How come enlightened people don't have any laziness?

Speaking from the first hand experience, laziness comes from attachment, fear, or ignorance. No attachment, no fear, and no ignorance - translates to no laziness.

And how does attachment cause laziness? Someone is attached to what they think is a pleasant pastime, taking delight and enjoying that experience. For such person, anything apart from that experience is unpleasant, hence they will have inner resistance and avoidance: laziness.

And how does fear cause laziness? Someone is afraid of failure or is afraid of judgement or is afraid of difficulties, or is afraid of all three. For such person, doing anything that has a risk of the three looks dangerous, hence they will have inner resistance and avoidance: laziness.

And how does ignorance cause laziness? Someone is confused about what is important, confused about what's good and what's bad for oneself and others, confused what actions lead to what outcome. For such person there's no understanding: "this needs to be done". Having no understanding, they have no motivation. Having no motivation, they are lazy.

An enlightened one, having no attachment, taking no delight in pleasant experiences, having overcome the sign of "pleasant", having no fear, having no resistance to difficult experiences, having transcended the notion of "difficult" - does not have a basis for the arising of inner resistance and avoidance, therefore laziness can't arise. Having the perfect understanding of what's good and what's bad, knowing what is important, an enlightened one acts with wisdom and compassion.


Why focus below your bellybutton in meditation?

Many types of meditation focus on the breath entering and leaving the body or moving through the body as a main object of meditation.
In the tradition of meditation which I practice, (Mahasi Sayadaw style), we focus on the rising and falling of the abdomen as a way of being mindful of the breath, but without focusing on the nostril area, which is considered to be more soothing. Focusing on the rising and fall of the abdomen is not soothing and works well as a meditation object which will keep us mindful of the three characteristics of impermanence, dissatisfaction, and uncontrollability/anatta which is useful in Vipassana meditation.
But you mentioned zen, so your roshi's reason may be quite different and it would likely be best to ask your roshi directly. But if you cannot, here is a quote from Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh's book "be free where you are".
(In this chapter Thich Nhat Hanh is talking to prisoners about how to handle feeling overwhelmed by a strong emotion.)

So when you notice that an emotion is beginning to come up, it is very important that you put yourself in a stable sitting position, or you lie down, which is also a very stable position. Then focus your attention on your belly. Your head is like the top of a tree in a storm. I would not stay there. Bring your attention down to the trunk of the tree, where there is stability.
When you have focused on your belly, bring your attention down to the level just below the naval and begin to practice mindful breathing. Breathing in and breathing out deeply, be aware of the rise and fall of the abdomen. After practicing like this for 10, 15, or 20 minutes you will see that you are strong - strong enough to withstand the storm. (page 38)

So while both styles of meditation focus on the abdomen, the reason is a quite different. In one, the rise and fall of the abdomen is considered somewhat unstable as we notice slight irregularities in breathing. In the other, the abdomen is considered the stable part of the body as a tree trunk is to a tree.
Due to the many differences in interpretation, best to ask your own teacher if possible. But something to think about until you get the chance.
Welcome to Buddhism.SE and glad to hear of the benefits meditation is bringing to you. :)


One could simply commit to the awareness of:

  This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.

Notice that quote is prefaced by the following introduction that addresses the question's focus on action and consequence (i.e., form):

  Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal
  or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every
  form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as...

With right discernment comes a relinquishing of self and an openness to other questions and other suttas.

Also, given the expressed concern about consequence, there may be fear and terror here, in which case the Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror Sutta may be a helpful exploration.


To me, these are three entirely different things.

Eight Worldly Winds are an allegory for a list of egoistic concerns, like being obsessed with fame, blame, etc.

Tanha (thirst) is a metaphor for craving something unattainable, in other words an inner conflict between "is" and "should".

Upadana (fuel) is a metaphor for "feeding" an unhealthy state of mind by repeatedly thinking about topics that sustain the state.

While in some situations they may occur closely together, they refer to three entirely different phenomena.


What does "Nothing like anything" mean according to Buddism?

So your question is "Tyag se he mukti milte h" which means sacrifice, renowned and non attachment will bring Salvation.

Nothing like anything is never said by Buddha.

However coming back to question first of all Lord Buddha's view on salvation is a bit tricky if you are coming from a Hindu background, by that I mean you are not supposed to sacrifice anything just remain in the middle, as Lord Krishna also said remain in tranquility or there should be equanimity in life.

As the question has been asked on Buddhism, So lets stick with buddha's view.

So the aim to be always remain conscious, which seems to be impossible but with practice you will start realizing that you are doing better.

Sit silently and start by focusing on breath, just observe your breath for 3 minutes in starting and do this at least three to six times a day, which should be easy you are android developer.

Now also try to use 30 second rule multiple times a day, which in short is to try to remain in the present moment.

Now lets say you feel good in meditation and at some point bad, Buddhism approach is that you will not get flown by mind in either of the above said situation, do not get excited when feeling good and do not feel depressed on feeling bad, just OBSERVE.

OBSERVATION is very powerful


What should I be mindful of in everyday mindfulness?

This is a good question.

Always the mindfulness should be in the 4 foundations of mindfulness. One objective of mindfulness is to remove defilements or letting go. Pahāna Sutta gives an outline in brief. Another is to keep you on the path as outlined in Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta. Any sensation is unsatisfactory this is the link to understand the 4 Noble Truths and also with sensation, according to dependent origination, arises craving. If you miss this link you miss the path.

That is the when taking the 1st foundation of mindfulness, the body, feel the elements like the temperature of the water, the texture of the plate, etc. and you reaction. The water is too hot, my hand is burning or water is too cold, etc., i.e., evaluation you give as this is desirable, undesirable or neutral and satisfaction, dissatisfaction and neutral feeling that follows. The look at the posture and position. The pain and resulting dissatisfaction from standing a long time near the sink, pleasure from changing postures when the previous posture becomes uncomfortable, the pain for wariness from hard work (movement - scrubbing), and the pleasure of rest, etc. [Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Dīgha,nakha Sutta]

The examin feelings in general. Are you evaluating something as favorably, unfavorably, or neutrally and the resulting feelings of pleasure, displeasure and neutral feelings. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Dīgha,nakha Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Samma Ditthi Sutta]

Also mental analysis of the situation. Plates are dirty hence displeasure. I have better things to do then displeasure. Or whatever else that might arise either pleasure, displeasure or neutral by your evaluation of liking, disliking or do not care. For more detail refer the 18 investigation in Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta & Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta and also see Cha Chakka Sutta. Also note the feeling arising from whether you like it, hate it, what kind of thoughts are aroused (my friends are at a party while I am washing dishes) etc. and thinking pondering and planning that follows and what you feel about it.

Also see if you are transgressing any moral principles. There is an ant in the sink, I should not kill it and perhaps save it. [Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta]

Ultimately whatever feeling that arises you should be aware of its arising and passing nature.

Also see The Satipaṭṭhāna Suttas: An introduction and Vedanā (Feeling) by Piya Tan

In general situation, regarding the body, when you see a body you perceive as beautiful hence pleasurable and so on. Again in these situation you should be mindful of the perceptional evaluation beauty / smart, ugly, plain and the feelings that arise with it. [Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta] You can also go to the extent of cemetery contemplations if you are very lustful to overcome Vipallasa. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Vipallasa Sutta]. Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta more detail on the mechanics than the Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta.

Also when wanting to answer a call of nature the feeling of tightness and the displeasure before and the subtle pleasure of release. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta]

Also you can be mindful of the breathing. Is it deep or shallow. If you are displeased what happens and what happens when you are pleased and what is it like when you are neutral. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Ānâpāna,sati Sutta]

Also the aggregates, the faculties and their experiences, phenomena, etc. all having the universal characteristics. Expecting something positive as permanent gives disatisfaction when it happens to be impermanent and likewise for other combination. [(Anicca) Cakkhu Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta]. Also see: Nibbida by Piya Tan which has more ferences of relevant Suttas towards the end of the essay.

  For example, when washing dishes do we focus on what we notice in our current experience;

Your current experience is what you sense or feel. So concentrate on what is felt like in the Pahāna Sutta. This is one of the simplest forms.

  like as I wipe the dishes I can focus on the feel of my hands on the plate or the view or sound of the wiping.

Focus on both. Sounds may trigger other things. You may be irritated by the sound. Also it may trigger memories. Whatever sense door body (hand) or ear just be mindful of the evaluation and sensation. (18 evaluations above.)

  Or do I decide to pick one thing(sense) and focus on that purpose for a few seconds?

In normal work no need to pick. Just keep a check that your awareness is present on some sensation or the other.

In simple terms, your focus should be on the arising and passing of sensations like in the Pahāna Sutta.

  Or do I try to focus on everything in the now which seems like information overload?

Your focus should be on what is felt (feelings / sensation) and their impermanence as in the Pahāna Sutta.


