psychological states of people. For example, if you are moral & humane, you have a 'human' existence. If you act impulsively, without self-control, without reasoned reflection, & particularly without moral conscience & with violence, your state of mind is like an 'animal'.

The following quotes from the scriptures support this view. Particularly, the quote at the bottom states an 'animal', by realising the Four Noble Truths, can be reborn as 'human', such as occurred to Angulimala  (the former mass murderer who became a fully enlightened monk), as shown in the video link at the bottom.

  Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. Which two?
  Conscience & concern. If these two bright qualities did not guard the
  world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition
  of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of
  those who deserve respect.' The world would be immersed in
  promiscuity, like rams with goats, roosters with pigs or dogs with
  jackals. But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there
  is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,'
  'teacher's wife,' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'"

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.than.html

~~~~

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time
  a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms
  round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds
  of bestial topics (tiracchānakathaṃ) of conversation: conversation
  about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles;
  food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives;
  vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes;
  the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of
  diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether
  things exist or not.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html

~~~~

  Few are the beings who, on passing away from the animal realm, are
  reborn among human beings or gods. But far more numerous are reborn is
  hell. For what reason? They have not seen the Four Noble Truths.

  SN 56.123 (no link)

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49oX1Shxf4


Should Buddhists use statues with an imagined likeness of the Buddha for veneration?

Even though the Uddesika Chetiya is not perfect to represent the Buddha, it doesn't mean that paying respect to it is not meritorious.

Read the story of Pulinathupiya thero.
There was a monastery on a rock called 'Samanga' near the Himalaya forest. There lived a hermit named Narada. He had fourteen thousand students. One day he thought, "I'm living here receiving respect and worship from everyone else, but I don't have anyone to worship. I don't have anyone to take advice from. This is not good!". So he searched for such a person, but couldn't find anyone that is worthy.
But he did not give up the idea.
There was a river called 'Amarika' nearby. He took sand from that river and made a stupa with no Dhatu inside. He likened that to the stupas of the past Buddhas and started worshiping it like a Buddha who is staying nearby. Because of that good deed, he was born in heavens many times and in his last life, he was born to a wealthy family in Savatti. He was able to attain Arhathship at the age of seven by recalling back to that past life.

So, if worshiping to a pile of sand with nothing in it could bring about such an outcome, there's no question of the merits of paying respect to a Buddha statue.
Besides, using a statue to remember a great person is a common practice in civilised societies. There were Buddha statues in monasteries in ancient times when there were many Arahaths. They didn't raise any objection. There are references to Buddha statues in the commentaries(Dhakkhina vibhanga sutta). There have been many debates about certain opinions of ancient Dhamma teachers which were recorded in Kathawattupakaranaya. But there's no record of anyone objecting the reverence of Buddha statues.

None of the statues that exist in the world can be likened to the Buddha 100% as the Thaththaga is Appatimo. The statues themselves have many differences. But most of them have a certain similarity which creates an undeniable sense of respect and awe in us towards the Buddha.

ex: Samadhi Statue of Sri Lanka. The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru once said he found solace and strength in a photograph of this statue when he was imprisoned by the British in 1940s.


Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka?

According to Madhyamika, whatever is dependent-arising is empty of svabhāva. As Nagarjuna says, the meaning of emptiness is dependent-arising; and dependent-arising is the meaning of emptiness. Each and every phenomena, be it permanent or impermanent, form, consciousness or non-associated compositional factor, lacks svabhāva.

There is a number of reasons supporting emptiness of svabhāva. In his commentary to Gyaltsab Je on Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum, Geshe Gyaltsen said:

  There are specific reasonings to realize emptiness that are suitable
  for specific disciples, like the diamond slivers, the four
  possibilities, the king of reasoning that is the reasoning of
  dependent arising, and the reasoning of not being one or many.

In his commentary to Tsongkhapa's Special Insight Chapter of the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Geshe Gyaltsen explains dependent arising:

  Dependent arising means that phenomena depend on something else to
  exist.

On the fact that both samsara and nirvana are empty:

  The perfection of permanence [that is possessed by a buddha] refers to
  the equality of samsara and nirvana seeing both as empty of inherent
  existence.

All phenomena are dependent-arising. If it exists conventionally, it either a permanent or an impermanent phenomena. If it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions (the grossest level of dependent arising) but it still depends on other factors.

