Trouble understanding "sensual misconduct"

It is true, the precept reads "kāmesu", which literally means "in regards to sensuality", but in this instance as elsewhere, kāma refers specifically to sexual sensuality - it's one recognized meaning of the word:

kāmesūti methunasamācāresu methunavatthūsu vā.
"kāmesu" means either "in regards to sexual activity" or "in regards to the objects of sexuality".
DN-A 3.10.33

So, the meaning really is "wrong behaviour in regards to sexuality", and the definition of what is wrong is fairly specific; not all sexual behaviour is considered wrong for the purposes of this precept, and certainly not all sensual indulgence. This has been covered in answers to another question about this precept already.


Your question is written with admirable/praiseworthy composure. The impression is you have practised the Dhamma very well; particularly from an originally challenging place.
I have previously answered a question at this link about the attitude towards authority figures found in the early scriptures.
Related to this, the scripture Iti 74 refers to the kind of son that is spiritually &/or morally superior to their parents.
In summary, the early scriptures are all about mutual obligations in relationship. While your compassion towards your father appears admirable, in Buddhism, there is an expectation a father must also abide with appropriate conduct before receiving full respect.


Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?

We don't usually compare Buddhism with other non-Buddhist teachings here, both because few of our users seem to know other teachings deeply enough to give them justice, but also because we prefer to stay away from qualitative judgements and arguments, so you're unlikely to get many in-depth answers on this. I can make a few general comments though:

A.G. seems to be mostly in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This is not surprising, considering that Advaita Vedanta is thought (by Buddhists) to be a derivation and adaptation of Mahayana Buddhism for Brahmin audience.

Unlike A.G., in Buddhism we do not identify ourselves with the mind / the witness / pure consciousness etc. We say that the mind is just an emergent property of nature, whereas "I" is only a concept. Nor do we identify with the All. So the many statements in A.G. of the kind "I am pure consciousness; I am in everything and everything in me" etc. - would sound odd to a Buddhist who would find it misleading.

Then, A.G. seems to describe the target state in considerable detail, but hardly if at all explains the practical path from a typical Samsaric condition to the freedom of realization. In contrast to that, Buddhism declares, and spends a great deal of effort expounding the practical implementation of a gradual step-by-step method for reaching that state, which can be followed by someone starting from complete scratch, all the way to Liberation.

Finally, A.G. does not seem to concern itself with the social morals, while Buddhism defines a comprehensive set of guidelines for regular society which is in complete sync with the Buddhist path and vice versa.

Still, from a quick read of A.G. it seems like it comes from tradition that could be completely at home within the higher yanas of Tibetan Buddhism, especially what's known as Dzogchen. It almost reads like a Dzogchen Tantra and I suspect back when religious traditions were more pliable than they are today, there was likely some cross-pollination between the two.

This similarity is seen in many cases on the Dzogchen side as well, with texts talking about rigpa (ground awareness), making proclamations like "I am the eternal Buddha" and so on. And certainly the spirit of "nothing requires fixing" that A.G. is permeated with, plays the key role in Dzogchen as well.

Since you appreciate A.G. as the higher teaching, I suppose you may enjoy reading about Dzogchen, for example as presented by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu whom I found clear and to the point.


Dont pay so much attention to vocabulary and linguistic labels just do. The invitation that begins with « better not to start. once started better to finish » Is the invitation worth accepting. I urge u to follow this thing whatever it is that u are describing. Keep it up no matter how impossible it seems to be the one being in a sea of a million sentient beings. Also PS u will never find ascetics in a monastery only Bhukuni and Bhiku....where does one go to find an ascetic i wonder?
Youre quote made me laugh « higher understanding » what is understood remains the same but the one who understands makes it higher or lower. Cant get to where you are going without meeting one or two obstacles!


There's a word Anussati

Anussati
Anussati (f.) [Sk. anusmṛti, fr. anu + smṛ, cp. sati] remembrance, recollection, thinking of, mindfulness. A late list of subjects to be kept in mind comprises six anussati -- ṭṭhānāni, viz. Buddha˚, Dhamma˚, Sangha˚, sīla˚, cāga˚, devatā˚, i. e. proper attention to the Buddha, the Doctrines, the Church, to morality, charity, the gods. Thus at D iii.250, 280 (cp. A i.211); A iii.284, 312 sq., 452; v.329 sq.; Ps i.28. Expanded to 10 subjects (the above plus ānāpāna -- sati, maraṇa -- sati, kāyagatā -- sati, upasamânussati) at A i.30, 42 (cp. Lal. Vist 34). For other references see D i.81; S v.67 = It 107 (anussaraṇa at latter pass.); A iii.284, 325, 452. Ps i.48, 95, 186; Pug 25, 60; Dhs 14, 23, 1350 (anussati here to be corr. to asati, see Dhs. trsl. 351); Sdhp. 225, 231, 482. See also anuttariya (anussat -- ânuttariya)


I wouldn't worry about what it is or isn't and dont listen to what other people have to say about it either as everyone will have varying opinions and really they cannot know what you experience. You will end up feeling confused. The main thing to remember is that it was just a pleasant experience and like all experiences it arose and then passed. It's like a small reward for making progress. Try not to think about it or recreate it as it may hinder your progress. It does not need a label.
If you go into meditation expecting, hoping or craving to have the same experience again or for another pleasant experience you are missing the point so don't fall into that trap. However, when you do have a pleasant experience, enjoy it for what it is then let it go.


What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five?

From Ven. Bodhi's note in "Middle Length Discourses":

Nutriment (ahara) is to be understood here in a broad sense as a prominent condition for the individual life-process. Physical food(nurture the body), contact (nurture feeling), mental volition (nurture consciousness to manifest to 3 realms of existence: sense, form, and formless worlds), consciousness (nurture name/form or mentality/materiality at rebirth, the psycho-physical organism in its totality); these are the elements that help perpetuating samsara; Craving is the origin of nutriment since craving of the previous existence is the source of the present individuality with its dependence upon and continual consumptions of the four nutriments in this existence.

Also from Ven. Bodhi's note:

"Bhikkhus, there are these five kinds of seeds. What five? Root-seeds, stem-seeds, joint-seeds, cutting-seeds, and germ-seeds as the fifth"[73] The five kinds of seeds (bija) are actually five means of propagation. Spk gives examples of the five kinds drawn from Vin IV 35.

And From Ven. Thanissaro's "The Buddhist Monastic Code":

The Vibhaºga defines bhÒtag›ma as vegetation arising from any of five
sources:

from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),
from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),
from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),
from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or
from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).


Why is Buddhahood attained only by males?

The question is a bit unclear, so here's an answer to what I think your question is.

I believe anyone -- regardless of gender -- can reap the same fruits of the path.  It's all about diligence in practice; gender has nothing to do with it.

Now I recall some misogynistic passages and early injunctions against nuns, but I ignore all that.  I don't think Buddhist scriptures or personalities (including The Buddha) are unerring.  I think that despite having some profound things to say, Buddhism still was a product of its time and place and often failed to transcend those prejudices.

Fortunately, since Buddhist practice pays off in short order, there's no need for faith, so I don't have to rely on The Buddha being this or that, or claims that a transmission was preserved or any other claim that strains credibility.  I simply see what works and use it.

With that said, Buddhism has some strong females.  The one that comes to mind is Quan Yin (Guanyin), the archetype of compassion.  My local Buddhist Temple gave more prominence to her than to the Buddha, even to the point of stressing her ideal (Bodhisattva) as the goal of practice. Furthermore, in all the Buddhist temples I attended, the Quan Yin statues were much more prominent than the Buddha ones; in fact, there's a nearby Buddhist Temple with a 50 foot tall statue that dominates the grounds.  Who's on that statue? Quan Yin.


Why is in the budda days, jhana seem so easily attainable but so hard now?

All my teachers without exception said that the idea of "goal" that you are striving to "attain" is THE final obstacle to attainment.

To that aim, one is advised to completely eradicate the idea of goal from one's mind. As in, on the deepest emotional level you have to give up any slightest hope, dream, or intent to attain jhana - and keep meditating on the resulting state.


What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him"?

Related in this case does not mean by blood. Rather it is in terms of belief in the shared Buddhist philosophies, or at a minimum maintaining an open mind on the subject. Someone not related has no interest in attaining liberation, and such a person cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, they cannot be helped.


In the meditation taught in the original Buddhist scriptures, the mind stays with the breath & free from thought.

In the original Buddhist scriptures, there is no 'shift' when vipassana is practised. Instead, calmness (samatha) & insight (vipassana) are developed simultaneously. The scriptures state:

  These two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.

