What could go wrong if one misconstrue Buddhism with nihilism?

I've no formal experience with borderline personality disorder, this answer isn't intended to be relevant to that.

I've seen posts on this site where people say, "If you don't believe in rebirth then you believe that death ends everything (and ends suffering). But if you really believed that death ends then why wouldn't you just kill yourself? Therefore you must believe in rebirth." I think that (i.e. the belief that death ends suffering) is one of what Buddhism identifies as "a wrong view" and might be translated as nihilism (or "annihilationism"). There's even a sutta in which some monks do kill themselves and the Buddha clarifies that that wasn't right.

Conversely I think that the (non-Buddhist) Bhagavad Gita too seems like a wrong view to me (at least as far as I understand it). I think there's a scene where someone is faced with 'enemies' before a battle, and he doesn't want to kill them because they're his kin, and the God says to him something like, "But they're going to die anyway, everyone does, they're mortal[s]. Now you should go and fight (and kill) them because that's your social duty, the job you were born to do (by being born into the warrior or ruling class, I guess), and therefore your holy duty." The Buddhist doctrines of emptiness and anatta notwithstanding, I think that "There is no father, no mother, no teachers" and so on is explicitly declared to be another wrong view.

There's a hint of that in the Zen story which is titled, Nothing Exists.

That's about it, I'm not sure what else would count as nihilism. Possibly despair, a feeling of helpless -- or a feeling of heedlessness -- a view like, "It's all impermanent, nothing makes any difference, no point in even trying anything."

I read the link you posted, e.g. ...

  Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment by friends and family

... but, sorry, I'm not sure how to advise about that or even what it has to do with nihilism exactly. I think I see it's related to psychological "attachment theory". The Buddhist doctrine I've learned doesn't seem to me to be very much about such relationships, except things like this and doctrine about the brahmaviharas. And the "refuges", the three jewels, suggest maybe people shouldn't put their faith in friends and family and so on.

On the other hand something like DN 31 says there is such a thing as proper behaviour for a layperson, and there is a difference between a good friend and a bad friend, that there are duties between between family members (and so perhaps to that extent, "good" and "bad" family members), maybe that's worth knowing too.

...  so they want to limit relationships at all cost to protect the person involving them.

I suppose it's because a therapist isn't too attached, and because they're motivated to "first, behave ethically (and/or 'professionally')", and is "disinterested" i.e. needs no help from the patient, but not "uninterested" so there is two-way communication, I think those are reasons why a  a patient needn't fear that they may hurt and therefore must protect their therapist (though shying away might be a habit that's hard to break, and sharing personal information might be a skill like any other which if it hasn't been learned already might be difficult to practice).

Instead of being entangled (in a relationship), protecting a partner or protecting oneself from a partner, perhaps with a therapist it's clearer (to the patient) that it's the patient who will "inherit their own kamma":

  I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir...

I think that that doctrine -- that reflection or observation -- is used, to say that it matters what you do and what you intend: because that actually makes a difference (to you, to your future self, and/or to whoever may exist in the future).

I think that Buddhism also uses this doctrine to teach some equanimity towards others (e.g. that "they are heir to their own kamma") -- the brahmaviharas -- i.e. you're supposed to feel kindness and compassion (maybe being harmless and helpful, not hurtful), and admiration (for someone's virtues, instead of being jealous or pitying), but also equanimity (disentangling).

The bit about heedlessness is what I'm talking about. Can you elaborate?

I think that the "there's nothing I can do that makes a difference" view is a wrong view, perhaps canonically associated with a view that "what happens is predetermined or predestined" -- possibly a clockwork universe theory -- i.e. that past kamma determines everything about "now", and will also continue to determine everything about the future, and so there's no sense in trying and no personal responsibility for anything.

I think the Buddhist view is that, in contrast, a) kamma is intentional action; b) past kamma does affect the present but isn't the only thing that affects the present (e.g. a hurricane isn't a result of kamma, though how you react to a hurricane might well be); c) what you do now (and what you intend now, i.e. new kamma) does make a difference -- whether you intend good, intend evil, or even intend to "end" kamma.