Even permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness (the absence of svabhāva), partial and complete cessations (such as nirvana that is the final true cessation) are dependent on part. Geshe Gyaltsen also says:

  Since the aggregates are impermanent phenomena, it is correct to use
  causal dependent arising as a reason [for establishing its lack of inherent existence]. The second, dependence on parts,
  can be used as well. Also when the subject would have been
  uncompounded space the second kind of reason, depending on parts,
  would be a correct reason as well.

We do not even need to go into the third level of dependent arising (dependence on name) that is posited only by Prasangika to establish that nirvana is empty of svabhāva, is empty of true existence, is empty of existing by way of its own characteristics (all these are synonymous).

We do not need to know either that there is a terminological division of five types of nirvana: non-abiding, abiding, with remainder, without remainder, and natural.

To summarize, nirvana depends on factors that it is not, and without which it would not exist. You can apply this to any phenomena, including permanent phenomena: the person depends on factors (the body, consciousnesses, etc) that the person is not, but without which the person wouldn't be what it is.


Is there are difference between 'self' & 'soul' in Buddhism?

You tagged this question pali.

The PTS dictionary does gives two meanings:

  The soul as postulated in etc.
  Oneself, himself, yourself. etc.

There is for example a chapter of the Dhammapada called Attavagga, whose verses include the word; for example:

  Attana hi katam etc.

  Verse 165: By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

You could try to read/understand this as, "By the soul indeed is evil done", to see whether that makes more sense to you; but the conventional translation of it is, "By oneself is...".

I'm not sure that I should try to grasp this topic, for example because of the warning in the Sabbasava Sutta that questions like "what am I?" will result in various types of "views of self", a "thicket of views", a fetter -- and because I think it's an intellectual idea, which may be associated with "Mara".

According to the introduction of Piya Tan's Is There a Soul? one of the principle attributes of the alleged or Brahmanistic soul is that it's "eternal". I guess that "eternal" might contradict another of of the "three characteristics", i.e. impermanence.

I'm told that there is such a thing (a state) as nirvana and maybe timelessness; but I think that those are not maybe associated with a personal "self".


Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?

Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither exists independently.


The Buddhist goal is Nirvana and on jet to reach it is called a Sekkha. Success comes then you have reached the goal and free from all stress is accomplished (Asekkha).

Even you are are not fully accomplished, the practice may help you manage your day to day stress, until one day you do not get stressed any more.

Also do not procrastinate doing the tasks as this is the last day or moment. This would help in your worldly aspirations also.


I'm looking for a sutta which mentions nationalism

On this page, you can find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's summary for MN 93:

  The Buddha enters into a debate with a brahman on whether one's worth
  as a person is determined by birth or by behavior. Although some of
  the arguments he presents here deal with the specifics of brahman
  caste pride, many of them are applicable to issues of racism and
  nationalism in general.


The following is somewhat like the posted question, but not exactly:

SN35.241:7.4: Sir, may I receive the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence?”

SN35.241:7.5: “Well then, Nanda, return the cows to their owners.”

SN35.241:7.6: “Sir, the cows will go back by themselves, since they love their calves.”

SN35.241:7.7: “Still, Nanda, you should return them to their owners.”

Here the Buddha emphasizes ethics in our relationships with others. The Noble Path starts with Right View.


Are there examples of humor and irreverence in Buddhist scriptures?

As ChrisW said, there are numerous examples of humor and irreverence in Zen lore.

However, unlike most of the jokes about e.g. Christianity which are often said without a wholesome purpose, or sometimes with the objective of pointing out an inconsistency in Christian declared values vs. practice, in Buddhism all activities, including jokes, are 100% subordinated to the primary goal.

Before you can understand the role of jokes in Zen Buddhism, you should understand the crucial role of attachments as obstacles to enlightenment. (I think you are very close to this already, since you have a natural antipathy to superstitions, unexamined beliefs, and rigid/stubborn adherence to subjective points of view & philosophical abstractions.)

While I can't give justice to this topic in one short answer, the idea is that attachments both bias the mind off an ideal objective basis AND lead onto dangerous and often harmful pursuits AND constitute the necessary condition of suffering due to a mismatch between "how is" and "how should be" (the target of attachment).

The traditional Buddhist device against an attachment is known as an antidote. Often antidote takes form of an object opposite to the target of attachment. For example, when attachment is to sexual pleasures, the antidote is contemplation of decomposing corpses. When attachment is to negative attitude towards society, the antidote is generation of loving-kindness, etc. Which leads us to the role of humor as an antidote to attachment to ... the very Buddha Dharma itself.