  MN 149

In the original Buddhist scriptures, the term 'vipassana' refers to the 'clear seeing' of the impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha) & not-self (anatta) characteristics of the five aggregates (body/breathing; feeling sensation; perception; thought/mood; sense consciousness).

For example, the breath arises & passes continually; a breath appears & disappears; a new breath appears, then disappears; another breath appears then disappears. To see/experience clearly impermanence of breathing is vipassana.

To see clearly that it is the physical body that breathes (rather than the 'self' or 'I' that breathes) is also vipassana of 'not-self' in relation to breathing.

'Unsatisfactoriness' means to see that because X breath & Y breath is impermanent; that breath cannot form the basis of or be relied on for lasting happiness (due to its fleeting impermanent nature). It can also mean the impermanent nature of a breath, if clung to, will lead to suffering.

The ordinary distracting thoughts the mind has are not really suitable for vipassana because they actually diminish awareness, clarity & discernment of the mind.

For the mind to practise effective 'vipassana' in relation to thought (sankhara aggregate), 'samadhi' (mental clarity & stability, aka 'concentration') must ideally be very developed & pure (empty).

Ultimately, true 'vipassana' is 'enlightenment'. It is very profound because it discerns the 'not-self' nature of the five aggregates.

Believing 'you' are observing 'your thoughts' or thinking 'my thoughts' are impermanent is not really vipassana because vipassana sees 'not-mine' or 'not-yours' (anatta) rather than 'my' or 'yours'.

To conclude, categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath is the right method according to the original scriptures.

  You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past     is left behind. The future  is as yet unreached.
  Whatever phenomena/truth (dhamma) is present you clearly see right there,
       right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart.

  Bhaddekaratta Sutta


It's in Puttanmansa Sutta.

  "And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband &
  wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With
  them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager
  provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up &
  depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be
  crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are
  used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet
  to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours,
  dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on
  the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through
  this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would
  kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat &
  jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through
  the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat
  their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son?
  Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks:
  Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for
  putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
  "No, lord."

  "Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through
  that desert?"

  "Yes, lord."

  "In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be
  regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by
  which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this
  world.
    SN 12.63


At least:

Before an enlightenment:

bodhisatta make himself suffering by dukkarakiriyā-practicing,
attakilamathānuyoga, in Mahāsaccaka-sutta.

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me, what if I pressed the upper jaw on the
  lower jaw, with the tongue pressing on the palate pushed out, expelled
  and burnt up thoughts in my mind. Then even while sweat was dripping
  from my armpits, I pressed the upper jaw on the lower jaw, with the
  tongue pressing on the palate pushed out, expelled and burnt up
  thoughts in my mind...etc.

It is a very long with many suffering, please, look inside the link by yourself.

After an enlightenment:

One sick,  some physical body suffering, found in
cīvara-khandhaka of vinaya-pitaka.

  [135] Tena  kho  pana  samayena  bhagavato  kāyo  dosābhisanno hoti.

  Next, the cause is when  buddha's body accumulating waste product.

Two more sicks found in D.N. Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, illness, and
hematemesis.

  But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.
  ...
  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even hematemesis (lohitapakkhandikā), and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Another, injure found in Vinaya Saṅghabhedakhandhaka.

  Tato   papaṭikā   uppatitvā   bhagavato   pāde   ruhiraṃ   uppādesi .

  Because of broken pieces of big rocks, blood bleed out at buddha's foot.

The conclusion appears in K.N. Apadāna, too. From here, buddha said foot-ache and headache, too. This is a long quote, please see inside the link by yourself.


I know that the buddha said no to people

The Buddha also said "yes".

Similarly there were people who said "no" to the Buddha, and people who said "yes".

"No" isn't always the right answer. Sometimes people want what's good for you, or better for you, and an 'instinctive' "no" reaction isn't (always) clever, isn't wise, isn't harmonious.

Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice?

I suppose that "choice" enters when you're able and willing to properly view what you're choosing.

I once had to learn what the law is in my country, about "informed consent" and a person's "decision-making capacity" -- the law said, something like, that people are "incapable" of deciding (and should have a guardian to decide for them) if they're unable to understand what the options are (what the choices are), and unable to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the various options. It's a law designed to protect people who can't understand, who can't make an informed choice, and who need someone else to decide for them.

Since you're talking about relationships, to some extent, you might find the answer to this topic helpful -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

I am under such great duress right now

It sounds to me like "AI" is possibly something which you shouldn't be thinking about.

Partly because thoughts like that are not conducive to well-being.

And partly because it's a topic that is too easy to misunderstand.

The thought-process sounds to me to be tinged with a little paranoia -- "I'll be enslaved!".

I think that the medical/psychiatric understanding of paranoia is that it's a little too "self-referential" -- for example, like, "you're out to get 'me', so 'I' am being threatened, and 'my' freedom is at risk".

And I think that Buddhists too would recognise that -- excessive "I-making", "self-views" -- as a source of suffering.

Thoughts of AI seem to be a kind of "othering" -- definition:

  verb
  gerund or present participle: othering
  view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself.
  "a critique of the ways in which the elderly are othered by society"

Part of the implicit thinking is "AI is different from me" or "different from people", it is "other" -- and so it might seem threatening.

It might be better instead to think about what Buddhism says about "self-views", also about "kindness" and so on.


jhānas, Zen, and how to practice concentration meditation

A true Jhana master, Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw:

Breakthrough in
SAMATHA MEDITATION
Knowing and Seeing (4th revised edition)

And if you can purchase this book, I highly recommend it:

Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw

It's written by actual students of the Venerable Pa Auk, who actually succeeded in developing the Jhanas: very clear and concise, with practical advice.


Do Buddhists need affection, physical touch or intimacy?

Marriage does not guarantee happiness (some married people are unhappy). This answer includes advice about how to choose a marriage partner.

And chapter 6 of A Happy Married Life (which is titled "Security, Respect and Responsibilities") identifies what attitudes and behaviour are recommended by Buddhist doctrine/scripture, between husband and wife.
There may also be affection between e.g. a mother and her children.

I don't think it's affection that's identified as the principal problem in Buddhism: the problems are craving (e.g. for what you don't have), and attachment. So for example if you craved more affection than you think you're getting, you will "suffer" (and, I think, cause suffering too). Also, a characteristic of sensual pleasure (and of other "compounded" or "conditioned" things) is that it's impermanent. So for example "physical touch" cannot be a permanent (even if continual it couldn't be continuous), and so people must learn (or must also learn) to live, to behave, to control or regulate themselves without it.
And I think that attachment is likely to cause the survivor problems when their partner dies, etc.

For these kinds of reasons, the pursuit of sensory pleasures may be unwise or unsatisfying.

As for "living without affection" there are attitudes which I think are recommended by Buddhism and which are like affection (perhaps these are affection, or perhaps they're a good substitute for or alternative to affection), for example kindness, benevolence, harmlessness, even equanimity.

As for the title ("Do Buddhists need...?"), I'm inclined to read that as "Do Humans need...?". I'm not sure whether to say that all humans are the same, and have the same needs. Perhaps they do, but have different capacities or abilities to deal with those needs. There's a field of Western psychology (which I'm not familiar with) called Attachment theory, which has theories such as how secure people feel depends on things like how they were treated and how they developed when they were infants: as well as how they developed (how they were developed, and how they developed themselves) as children and so on into adult life. Maybe people's needs, or how "needy" they are, varies according.


These expected/typical/common results of headache & sleepiness are due to wrong concentration or suppression. If practising Anapanasati, the primary object of awareness should be the relaxed clear quiet mind. The secondary object of awareness or 'sign' should be the mere knowing or noting of each in-breath & each out-breath. While a difficult practice for minds with hindrance, to truly practise Anapanasati, all possible craving must be abandoned. In other words, there is no need to direct the mind towards the breathing. All that is required is mental stillness & quiet. Sit upright, relax & surrender with faith to the Dhamma.


Leg pain in retreats and even zen short sessions

As you progress in your sitting and develop samadhi, leg pain will become less of an issue.  You will still experience it along with the discomfort, but it stops being such a matter of "oh-my-God-this-is-terrible-ring-the-bell-now" and instead becomes less of an immediate concern.  It's almost as if it's happening in the background while your koan or mushin becomes the center of your attention.

Think of leg pain like a tooth ache.  When you are sitting around and watching TV with your mind diffused and disordered, you are very much aware of the discomfort.  If, however, your mind is absorbed in something else - and I don't know of a single person who'd complain about their molars during sex, for instance - that pain has less command of your attention.

The important take away is to develop your concentration.  Follow the breath to its very outer limits.  Let your mind ride your exhalation all the way to the end.  If you allow your attention to break even for an instant, discomfort, thought, judgement, and opinion will arise in the vacuum.