Also if the "clockwork universe" theory is about physics, Buddhism is about the mind, for example:

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Being "heedful" in't easy. Canonically it was the Buddhas final advice, the last words of the Buddha:

  vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā

The opposite of "heedfulness" might be likened to a "drunkenness".

I say "not easy", maybe it's like that famous bit of advice to Christians, "be perfect".

Anyway I think that being "heedful" may be related to being "mindful", some ability to concentrate, or if not  "concentrated" then to not get carried away -- to remain in the present.

Incidentally the classifications in the DSM are quite approximate:

It says e.g. "this not that" where really people are a bit of both
Also "this" might be a characteristic of relatively healthy people too, what makes it unhealthy is a matter of degree (doing it "excessively"), where the definition of "excessive" is difficult to assess if you're, like, not professionally trained, and to some extent it's a matter of personal choice.

Anyway, apart from "BPD" there's another diagnosis, "PTSD", which for all I know (i.e. little) might be similar in one way -- i.e. it's where someone has (had) a traumatic experience and keeps "re-living" it. One of the psycho-therapeutic therapies for that is what they call "mindfulness" (that's probably not exactly what the Buddhist canon defines as "mindfulness", but still), especially trying to be mindful of or to remember the present (instead of re-living the past).

It's "maladaptive" behaviour e.g. it's fearing a threat where there isn't (or shouldn't be) one in the present.

Perhaps that's some form of "attachment" but an attachment to a past undesirable event.

An actually that might be another side to "impermanence" i.e. sometimes it's difficult to get that some past threat, a threatening situation, is over and finished, that the present situation is different, is changing.

I imagine there are lot of ways in which Buddhist doctrinal views could be applied to psychotherapy, or vice versa, maybe I see some parallels (but I haven't experienced that, not been trained).


Guidance for how to handle stomach problems arising during Vipassana?

When practicing vipassana, you simply just witness whatever sensations that are happening moment to moment. If a mental reaction arises as you focus on the belly, like a thought, an opinion or a feeling then simply note it and go back to the belly. If you can't  feel anything then note whatever reality is in your attention at that moment and if it seems like nothing then it's ok to note "nothing". Maybe you would be waiting for the breath to arise, if so you could note "waiting". You know, even if you get confused in your practice you can note "confused".

Truth itself is not dangerous but our reactions to truth can be dangerous. If you feel a bodily sensation isn't right then you might note in your head "doubt", "fear or whatever seems appropriate. Of course call a doctor if by "not right" you mean you might have something physically wrong.

Getting a good teacher is one of the most fundamentally  beneficial things a meditator can do. If you have one be sure and ask them about any outside advice you get.


Taking refuge in the three jewels with respect to DN 26

The Buddha is the Dhamma; the Dhamma is the Buddha (SN 22.87).

The Sangha are (only) those realizers of the Dhamma.


When your thought arises, it is thought entering your mind's sense door. This is then followed by sensations and/or feelings arising. Because you can't see the subtleties why this thought of yours is arising, you think that it is not according to the teachings.

Putting too much attention on such subtle things as thoughts, sensations, feelings and what arises/comes first, etc. during meditation should be avoided, because most people's meditation skills are not high enough to see these subtle things and their order of appearance. Even if somebody has high meditation skills to see these subtleties, others who are not skilled in meditation could easily misinterpret such teachings and/or think that something is different in their minds, which is not.


According to this Jainpedia page on Jain teachings on karma:

The karmas accrued over a lifetime trap the soul in the cycle of
births. The karmas mature by affecting the soul or the physical body
of its next lifetime or birth. When the body dies, the soul is born in
a different body, which is shaped by karmas from the previous birth
and the ones before that. The condition of the soul in that lifetime
is also influenced by karmas from previous incarnations. This cycle of
birth, death and life repeats endlessly while the soul has karmas
attached to it.
The soul yearns to fulfil its true nature, which it cannot do while it
is imprisoned within the cycle of rebirth. Only a soul without karma
can be liberated from the cycle of birth, reaching self-realisation.
Following the teachings of the Jinas and developing spiritually lead
to the prevention of new karmas entering the soul – saṃvara – and the
removal of existing karmas. ....
Destroying karmas that are attached to the soul requires ascetic
practices such as fasting, meditation and denying bodily needs and
comforts.