So for example, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable, he might offer a following piece of wisdom:

  A monk once asked Ummon, "What is the Buddha?"
  "A dried shit-stick!"  -- was the answer.

and

  Last night, this mountain monk [Dogen] unintentionally stepped on a dried turd and it jumped up and covered heaven and earth. This mountain monk unintentionally stepped on it again, and it introduced itself, saying, "My name is Shakyamuni."

and

  Bodhi and Nirvana are poles for tying up donkeys.

and

  If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

Do you understand? Buddha-dharma is medicine for suffering caused by ignorance and attachment, including both intellectual ignorance and attachment, and emotional ignorance and attachment. There are very many different forms of delusion and attachment. Buddha said there are 84000 kinds! A particular form of medicine works better for a particular form of disease. Buddhist humor is one of such medicines.


Theravada perspective on transgender people

Stay with loving kindness (Metta) and act out of goodwill.

Have compassion (karuna) knowing that all people suffer and offer help when you have strength.

Avoid perceptions of gender and personalities as that would lead to conditioned responses or worst still stereotyped reactions. So with mindfulness intact act with goodwill.


Question 1:
Many different Buddhist words are translated as "insight" or "enlightenment" (the latter being a terrible Victorian choice of word). The following list is by no means exhaustive:
Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". But the "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.'
A synonym for vipassanā is paccakkha "perceptible to the senses" (Pāli; Sanskrit: pratyakṣa), literally "before the eyes," which refers to direct experiential perception. Thus, the type of seeing denoted by vipassanā is that of direct perception, as opposed to knowledge derived from reasoning or argumentation.
Kenshō (見性) is a Japanese term from the Zen tradition. Ken means "seeing", shō means "nature, essence". It is usually translated as "seeing one's (true) nature", that is, the Buddha-nature or nature of mind. Kenshō is an initial insight or awakening, not full Buddhahood. It is to be followed by further training to deepen this insight, and learn to express it in daily life.
Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding" (thus: insight)
Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajñā and Buddhahood.
Bodhi (Sanskrit, Pāli), from the verbal root budd, "to awaken", "to understand", means literally "to have woken up and understood".
Prajñā : In Theravada Buddhism pannā (Pali) means "understanding", "wisdom", "insight". In Mahayana Buddhism Prajna (Sanskrit) means "insight" or "wisdom", and entails insight into sunyata. The attainment of this insight is often seen as the attainment of "enlightenment".
Wu (Chinese: 悟) is a concept of awareness, consciousness, or spiritual enlightenment borrowed from the Chinese folk religion.
Many of these terms have a gradual quality to them, implying that insight in most personal cases is a journey (like the Buddha's own journey). Even in Chan/Zen (often called the Sudden Teaching) the "sudden" refers to the insight "striking like lightning" after considerable time walking the path. This is perhaps best illustrated by the "Oxherding Pictures" detailing the stages of insight.
Question 2: yes, but this is generally not regarded as the end of practice. This is generally associated with the 9th step in the "Oxherding Pictures":

Reaching the Source
Too many steps have been taken
returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf
from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode,
unconcerned with and without -
The river flows tranquilly on
and the flowers are red

The final step is to learn to apply this insight in daily life (i.e. to conceptualize it) to help others. You can interpret this in two ways:
a) If this insight was purely non-conceptual, no sutras or books from Masters would exist to "point at the moon".
b) All writing and conceptualization is allegorical, i.e. "pointing to a reflection of the moon in a pond"


You said, "Forgiveness means if anybody do some harm to you you don't react and just try to pretend like it never happened to you."

This is called "Kshanti-paramita", the perfection of patience.

In Buddhism, patience does not mean that you put a lot of effort to keep yourself calm. In Buddhism, patience means you do not have attachments. Because you have no attachments, you can not be offended.

The biggest attachment is Ego, the feeling of self-significance in the world. When you feel you are significant, and people do something that shows that you are not, you can easily feel insulted and lose temper. So Ego is like a big sore, very sensitive, that makes you very vulnerable.

Other types of attachments are attachment to religion, attachment to "we", attachment to some sort of theory, attachment to intellect, attachment to purity etc.

When you have no attachments, no Ego, no self-significance - you become very patient. You become unmovable, invulnerable. This is called perfection of patience.


Look, there is nothing special about Shikantaza or any other type of meditation. If you ask me honestly, I say that meditation is for fun really. You don't do it to achieve anything. In fact the idea is to let everything be. And NOT achieve anything. No "Nirvana", No "Moksha", No "separation", No "clinging" or whatever labels we like to create.