How does Shambhala differ from traditional Vajrayana Buddhism as it is practiced in Asia?

In the editor's preface of my copy of Trungpa's 'Shambhala - The Sacred Path of the Warrior' it is claimed (and I do well agree with that), that the Shambhala teaching is "a major departure" from Trungpa's earlier, popular but quite orthodox Tibetan Buddhist books. This is further elaborated, saying that the outlook is rather secular than religious and in the broadest possible way universally-human.

This fits quite well with my personal impression of the teaching, that it tries to avoid anything too specifically buddhist, too 'sectarian', too foreign (for westerners), too 'exotic', but rather attempts to - if I may say so - lead westerners (that unmistakably are the audience talked to) back to a common human source of dignity rather than providing yet another foreign source of 'spirituality' to draw from.

This also means, that it does not rely on any scriptural source, rather - in a rather unimportant and personal way - it relies on the tradition of the Shambhala kingdom.


(1) a sutta in which the Buddha says, I believe, that one is able to perceive the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, along with other pairs that one can perceive in the way opposite to what is natural.

I am not sure if there is Sutta which mentions this but the following does have something like what you mentioned above which is called the 5 perception (pañca saññā) which appear in Metta,sahagata Sutta (quotation below), Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Tikandaki Sutta, etc.

    (1) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ he dwells perceiving
    the repulsive therein.
    (2) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive,’ he dwells perceiving
    the unrepulsive therein.
    (3) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive and in the repulsive,’
    he dwells perceiving the repulsive therein.
    (4) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive and in the unrepulsive,’
    he dwells perceiving the unrepulsive therein.
    (5) If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell rejecting both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, and dwell in
    equanimity, mindful and fully aware,’ he dwells therein equanimously, mindful and fully aware.

  (2) A sutta in which the Buddha says that you shouldn't judge others since only he or one like him knows the full extent of people's kamma. I believe it is from the long discourses.

Acinteyya Sutta mentions karmma is unfathomable thence thinking and trying to read too much into it is futile for a person who is not a Buddha. I think what is said is that you should not judge the working of Karma.

    The result of karma, bhikshus,
    is unthinkable [beyond thought], should not be thought about,
    thinking about which would bring one a share of madness or vexation.

Following are some Suttas which mentions judging other:

Cūḷa Puṇṇama Sutta - Judge a true or false person
Thāna Sutta - How to truly know a person’s character


How does one explain consistency within phenomena if the mind generates phenomena?

I too had this question for a long time. Then I read Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada, which begins (emphasis mine):

  All experience is preceded by mind,
  Led by mind,
  Made by mind.

This use of the word experience, where phenomena is often used, is much more accessible. Remember, the Buddha did not say "all phenomena is made by mind"; he said "manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā". To say that much can be lost in translation would be an understatement.

I prefer Gil's translation of experience because it fits with what makes sense. It's not everything that exists in our mind, but how we experience everything.

Consider a simple example. If you and I stand beside one another and together look at a houseplant in front of us, we will both see the houseplant. It's not that our minds are simultaneously (and coincidentally!) creating a houseplant that isn't really there; the plant is a real thing that exists in the world. But our minds will experience it differently: we'll interpret different shades of green, we'll consider the scent of the soil uniquely, and we may even have different emotional responses based on any memories associated with this particular kind of plant. The plant wasn't created by our minds, but every aspect of how we experience the plant was.

And remember the broader point that the Buddha was was making in that opening chapter, which continues:

  Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
  And suffering follows
  As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.

The point wasn't that everything we experience comes from our minds, but that because the mind plays a critical role in how we experience everything, the state of our mind set the stage for how (or whether) we will experience any suffering.


Which text does the four sights story come from?

Possibly a later development based on AN 3.39. In that sutta, the Buddha didn't explicitly mention He saw those signs but the ideas were there:

  ...Amid such splendor and a delicate life, it occurred to me: ‘An uninstructed worldling, though himself subject to old age, not exempt from old age, feels repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when he sees another who is old, overlooking his own situation. Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ When I reflected thus, my intoxication with youth was completely abandoned...


The meaning of silabbata-paramasa and freedom from this fetter?

From AN 3.78:

“Take the case of someone who cultivates precepts and observances, a
lifestyle, and a spiritual path, taking this as the essence. If
unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline, that’s not
fruitful. However, if unskillful qualities decline while skillful
qualities grow, that is fruitful.”

From MN 24:

“Is the spiritual life lived under the Buddha for the sake of
purification of ethics?”
“Certainly not.”  ....
“In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the
sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the
sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the
sake of purification through overcoming doubt. Purification through
overcoming doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and
vision of the variety of paths. Purification of knowledge and vision
of the variety of paths is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and
vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for
the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is
lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not
grasping.”

From DN 16:

If it wishes, after my passing the Saṅgha may abolish the lesser and
minor training rules.

The purpose of the purification of ethics is only for the purification of the mind.
But being too attached to minor rules and rituals to the point that breaking them causes remorse and mental anguish, is unskillful and pollutes the mind.
It is enough to practise purification of ethics with the understanding that it is for the purification of the mind, and not be too attached to following minor rules and rituals to the letter.


Buddhist Brahmachariya, Brahmin Brahmachariya, celibacy, chastity

'abrahmacariyā' = no sex, no masturbation, per Vinaya
for a sutta explanation, MN 117 says:

And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko?
Refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual
misconduct.
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī, kāmesumicchācārā veramaṇī—
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?
It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence and refraining from the
three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble mind and undefiled
mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino
ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato tīhi kāyaduccaritehi ārati virati paṭivirati
veramaṇī—
MN 117

the three kinds of bad bodily conduct includes any type of bodily conduct that maintains or increases the hindrance of sensual desire, as follows:

And what is the fuel for the five hindrances?
Ko cāhāro pañcannaṃ nīvaraṇānaṃ?
You should say: ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’
‘Tīṇi duccaritānī’tissa vacanīyaṃ.
AN 10.61

sexual thoughts are not included in 'brahmacariyā' because only 'abrahmacariyā' or 'kāyaduccaritehi' are included in the Right Action factor of the Noble Eightfold Path

And what is right action?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammākammanto?
Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing and sexual activity.
Yā kho, bhikkhave, pāṇātipātā veramaṇī, adinnādānā veramaṇī,
abrahmacariyā veramaṇī—
This is called right action.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammākammanto.
SN 45.8

sexual thoughts are obviously 'wrong thought' but not 'wrong action', as follows;

And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will,
on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve.
MN 117

as for Brahmins & sex, the sutta sought is possibly AN 5.192, even though such a sutta is not for Buddhists. This sutta appears to say a brahmin is equal to Brahmā when they go forth from the lay life to homelessness and master the Four Brahma Vihara. If the 4th Brahma Vihara of equanimity is mastered then obviously any type of sexual activity is excluded.


SC has a API. E.g. : https://suttacentral.net/data?suttas=dn1,dn2

Also see: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/suttacentral-api-apps/1927/8

Also the data is in Github. E.g. https://github.com/suttacentral/suttacentral-data/blob/master/text/en/pi/su/an/an1/an1.21-40.html

Similarly you can download the whole Access to Insight website as files: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tech/download/bulk.html


As per the Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, “purification of view” is the correct seeing of mentality-materiality.

  One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity, should
  emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhāna, except the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception, and he should discern, according to
  characteristic, function, etc., the jhāna factors consisting of applied thought,
  etc., and the states associated with them, [that is, feeling, perception, and so on].

  When he has done so, all that should be defined as “mentality” (nāma) in the
  sense of bending (namana) because of its bending on to the object.

  Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his house, finds
  its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that mentality, he seeks to find out
  what its occurrence is supported by and he sees that it is supported [588] by the
  matter of the heart. After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements,
  which are the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as “materiality” (rūpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold, etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality” (nāma-rūpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”

  Path of Purification, XVIII 2-4

Basically, it entails using the jhana factors and their physical support as a basis for insight - seeing them as impermanent, suffering, and non-self to the point of realizing the four noble truths.


Silence in Buddhism refers to Citta Visuddhi. This means the purification of the mind, or quietening of the mind. It doesn't mean no sound. This is when the mind attains highly concentrated states called the Jhanas. When the mind is in these states, your defilements are silenced or subdued. This is a good base for the development of insight meditation.

'Emptiness' is a nature of all realities. It doesn't mean empty in the literal sense. It means being empty of a self or a soul or an entity. This is a truth one realizes with insight meditation. It is one of the Three characteristics of all condition phenomena. Realizing them lead to enlightenment.