In MN 101, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:

All the happens to a person is due to past karma
Elimination of past karma is possible by penance
Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma
With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.
From MN 101:

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.


What is the school of Buddhism that believes in God?

I believe you are thinking of the Amitabha Buddha - which is the principal - or rather the most popular Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha

He's represented with the attribute Infinite Life and Infinite Light (of Wisdom) presiding over the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss (Sukhavati).

I am from a Chinese Buddhist organization which holds Chan lineage, but is non denominational, and devotion to Amitabha is one of the fundamental practices through the chanting of the Amitabha Sutra.

I will repeat what I have said else where about him:

After more than a year of chanting the sutra, my conclusion is that it is a metaphor for the Dharma! Remember that Pure Land Buddhism is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore one of the highest goals is the Perfection of Skillful Means (Upaya Paramita). Mahayana texts utilize fantastical imageries and stories to bring across the difficult to understand technical concepts and teachings in early Buddhism, preserved in the Pali Canon and the Sanskrit Agama.

Imagine your average person being told about the Four Noble Truths, Suffering, Cause of suffering, End of Suffering and the Noble Eightfold Path. It doesn't interest him - "Give up my desires? That's ridiculous! And end of suffering doesn't sound exciting at all! Impermanence sounds so depressing!"

So this is where Pure Land Buddhism comes in. "What if we tell you that there is a place called the World of Supreme Bliss better than any worldly pleasures? And to reach there you need chant this sutra everyday, and I promise you Amitabha Buddha will appear before you". If you didn't realize, chanting is actually a very powerful form of meditation, in fact for the novice, it is faster and more effective than sitting meditation and trying to watch your breath. Here your attention and focus is on the sutra, attaining Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. With that it is possible to experiences the mental factors of the Jhana, joy, happiness, peace, and realizations.

Further more the description of the Pure Land has peppered references throughout to the numbers four, seven and eight. Referring to the Four Noble Truths, Seven Factor of Enlightenment, Noble Eightfold Path.

There are many other messages within. For example, the name of Amitabha himself is Infinite Life and Infinite Light, referring to the Deathless Truth and Wisdom of the Dharma, reminding people that ultimately the goal of Buddhism is Eternal Life, and that the buddhas are ultimately immortal.

Further more it is stated in sutra that in the Pure Land of Amitabha, even lower realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animals) do not exist, this is a Mahayana message that ultimately the goal is not only to save yourself, but purify the whole world. Pure Land Buddhists vow to turn this very world into a paradise. And have a Pure Land in their hearts wherever they maybe.

At the end of the Amitabha sutra, the theme of perfection of skillful means repeats, It said that to attain enlightenment is difficult, but what is even more difficult is to teach it.

There are many other messages which I am slowly absorbing as I encounter them, but I hope this clarify the intentions of Pure Land Buddhism.


Differences of Ultimate Realities in different traditions

There are those traditions that disregard pursuing an "ultimate reality." In Tools of Perception (and mp3), Thanissaro says:

There's a point where the perceptions have done their work and you put them aside. That's the correct use of all the different ideas and concepts that we pick up from the study of the dhamma. The incorrect use is to say there is an ultimate view of reality and there are conventional views of reality and what we're trying to do is get the ultimate view which describes things as they really are.
And so you latch on to those ideas: okay, this is ultimate reality and you hold on to it as if you could hold reality in words. But if you hold on to it with words, what are you doing with it?

His point being that even if you found an "ultimate" reality, what use is it compared to what your actions are? What use is having a mental description of something when the mind has not gone beyond suffering:

So we're not trying to get to an ultimate description of reality, we're trying to get to an end of suffering--two very different things.


How does the practice of Buddhism look at preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions?

Preconceived ideas, assumptions, notions and habits are what we try to understand and do away with in Buddhism.

Through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path we come to understand the Four Noble Truths. We gain Samma Ditthi - Right View, i.e. the understanding of the four noble truths and the true nature of reality.

When practicing insight meditation one is observing ones mind with detachment, objectivity, non-judgement and non-interfering. That allows the mental and physical phenomena to show themselves, to reveal there true nature. They are allowed to "speak" for themselves without us extrapolating on them.