As a side note, don't sit in half lotus if it causes you pain!!!  Use the Burmese posture where you put one foot in front of the other.  There is no sense in torturing yourself.  If you hate meditation, you won't practice it.  Zen isn't about self injury, it's about waking up.


The perfectionism is required to attain Jhana.

The anxiety/worry can be ceased by the memory and understanding in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th(15th,16th,17th) of the path of purification. In short, the professor of Jhana at Pa-Auk can advise you.

People often worry about what they don't proficiently know the way to manage. It's called Vicikiccha and Uddhacca hindrances.


Is aversion toward unwholesome deeds normal?

On the initial stages, cultivation of aversion towards unwholesome is normal, one might say even critical.

There are numerous examples in the Pali Canon suggesting cultivation of aversion to the unwholesome, many of them revolving around cultivation of disgust with the body as an antidote to lust:

  Since your perception is distorted,
  Your heart with passion is aflame.
  The marks of beauty should you shun,
  Bound up with lustful longing and desire.

  Your mind, one-pointed and collected,
  In seeing foulness should be cultivated.
  With mindfulness directed on the body,
  Dwell often in disgust concerning it.

But also more generally:

  Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should exercise restraint in the future.

On the middling stages, once the separation from the coarse unwholesome qualities (habitual tendencies) has been accomplished, cultivation of aversion is substituted for cultivation of joy:

  Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of [directed thought and evaluation on one's successful] withdrawal [from sensuality, from unskillful qualities].

And then on the advanced stages, cultivation of joy (and then equanimity) is superseded by cultivation of disenchantment:

  ... that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to form, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to feeling, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to perception, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to fabrications, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to consciousness.

From Kimattha Sutta:

  Ananda: "And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"
  Buddha: "Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."
  A: "And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"
  B: "Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

  Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship.

These disenchantment and dispassion born of "the knowledge & vision of things as they actually are" is the very end of the path:

  the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form and the rest of the five skandhas) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form etc.) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.

Once "the knowledge & vision of release" has been achieved, there is no cultivation at all:

  One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no yearning. There being no yearning, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

And finally, total unbinding:

  Any form (and the rest of five skandhas) by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification (of form etc.), Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.


Wing Chun Buddhism Zen Stance - Standing Meditation

This is just another form of nei gong - not much different than Zhan Zhuang (standing post).  It has some things in common with samatha meditation namely the interplay of relaxation and upright posture.  It's good stuff, don't get me wrong, but it is limited as to the degree of one pointedness one can achieve at least as compared to sitting meditation.


Conciousness in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say something similar, but a Buddhist description tries to be a little more careful and nuanced.

We say that vijnana ("consciousness", "experience") is always dualistic, always split into subject/object and object/background. And, we also say that vijnana is not a "something", it's a process, not an entity, so to say that "it" can or cannot be conscious of "itself" is silly. The process of cognizing can only cognize memories or thoughts about the process of cognizing.

We say that this dualistic or "tainted" process of vijnana develops from tendencies for liking and disliking, according to process known as Dependent Origination. And that before this development occurs, there's a state of great nondifferentiation. This nondifferentiation is not necessarily good or bad, after all it carries potential for developing into confusion of Samsara, but it also carries potential for developing into the Buddha. What this nondifferentiation tells us is that all boundaries and all dualities are mind-made, and that therefore all our troubles lie within those mind-made frameworks, the troubles only have their existence within those conceptual frameworks.

Finally, we recognize that someone may attain a first-hand realization of how all of this works and see these mind-making processes directly as they happen in real-time. Someone like that would see both, all mind-made boundaries and frameworks, all dualities of "this" vs "that" - but also at the same time see "the ground" of all of these, the reality underlying differentiation. We call such vision "enlightenment" and such person "a buddha".

When this enlightenment is attained, it involves seeing beyond all dualities, including duality of "me" vs "world". It becomes clear that mind has no boundaries. This mind (rigpa) is not the same as the process of dualistic cognition that we call consciousness or vijnana, but something much more fundamental, it is the fundamental principle of information exchange. Mind is inherently luminous because it is the very capability of representation. Mind is everywhere and flows everywhere because everything carries some representation, so in some sense everything is mind.

This is very similar to what they say in Advaita Vedanta, however there is an important difference. We don't say that mind is "I" or "self". It seems silly to equate the (ever-dualistic) subject with the fundamental principle beyond subject-object duality. Calling it "I" makes it seem like it is the same as our own self-awareness, and that therefore our individual self-awareness will somehow last forever, which is not true. Mind is not the subject, it's not the universe, it is the fundamental principle, the fundamental law giving the rise to both the subject and the universe. In Buddhism we don't say "I am the law" :))

Instead, we study this Law in all its aspects - as mind, as Depenent Origination, as self-perpetuating accumulation of tendencies, as Being-Time (see Dogen), as the source of Samsara and Nirvana, as Emptiness, as karma, as Three Marks of Existence  - and we take comfort in knowing that this Law is one thing that is not subject to impermanence and is therefore something we can finally rely on.

We also don't say that mind is something special or fundamentally different from everything else. So it's not like this mind is One Aware Entity watching everything in the universe, no - mind is just an aspect of how everything works, part of everyday things.

To summarize, in Mahayana we agree with idea of nonduality of Being and Mind, but we are careful to not confuse it with such dualistic concepts as "I", "consciousness", and "the universe".


Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?

I don't know much about the History of Mathematics.

This History of 0 (zero) mentions Pingala -- that's "Maurya or post-Maurya" era, perhaps they were mostly-all kind of Buddhists then.

I read elsewhere that, later (e.g. at the time of the Islamic invasion), it was the educated/urban/merchant class who were mostly-Buddhist -- whereas it was the rural/peasant class who were 'Hindu'. That (being merchants, trading, travelling) might imply they (i.e. the lay people/society who supported the Buddhist monastics) had uses for mathematics.

While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders.

I don't know if you might have read it, Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance mentions, some instructions for assembling a bicycle,

  "... I’ve a set of instructions at home which open up great realms for the improvement of
  technical writing. They begin, ‘Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind.’"

Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence.

I think the numbers there are to do with "list-making" -- a numbered list.

Also "analysis" -- i.e. dividing and categorising.

So instead of "there's a big problem" Buddhism gives "there are three poisons, ten fetters -- twelve nidanas -- etc."

That's not classical "mathematics" like greek geometry. It may be related to or contain (use or presume) logic -- see Catuṣkoṭi for example.

And deconstruction seems like it ought to be useful if you want to make something stop -- like taking apart a wrist-watch (which will stop it), and understanding the causes of things (like the French proverb that "to understand all is to forgive all").

I think that list-making is principally an "Abhidhamma" kind of thing -- just one example among many might be the Paṭṭhāna.

Apparently the (several) abhidhammas (of the several schools) are summaries of doctrine. One of the ways to summarise elements of doctrine is to list or index them.

Here's a collection of some of the most famous lists -- Dhamma Lists

On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism.

There are many forms of maths, aren't there. I don't know them all of course, it seemed to me that maths was good at taking things apart (analysis), abstraction (maybe number theory), putting things together (maybe induction) -- and inventing systems, based on sets of axioms.

And when you choose useful axioms (which e.g. match observations) then it's science.

It seems to me, I guess, that Buddhism is more like a science than mathematics -- doctrines like the four noble truths being axiomatic.

Also Buddhism kinds of warns against constructing things (like sankharas).

And maybe warns against too much deconstruction too, like if the west tradition has a subjective/objective dichotomy (these being two extremes) then buddhism teaches "the middle way" meaning "neither extreme".


is cessation of perception and felling the Nibbana?

What Buddha's saying is that, through not taking base in any concept, abandoning all generalizations, letting go of all reference points, ceasing all reification -- all associative perception comes to a halt and with it all emotional reactions come to a stop, too.
Indeed, as perception is semiosis, it requires grasping at signs. When grasping at signs is abandoned, semiosis cannot continue. Since semiosis cannot continue, emotional reactions have no basis to arise on.
This sterile state is characterized by the complete absence of dukkha, the only (serious!) problem with it is that it's conditioned, impermanent, and limited.
However, attaining this state allows meditator to get the first-hand insight into the fact that our dukkha is mind-made and comes from comparison. Having seen that directly, one is emancipated from it, the illusion loses its power. This emancipation is the true Liberation by Wisdom, the non-abiding Nirvana.
The same state can be attained in Zen and Vajrayana artificially, for example by startling the student in the middle of a meditation session. When you are in this state, you are lucid and yet your mind is blank. When a normal mind begins to function again, as your first impression you can't help but notice the silliness (emptiness) of it all.