Is it possible to "naturally" reach the first three jhanas

All dogs are animals but all animals are not dogs. Similarly, each of the 1st three rupa jhanas has pleasure as a factor however all feelings of pleasure are not jhana. Each jhana is characteristized by ekaggatā (one-pointedness; stillness; unmovingness) rather than by feelings of pleasure.
That said, jhana is not reached by 'effort'. It is reached by 'letting go', as quoted below:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

Therefore, when you say: "I feel pretty strong sensations of pleasure most of the time, as long as I'm not there and not planning to do something", this is the 'natural' path to jhana the Lord Buddha described in SN 48.10.
This is similar to the Zen masters, for example:

The Supreme Way is not difficult If only you do not pick and choose. Neither love nor hate, And you will clearly understand. Be off by a
hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth. If you want the
Way to appear, Be neither for nor against. For and against opposing
each other This is the mind's disease. Without recognizing the
mysterious principle It is useless to practice quietude. The Way is
perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess. Because of
grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it.
Hsin Hsin Ming

Buddhadasa, Thai teacher, who fancied Zen, spoke a lot about natural concentration:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
correct samadhi.  Heartwood from the Bo Tree

Also refer, here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm


What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view?

The idea of Atman tends to be defined as having three characteristics:

permanent
controllable
satisfactory

When it is any of those things, it can be seen as Atman.

In SN 22.59 the Buddha explains that neither form, feeling, determination and consciousness have those characteristics:

  Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus."

  "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."'

note: I've translated it as: "Unsatisfactory vs satisfactory"; the quoted text translated it as "Painful vs Pleasant" and I've also seen "stress-full vs stress-less." I hope the point is clear.

It's also something that becomes apparent after meditating and following the path, when the Buddha asks Annanda, what the 10 perceptions gained by mindfulness of in - and out-breathing are, he answers pertaining to non-self:

  "And what is the perception of not-self? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is called the perception of not-self.

On a more secular note, Sam Harris, who has been inspired by Buddhism and tried meditation, talks about this realisation as well:

  Occasionally, a breakthrough did occur: In a moment of seeing, for instance, there would be pure seeing, and consciousness would appear momentarily free of any feeling to which the notion of a “self” could be attached. But then the experience would fade, and I couldn’t get back there at will. There was nothing to do but return to meditating dualistically on contents of consciousness, with self-transcendence as a distant goal.

I believe that those are the main argument in favour of the Anatman view:

1) understanding that experience is changing , uncontrollable and unsatisfactory

2) Seeing in meditation that when one is mindful, no sense of self arises.

thus concluding that there is nothing that one can say about:

"This is me, This is mine, I am this."


This sounds like sleep paralysis, which often involves the following:

An inability to move
Vibrations
Imagery
A sense of a (often malevolent) presence near you

This is a common state that has nothing to do with Buddhism. In fact, some hypothesize that stories of alien abductions or succubi are distorted reports of experiences in that state.

Perhaps meditation may increase the incidence of this? One reported way of entering sleep paralysis is to remain conscious while the body falls asleep, an ability aided by improved concentration which can come with meditative practice.

To bring this back to Buddhism, if you are in this state, then you could try to induce a lucid dream by visualization and use that to practice Dream Yoga.  You can also use the experiences you gain as insight into your daily life.  With so much of life said to be illusory or dreamlike, experiences in this border state can be very illuminating.

For non-Buddhist stuff, you can...

Enter a lucid dream for fun.
Will "yourself" out of your body.
Focus all your might on moving your big toe to snap out of this
state.

Of course if you suspect that there may be any medical issues involved with this, then see a doctor!


What kind of harm can koan answers cause to one's practice?

I like to compare Koans with poems, or with jokes. Poems teach us to experience the world directly, unmediated by discursive analytical thinking, as feelings and associations. Getting a joke requires expanding one's context, relating alternative frames of reference.

In some professional settings, the experts develop a shortcut way of referring to things they deal with. E.g. in software engineering, you could hear someone saying that a particular design is kludgy, or leaking, or tangled up etc. Not all of these have official agreed-upon definitions, and many are made up ad-hoc, as required for communicating in a particular situation.

The method of Zen is to get practitioner in touch with their immediate experiences (to point them to their own mind). This requires transcending whatever context the person is stuck in, and expanding one's awareness to include "the elephant in the room". To build on the joke metaphor, the point of Koans is to make you "laugh".

Now, you can answer your own question: will explaining jokes help you learn how to laugh? Will analyzing songs help you learn how to feel?

Why did many Buddhists publish koan commentaries for many hundred years? -- I don't know. Because they are slaves of their minds? Because they think it may be helpful to certain types of practitioners?

The other problem with explaining Koans is that a Koan (unlike a joke) does not have a single "correct" interpretation. A Koan is always ambiguous, by design. A good koan commentary may help one explore various facets of the theme. Sort of like analyzing poems in school may(!) help one develop artistic sensitivity. But in context of Buddhism S.E. the danger is, someone might read an answer and assume they now know what this Koan is about.

Many people don't see until they know what to look for. I may not see a frog under my feet until my wife points it out, even though I've been staring directly at it. What we want to learn in Zen is to "see" before knowing. The more you explain Zen, the further you are from "seeing".


What is the meaning of 'two truths' in the Manorathapūraṇī?

I am not sure for this quote's quality because my english is terrible. However, this is the easiest way to answer on mobile phone.

  Realities - There are two realities - apparent and ultimate. Apparent reality is ordinary conventional truth (sammuti-sacca). Ultimate reality is abstract truth (paramattha-sacca).

  For instance, the smooth surface of the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the apparent surface consists of forces and qualities or in other words, vibrations.

  For ordinary purposes a scientist would use the term water, but in the laboratory he would say H2O. In the same way the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka resorts to conventional usage such as man, woman, being, self, etc., but in the Abhidhamma Pitaka He adopts a different mode of expression. Here He employs the analytical method and uses abstract terms such as aggregates (khandha), elements (dhātu), bases (āyatana), etc.

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm


Did Buddha ever get angry after enlightenment?

Anger(Patigha/Byāpāda) is uprooted at the stage of Anagami. So it's technically impossible for any being who has attained Anagami or above to get angry, let alone the Buddha.


Purifying Karma using mantras and/or prostrations

As I pointed out in "If I undergo suffering now, will my next birth be better?" a while ago, liberation is not attained by "burning" past karma, but through "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now"

As @Yam Marcovic showed in his "large boulder" quote (SN 42.6), Buddha of Pali Canon laughed at using rituals to improve someone else's rebirth. Indeed, how can your chanting help a dead person attain skillful mental qualities?! :)

However, Buddha never denied efficacy of rituals for changing one's own mood and motivation. In fact Buddha promoted usage of verbal aids for attainment of first jhana, and mantras can be seen as a kind of verbal aid.

In Tibetan Buddhism mantras and prostrations are used to cleanse one's own mind (not past karma!), one's own habitual tendencies. Specifically, mantras help stop inner dialog, and prostrations help against egoistic resistance.

From Mahayana perspective, denying efficacy of such self-directed rituals is foolish, because rituals obviously do change mood and motivation of the performer and participants.


Anesthesia, being knocked out, unconsciousness...what does the Buddha have to say about it?

The mind is always reacting to sensation on the body what every any state you are in, including but not limited to anesthetized, knocked out, unconsciousness, etc. Only time you do not sense any sensation is when you are in Pala Samapathi. So you are always have some level of awareness of the body through sensations at the deepest level of the mind or subconscious mind. At the surface level (conscious mind) you might not be aware of it.

Also see: From the Deepest Coma, New Brain Activity Found


During insight meditation, what does the meditator note in-between the rising and falling of the abdomen?

If you find yourself noticing the gap between the breath, then you are no longer focussed on the breath, which is fine, but you should then note "knowing, knowing" or "noticing, noticing". Some also suggest to insert "sitting" in between to avoid having to do this, as in "rising, sitting, falling, sitting". My teacher doesn't, but it's certainly a reasonable suggestion.


What are the 8 Consciousness in Chinese Buddhism

From the wiki page:

  All surviving schools of buddhist thought accept – "in common" – the existence of the first six primary consciousnesses (Sanskrit: vijñāna, Tibetan: རྣམ་ཤེས་, Wylie: rnam-shes).1 The internally coherent Yogācāra school associated with Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, however, uniquely – or "uncommonly" – also posits the existence of two additional primary consciousnesses, kliṣṭamanas and ālayavijñāna, in order to explain the workings of karma.[2] The first six of these primary consciousnesses comprise the five sensory faculties together with mental consciousness, which is counted as the sixth.


Is rebirth essential to Buddhist philosophy?

From Ven. Bodhi's excellent short essay "Dhamma Without Rebirth?":

  The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.


What is the difference between Suttas and Sutras?

TO start, Sutta is Pali and Sutra is Sanskrit.  Just like Latin and Greek.

One of the meanings of Sutta is "acquired knowledge".  That is why most if not all, Pali sutta start with Evaṃ me sutaṃ (sutta).  [one time, i  have heard...]