When not being mindful and not guarding the sense doors, the third and fifth aggregate, i.e. Sanna and Vinyana creates misconceptions and extrapolates on phenomena.

Paticca Sammupada - The doctrine of dependent origination shows how our misconceptions of reality arise. How we begin to like or dislike phenomena because we have wrong view. We think phenomena are permanent, satisfying and controllable and therefore we want them, we cling to them or we dont want them and try to get away from them.

When guarding the sense doors one is not falling into delusion. Instead one is seeing reality for what it is, i.e. the 3 signs of existence: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta.

When one is practicing insight meditation one sees for oneself how conditioned habits, ideas and notions arise. Things that have been build up over a long period of time. In a way we learn to "unlearn". When practicing this path we shed our delusional shell. We do away with illusions about reality. Things go from complex to very simple.

When practice gets more advanced one begins to see non-self, i.e. that phenomena are uncontrollable, ungovernable and thereby oppressing. One sees that there is no substantiality, no inner-core, no permanent self, no experiencing entity. Instead one sees that there is only phenomena arising and ceasing and mind arising to these phenomena. Thats all there is.

Preconceived ideas, assumptions and notions are conditioned and a product of having wrong view. It's like a scientist having a theory about gravity. When he is only intellectually interacting with the theory he will have no real point of reference and therefore he does not know whether or not his theory is correct.
He then decides to test his theory on reality and then finds out that his theory was not correct. He then got a point of reference. He has done away with wrong view and have now seen reality.

This is example is not the best one but i hope it gives an idea of what we are talking about here. Before practicing insight meditation one might believe that conditioned phenomena will make one happy. After having practiced insight meditation and gotten some insight into how reality functions and one has seen that phenomena are impermanent one come to the conclusion that conditioned phenomena are not lasting and therefore not satisfying. One has then achieved a greater deal of Right View.

So to sum up. Preconceived ideas, habits, notions and assumptions cannot help us if they are blocking us from seeing the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality will reveal itself when practicing insight meditation and being mindful of phenomena. Then we come to develop right view and naturally wrong views fall away.


The term Tathagata is gramatically ambiguous. You can parse it in two main ways. You can parse it as Tatha+gata, "He who has gone thus" which refers to going over to the other shore, which is a title of Nirvana, or you can take it as Tatha+agata (in which case the first a in agata drops out due to Sandhi) which means "He who has come thus" referring to coming to see the truth, or as "He who has come to see thus" because the term thus here is related to the term Tathata, meaning suchness, which is another title of Nirvana.


Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard to one's reputations: What to practice in order to get rid of it?

At the surface, you can look at how we do unskilled bodily, verbal and metal volitional formations due to stinginess for reputation (vanna maccariya). For example, one utters false speech to maintain a status. One kills, steals, etc. (all 10 can be looked at this way).

But to understand this in the Noble sense, you need to first understand the arising phenomena of stinginess. As explained in the Vattupama Sutta (Simile of the Cloth) it can be understood that it is because of Disparaging (palaso); and underneath that is difference in volitional formations (sankhara). For example, the person who lies to maintain a reputation have given different values to such statuses and disparage one status over another and holding on to that idea now doing even immoral acts (dussilam) to maintain it. This way we roam in samsara.

In order to go further deep, you need to understand how the stream of consciousness flow. You may not understand that without the pre-requisite dhamma therefore I won't try to explain it here.

Stinginess for reputation is connected with misapprehending feeling as pleasure but it has to be understood with above flow of consciousness and how the five-fold stinginess attributing to each other to maintain the flow.

Person who has destroyed all cankers (i.e. an arahat) does not have stinginess.

If you are interested in learning more, take a look at discussions in English stream on this website: https://visuddhimagga.info/


Is Buddhism about being less "sensitive"?

The effect that the emotion has on you to evoke an immediate reaction has reduced. But you will still feel emotions normally. You start to see emotions as a part of the whole play of things. They come to pass, when earlier you just reacted to everything. This is a sort of calmed reaction to any emotion. Having said that, Buddhism is sensitive in that it has compassion in it which is something like how Jesus said, "they know not what they are doing, forgive them", when he was being nailed to the cross. He was able to forgive them even as they were doing that horrific thing to him. That is compassion.