Is there any proof that Budai was an actual historical figure

There is research and writing to proof Budai monk is a historical figure around 10th century and under category of Buddhism Zen teaching.
The source found that seems not having enough of a specified quality and could not be suitable to Junior Buddhist.
"The sources available to modern scholars concerning Pu-tai' s life are deficient". The materials give merely a nebulousaccount,  all  are  agreed that he was  a mysterious  cleric whoperformed  miracles.
Reference
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Budai
Hsiao, Bea-Hui (1995) Two images of Maitreya: Fu Hsi and Pu-tai Ho-shang. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London.
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/28925/


I think generally speaking you are on the right track. Your question seems very clear to me and your logic is valid.

Don't do akusala, on all levels from coarse - to very subtle, exactly this was my path, this can be your path. You don't need to worry about kusala, as long as you put serious effort in not doing akusala, you will advance.

Now, "serious effort" is very serious. There is akusala hiding inside kusala, and there is kusala hiding inside akusala. So you should be very bold and very brave. I see you are making progress since you joined.


Where is the complete William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths"?

Although I do not know what you consider to be prohibitively priced, as of today, 6/7/2016, abebooks.com has a used copy for $34.95 plus $4.00 shipping. If the book is as scarce in hard copy as it appears to be, this seems to be a good price.


Mindfulness of breathing - What is meant by "arising and passing away of the body"?

The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how
  it is "arising and passing away"?

It is extremely common to believe that the body is present all the time. Persistence of the body is actually an illusion that can be seen through using insight meditation.

  How can I see the impermanence of
  the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass,
  because the body is present here all the time.

First some questions to address your belief that the body is present all the time:

When you are in a deep sleep or dreaming, is your body present?
Are you always feeling the presence of your clothes pressing against your skin?

It is important when doing insight meditation to analyze your personal experience. How does your personal experience confirm or disprove the beliefs about your body that you currently have?

Most people have a deep seeded belief that the "body" and the "mind" are two separate entities. They believe that the body creates the mind through sensory organs. When I say "mind", I am referring to the experiences of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. If you analyze your experience honestly and without belief, you will find that experiences of mind is all that has ever arisen. We have never experienced a body, only the experiences of mind. If we have only experienced mind and never body, on what basis do we believe in the bodies existence?

So what is the body? The body is simply a label we put on different experiences. When we look in the mirror, we say "This sight is my body". When we feel a sensation of touch we say, "This pain is happening in my body". We mistakenly identify mental sensations as something more than just mental sensations.

What you call "the body" is simply mental sensations that arise and pass. The reason your "body" feels solid is because you believe it is always there.

When you have a dream you are walking somewhere, and you see your hands and feel your feet on the ground, does that prove your body in the dream really exists? Most would say your dream body is "not real" and your waking body is. But there is no difference between touch you feel in a dream, and touch you feel while you are awake. If you believe your dream body does not really exist, why do you believe your waking body really exists? If you had a dream every night that began in the same location as the last dream ended, would that prove your dream body exists?

Good luck with your journey! I hope something I wrote here will be useful to you. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime!


Dharmaskandha and Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana contains a section of shortcomings. What are the shortcomings?

To put it in another way Sujato Bhikkhu postulates a root text which he calls Satipatthana Mula which other later Satipatthana suttas and sutras "added" their own stuff. He derived a postulated root text not just by elision and finding common contents but other textual analysis.

The results he obtained happened to be similar to those found in the Theravada Abidhamma Vibhanga.

My quick and brief comparison from his table shows that the current pali version contains the following practices which according to Sujato Bhikkhu are not present in his postulated Satipatthana Mula:

Theravada Satipatthna Sutta adds:

Four postures;
Clear comprehension;
Anapanasati;

4 elements;
Food;
Space (5 element);
Oozing orifices;
Charnel ground;

6 sense media;
4 noble truths;
Rise/fall;
Knowledge;
Independence

Ekayana Sutra added: Arahantship


Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?

I will explain some views in accordance with Madhyamaka-Prasangika:

"Essence" is something assigned by mental elaboration.

Therefore we can say that apart from mental elaborations there is no essence.

Another view is that

whatever appears (as an individual phenomenon) is its own essence.

That's because the phenomenon is what can be directly perceived; anything else would be mental additions (conceptualizations, associations). Therefore only the phenomenon itself can be its essence.

In that sense we can say that appearance and essence (or "essence and function") are the same thing.

See also discussions on svalakshana.

Note that, in order to understand "what is", we can't rely on flat view of "is" or "isn't". We should see how does appearance relate to mental processes; only there we can see real answers.

So "existence" can be seen as a construction, a way we construct our world - elaborating over directly perceived appearances.

And the deeper we go there, the more we understand that ultimately everything is "Don't Know".

PS: Note that from other points of view other concepts will be true. It would be wrong to think that a Buddhist school claims its concept as the only possible truth. For example, in Zen we can use views both of Yogachara and Madhyamaka, though they seem to contradict. "Everything is Consciousness" and "Consciousness doesn't exist". Logically these two sentences seem to contradict, but in fact they can be seen as both true; only as constructions built from different starting points; describing different levels of analysis. Likewise, we can discuss the duality of essence and function - in order to understand something - and then we can say that essence and function are the same thing, and understand something even deeper.


Are there situations where it is wise to remove oneself from parents? My philosophy is to set an example to others though the path of a bodhisattva.

When offers of help are denied, one has done what they can.
I'd say a temporary distance is acceptable in this situation.

For the adult child of the sick one, maintain the intent to help and the compassion and bodhicitta for both parents.

This is a rough time for all involved, in times like these emotions tend to cause conflicts that might seem to be about one thing,  but are actually about the emotions caused by the looming death of the loved one.

To the adult child my advice would be as follows :

Try not to take things personally here.
Drop off care packages for both parents.
Make sure to let it be known (in a positive way, text or short polite letter) that if you are needed you are a phone call away.
Do not worry about or mention next of kin.
Remember that others actions and words are not an excuse to "Water unwholesome seeds"
Do not hold a grudge, and give yourself as much distance as you need.
After the parent dies, if the remaining parent needs it, be there to comfort and ease the grieving process.
Reread all the branch and root Bodhisattva vows, one by one, and ask yourself where you are doing well for each vow, and how you could improve on each vow.
Remember that the vows apply to all beings, not just family. Treat yourself to some ice cream and some activities you enjoy. Spend time with friends.

This kind of situation is an incredibly difficult one. For everyone involved.
It can be trying and emotionally draining.
I do not know the full situation, only what is in the question. I've tried to keep this advice in line with the Buddhist tradition and Bodhisattva tradition to the best of my abilities. If there is some error please comment and I will edit accordingly.

I hope this helps.


Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana?

What do you mean by "realize"? See the definition of Ākāsa here, which begins,

  'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds:

  limited space (paricchinnākāsa or paricchedākāsa),
  endless space (anantākāsa), i.e. cosmic space.

  1) Limited space, under the name of ākāsa-dhātu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a six fold classification of elements (s. dhātu; M.112, M.115, M.140). It is also an object of kasina meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV.63).

  2) Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhāna), the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbāna as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhātu: s. Dhs. 1084).

So maybe people do perceive space: both limited space (in ordinary perception) and unlimited space (as an object of meditation).


Relationship between the 5 higher fetters and the Three Characteristics or the Three Doors

Like they say on reddit, the 3 doors are not in the suttas. The 3 doors are some inventions from the commentators of some mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas.
Those are not the dhamma. Even the mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas on which they comment is not the dhamma. Even the suttas alone can be  blindly said to be the dhamma.

So first, the usual way use of doors is the ''guarding of the sense doors''.
For the signless, there is plenty of that in the suttas, but there is not much about them, just like for ''desire for non-existence''. They are just listed and zero explanation. This is great for commentators who can tack their various speculations in their teachings, but at the end of the day, nobody knows what those means.

So for the signless like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.11.irel.html

the note says

  The Signless (animitta) is one of the three Deliverances (vimokkha) by which beings are liberated from the world. The other two
  are Desirelessness (appanihita) and Emptiness (sunnata). The Signless
  is connected with the idea of impermanence of all conditioned things
  (cf. Visuddhi Magga, XXI 67f).

This is the usual interpretation of those weird signless, desirelessness and emptiness liberations. You can read the Visuddhi Magga to read more on this, but the Visuddhi Magga is not the dhamma, only a some commentary by some people.

The usual connection with the fetters is with the births, ie Breaking the first 5 fetters frees you from rebirth in the sense-world, and breaking the remaining 5 higher fetters, frees you from being reborn in the form world and the formless world.
So the non-returners have broken the 5 lower fetters and if they fail to reach nibanna as humans, they get to be reborn as some non-returner devas. Now the difference between those nonfully enlightened devas and the normal devas is here https://suttacentral.net/an4.123/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/an4.124/en/sujato

that the normal devas delight in whatever world they live, then they are reborn in hell sooner or later (like any non enlightened people), and the enlightened devas just die like the human arahants.