Is finding a teacher necessary to practise dhamma?

Do you need teacher to practice Buddhism?

No you don't - but you need to know how to practice. And with so much contradicting information about Buddhism on the Internet and in books, to know the right practice requires insight into principles of Buddhism. Once you understand the principles, you can see for yourself which practice is real and which is a confused echo of real.

Do you need teacher to gain insight?

No, you don't. You can piece the puzzle together from books and videos, and integrate it all together into your own insight.

However, that requires an extremely good memory, very good intuition for the implied/inferred meaning, and a very good ability to connect the pieces of information that you may have received in different context, many years apart.

In real life, I'm a professional software architect at a large US company. As a software architect, I have an extremely well-developed capacity for remembering thousands of little pieces of information that I don't fully understand, and then slowly integrating it together into a meaningful whole that I can reason about and often see problems that others can't see.

And even with this ability, it took me almost 15 years of studying Buddhist texts, across Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen - to have even the basic understanding of how it all fits together. I'm not talking about the theory, I'm talking about understanding the basic idea, the framework, the "spirit" of Buddhism. Knowing the theory without understanding the "spirit" is useless. Someone like that can quote the texts but can't explain it in his own words. It's only when you get the "spirit" is when you "find the ford" and become "independent of others in regards to the Buddha's message" (the label on my profile).

Anyway, imagine my surprise, when after those 15 years I went to a live Zen Master and from his few replies and the overall behavior realized that he had a perfect intuitive grasp of all the principles that it took me 15 years to even begin to discover! I could have saved so much time! More than that, in two years of practicing meditation under Master Shin, I learned more about the real meaning of Buddhism than in 15 years of reading books.

Alternatively, you could in theory repeat Buddha's path and figure it all out in meditation, without any guidance or books, - but unless you're a genius like the Buddha (although as @PeterJ pointed out, even the Buddha had some teachers), the chance you'll strike gold is one in a billion.

So, do you need teacher to gain insight? No. In fact, it is impossible for any teacher to give their insight to someone. Insight is something that happens in your head, as you build the puzzle and see what it means in real life. But a live teacher who already has the insight, can save you years or even decades of time you'd either spend accumulating theory (like I did) or stumbling in the dark.

So even though I myself spent 15 years studying books and only 2 years learning from teacher, and now 6 years practicing on my own again, when anyone asks this question I always say: yes, go to a live teacher. If you can't find a live teacher, then at least talk to me. I will do my best to share as much insight as I can. Do not repeat my path.


Do we need to believe in Buddhist stories to be a real Buddhist?

You should not believe all the stories to become a Buddhist dear friend. Instead you should believe Noble Eightfold Path and taking refuge in the triple Gems (Load Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). Taking refuge doesn't mean that the person has to pray for them or looking forward until they do something for you. We have to believe Lord Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha then we have to follow the path which is showed by them. They are guides and helpers so followers have to follow the path.

If someone loose their courage to follow the path due to the stories that is the best enmity one can do for him/her self. First clarify everything about Noble Eightfold Path and follow it. Then when you gaining wisdom due to the follower, you will be able to identify whether the stories are true or false.

when talking about teleportation, we are in a era of quantum teleportation. even now with the existing technology we can perform teleportation on quantum particles like photons. but the problem is on the communication channels. if we divide our body into quantum particles and begin to teleport them, it will take millions of years to complete. If scientists develop a mechanism to build high speed communication channel with using quantum entanglement, we will have a teleportation era in near future. So don't categorize stories just as fairy tails or believe at once. Remember stories and follow the path then you will find facts do decide.


From AN8.67, this is ignoble:

  Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t. And saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have

From AN8.68, this is noble:

  Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t. And saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.

Together, these two considerations create a powerful disincentive to make claims, simply because one might be speaking out of delusion and would therefore be speaking ignoble expressions. Essentially, not saying anything about personal attainments is wisest.

Yet even with this in mind, one might assert a personal experience--how can a listener know the truth of such?

  You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when paying attention, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

One comes to know the truth of oneself and others in deeds rather than speech. For more detail, study AN5.100, which discusses the claims of different kinds of teachers including the Buddha himself:

  A person will be recognized by their own deeds.


I love life and I don't want to die. How to let go?

To fear death and/or uncertainty is part of the human condition. You're not alone with these feelings, especially not with a pandemic going on in the world right now.

Mindfulness is a good start. Also, there are "the five recollections" that may seem a bit cynical at first, but serves the purpose of reminding us to get used to the fact that everythings ends. They are:

Aging
Disease
Death
Losing loved ones
Karma

The last of these five reminders tells us that the only thing we really can own is the consequences of our actions. This can sometimes help in reconciling fear of death, as it may shift our attention to how to live a healthy life (The buddhist idea of a healthy life is perhaps different to a laymans idea of a healthy life).

https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/sujato


How to meditate after become sotapannna?

The Noble 8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna.

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta intorduction

To go beyond Sotapanna one must add 2 more elements under liberation/release which are:

right knowledge
right freedom

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta


How vipassana is useful for removing fear from myself?

From what I understand, what we feel as fear is a reaction when the self is in danger of losing something or itself. For example fear of losing reputation in social situations, fear of death.

This thing we call I or self is because of wrong identifications. We are identified wrongly with our body, our mind, our car, our house, our job. If you really think about it, you will see these things are not "I". You are not the job or the bank balance or the body. Please understand this clearly because that is what Vipassana meditation is trying to tell you.

If you observe your thoughts, which come up and go away, arising and passing away, your body is also the same. It is there for a brief period after which it is gone. Your car will get old and stop working. Your job may change or it may be gone tomorrow. Of course you must cherish it while it is there, but you must not get entangled with it or identify with it. Today it is there, but tomorrow it may not be there. Everything is "mortal". You are not immortal, nothing is.

Fear is coming up because you are afraid of something that you think you will lose. If you realize that this body or thoughts or job or car is temporary and may go away anytime, you will find your fear reducing. Because there is truly nothing to lose.


From Pali linguistics perspective, both words share the common root jna ("to know"). So jnana literally means "knowledge", while pra- in prajna means "before" and "super", making it into "super-knowledge" or perhaps "proto-knowledge" or even "meta-knowledge".

Traditionally in Buddhism (Tibetan or not), jnana is used to refer to various insights (realizations, recognitions) one gets along the way, while prajna is taken to mean the noumenal aspect of the Ultimate Realization (Enlightenment).

Unfortunately the schools disagree on what exactly it means to be enlightened, and therefore on the exact nature of prajna. Here I'll speak from Mahayana/Madhyamaka perspective, as I understand it.

Most Mahayana schools of Madhyamaka heritage equate prajna with either direct supraconceptual realization of Emptiness ("the ultimate reality") or, taking it a step further, with direct realization of inseparability of "the ultimate reality" and "the conventional reality" (the world as we know it in day-to-day living).

The Chan family of schools traditionally emphasizes the "supraconceptual" part of Realization, for them understanding is incomplete until your really "get it" deep in your guts, so to speak. So when they talk about prajna they mean not as much intellectual understanding of "the two truths", as realization of its practical implications to our life -- and the resulting modus-operandi.

From this realization comes certain skill in dealing with phenomena, now seen as lacking substantial existence. One can jungle alternative designations without getting stuck. This skill, in my understanding, is the prajna proper. At the same time the Realization comes with coemergent compassion towards sentient beings trying to organize their lives around the wrong assumption that reality they deal with is solid and reliable. As well as with clear understanding that a sentient being can't simply jump from its modus-operandi based on innate confusion, to the modus-operandi based on enlightenment. There is time and effort and the right conditions required. This drives even more compassion on the side of the ones acquainted with "the knowledge of the two truths", due to which they see the need to employ upaya or skillful means, to gradually take sentient begins from point A to point B.

This conglomerate of realizations, concerns, considerations, and the resulting behavior is known as "prajna-karuna", the unity of wisdom and compassion.

The reason some teachers may downplay prajna, is because without the water of compassion it is considered a dry understanding of emptiness, lacking life, therefore incomplete. I suppose their praise of jnana could refer specifically to "knowledge of the two truths", which is said to be the root of compassion.

As always in Buddhism, the words are used as designations to refer to some real stuff going on. As long as we know what we are talking about, we won't get confused as to what's what.


Can homosexual monks or nuns ordain, if not WHY?

Homosexuals may fall under asittaka pandaka. They cannot ordain.

  asittakapandaka - A man who gains satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, and only becomes sexually aroused after ingesting another man's semen.

Source: Pandaka


Monks precepts - Not to teach dhamma to women and not to recite dhamma in pali with laymen?

I think your first doubt was taken out of context from the following rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 370):

  Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to
  a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.