There is really no answer to this question apart from experience. You just sit and go on with whatever happens, your physical and mental sensations. Until they cease (or not). The moment you start thinking anything about it or whatever to do about it, the point is lost.

What I mean is whatever you are thinking right now about the way to do it, or "am I doing it right?" or "what should I focus on?" or such like questions are mere thoughts and are invalid.


Being mindful sitting/working on a computer

I find being mindful while sitting on a computer very hard.

Being mindful of what you are going is good but not always the right mindfulness.

What you can pratice in such a situation:

Mindfulness of posture by looking at the touch of the body with the chair and clothes
Sensations that arise in the body and mind

  Most movements with mouse/keyboard are happening so fast and intuitive that it's very hard to be conscious of what the actual intention (by clicking on/typing this or that) is; often this also leads me into restlessness or loosing track of time;

Intention does not matter if it is hard to keep track of initially. Just concentrate on the sensations that arise. Sometimes when you cannot fix a piece of code or perhaps under pressure then these situations also give sensations. Be mindful of them.

  I'm sure this is a common phenomenon. Are there certain tricks/tips by which one can be more aware while sitting/working on a computer?

Takes the whole body or the body as part by part and direct your attention to these parts. Initially when you feel a sensation on some part more on. When you can feel sensations throughout the body then they to divide and dicest the sensations to see them at more lower level of granularity.

Since you are seated mostly be mindful of your posture and sensations it brings. Once you have been in one posture for some time you might get a urge to more. Look at these sensation. Also the texture of your cloths touching you. The touch of the atmosphere on the exposed parts of your body. Heat of cold or the environment you work in and perhaps perspiration running down your body if you perspire. And also the touch of the chair. Touch of the keys when your fingers hit the keyboard.


How does the reference system of the Majjhima Nikaya work?

Ven. Bodhi's book also provides PTS references inside square brackets. For the MN 64 example, his book will show:

  "Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states [436] and directs it towards the deathless element thus..."

Else as Andrei mentioned, simply go to suttacentral and click MN 64, then click the cogwheel icon on the upper right hand side (it'll say "Text settings" when moused over), then click the "View textual information" slider and it'll shows the infos. on the right hand side of the paragraphs.


What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon?

Due to space, I'll answer with some excerpts but bear in mind that the full texts should be read for a better understanding:

  (1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.

  “Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his
  mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

  “But, bhikkhus, (1) when an instructed noble disciple meets with gain,
  he reflects thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He thus understands it as it really
  is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute … (5) …
  blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he reflects thus:
  ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent, suffering, and subject to
  change.’ He thus understands it as it really is.

  “Gain does not obsess his mind, and loss does not obsess his mind.
  Fame does not obsess his mind, and disrepute does not obsess his mind.
  Blame does not obsess his mind, and praise does not obsess his mind.
  Pleasure does not obsess his mind, and pain does not obsess his mind.
  He is not attracted to gain or repelled by loss. He is not attracted
  to fame or repelled by disrepute. He is not attracted to praise or
  repelled by blame. He is not attracted to pleasure or repelled by
  pain. Having thus discarded attraction and repulsion, he is freed from
  birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is freed from suffering, I say.

  “This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference
  between an instructed noble disciple and an uninstructed worldling.”

  -AN 8.6, Worldly Principles (2)

  "'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to what was it said?

  "There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss
  of wealth, or loss through disease, does not reflect: 'That's how it
  is when living together in the world. That's how it is when gaining a
  personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is
  the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions
  spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly
  conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise, pleasure, &
  pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through
  disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes
  distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss
  of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects:
  'That's how it is when living together in the world. That's how it is
  when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world,
  when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly
  conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight
  worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, blame, praise,
  pleasure, & pain.' Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or
  loss through disease, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not
  beat his breast or become distraught.

  "'It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and
  then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is
  attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning,
  not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference
  to this was it said.

  -AN 4.192, Traits

  Gain and loss, disrepute and fame,
  blame and praise, pleasure and pain:
  these conditions that people meet
  are impermanent, transient, and subject to change.

  A wise and mindful person knows them
  and sees that they are subject to change.
  Desirable conditions don’t excite his mind
  nor is he repelled by undesirable conditions.