So to link anicca dukkha and anatta to the fetters, you link them to the realms of births and you can say that the five higher fetters are failure to see anicca, dukkha, anatta  of those higher realms , plus the failure to see that what is anicca about those realm is also dukkha, and to fail to see that what is dukkha about those realms is also anatta [ie to to crave for them].


The Buddha is said to have rediscovered the ancient path. Why was it lost to begin with?

OP: My question is: Why was it lost to begin with?

The reason for this is elaborated in SN 20.7.
SN 20.7 shows HOW the teachings will be forgotten - when monks (and I guess also lay Buddhists) do not want to listen to the teachings of the Buddha or pay attention or apply their minds to it. Instead, they will listen to the teachings of unenlightened teachers or poets which are phrased in fancy ways.
Even today, we can find a number of new age gurus in the last 50 years, who have a lot of followers, writing bestselling books or giving speeches using fancy jargon or technobabble such as "quantum healing" or "inner engineering", and appearing on TV shows or YouTube.
Also, it's not unusual that people start forgetting or misunderstanding the original teachings after a long time. For e.g. in this answer, you can see that the Buddha originally said that he is not 100% omniscient in MN 90 and MN 71, and only said that he had the three knowledges, as well as he had the capacity to know and understand all things, but did not actually know and understand all things. Then Milindapanha, written many centuries later, exaggerated the Buddha's omniscience and made the same kind of excuses that the Buddha himself criticized in MN 76.

OP: And why is it that the teachings of the Buddha are so voluminous and contain so much redundancy?

The Buddha taught for something like 45 years from his enlightenment to passing away. That's why it's so voluminous.
Why does it have so much redundancy?
Firstly, he taught for around 45 years, so it's no wonder that teachings get repeated.
Secondly, I believe that the monks edited and reorganized the Pali suttas over centuries to make them have mnemonic formulae and they also modified similar stanzas to become exactly identical - which is why you can find some standard formulae repeated in multiple suttas. This made it easier to memorize, recite and transmit. You have to remember that it was an oral tradition before it was written down. More details can be found in this answer.
P.S. This answer of mine has paragraphs copied from other answers of mine, and combined together with new sentences, and adds quotes of your question. So, even my own not-so-voluminous answers have redundancy / repetition. So, it's no wonder that the suttas can have redundancy.


Personal continuity in the absence of a persistent, unchanging self

The arising and cease of the aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness) occurs everytime contact happens. When contact occurs, new feelings, perceptions and consciousness arise, which are affected by the previous mind-states. As a result, mental formations are altered as well. And form is not the exception: with contact, multiple physiological changes happen at a molecular and cellular levels.

If we have a object, and we change or modify at least one of its contituents, we can no longer say that it is the same object anymore. Sure, some of its parts are still intact, but as a whole, the object is not the same. The same applies to the "self": if we took two point of time and compare that which we consider a "self" in both of those points, we can see that although it is not the same being, it is not an entirely different one, totally disconnected causally speaking.

The aggregates are influenced by external factors and stimuli, while at the same time they are influencing each other. Also, the khandhas are exerting a constant influence on the environment as well. There's constant change (what a paradoxical statement, isn't it?) in the aggregates and in the world. As nothing stays the same all the time, what deserves to be called "I" and "me" in a permanent and ultimate sense?

In the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta it is stated:

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

Also, when we act with intention (either through thoughts, speech or bodily actions) we create kamma. In the Kamma Sutta it is said:

  "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma."

As a consequence of that Kamma (through "our" volitional actions), the being "we were" created the being "we are" now, which in time it's creating the being "we will be" in the future. What "we are" now is the result of mutual conditionality between past kamma, present kamma and the present context/stimuli.

"We" always in quotations, because it has already been said that there's not a permanent thing to be called a "self" between all those states of being through time. And so, you cannot talk about "personal" continuity in the sense of a person which is carried on and underlying the changing aspect of the "self"; absolutely everything in the aggregates is subject to change if the supporting conditions cease to exist.

Kind regards!


Problems with the abdominal area while practicing Vipassana

These are not problems, this is a good sign. This means you are making progress :)

Contrary to the popular assumption, our mind is not supported solely by the brain. Significant parts of mind (mind is not really discrete so perhaps I should not say "parts") operates on the basis of the rest of the body. Specifically, lower layers of what's known as "subconscious mind", "emotional mind" and "intuitive mind" are in fact informational aspects of the bodily processes. Then there are currents of mind (here's a better word!) that are not confined to our body at all and are more connected with "external" processes - but that's a separate story. The point is: mind, emotions, intuition, mood, and body - are all connected in what's known as psychosomatic continuum. When you start meditating, your "conscious" layers come in contact with "subconscious" layers - and to you this looks like you suddenly discover feelings and broodings that you had no idea existed.

Specifically, some of our experiences and memories - especially powerful, traumatic and/or repetitive - are "stored" as tensions or blockages of certain muscles of the body. The most significant ones are the muscles of pelvis, abdomen, diaphragm, chest, shoulders, throat, and the muscles of face and scalp. Abdomen is where memories of danger (~fears/insecurities) are usually stored or rather the emotional components thereof.

So when you do a watching-the-bodily-sensations type of meditation long enough, eventually you open up and gain access to these somatic memories. If you keep going on in a gentle but persistent manner, you may be able to "go inside" and "dissolve" and sometimes even recollect the actual traumatic events they came from. (This second part is more like a free gift. Focusing on the recollection too much may slow down the whole process. What matters is going through the somatic/emotional bubble and opening up.) There are kilotons of energy locked up in those bubbles - and opening some of them may completely change your character and therefore the course of your life. Just be sure to proceed very very gently. Navigating these things require a lot of sensitivity. There is no danger in forcing it, it's just that being too eager makes them less likely to trust you and let you in. ("Them" being the blockages). It took you 5 months to get here, it may take you another 5 months or 5 years or 10 years to go through - needless to say it is well worth it.

A couple of auxiliary techniques I recommend:

try to sit in a way that makes it easy to open and relax the whole area: from diaphragm to upper abdomen to lower abdomen. Start from the top or the area that you feel is the most alive and meditate on it until it starts moving and opening up. Then slowly make your way down. Keep relaxing the muscles and letting it go as you learn to trust yourself.
on the days when you don't meditate, try to slightly tap the abdomen (like the King Kong) while making an effort to not defend it by tensing. Keep doing this very gently until you can open it up. This is really cheating and the "proper" way to do it is through Vipassana alone, but in my practice it can help speed up the process. Just don't tap so hard as to insensitize the area - overdoing the tapping may temporarily remove the physical blockage without releasing the emotional energy.
in my experience, it helps to meditate in a very cozy atmosphere, e.g. with lots of sunshine etc. - whatever makes you feel happy, secure, and comfortable will help opening up. Sometimes you have to cultivate the positive feeling by indulging in and repeatedly enjoying whatever cues that make the ambiance look stereotypically good to you. The patterns of shadows on the wall, the rays of light, the chirps of birds - whatever works for you. Your main focus should still be on the breathing and abdomen, but let's say 20% of your attention can periodically scan the "happy cues". As with everything, don't overdo this mechanically. It's a subtle thing that requires sensitivity to what makes you happy. This is not the core technique anyway, you can achieve success with just the watching meditation alone, but it does help a bit.

This is really all there is to it ;) - just keep going and hopefully you can open your blocks and enter your subconscious through them.

There are layers beneath layers of blockages. You may open one layer only to discover another one... and another one... and another one. It does feel scary to open those - like exposing your naked soul to the world - so I understand why you're saying you feel like you need to jump off the cliff.

Finally, all of this is very individual and subjective - so your experience may not match mine, but since we are all humans we should hopefully be similar enough.


Which (semi)secret societies influence Buddhism?

The Dhamma(teachings of the Buddha) is the sole authority on Buddhism and the Sangha are the guardians of it. There is no need for secret societies in Buddhism. It is not supposed to be secret or hidden.
The Dhamma has the following 6 qualities:

Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom),
Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience,
Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

It is like the moon. The more it is revealed to the world, the brighter the world becomes.


I have just been trying to locate the text also. This link mentions,

The Pearl Garland: An Anthology of Lamrims
translated from the Tibetan under Venerable Dagpo Rinpoche’s guidance by Rosemary Patton, Editions Guepele (France), 2012.


Just try little by little, Nyom Wilkes Alexander, there is no fault if not possible now. Just give not up and bear as much pain, if arising, as possible 2 to five years later it will be no problem at all and you might "laught" at western or modern claiming "it's not possible". It's likely with Dana, Sila and meditation. It may need a time, don't forget 60 years was totally in the other direction: how to serve my feelings? How to gain more of what my feeling what? Having followed Maras (defilments cries) a long it's great to hear that Nyom Wilkes Alexander is willing to go into the real battle. Best wishes and much strengh for your most blessed undertaking.