  “Then Ven. Udāyin, dressing early in the
  morning and taking his bowl and (outer) robe, went to visit a certain
  family. At that time the lady of the house was sitting in the main
  entrance, while the daughter-in-law was sitting in the door to the
  inner chamber. So Ven. Udāyin went to the lady of the house… and
  whispered Dhamma into her ear. The daughter-in-law thought, ‘Is this
  monk my mother-in-law’s lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ Then,
  having whispered Dhamma into the ear of the lady of the house, Ven.
  Udāyin went to the daughter-inlaw… and whispered Dhamma into her ear.
  The lady of the house thought, ‘Is this monk my daughter-in-law’s
  lover, or is he being fresh with her?’ After whispering Dhamma into
  the daughter-in-law’s ear, Ven. Udāyin left. So the lady of the house
  said to the daughter-in-law, ‘Hey. What did that monk say to you?’

  “‘He taught me Dhamma, ma’am. And what did he say to you?’

  “‘He taught me Dhamma, too.’

  “So they criticized and complained and spread it
  about, ‘How can Ven. Udāyin whisper Dhamma into women’s ears?
  Shouldn’t the Dhamma be taught openly and out loud?’”

  The two factors for the full offense here are:

  1) Object: a female human being who knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, and who has not asked one a question about the Dhamma.

  2) Effort: One teaches her more than six sentences of Dhamma without a knowledgeable man present—i.e., a male human being who also knows what is and is not lewd, what is well-spoken and ill-spoken.

  ...

  Summary: Teaching more than six sentences of Dhamma to a woman,
  except in response to a question, is a pācittiya offense unless a knowledgeable
  man is present.

Your second doubt, seems to be referring to this rule (excerpt from The Buddhist Monastic Code, page 356):

  Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.

  This is an offense with two factors:

  1) Effort: One gets a student to recite Dhamma line-by-line with oneself (which, as we shall see below, means to train the student to be a skilled reciter of a Pali Dhamma
  text).

  2) Object: The student is neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhunī.

  ...

  Summary: To train a novice or lay person to recite passages of Dhamma by
  rote is a pācittiya offense.


Is buddha's paths corrupt as no one attains the goal nowadays? (or are they?)

Since many do not talk about attainments it is difficult to ascertain who has reached Nirvana, but there those who have practised fully would have realised it. This is a conjecture on can reach by taking the 1st few steps one reaches certain milestones in the path.

If you consider more milestones than the final goal itself there would be many more people who have reacht it.

Some milestones one would encounter are as follows:

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

Ones own practise will reveal to you what as further one practices more milestones are reached.


The Buddha quite clearly implies that an "act of hate" (i.e, a curse) can destroy forests. It is of course a matter of opinion whether the Buddha "really" believed this, or was simply using it as a didactic device - but that is what the text says. See the Upali Sutta (MN 56).


What is the difference between Satipatthana and Vipassana?

Satipatthana is the name of the actual practice, and Vipassana is the name of the quality of clearly seeing reality which Satipatthana produces.


How could we have so many past lives without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

Infinities can be one-way. Consider the negative numbers.

What the Buddha said is that there is no "first point".

  SN15.19:1.3: No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

And with the ending of ignorance, one does not return.

  AN2.36:4.7: When they pass away from there, they are non-returners, not coming back to this state of existence.

Non-returners (anāgāmi) and arahants do not return. They have left behind the negative infinity of suffering.


Which is the most read journal on Buddhism?

The Journal of Buddhist Ethics might be one, but Atma would not call it "Buddha Dhamma" journal; yet it is another Buddhism nourishing place with interest to put the Dhamma into the ways of thinking of people in the world, rather that otherwise.

They are for sure in line with your thoughts and intentions.

For a more or lesser traditional place it might be useful to get in contact with http://www.bps.lk/ which is for sure the most known one and inventor of certain "Trade on Dhamma", made it presentable even for monastics.

As for Dhamma in line of Dhamma, Atma is not aware of any journal. http://www.inquiringmind.com/ might have tried such ways, but finished its task.

For sure not a final answer but maybe it give some thoughts.

Well known university journals are maybe:

Numata Center for Buddhist Studies at the University of Hamburg
Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.

German and British Scholars are historical in a strong battle in regard of Buddhist topics on Papañca and translations.


Is it possible for a human being to live without the mind?

To answer this question accurately is very difficult if you are not a scientist but often people have accidents that results in them being in a coma for an extended period, where their physical body is alive but their mind is not conscious. If the mind is not conscious at all here then that physical body is living without mind (however from a Buddhist perspective, this is probably not a "human" living since, in Buddhism, the word translated as "human" means to have a reflective & wise mind).
Also, there is a meditation state where the mind becomes unconscious, called 'the cessation of perception & feeling'. This meditative state is compared to a dead body, where even breathing cannot be felt yet the 'life force' or 'vitality' of the body & heat remain.
For example, in the Buddhist scriptures, there are stories about monks that enter into the meditation state of 'the cessation of perception & feeling' & people watch them meditating (not moving) under a tree for many days, believe they are dead & try to bury or cremate them.
Therefore, it appears it is possible to that a 'human' can live without mind.

What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time; and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception &
feeling?
In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabricator (breathing)...his verbal fabricator (thinking)
... his mental fabricator (perception & feeling) have ceased & subsided, his vitality is
exhausted, his heat subsided & his (five sense) faculties (eye, ears, nose, tongue & body nervous system) are scattered.
But in
the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception &
feeling, his bodily fabricator... his verbal
fabricator ... his mental fabricators have ceased & subsided, his
vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided & his (five sense) faculties
are exceptionally clear (pure).
This is the difference between one who is
dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the
cessation of perception & feeling.
Mahavedalla Sutta


Do we reincarnate into similar or polar-opposite lives

No matter how you slice it, Buddha said we have been in every situation many times over.  In one sutta said when seeing a wealthy man indulging in all fine things in life and in another sutta crippled man lying in the gutter, we have all been there.  For this reason, it is enough to be tired of samsara.
It is reasonably to assume we have been in every situation and every world many times (except for world of sutavassa-world for non-returners.)


While it is sometimes said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness. While I think compassion practices are a good idea, translating the mentally felt compassion is more of a problem. Personally, I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on. (Chris edit as you like)

Here is a study concerning mindfulness meditation not making a difference in terms of prompting compassionate actions:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/17/mindfulness-training-does-not-foster-empathy-and-can-even-make-narcissists-worse/

Here is an article saying more empathy isn't what we need:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40483014/actually-we-dont-need-more-empathy


What are the karmic consequences of writing horror / fantasy fiction?

You reap what you sow. If your motivations was to frighten people Karmic consequence might be to be the author gets frightened also. If your motive is profit as expence of reader getting deluded, start craving, being lustful, being averse or frightened (aid the arising of the unwholesome roots) the expected karmic consequences may not be so good.

If your motivation is to send a constructive message then it might not be bad Karma after all. It might not be the ending that matters buy what motivates you to do it.

Perhaps a book to teach Karmic consequence in the lower realms may not be a bad idea after all if you are thinking about writing. Khuddaka Nikāya's Petavatthu (and even perhaps Vimānavatthu) section may be a motivator for such stories.

Also the working of Karma is complex so it is not possible to give a definitive answer.


Does Buddha go to Naraka (hell) to save those tormented beings?

As far as my study in sutta, Buddha did not go to hell to help beings in that world.  They are considered to be "unfortunate" beings; among animals, hungry ghosts, and gods in arupa world because they do not have the strength or what it takes to understand dharma.  However, in one instance, Buddha was so kind to a Naga (which considered to be a being in animal world) by telling him to observe 8 precepts on Upasatha days and he would become human faster.  In one sutta, Buddha compared beings in hell to be like a person drowning in a cesspool not even a strand of hair above it to grab pulling him out.

For question number 3) not always necessary.  In Migasala sutta, Buddha divided people into 10 groups, which one of them is;

  Here, ânanda, a certain person is overwhelmed with hate and from time to time greed arises to him. He has heard something fruitful, has learnt something, has straightened his view and he personally has gained some release. After death he does not go to loss gains some distinction.


SN 55.7; MN 8; Dhp 158-159; MN 40

  One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
  One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is
  self-control.

  SN 55.7  Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone else?


Great idea. I don't know where the story is on the internet but the late Master Nan says in one of his lectures that some Buddha and his disciples, samadhi powers and all, tried to change India.
They failed. People are just too lazy and their karma way too thick to cut through mere skillful means. You help a person, and you enable their laziness and create a karmic debt for them! You jerk. You ignore them and let them suffer, they become motivated and help a million people.
Every action has an opposite reaction.

Other people can't save you without un-saving you later.
Buddha just can't save you, otherwise he'd have done it. There's something big going on!!
Buddha just can't kill your bad karma or anyone's bad karma.