Is the role of rogyapas in sky burials considered unclean by Tibetan Buddhists?

Quoting from the Pali texts (not Tibetan literature)...
The first thing I notice is in the Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16):

Then Anuruddha said to Ānanda, “Go, Ānanda, into Kusinārā and inform the Mallas: ‘Vāseṭṭhas, the Buddha has become fully extinguished. Please come at your convenience.’”

Or I've seen this translation:

At that time the Mallas of Kusinara had gathered in the council hall to consider that very matter. And the Venerable Ananda approached them and announced: "The Blessed One, Vasetthas, has passed away. Do now as seems fitting to you."

In summary it's the responsibility of the local lay society.
Looking into the Vinaya I find this:

Funerals
Unlike some of the other early Vinayas, the Pali Vinaya contains no rules on how to conduct the funeral of a dead bhikkhu or novice. Writers have speculated as to why this is so, but the speculation tends to say more about the writers than about the Vinaya. The practical upshot is that the Community (or the bhikkhu’s friends, relatives, etc.) may dispose of his body as they see fit in line with local custom and law. DN 16 states that an arahant, after death, deserves to have a stūpa built over his/her remains, but the Vinaya contains no rule to enforce this.
One issue that arises at present is the custom of willing one’s body to medical science. Because there is no rule that the bhikkhu’s body (as opposed to his belongings) belongs to the Community, if he has willed his body in this way his wishes may be honored.
Another issue arising at present is the cost of a funeral. In the Buddha’s time, funerals could cost nothing. The body would either be cremated, in which case wood was easy to find in the ubiquitous forest, or the body would be exposed in a charnel ground, which involved little effort and no expense. At present, with the high cost of funerals, the tradition in Thailand is a useful adaptation of the Vinaya’s rules. There, if no one else volunteers to sponsor a dead bhikkhu’s funeral, the Community itself is the sponsor, and the funds for the funeral come first from his belongings. Only if any of his light articles and requisites remain after the funeral are they divided among the Community’s members.

That doesn't say it's "considered unclean" -- but does continue the theme of its being a responsibility for lay-folk -- and perhaps in that way, "not appropriate for monks".
Also I do gather that in Tibetan society, a lot of the "manual labour" tasks were done by lay-people -- I think that's generally true of other Buddhist societies too, though apparently monks may do some forms of physical work (e.g. building or maintaining a monastery).
I get the impression that there were no "body-breakers" in the society associated with the Pali texts -- that corpses were taken intact to "charnel grounds" (Sivathika) and left there unbroken to decay.

Incidentally I'd normally associate the word "unclean" as referring to a Western understanding of the Indian caste system -- see Untouchability -- whose jobs tended to be literally/physically polluting e.g. emptying latrines.

Occupations
In the past, they were believed to be so impure that caste Hindus considered their presence to be polluting. The "impure status" was related to their historic hereditary occupations that caste Hindus considered to be "polluting" or debased, such as working with leather, disposing of dead animals, manual scavenging, or sanitation work.

I don't know if there was an equivalent practice in Tibetan society.
I guess that dismembering corpses might be unclean or polluting -- dangerous for medical reasons -- so if it were considered ritually or professionally unclean that might be part of the reason (though this is not exactly what you were asking for).


Using music to uplift mood and alleviate depression

Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to
  uplift one's mood and alleviate depression?

Yes, if you are a layman and if you are not observing the 8 precepts.

  If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered
  unwholesome and against the seventh precept?

'Uplifting' here means inducing pleasurable thoughts/feelings. Even Marjuana can do that. Some people eat sweets to uplift themselves. Uplifting doesn't mean wholesome. It's important to note that hearing music by chance does not break the precept. Listening intently breaks the precept.

  How does music cause attachment or craving?

Music is sound that is pleasurable. Wanting to hear pleasurable sounds is a sign of craving.


From Abhaya sutta:

  [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  [2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  [4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html

This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. Timing becomes a factor.

What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing & agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose.


Is the reputation system counterproductive to Buddhist practice?