Usual positions in gatherings, especially for lay people (sitting gross legged infront of venerable ones, is very impolite. Even monks would not do on all occations, eg. if not teaching Dhamma or take their meal in public):

"Sit on their heals" (crouch), while the whole ball of the feet touches the ground, might be not possible since western Achilles-sinew is simply to short, never used to. (But it's also a balance matter: putting the knees outside the body and arms is needed)

(required for asking and confession)

There is no problem usually, if "normal" kneeing like this:

(It's not wished here to give to much encouragement and access here, nor to give advices which give release, so my person end here)

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial use and other low exchange and trading purposes with wordly outcome.]


About the authencity of modern meditation methods

You're absolutely right.
Here, I quote from a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah entitled "Unshakeable Peace".

Concerning this issue of samatha and vipassanā, the important thing is
to develop these states in our own hearts. Only when we genuinely
cultivate them ourselves will we know what they actually are.

He describes samatha and vipassana as states above, and not methods.

Meditation is like a single stick of wood. Insight (vipassanā) is one
end of the stick and serenity (samatha) the other. If we pick it up,
does only one end come up or do both? When anyone picks up a stick
both ends rise together. Which part then is vipassanā, and which is
samatha? Where does one end and the other begin? They are both the
mind.

He says above that it does not make sense to separate vipassana and samatha.

As the mind becomes peaceful, initially the peace will arise from the
serenity of samatha. We focus and unify the mind in states of
meditative peace (samādhi). However, if the peace and stillness of
samādhi fades away, suffering arises in its place. Why is that?
Because the peace afforded by samatha meditation alone is still based
on attachment. This attachment can then be a cause of suffering.
Serenity is not the end of the path. The Buddha saw from his own
experience that such peace of mind was not the ultimate. The causes
underlying the process of existence (bhava) had not yet been brought
to cessation (nirodha). The conditions for rebirth still existed. His
spiritual work had not yet attained perfection. Why? Because there was
still suffering. So based on that serenity of samatha he proceeded to
contemplate, investigate, and analyze the conditioned nature of
reality until he was free of all attachments, even the attachment to
serenity. Serenity is still part of the world of conditioned existence
and conventional reality. Clinging to this type of peace is clinging
to conventional reality, and as long as we cling, we will be mired in
existence and rebirth. Delighting in the peace of samatha still leads
to further existence and rebirth. Once the mind's restlessness and
agitation calms down, one clings to the resultant peace.

See above: The natural way is to start by calming the mind to experience meditative peace (samadhi) arising from  the state or quality of serenity (samatha). But then this does not free one from suffering. There is still clinging.
Then the Buddha's investigation proceeded to examining the working of the mind and how it relates to suffering. This then leads to the state or quality of vipassana.

So the Buddha examined the causes and conditions underlying existence
and rebirth. As long as he had not yet fully penetrated the matter and
understood the truth, he continued to probe deeper and deeper with a
peaceful mind, reflecting on how all things, peaceful or not, come
into existence. His investigation forged ahead until it was clear to
him that everything that comes into existence is like a lump of
red-hot iron. The five categories of a being's experience (khandhas)
are all a lump of red-hot iron. When a lump of iron is glowing
red-hot, is there anywhere it can be touched without getting burnt? Is
there anywhere at all that is cool? Try touching it on the top, the
sides, or underneath. Is there a single spot that can be found that's
cool? Impossible. This searing lump of iron is entirely red-hot. We
can't even attach to serenity. If we identify with that peace,
assuming that there is someone who is calm and serene, this reinforces
the sense that there is an independent self or soul. This sense of
self is part of conventional reality. Thinking, "I'm peaceful", "I'm
agitated", "I'm good", "I'm bad", "I'm happy", or "I'm unhappy", we
are caught in more existence and birth. It's more suffering. If our
happiness vanishes, then we're unhappy instead. When our sorrow
vanishes, then we're happy again. Caught in this endless cycle, we
revolve repeatedly through heaven and hell.
Before his enlightenment, the Buddha recognized this pattern in his
own heart. He knew that the conditions for existence and rebirth had
not yet ceased. His work was not yet finished. Focusing on life's
conditionality, he contemplated in accordance with nature: ''Due to
this cause there is birth, due to birth there is death, and all this
movement of coming and going.'' So the Buddha took up these themes for
contemplation in order to understand the truth about the five
khandhas. Everything mental and physical, everything conceived and
thought about, without exception, is conditioned. Once he knew this,
he taught us to set it down. Once he knew this, he taught to abandon
it all. He encouraged others to understand in accordance with this
truth. If we don't, we'll suffer. We won't be able to let go of these
things. However, once we do see the truth of the matter, we'll
recognize how these things delude us. As the Buddha taught, ''The mind
has no substance, it's not any thing.''
The mind isn't born belonging to anyone. It doesn't die as anyone's.
This mind is free, brilliantly radiant, and unentangled with any
problems or issues. The reason problems arise is because the mind is
deluded by conditioned things, deluded by this misperception of self.
So the Buddha taught to observe this mind. In the beginning what is
there? There is truly nothing there. It doesn't arise with conditioned
things, and it doesn't die with them. When the mind encounters
something good, it doesn't change to become good. When the mind
encounters something bad, it doesn't become bad as well. That's how it
is when there is clear insight into one's nature. There is
understanding that this is essentially a substanceless state of
affairs.
The Buddha's insight saw it all as impermanent, unsatisfactory and
not-self. He wants us to fully comprehend in the same way. The knowing
then knows in accordance with truth. When it knows happiness or
sorrow, it remains unmoved. The emotion of happiness is a form of
birth. The tendency to become sad is a form of death. When there's
death there is birth, and what is born has to die. That which arises
and passes away is caught in this unremitting cycle of becoming. Once
the meditator's mind comes to this state of understanding, no doubt
remains about whether there is further becoming and rebirth. There's
no need to ask anyone else.
The Buddha comprehensively investigated conditioned phenomena and so
was able to let it all go. The five khandhas were let go of, and the
knowing carried on merely as an impartial observer of the process. If
he experienced something positive, he didn't become positive along
with it. He simply observed and remained aware. If he experienced
something negative, he didn't become negative. And why was that?
Because his mind had been cut free from such causes and conditions.
He'd penetrated the Truth. The conditions leading to rebirth no longer
existed. This is the knowing that is certain and reliable. This is a
mind that is truly at peace. This is what is not born, doesn't age,
doesn't get sick, and doesn't die. This is neither cause nor effect,
nor dependent on cause and effect. It is independent of the process of
causal conditioning. The causes then cease with no conditioning
remaining. This mind is above and beyond birth and death, above and
beyond happiness and sorrow, above and beyond both good and evil. What
can you say? It's beyond the limitations of language to describe it.
All supporting conditions have ceased and any attempt to describe it
will merely lead to attachment. The words used then become the theory
of the mind.
Theoretical descriptions of the mind and its workings are accurate,
but the Buddha realized that this type of knowledge was relatively
useless. We understand something intellectually and then believe it,
but it's of no real benefit. It doesn't lead to peace of mind. The
knowing of the Buddha leads to letting go. It results in abandoning
and renunciation. Because it's precisely this mind that leads us to
get involved with both what's right and what's wrong. If we're smart
we get involved with those things that are right. If we're stupid we
get involved with those things that are wrong. Such a mind is the
world, and the Blessed One took the things of this world to examine
this very world. Having come to know the world as it actually was, he
was then known as the ''One who clearly comprehends the world''.

Furthermore, without attainment of serenity, the five hindrances would obstruct any attainment of insight. So below, he teaches to calm the mind first.