He can only act as a intermediary and help purify that karma because of positive states of mind: shame, renunciation, faith, wisdom, concentration, meditation on the Buddha's positive qualities, etc. Buddha actually does little but act as a meditation object. The true power of mantras, according to Master Nan, can't even be accessed except by those in a deep state of dhyana/jhana/samadhi.

This is the same for confessions in Catholicism. Mother Mary can't do anything!
It was just a skillful means as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

If the Buddhas could effectively help people through political leadership--it would have already happened. It's because of some sort of karmic binding where people are self-responsible and must change their own fate, that they have not/cannot do it.

Politics is dirty, people are greedy, corrupt, and self-rationalizing! Even if Buddhism could become a political party--I doubt it stay for long. It would eventually become hijacked, derail, or decay.
The Three Poisons are stacking, moment by moment, millions of times in a day unawares until they cause people to behave in surprisingly evil ways. Countries have their own karma and everyone is contributing to it, it is hard for a small amount of people to purify the whole country's bad karma, especially when they are working against so many suave, manipulative, and cold-blooded murdering politicians.

The only salvation is self-awareness whilst not attaching to anything, not taking anything for self. Who cares about others anyway? Everyone will save themselves, give it a few million eons. All the while you enjoy yourself as a Buddha in Perfect Enlightenment, manifesting a million nirmanakaya bodies helping-beings-throughout-the-universe-through-causes-and-conditions.


Ven.Yuttadhammo bhikkhu has given you proper advice. Being true to monkhood is being rooted and grounded in a Life of celibacy. The benefits of celibacy (sexual abstinence) are obviously not widely understood nor fully appreciated. Even though sex may be a natural, essential part of life, so is being stuck in a physical body along with all its severe restrictions, miseries and complications lifetime after lifetime. Celibacy is a change in the direction of sex and sensuality, not its repression. But this advice is easier said than done.

In becoming a Bhikku with an idea of performing the practice of breathing towards samatha and vipassana (calm and insight) without first attempting kayagata-satipatthana (mindfulness as regards the body), resembles an owner who yokes the still untamed bullock (an adult bovine animal) to the cart or plough without the nose-rope. Such an owner would find oneself unable to drive the bullock at his desire. Because the bullock is wild, and because it has no nose-rope, it will either try to run off the road, or try to break loose by breaking the yoke.

The Buddha, in one of the Suttas pointed out that the realm of sensual pleasures resembles the forest where the wild elephant enjoys himself/herself. The Buddha Sasana, "the teaching of the Buddha",resembles the open field into which the wild elephant is first brought out. The mind resembles the wild elephant. Confidence (saddha) and desire (chanda) in the sasana-dhamma resemble the tame elephant to which the wild elephant is hitched and brought out into the open. Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the stockade. The body, or parts of the body, such as out-breath and in-breath resemble the post in the stockade to which the elephant is tied. Kayagati-sati resembles the rope by which the wild elephant is tied to the post. The preparatory work towards samatha and vipassana resembles the preparatory training of the elephant. The work of samatha and vipassana resembles the parade ground or battlefield of the king.

Firstly what you have to learn to do is the Meditation on loathsomeness (Asuba). There’s a series of meditations called guardian meditations, which are very helpful in using skillful perceptions to get the mind in the right mood, in the right attitude, with the right understanding, as you come into the present moment. You’ll often find, as you’re sitting here meditating on the breath, that the problem is not with the breath. It’s with the mental baggage you’re carrying with you. So you want to open up the bags and throw out all the unnecessary weight. In practicing this, you see that we all have the same garbage inside ourselves. This contemplation is helpful because it’s a guardian. There are so many people out there you could feel lust for, so cultivating this protects you from inappropriate lust. Even if you’re not practicing celibacy, you need a way to guard yourself against that kind of vagrant lust. So instead of weaving all sorts of narratives you’ve developed around beauty, it’s good to teach yourself other narratives, other associations. While at it, you should learn to do what is skillful.

  “And what is skillful? Abstaining from taking life is skillful, abstaining from taking what is not given... from sexual misconduct... from lying... from abusive speech... from divisive tale-bearing... abstaining from idle chatter is skillful. Lack of covetousness... lack of ill will... right views are skillful. These things are called skillful.”—MN 9

Also the Buddha said… “Come guard your sense-faculties; be the master of your senses. When you see something with the eye, do not get attracted to it by its appearance, but treat it with self control. So allways be mindful by controlling and guarding your senses the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind.


Is it bad karma to disagree with an arhat?

According to the Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

If you see this answer, bad karma or not, is related to the intentions of the individual. The story of the blind monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 would serve as good examples from the scriptures.

If the individual has intentions that is insulting, disparaging or malicious towards the Buddha or arahant, then that would be generating bad karma.

However, if someone respectfully disagrees with the Buddha or arahant because he does not have the same view or understanding, then this should not be bad karma. If someone talks to a Buddha or Arahant, he should not incur bad karma, if he does so based on the principles of Right Speech (samma vaca), even if he disagrees with the opinion of the Buddha or the Arahant.

As said in the famous Kalama Sutta by the Buddha, just because a certain person is your teacher, it does not mean that you should simply accept what he or she says. Rather, it is preferable that you should accept the teachings only after you have known for yourself that it is good.

  "So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.

  "Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.

Despite this, SN25 does have a provision for "faith followers" to meet a good end simply by having conviction and belief in the teachings of the Buddha, because it would lead them down the right track.

  "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Nevertheless, the Buddha was a great teacher who managed to convince those who insulted and verbally abused him (see Akkosa Sutta), mocked him (see Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta) and intended to challenge or test him (see Dhananjaanii Sutta and Acela Sutta). Of course, there are also times when the Buddha knew when to give up trying to convince someone (see Kesi Sutta).

The Buddha also understood and empathized that the truth he discovered may not be easily understood by everyone (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta):

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
  Unbinding."

Also, don't forget that it may not be easy for unenlightened individuals to know who the Buddha really is, just like the case in the Dona Sutta and also the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

  A second time... A third time, the group of five monks said to me, 'By
  that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did
  not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously,
  straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have
  attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one?'

  "When this was said, I replied to the group of five monks, 'Do you
  recall my ever having spoken in this way before?'

While the Buddha may be omniscient, the Arahants may not even recognize that the other is also an Arahant (see Bhaddiya Sutta). So, Arahants are not omniscient. They are only enlightened or freed from suffering.


What are the traditional Buddhist arguments for rebirth?

I have been unable to find the word anumāna in the Pali suttas but found it in the later-day Milindapañha, as follows:

  He who, himself set free in that bless’d state In which the Upadhis have ceased to be, —Lusts, sin, and Karma—has brought safe ashore,
  Saved from the sea of woe, great multitudes— Only by inference can it
  be known That he, the best of men, existed once. Mil 6.4 1

In AN 2.25 there is the word nītattha (inferred meaning), which I have been unable to find elsewhere in the Pali suttas (although the prefix 'nita' is often used unfavourably, such as 'led' by ignorance or 'led' to hell).

The Dhamma of the Buddha is explicitly defined in the Pali suttas as follows:

  The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the
  wise for themselves.' AN 4.92

  Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork... MN 22

  I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. DN 16

The metaphysical ideas about reincarnation or rebirth, such as Jataka Stories, relinking consciousness (paṭisandhi-viññāṇa), 3-lifetime dependent origination, etc, were obviously brought into Buddhism at a time after the Buddha's passing, probably during to era of King Ashoka, who was zealous in growing the religion socially, Since the core essence of Buddhism does not appeal to common people, a religion would have to be created to make Buddhism appealing, which ultimately resulted in the demise of Buddhism in India (per common scholarly opinion) because Buddhism became virtually indistinguishable from Hinduism.

  Buddhism's distinctiveness diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. Buddhist ideas, and even the Buddha himself, were absorbed and adapted into orthodox Hindu thought,while the differences between the two systems of thought were emphasized. Wikipedia

If you are Indian, you must know the word 'jati', which is the central term used in Pali Buddhism, does not mean physical birth or childbirth. It means self or social identity or caste:

  Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc.
  Wikipedia

In summary, the numerous words in the Pali scriptures, commonly universally translated as "rebirth", simply refer to the re-arising of 'self-view' (see discussion here); just as the words 'pubbe nivasa', which is wrongly translated as 'past lives', really mean 'past adherences', namely, when in the past the mind ignorantly clung to the  five aggregates as 'self'.

Thus, when the Buddha recollected his "past lives" or "past adherences" (properly translated as "past abodes" or "past dwellings", literally "former homes"), he recollected each time the mind in the past ignorantly gave "birth" ('jati') to the idea of 'self', as explicitly explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta, Haliddakani Sutta and elsewhere.

  153. Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house. Repeated birth is indeed suffering!

  154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.