  He has dispelled attraction and repulsion;
  they are gone and no longer present.
  Having known the dustless, sorrowless state,
  he understands rightly and has transcended existence.

  -AN 8.5, Worldly Principles (1)

Not to gain or loss
not to status or honor,
not to praise or blame,
not to pleasure or pain:
      everywhere
they do not adhere —
     like a water bead
     on a lotus.
     Everywhere
they are happy, the enlightened,
everywhere
un-defeated.

-Thag 14.2, Godatta

He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
     defeated, by those judging the issue:
He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
     "He beat me," he mourns.

These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
     In them are elation, dejection.
Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
     for they have no other goal
     than the gaining of praise.

He who is praised there
     for expounding his doctrine
     in the midst of the assembly,
laughs on that account & grows haughty,
     attaining his heart's desire.

-Sn 4.8, To Pasura

As a single slab of rock
won't budge in the wind,
so the wise are not moved
     by praise,
     by blame.

-Dhp 81


What does the phrase "to armor oneself with vows" mean?

What does the phrase “to armor oneself with vows” mean?

I don't recall seeing that exact phrase in the texts that I've read but the analogy of the vows being used as an armor symbolizes the protection they provide to oneself and others by observing them. You can see this theme in the Self-protected Discourse (Atta-rakkhita Sutta) for example:

  At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said
  to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion,
  this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who have themselves
  protected, and who leave themselves unprotected?' Then it occurred to
  me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, &
  mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron
  of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a
  squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might
  protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that?
  Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore
  they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily
  conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves
  protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a
  squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a
  squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have
  themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal
  protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves
  protected.'"

  "That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who
  engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct
  leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant
  troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of
  chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them,
  still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's
  an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave
  themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct,
  good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected.
  Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of
  cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of
  infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves
  protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an
  external one. Therefore they have themselves protected."

There are others discourses that touch on this. I particularly have one in mind that relates very closely to this theme. I'll reference when I find it.


Is uncertainty incompatible with the doctrine of emptiness?

When fish move through water, however they move, there is no end to the water. When birds fly through the sky, however they fly, there is no end to the sky. Fish and birds have never once, since antiquity, run out of water or run out of sky. When their need for water or sky is great, its availability is great, and when their need for water or sky is small, its availability is small. Acting this way, fish and birds realize their limitations yet at every moment somersault freely through their realm; but if a bird leaves the sky it will die at once, and if a fish leaves the water it will die at once. So we understand that water is life and that sky is life. Birds are life, and fish are life. It may also be that life is birds and that life is fish.

  The experience of our own existence is also like this. If a bird or a fish decided to move through the water or the sky only after getting to the end of water or utterly penetrating the sky, it would never find its way or its place in the water or sky. When we have found our own place in our own realm, we have arrived at potential. When we maintain our own true way, our action is potential itself.

  Our own way and our own place are neither great nor small; they are neither subjective nor objective; they have not existed in the past nor do they arise in the present; they are just as they are. In maintaining our own true way and abiding in our own place, to consider one thing is to explore only that one thing, and to perform one action is to fully participate in that one action. In this state, we exist in our own space and practice our own way, and awareness of ourselves is not conspicuous. The reason this is so is that our own thoughts and actions and the realization of potential appear together and are experienced together.

  Do not assume that we can be conscious of potential, or that potential can be recognized by the intellect. The experience of potential is not necessarily a cognitive realization.

  Realization is the state of ambiguity itself [kahitsu -- how can it be convulsively decided that]

  Dogen


When other lower realms collapse the inhabitants are push to the existing realms of which Ābhassara World is one last standing, hence nearly every one in a collapsing universe ends up in this plane in the universe with an exception of a few who might be thrown into parallel universes 10,000 world system away.

But also if you cling on to false view then there is a high chance you might be born in another parallel universe, 10,000 world systems away (I would presume a cluster of world system collapse together), which is sustaining life other planes including (other planes exist only in 1 of the 4 phases in cycles of the universe.) but not conducive for a Buddha to appear. This might be either Abhi Dhamma or in later canonical works as I cannot find in any of the translations I have checked which are mostly suttas. Apannaka Sutta does mention wrong views lead to hell though.

Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story, The Buddhist Concept of World Bhikkhu T. Seelananda, Parallel universes by Piya Tan


What is the quality and status of the Tripitaka texts at tipitaka.org?