Allow the breathing to flow easily at just the right pace, neither
too short nor too long. Don't try to make it into anything special.
Let the body relax, comfortable and at ease. Then keep doing it. Your
mind will ask you, ''How late are we going to meditate tonight? What
time are we going to quit?'' It incessantly nags, so you have to
bellow out a reprimand, ''Listen buddy, just leave me alone.'' This
busybody questioner needs to be regularly subdued, because it's
nothing other than defilement coming to annoy you. Don't pay it any
mind whatsoever. You have to be tough with it. ''Whether I call it
quits early or have a late night, it's none of your damn business! If
I want to sit all night, it doesn't make any difference to anyone, so
why do you come and stick your nose into my meditation?'' You have to
cut the nosy fellow off like that. You can then carry on meditating
for as long as you wish, according to what feels right.
As you allow the mind to relax and be at ease, it becomes peaceful.
Experiencing this, you'll recognize and appreciate the power of
clinging. When you can sit on and on, for a very long time, going past
midnight, comfortable and relaxed, you'll know you're getting the hang
of meditation. You'll understand how attachment and clinging really do
defile the mind.
When some people sit down to meditate they light a stick of incense in
front of them and vow, ''I won't get up until this stick of incense
has burned down.'' Then they sit. After what seems like an hour they
open their eyes and realize only five minutes have gone by. They stare
at the incense, disappointed at how exceedingly long the stick still
is. They close their eyes again and continue. Soon their eyes are open
once more to check that stick of incense. These people don't get
anywhere in meditation. Don't do it like that. Just sitting and
dreaming about that stick of incense, ''I wonder if it's almost
finished burning,'' the meditation gets nowhere. Don't give importance
to such things. The mind doesn't have to do anything special.
If we are going to undertake the task of developing the mind in
meditation, don't let the defilement of craving know the ground rules
or the goal. ''How will you meditate, Venerable?'', it inquires. ''How
much will you do? How late are you thinking of going?'' Craving keeps
pestering until we submit to an agreement. Once we declare we're going
to sit until midnight, it immediately begins to hassle us. Before even
an hour has passed we're feeling so restless and impatient that we
can't continue. Then more hindrances attack as we berate ourselves,
''Hopeless! What, is sitting going to kill you? You said you were
going to make your mind unshakeable in samādhi, but it's still
unreliable and all over the place. You made a vow and you didn't keep
it.'' Thoughts of self-depreciation and dejection assail our minds,
and we sink into self-hatred. There's no one else to blame or get
angry at, and that makes it all the worse. Once we make a vow we have
to keep it. We either fulfill it or die in the process. If we do vow
to sit for a certain length of time, then we shouldn't break that vow
and stop. In the meantime however, just gradually practise and
develop. There's no need for making dramatic vows. Try to steadily and
persistently train the mind. Occasionally, the meditation will be
peaceful, and all the aches and discomfort in the body will vanish.
The pain in the ankles and knees will cease by itself.


Propelling the continuity of mindfulness

As meditators, our job is to be aware or knowing as much as we can through out our daily life. And like it or not, we can't live our lives without fabricating. Right now, as you read this, your cognitive mind is fabricating. Otherwise, you can't understand these words.

However, I understand how fabrication can lead to a lot of problems. So what can we do?

Be aware of the fabricating when the mind fabricates. In that way, we're not involved in the fabrication, and so not get lost in it. In that way, we also get to understand fabrication as fabrication, whether a certain fabrication is necessary or not, and how various fabrications work, etc.


Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma

The Hindus had developed Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind) up to the the 8th Jhana, and also had a strong moral basis, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced Wisdom and Insight to the practice. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.

So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on the Buddhist path also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.

Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in Hinduism.


Some puthujjanas manage to think that they will progress by spending 20 minutes per day watching the thoughts and suppressing thoughts of harm and lust, then  spending the rest of the day allowing bad thoughts permeated with sensuality, ill-will and harmfulness.

Of course, the only progress possible is first to be mindful of thoughts and perceptions all the time, in order to keep only the good ones.

Sila is made complete with sati sampajana. When sati sampajana declines, sila declines. Without  mindfulness, a puthujjana will only a have sila for a few minutes up to a few hours


How to lose identification with my body and physical appearance

On one practical side: be mindful. Meditate daily. Understand that the suffering and joy derived from your appearance is impermanent and doesn’t matter much. It is wise that you seek to reduce this attachment, but don’t do it from a place of aversion and anxiety. Accept your current way of thinking, and be patient and compassionate with your self about making a change.

On a deeper side: reflect on the fact that you are a bag of meat and organs. There’s a great talk from the Buddha about this, see if you can find it. Try to see things more clearly, more objectively. Understand that your body will gradually deteriorate and decay. Be ready for that. Of course you can take care of it, but understand that the body is not YOU, but a mere vessel with an expiration date.

Priding yourself of your body is no different than doing it with your car or house. It’s just a mere accessory.

This answer doesn’t have a clear solution but hopefully will point you to the right direction to find a solution yourself. :)


Are there formal mechanisms in any Buddhist institutions that explicitly reconcile Buddhist principles with science?

The general claim in Buddhism, or at least in Theravada Buddhism, is that a Buddha is omniscient. That makes it difficult to question what the texts claim the Buddha himself said. In a couple of places this seems to put science and Buddhism at odds (e.g. causes of earthquakes).

The closest we have to what you are suggesting is an act of the sangha; after the Buddha passed away, we have record of a Buddhist council where they discussed whether to revoke the minor monastic rules as the Buddha had allowed them to do, and they decided as a group not to. Later sangha councils edited the canonical texts but would never have redacted something that they thought the Buddha had said in error.

I think, at the very least, unlike faith-based religions, Buddhism doesn't rely on absolute statements of truth, but rather practices that lead to self-realization; so it doesn't matter as much if statements in the canon like the causes of earthquakes and the size of the universe, etc., are accurate. What matters is if the path leads to the goal, and that is to be verified by oneself.

As a result, you find more marginalizing of problematic teachings, rather than striking them out. First of all, because the Buddha was said to be infallible, but second of all because we know that we are not. The fear of wrongly striking a teaching out of ignorance is too great. But, we can always ignore troubling passages, I guess similar to how Jewish people ignore Leviticus for the most part.

So, no, there isn't really such a mechanism, afaics.


Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism

The Buddhadasa text states 'birth' is the mental birth of the 'self' or 'I' thought and that there is no 'rebirth' because each time the conditioned 'I' thought is born it is a brand new 'I' rather than the same 'I' being reborn.

For example, is the 'I' you sense yourself to be today the same 'I' as when you were 4 years old?

Buddhadasa concluded there is on-going 'ego-birth' for unenlightened people but not 'rebirth'.

  Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to?

The Pali scriptures state enlightenment brings about the end of the "I-conceit" (MN 22); the end of 'I-making' & 'my-making'.

The Pali scriptures (very end of MN 38) states 'birth' ends while the mind remains conscious, which supports Buddhadasa's view that 'birth' refers to the birth of the 'I' concept.

SN 22.81 also supports Buddhadasa's view.

  Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as
  pertaining to the condition of willing no more)?

According to Buddhadasa, yes.

  Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"?

This is a common idea in cultural Buddhism & Hinduism, which also probably explains why Buddhism became extinct in India (since both doctrines became essentially the same).

  I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

Yes, this is also a common idea and possibly a beneficial idea, namely, to discourage people from committing suicide. However, there are no references in the Pali suttas I have read where the Buddha was pre-occupied with this concern.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following discussion supports Buddhadasa's viewpoint:

DN 15 is the only discourse from thousands attributed to the Buddha, I am aware of, which makes an unclear inference that consciousness is 'reborn' (i.e., enters into a mother's belly).

Why DN 15 is unclear & considered by many scholars, including scholars that believe in reincarnation/rebirth, to be unauthentic is because it contradicts the many other reported discourses on the same subject.

In the many other discourses, such as MN 43, SN 22.79, MN 9, MN 148, MN 18, SN 12.2, SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82, MN 38, SN 22.53, etc, it is written that:

consciousness is (only) mental cognition (MN 43, SN 22.79);
there are only six types of consciousness (SN 12.2; MN 9; MN 148);
consciousness arises in dependence on sense organs & sense objects (MN 148, MN 18, MN 38);
consciousness is caused by the mind-body (SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82);
for consciousness to arise without the body, feelings, perceptions & mental formations is impossible (MN 38; SN 22.53).

In summary, similar to DN 15, the idea the consciousness is reborn in the form of a 're-linking consciousness', 'stream of consciousness', 'mindstream', 'storehouse consciousness', etc, are all ideas created after the passing of the Buddha by different & various Buddhist schools. These terms about a 'rebirth consciousness' commonly used by Buddhists have no source in the original teachings.

The Pali scriptures actually state that "beings" ("sattā") or "men & women " (itthī vā puriso vā) are 'reborn'. To quote:

  When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away
  [fall] & reappearance [rise] of beings (satta).

  Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to
  living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a state of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

In SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, a "satta" ('being') is described as a 'view' ('idea') about the totality of the five aggregates born from attachment & craving. To quote:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being'.

  SN 5.10

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  SN 23.2

Therefore, based on the words attributed to the Buddha, what is 'reborn' appears more likely to be the 'self-view' or 'I-thought' based on all of the five aggregates rather than only consciousness being 'reborn'. In MN 38, the Buddha is reported to have heavily criticized & admonished a monk for holding the view that consciousness is reborn. To quote:

  As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.

  Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?

  This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions.

  And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
  grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
  produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
  harm & suffering.