  First Words of the Buddha: Dhammapada 153

In his discussions with Brahmans (MN 95; DN 13), monks (MN 38) and even lay people (AN 3.65), the Buddha often condemned the idea of blind faith or unsubstantiated beliefs.


I have some suggestions.

Guard yourself against any possibility of Wrong Speech by not saying anything about these persons, their motives, or actions that you don't personally know to be true; even if it seems extremely likely that they are being deceptive. If you want to warn family & friends, stick only with what you know to be true such as "In the tradition I study, monastic rules don't allow monks to ask for money or sell good luck charms."

Guard yourself against the arising or continuing of any negative states by not identifying with this issue. This is not personal. Cities have always been magnets for people inclined to do "creative fund raising". ;-) City dwellers are pretty savvy about this type of thing and it's unlikely the media will downplay it indefinitely. It's too quirky of a story for them to ignore forever.

Guard yourself against the attachment of "me and my" Buddhism getting a bad name. Truly awful things have happened in the contexts of other religions; bloody wars, sexual exploitation, financial scandal.

The teachings of the Buddha shine on. A little thing like this can't tarnish it. :)


There is a text where Buddha says that the Dharma he teaches is not a secret doctrine so why are there sects which maintain secrecy?

Buddha said that the Dhamma he teaches is not a secret doctrine...By this he meant that the Dhamma is out in the open for everybody to know...It was there even before the times of Siddhartha Gautama. The only difference is Buddha stated it explicitly so that even lay people could understand it. Although the language of the priestly class during the times of Buddha was Sanskrit, Buddha taught in Prakrit/Pali the language of lay people so that everyone could practice it. Buddha's Dhamma is 'Svakkhato' i.e. it is well propounded and well explained by the Buddha. So in that sense it is not a secret doctrine.

And regarding secret teachings, I don't know what exactly you mean by that. But to check if something is Buddha's Dhamma or not, one yardstick would be to check if the teaching helps us to

Refrain from evil doings
Engage in good works
Purify our mind

Also the suttas from the Pali canon are freely available these days on various sites. So the best way to capture these posers is to keep an open, rational and analytical mind and develop our own wisdom through the practice.


This is a key concept in the Early Buddhist Texts:

MN 64: Anusetvevassa sakkāyadiṭṭhānusayo.
MN 64: Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them.

Identity View is the view that "I am". For example, we say, "I am Chinese" or "I am educated" or "I am poor", etc.
These personal perspectives contribute to suffering. If "I am poor", then "I want to be rich". If "I am ugly" then "I want to be beautiful". Through study and practice, we step away from personal perspectives and abandon Identity View as not satisfying, not conducive to happiness. To be an Arahant, to be a Realized One, Identity View is abandoned entirely.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the heresy of individuality
To be clear, that does not mean that Buddhists are all alike. The Buddha in fact insisted that each of us find the truth for ourselves. What it means is that Buddhists are alike in dismissing personal cravings as unskillful and unwholesome.


Anhedonia is a diagnosable medical condition. Please consult a doctor for evaluating your condition. Your spiritual practice might have revealed a medical condition, especially if nothing gives you pleasure. Spiritual practice does lessen craving, yet normally other joys blossom accompanied by happiness in seclusion and meditation. Continued practice should strengthen spiritual bliss. If you are not experiencing spiritual happiness, consult your spiritual teacher as well.


Yes, experience is dependently originated (in multiple steps). Dependent Origination describes this step-by-step emergence of experience. Ignorance and Consciousness are the early stages of the emergence of experience. Feeling is experience fully matured. Birth and death is experience developed to its logical conclusion.

The entire chain of dependent origination is a spiral. Its basic components are consciousness, craving, and action. It starts as vague and undifferentiated and proceeds in cycles getting more and more concrete over time.

In the beginning it is completely undifferentiated. While undifferentiated, it is still structured and active. It's called ignorance but what it really is, is the undifferentiated Ground of All.

Then, after many many cycles of activity, because similar things happen again and again, the imprints of the repetitions lead to formation of tendencies. At first these are very vague, very abstract tendencies - but after many cycles they start getting more and more specific. We call this "samskaras" - which can be translated "formations" or "imprints" or "tendencies". This is made from the same exact stuff as what we called "ignorance" - but now it is a bit more defined, it has slightly more specificity.

As more cycles pass, and things keep interacting and imprinting, imprints/tendencies/formations keep getting more and more specific, until they start resembling something like a (very-very vague) EXPERIENCE. At first, this experience is not vivid at all, rather like a vague recognition: "something like this was before". This basic recognition, the rudimentary inklings of experience, is what we call Vijnana or consciousness. This is still the same stuff as what we called Ignorance and Formations - now developed into something much more specific.

Just like this, things keep getting more and more specific. As tendencies get more and more defined, recognition grows into habit and attitude. Now it's not just "something like this was before", now it is also: "this has always been so and so" or "X always comes with Y" or "It's always A and then it's followed by B". In other words, as consciousness learns to recognize repeating patterns, it gets used to them. Whatever it gets used to, it is established in. From this it begins to form its attitudes: "This is the way it should be. This is right." and "This should not be this way. This is wrong".

And so, tendencies grow and develop, until they become several distinct things:
 - Consciousness, or ability to recognize patterns and situations, the basic capacity of Experiencing the world.
 - Habits and attitudes, aka pre-dispositions for and against certain experiences.

And then, after many, many more cycles - things get even MORE defined.

Consciousness grows into a full-blown ability to delineate and experience OBJECTS. While habits and attitudes develop into DESIRE and AVERSION towards these objects. Until this time, there was no "inside" and "outside". This point is the first inkling of the separation. The experience of recognition of objects will later develop into a full blown experience of "the world". And imprints/habits/attitudes will later develop into a full blown "psyche" or "sentient being".

All this time, activity never stopped. The Ground Of All kept moving and stirring. In fact, activity is exactly what supported formation of tendencies, consciousness, objects, and attitudes. As things were getting more and more defined, activity was getting more defined too! Influenced by habits and attitudes of attraction/aversion to objects, activity was getting increasingly more directional and purposeful, until it became full-blown KARMA -- action towards or away from the objects. Mind you, this karma always existed in rudimentary form, even since the times of Ignorance, and developed in lockstep with Consciousness and Craving (=attraction/aversion). Ignorance, Imprints, Recognition of patterns, Consciousness, Objects - is one branch. Ignorance, Tendencies, Habits, Attitudes, Attraction/Aversion (=craving) - is another branch. Ignorance, activity, attraction&avoidance, pursuing, goal-making - is third branch. They support each other and help each other grow and get more concrete.

Interaction feeds imprints, imprints feed recognition, recognition feeds habit, habit feeds attitude, attitude feeds interaction. It's a cycle that perpetuates itself, propelling itself forward, helping things get more and more concrete.

When we say "things get more concrete" we mean the Experience of The Outside and Experience of The Inside gets more concrete.

First, there is only recognition of "this was before", then it's "this has always been like this", then "when this is so - it's right and when it's not so - it's wrong", then it gets to the level of objects and feelings.
"When this object is here - it feels good", "When this object is here - it feels bad". Things get more concrete like that, consciousness gets more concrete, experience gets more concrete, the attitude towards things get more concrete, and action towards things gets more concrete. And along with all this, our sense of SELF gets more and more concrete.

This is called "Dependent Origination". It's a self perpetuating cycle that proceeds from complete vagueness to increasingly more and more concrete EXPERIENCE of the inside and outside, experience of objects and the world, sense of self, attitude towards things, and intentional action towards things.


(UPDATED)

After some digging, it seems that indeed there is no one standard that can be truly relied upon to work for all version of the tipitaka, at least for the Samyutta and the Anguttara. For the Digha and the Majjhima, it's pretty simple to say DN 22 or MN 10, and I think the order and numbering is pretty consistent across the board.

And no, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any such chart as you are looking for. We discussed this some time ago on the Yahoo! Pali Study list (2011) and as John Kelly said:

  For the Nikayas, clearly there is no issue for DN and MN. It is SN
  and AN that are problematic. The problem arises because the original Pali has
  no numbers and the various editions of the Pali (Be, Ce, and so on) use
  differing numbering schemes based on how their editors choose to separate the
  suttas.

What we do have:

http://www.suttacentral.net has a full concordance for all of the nikayas between the system used internally by the Pali Text Society and the system employed by Bhikkhu Bodhi (and ATI and the DPR). For example (picked at random):

http://suttacentral.net/sn28

    ID          Title                   Vol/Page

    SN 28.1     Vivekaja                SN iii 235
    SN 28.2     Avitakka                SN iii 235
    SN 28.3     Piti                    SN iii 236
    SN 28.4     Upekkhā                 SN iii 237
    SN 28.5     Ākāsānañcāyatana        SN iii 237
    SN 28.6     Viññāṇañcāyatana        SN iii 237
    SN 28.7     Ākiñcaññāyatana         SN iii 237
    SN 28.8     Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana  SN iii 237
    SN 28.9     Nirodhasamāpatti        SN iii 238
    SN 28.10    Sūcimukhī               SN iii 238

ID here refers to the international standard: samyutta #28, sutta #1-10.