OP: There are ellipses … everywhere

This is a Tipitaka writing method called peyyala (p) [පෙය්‍යාල (පෙ)] to omit repetitive phrases or paragraphs in order to prevent Tipitaka becoming unfeasibly lengthier. In peyyala writing method, ellipsis (...) with or without p (පෙ) used to indicate an omitted phrase or passage.
e.g. The following paragraph written with peyyala.
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි...පෙ...පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති...පෙ...අවික්ඛෙපො හොති...පෙ...ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.
If we write the same paragraph without peyyala it would become lengthier like this;
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති.
යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති.
ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.

OP: Latin punctuation like the question mark ? and period . everywhere.

Your first quote is from "Dhammasaṅgaṇī" and it is written in a question and answer pattern. So the latin punctuation question mark (?) has its usual meaning (used at the end of an interrogative sentence). Period (.) is used to indicate the end of a sentence.

OP: Things are aligned in several different ways as in the last image.

I cannot see much importance of the alignment of the sentences.

OP: Again, why so much random bold?

I'm not sure why some of the sentences and words are bold apart from the titles.

OP: And there's quotes ".

Quotes (") are usually used as speaker tags.

OP: What do I really need out of these texts? Do I need to keep the bold and centering and such (i.e., what information does it contain/encode?), or can I get rid of it?

My suggestion is to keep all the formatting except different alignments. (Most importantly the ellipses should be kept). I'm not sure whether the bolds should be kept as they are or not.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong, but not Dhamma.


What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities?

In ancient India (mostly in southern parts of India) there are people called "Sittars". They possess many super-human powers like foreseeing the future (not just predicting it), alchemism (like converting any metal to gold), super-healing abilities. There are many written manuscripts which are still available but many of them of in Ancient Tamil. They have also written about many techniques which if practiced properly will give us super-human abilities.  Do not think of "Wolverine"-like abilities, but the sort of abilities that normal people cannot think of. It is rumored that they still exist in the western ghats of southern India and that they are in a form of light. I do not know how it is linked to Buddha but I firmly believe Buddhism has its core roots and values derived from Hinduism.


I'm looking for an outline of the practices going from beginner to jhana or streamentry

Observing five precepts is the shortest way to enter the path. Then read the following.
A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
OR
Buddhism Course by Chan Khoon San (take about 12 hours to read and give you a good idea about the teaching)


Normally our attention is diffuse and weak. When you focus on anything it becomes clearer. That's a part of it for sure. The same will happen to sounds, etc. if you focus on them. Of course, pain will increase itself if you don't take steps to alleviate it, so that's often also a part.
Important is that the pain is not a problem, and if you can see it just as pain, it doesn't matter how intense it becomes. The Buddha said we should bear with pain even if it feels like it will kill us. When you are averse or afraid of the pain, you should take that aversion or fear as an object of mindfulness. This will help you see clearly (vipassana) that the pain is just pain:

dukkhaṃ vā vedanaṃ vedayamāno ‘dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmī’ti pajānāti.
When feeling a painful feeling, one knows fully, "I am feeling a painful feeling."

The idea is that that should be all you know about it, not that it's bad or a problem or getting worse, etc. All of those things are reactions and should be taken as objects of mindfulness as well.


Anatta can be seen even by the average Joe. Ex: when there's headache or any kind of bodily pain, why it is not going away at will?  When you taste something, why the taste disappear after eating? Why can't you make the taste persist. Why your body stink when you don't take bath? Why can't you stop that from happening? When happiness arises in the mind, why does it fade away without your consent?


Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma?

DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds
prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a
noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity,
and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.
That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on
to say:
“If you act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, or stupidity,  your fame shrinks,  like the moon in the
waning fortnight.
If you don’t act against the teaching  out of favoritism, hostility,
cowardice, and stupidity,  your fame swells,  like the moon in the
waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic,
misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome &
unwholesome, benefit & danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising
of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it
has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful
and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and
those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to
them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of
principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.
SN 46.2

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five
things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or
properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3)
What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement?
(4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm
that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by
means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the
skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?
Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only "racism" is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.
The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.
If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.
If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.


One could call it jhāna or dhyāna which is the meditation with a calm mind. You are on a great path. Perhaps you want to meditate on the heart sutra where it says:

"No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain. "

The moment where you recognize a calm mind (the absence of something) as achievement, the ego crawls back up and claims having attained something. The true you is just about to get this ego to quite down. As you begin to research terms and more about having attained this great achievement you might create artificial distance again. Always remember that you are neither the mind nor the body.