In conclusion, the ideas of people such as Goenka, which are also held by the majority of Buddhists, seem to have next to no basis in the original Pali scriptures. Where as the ideas of Buddhadasa at least seem to conform with a diligent (rather than superficial) examination of the original Pali scriptures. Further, the ideas of Buddhadasa can also be verified by meditative insight (where as the ideas of Goenka cannot), which conforms again with MN 38, which states:

  Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves.


How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana Meditation?

I can probably give this an answer if I take it in the context of the 12 nidanas as a significant application of the principle of dependent origination.

The way that I have been taught this (within the Triratna Buddhist movement) is that the nidanas can and do break at the point between feeling and craving. So to give the chain at that point

  With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

  With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

  With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

And around we go....

So for most of us most of the time when we have a feeling then the reaction is craving - each time, round and round. But with spiritual practice is is possible to break the cycle at this point and not have craving. It is at this point that liberation can start.

I suspect that up to here is will not be that controversial. But in Triratna we talk a lot about the spiral path at this point which spirals up to enlightenment - a kind of positive formation of the 12 nidanas. This is taken from the Upanisā Sutta.

But OPs question is about the Vipassana techniques around this. Although we have a system of meditation, the practice most relevant to this would be a just sitting or a noting practice where we notice the feelings arise and try to see that just as that - feelings. In that way we can see again and again that feelings are just feelings and of themselves do not have craving or desire as a neccessary part of them. Thus one day, with faith and perseverance the cycle breaks.

Another way into this might be with a mindfulness practice relating to the Satipatthana Sutta  particularly with reference to the section on feelings.


Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What if parents are not alive anymore?

The commentary to this rule has some interesting discussion, including an answer to your question:

mātāpitaro matā, dārako cūḷamātādīnaṃ santike saṃvaddho, tasmiṃ pabbājiyamāne ñātakā kalahaṃ vā karonti, khiyyanti vā, tasmā vivādupacchedanatthaṃ āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo. anāpucchā pabbājentassa pana āpatti natthi.
In the case where one's mother and father are dead, a child brought up in the home of a "little-mother" (step-mother? aunt?) etc., when causing them to go forth their relatives make a quarrel or feel dejected, therefore, for the purpose of cutting off dispute, should also be made to go forth after asking leave. But in the case of causing them to go forth without asking leave, there is no offence.
-- mahāvagga-aṭṭhakathā, 1. mahākhandhakaṃ, rāhulavatthukathā

The commentary then says something that is not quite clear to me:

putto attānaṃ nissāya jīvati, na mātāpitaro. sacepi rājā hoti, āpucchitvāva pabbājetabbo.
A son lives in dependence on himself, not on his mother or father. If he is a king, he should be made to go forth without having asked leave at all.
-- Ibid

I think these two sentences are meant to go together, and the period is a modern error, but it doesn't then say what a non-king should do in this instance. I don't see this as an issue, since clearly the previous statement still stands - without parents, asking permission is simply a courtesy.
Bonus - the commentary also contains the following edification:

eko mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ bhaṇḍitvā “pabbājetha man”ti āgacchati, “āpucchitvā ehī”ti ca vutto “nāhaṃ gacchāmi, sace maṃ na pabbājetha, vihāraṃ vā jhāpemi, satthena vā tumhe paharāmi, tumhākaṃ ñātakaupaṭṭhākānaṃ vā ārāmacchedanādīhi anatthaṃ uppādemi, rukkhā vā patitvā marāmi, coramajjhaṃ vā pavisāmi, desantaraṃ vā gacchāmī”ti vadati, taṃ jīvasseva rakkhaṇatthāya pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati.
One, having quarrelled with their mother and father, comes saying "cause me to go forth." And when told, "having asked leave, come," says, "I will not go. If you do not cause me to go forth, I will set the vihara on fire, or I will beat you with a stick, or I will bring about some unbeneficial thing like destroying the homes of your relatives and supporters, or I will fall from a tree and die, or enter into the midst of thieves, or go to the borderlands," it is proper, for the sole purpose of protecting life, to cause him to go forth.
-- Ibid


What is the difference between Shikantaza and Zazen?

Shikantaza is a kind of Zazen. Any Zen meditation is called Zazen, including breath meditation, koan meditation, observing-the-thoughts meditation, and just-sitting-meditation (shikantaza).

To quote my buddhist friend J. from Japan:

  In shikantaza you don't focus on anything, just sit, until there is no observer, you really do nothing besides sitting there without reason, focus, observing, eventually you become thoughtless, and eventually unbecome you. No more than the wall, or better, everything and nothing.

Also see my answer about relationship between different kinds of Zazen.


Giving material things has the purpose to learn letting go, to give up what one assumes to be his own. It's actually not an easy training and very less are really able to give. People usually give like trade, sometimes even a hug farmer joyful feeds his pigs. Neither he nor the pigs have much merits and gains in this way.
When ever you come in a situation "he/she does not have, I have" than just think of "why do I not give" if you don't do it automatically yet.
Even a short delay, listening to the defilements and you have lost:

Verse 116: One should make haste in doing good deeds; one should restrain one's mind from evil; for the mind of one who is slow in doing good tends to take delight in doing evil.
The Story of Culekasataka

It's not good to train this training for certain wordily low purposes: To reach this, to control that, to actually feed what is ones own again, or objected as such, which is mostly the case if you give somebody you are attached to. You are not really giving, but do for certain higher or lower gains.
A support for the mind means, release for the mind. If one really gives up something, the mind do no more hold on it. Whereas if you give something for your joy with it, it still clings on something and would be sad if that joy would be disturbed.
How ever, there are times and occasions where gifts are proper given, so that one has a line to follow and a security to do not unaware foster backyard defilements: Kaladana Sutta: Seasonable Gifts
Atma would not recommend Piya Tan in regard of such issues, since he has certain wrong views and does not understand the training of letting go yet.
A general overview of Dana you may find on the Path to Freedom and if you seek for more "technical" explaining Abhidhamma in Daily Life, by Ashin Janakanbhivamsa [pdf] (or online, switch language) is recommended. How ever, the best way to find out and learn is always doing by one self and by doing it, looking what's going on in oneself, what are the hindrances, what are the results. Is a practice that needs certain mindfulness and wisdom and to maintain and develop such. There are really less people, especially in modern world, who can be even called slaves of Dana (doing it for the great joy by giving), not to speak of people who are masters of Dana, may they have trained (or thought that they do) meditation for many many years, most have not even started to work on the gross defilement, so greedy are they. Yet stinginess is an obstacle fo even reach any Jhanic state...
Here is one useful talk: Sensitivity through generosity. It's not out of reason that the Buddha tells: association with people of right view, joy in giving, hostility, sharing merits... is the foundation for success to gain right view for oneself, yet it requires much sacrify to even come in contact with such people, stay with them.
(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.)


How do you tell a 4-year-old who the Buddha was?

A 4 year old can be told that the Buddha was a man who wanted to understand how to be happy and free and he worked very hard to understand how to be truly happy and free. Then he taught other people what he learned.

For many years the Buddha taught:

Sometimes people feel sad.
Sometimes the thing that makes people sad is not getting something they want or getting something they don't want.
There is a way not to be so sad about not getting what you want or getting something you don't want.
The way is to not think so much about what you want at all, but instead think about how you can be kind and helpful to your family, your teachers, your friends, other people, animals, bugs, and everything that lives. :)


Is it okay to leave your suffering family behind when you have an instinct to attain Nirvana?

This is something you have to decide. There are many angles to consider. Some that I through of are:

What happens to your family when you leave. This can later become a worry that can come back and hold you back in your practice.
Sometimes some level of unsatisfactory is conducive to practice as you are always tested in daily life which might not be the case when in long time meditation as a recluse.
Leaving does remove some responsibility which makes time for serious practice.


Most frequent realms for post-human rebirth

Then the Exalted One,
taking up a little dust
on the tip of his finger-nail,
said to the monks:

"Now what think ye, monks?

Which is the greater,
this little dust I have taken up
on the tip of my finger-nail,
or this mighty earth?"

"Greater, lord, is this mighty earth.

Exceeding small
is this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's fingernail:
it cannot be reckoned,
it cannot be compared therewith.

It does not come to the merest fraction
of a part of it
when set beside the mighty earth, -
this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's finger-nail."

"Just so, monks,
few are those beings that are reborn among men:
more numerous are these beings
that are reborn other than men.

What is the cause of that?

It is through not seeing four Ariyan truths.

What four?

The Ariyan truth of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the arising of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the ceasing of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.

Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:

'This is Ill'.

'This is the arising of Ill.'

'This is the ceasing of Ill.'

This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.'"

—http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.56.061-070.wood.pts.htm

and the suttas that follow.