Vol/Page refers to the PTS volume (three) and page numbers 235-8.

So, given a reference like "SN 28.5" or "SN iii.237", you could check this chart and see that the first refers to the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta, and the second may refer to one of five suttas, including the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta. Given that these are the two most common systems in use, this is probably the best you are going to get.

Also, as noted, ATI has notations for all of its suttas (it uses the international standard), and gives both the PTS and Bodhi page numbers. They also have a conversion chart for the Samyutta between the VRI and "modern" systems (the DPR actually accords with the modern system in its numbering).

Further, the VRI Tipitaka (and the Digital Pali Reader based on it) has notations for volume and page numbers of each of the major versions of the Tipitaka (Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan and PTS), in case you come across that sort of notation.

Finally, as a bonus, the DPR has a title search function, by which you can do the opposite - given a sutta title, you can track down where it is in the tipitaka.

So, sorry to fudge my answer again and again, but here it is in (hopefully) final form.


The monk who ignored his visiting wife and infant son

Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for
  pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human
  beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes
  that the Buddhist texts call the "divine abodes": boundless
  loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last
  does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and
  consummates them.

BB's explanation here sounds exaggerated & too lofty. Metta is arguably the pinnacle of the social attitudes and equanimity governs the other social attitudes. A lingusistic root of 'upekha' is 'to look'. It means 'to observe others, looking to help others, but always knowing others are the heirs to their actions'. That is, equanimity understands you can only help others when they are willing to help themselves.

  Did he lack compassion?

He did not lack compassion. Compassion is non-cruelty & wishing to help others overcome suffering. The ex-wife was not seeking to end suffering but craving to get her former husband back. If the wife walked away from the child & never returned to the child, the monk abandoning the child would have been cruelty. But this did not occur. The monk obviously had compassion but governed his compassion with equanimity, testing the kamma or motivation of his former wife. The former wife returned to look after her child, therefore the wife followed her personal path, which was motherhood.

  Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and
  given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of
  suffering?

Absolutely not because the Dhamma says Dhamma is only taught to those who ask for it (AN 9.5).

This story is an excellent example of the practice of equanimity, namely, observantly looking on to help another person according to the kamma or personal disposition of the other person. The wife demonstrated motherhood was her want & destiny. If (hypothetically) the wife completely abandoned the child & there was no one else to look after the child, the monk would have looked after the child himself, similar to how Rahula was ordained as a novice at 7 years of age.


Can loving kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy be developed through Vipassana meditation?

Your concern is based on invalid definition of Vipassana/Vipashyana. "Watching equanimously your bodily sensations" is not what Buddha meant by insight meditation. Insight meditation is rigorous introspection of one's mental processes seeking answers to questions like:

What is it that we call "I" and how can it be identified exactly in our subjective experience? Who or what is the subject of experience that does the watching?
What are the limits to the extent that we can be said to have free-will and to have an identity?
How do the trains of thought work?
What exactly happens when the mind engages in relative judgement?
How does the mind create its notions of entities?
How is reality we perceive relate to the mind perceiving it?
How do emotions work and what do they depend on?
What are preconceptions and attachments and why they are problematic?
What are overgeneralization and reification and why are they problematic?
Why exactly do we feel unhappy?
How do psychosomatic experiences relate to our subconscious mind and to our emotions?
How is emotional energy drained and how is it generated?
What can we change in our behavior in light of all the factors above, in order to be stronger and happier?

Now, this is vipashyana - sitting and looking at one's mindstream in order to get answers to these questions.

Once you get some answers to most of the above - and with your new perspective you look back at the state of humanity -- you suddenly find yourself having the very same loving kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy arising quite spontaneously ;)


Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition as its source?

This, of course, refers to Dependent Origination, with upadhi used synonymously with upādāna.

Pali Text Society's dictionary equates it with taṇhā:

  Upadhi, (fr. upa + dhā, cp. upadahati & BSk. upadhi Divy 50, 224, 534) 1. putting down or under, foundation, basis, ground, substratum (of rebirth) S. I, 117, 124, 134, 186; A. II, 24 (°saṅkhaya); III, 382 (id.); IV, 150 (°kkhaya); It. 21, 69; Sn. 364, 728 (upadhī-nidānā dukkha = vaṭṭa-dukkhaṃ SnA 505), 789, 992; Nd1 27, 141; Nd2 157; Vbh. 338; Nett 29; DhA. IV, 33.—(2) clinging to rebirth (as impeding spiritual progress), attachment (almost syn. with kilesa or taṇhā, cp. nirupadhi & anupadhi); S A. = pañcakkhandhā, S. II, 108. At M I 162 (cp. Sn. 33 = S. I, 6 = I. 107) wife and children, flocks and herds, silver and gold are called upadhayo. upadhi is the root of sorrow ib. 454; S. II, 108; Sn. 728 = 1051 = Th. I, 152 and the rejection of all upadhis is Nibbāna D. II, 36. (cp. S. I, 136; III, 133; V, 226; A. I, 80; M. I, 107 = II. 93; Vin. I, 5, 36 = J. I, 83 = Mvst II. 444; It. 46, 62); D. III, 112 calls that which has upadhi ignoble (= non-Aryan). At S. I, 117 = Divy 224 upadhi is called a bond (saṃgo). Cp. opadhika.—The upadhis were later systematized into a set of 10, which are given at Nd2 157 as follows: 5 taṇh’upadhis (taṇhā, diṭṭhi, kilesa, kamma, duccarita), āhār-upadhi, paṭigh°, catasso upādinnā dhātuyo u. (viz. kāma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata, attavāda; see D. III, 230), cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni u. , cha viññāṇa-kāyā u. Another modified classification see at Brethren p. 398. (Page 142)

In my understanding, the idea here is that the pursuit of acquisitions has a semiotic effect of cementing the notion of self as an agent of action and enjoyer of its results. And so craving for an object, setting one's mind onto the object, making the object one's target, pursuing the object, acquiring the object, and then enjoying the contact with the object is exactly the semiotic sequence that leads to bhava - becoming (=identifying self as) a sentient being.

While experience of "contact" with an "object" marks the point when the spatial sense of self has fully matured, it is pursuit and acquisition is what helps the temporal sense of self to come to fruition.

Once self-identification as sentient being has fully matured both spatially and temporally, the self imputed  onto the aggregates becomes subject to change of the aggregates, hence "aging-and-death".


How to navigate the impracticality of Sigalovada sutra?

The truth of the Buddha's teaching is timeless and doesn't get affected by modern norms or customs. Imagine if it's influenced by social norms, then there'll be a possible scenario in a distant future where human virtures and values becoming severely degenerated. It'll be common practice and acceptable social norm for humans to do all kinds of evil and little to none of virtuous conducts. If going by the standard of that future time, the Buddha's teaching will be perceived as completely irrelevant, or at least only deemed valuable to a very very small number of people. The Dhamma drum will have so many pegs that it won't be able to make audible sound. So for the OP question, you'd have a better chance of finding a friend or a soulmate with similar mentality or conducts if s/he also cultivates similar virtues. Finding fellow Buddhist practitioners would be best, but any other sincere followers of other world religions would also be fine since they pretty much share similar codes of conduct. If all else fail, then it's perfectly ok to walk the path alone like a proud Rhinoceros


Why is Vipassana centred around the breath, when it's meant to be a state of observing sensations?

When you watch your breath, seeing the quality or character of each in-breath and out-breath allows you to really see your feelings (not sensations, that's a bad translation). Breath is the best pointer at your emotional state.


I've been to a lecture in which a Tibetan Buddhist monk (specifically, a nyingmapa) was asked the same question by a teenage girl. Basically, his answer was, such killing would both end some existing suffering and create some new suffering. Because regular person does not see all complexity of karma network spanning multiple lives, his or her acts are very likely to make the karmic situation even worse.

According to that monk, compassionate killing should be left to either dakas/dakinis (the crazy yogis capable of "eating icecream and shit at the same time" -- i.e. skilfully dealing with consequences of the bad karma they take on) or omniscient buddhas who can grant liberation at the time of killing, or at least create a favorable karmic condition in subsequent lives.


Avoiding debates & looking into Planes/realms

The planes of existence can known as psychological states of mind therefore it is easy to prove them to others. People have hellish suffering; people behave like animals; people can be ungrounded rootless ghosts & addicts; people can live a godly life of wealth, power, luxury or bliss; people can be humane.

Planes of existence are depicted below. An explanation is: The Wheel of Life by Barbara O'Brien.