I think the credit and approval system does what it's supposed to do: highlight the best answers to a question. The fact that it inflates the ego of some vain people is not the problem of the moderation system: it's the problem of the people's vanity. In the same way we don't blame on cars the fact that some people drive dangerously.

You cannot blame a tool for what people make of it. A tool is not good or bad, it's just suitable or not.


Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it?

Not everything is caused by karma. Some things are caused by other reasons, like the weather. The Sivaka Sutta talks about this. There's a summary at the bottom:

Bile, phlegm, and also wind,
Imbalance and climate too,
Carelessness and assault,
With kamma result as the eighth.

To quote the sutta in detail:

“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
… caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they
overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say
that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

The Acintita Sutta states that you can't work out karma and its results precisely:

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

What's more skillful is to develop one's virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña) as stated in the Lonaphala Sutta. That will mitigate the ill effects of past karma (actions).
As for future karma (actions), to avoid accumulating karma debts, it is skillful to adopt the following skillful thinking from the Themes Sutta:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’


Is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable?

All conditioner have 3 sub-characteristics (upāda[jāti], ṭhiti[jarā], and bhaṅga[maraṇa]) according to the description of 5 aggregates and 12 dependent originations.
Saṅkhāra means cause of effects. This is conditioner aggregate of dependent origination.

Saṅkhata means effect of causes. This is conditioned aggregate of dependent origination.

Because saṅkhāra of saṅkhata, have to be saṅkhata of the other saṅkhāra.

So, nothing is no condition, except nibbāna. And that everything, except nibbāna, must be changed (jāti, jarā, and maraṇa) by it's multi-conditioners.


Is Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra later creation?

I cite here from my older discussion, where I copied&pasted from a website on the MPNS but which possibly does no more exist, didn't check it (but noticed such a remark in a more recent discussion found via google).

(my original compilation should be findable using google on the newsgroup de.soc.weltanschauung.buddhismus beginning at 10.apr.2007)

  (...)
  Historical Background (2)
  There follows a fascinating, informative and thought-provoking
  lecture (originally delivered at the University of London, SOAS, in
  early spring 2006) by Buddhist scholar and translator, Stephen
  Hodge, on the Tibetan version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. I here
  hand over to Stephen!
  [S.Hodge]
  (...)
  It seems reasonable from the chronological data alone to deduce that
  the MPNS was formed during the Úâtavâhana era. The Mahâmegha-sûtra,
  which is a precursor to the MPNS itself, mentions a Úâtavâhana king
  who was the “restorer of the lineage” and this must be none other
  than Gautamîputra Úâtakarn.i (r106- 130 CE),
  (...)
  Virtually 90% of the remaining text of the MPNS involves this person
  as the untiring interlocutor who by his questioning draws out of the
  Buddha a wealth of teachings concerning the permanence of the
  Buddha, the importance of preserving the authentic Vinaya, the need
  to purge the San.gha of miscreant monks, the importance of upholding
  and promulgating the MPNS, and most of all the tathâgata-garbha
  doctrines. Is it possible that we are hearing the actual voice of a
  historical individual , called Sarvasattva-priya-darúana by his
  devoted followers, his words transformed into a sûtra format to
  ensure the preservation and dissemination of his teachings ?
  THE ICCHANTIKAS
  (...) help, who are excluded from this message of hope: a group of
  people collectively known as the icchantikas - the “extremists”.
  In the later strata of the text, the MPNS fulminates stridently
  against these people, repeating statements like
  “apart from icchantikas, the cause of enlightenment will become
  present in everybody”
  or
  “even those who commit the downfalls or perpetrate the heinous deeds
  and those who believe that the generation of the aspiration to
  enlightenment to be unnecessary will be established in the cause of
  enlightenment - apart from icchantikas who are like death”.
  So who were these people that the MPNS calls “virulent serpents” ?
  This question is succinctly answered thus - “any person, no matter
  whether they are a monk, a nun, a lay-man or lay-woman, who rejects
  this sûtra with abusive words, and does not even ask for forgiveness
  afterwards, has entered the icchantika path . . . . Those who have
  no concern about the
  (...)
  And make no mistake about this - the fate of the icchantikas is
  indeed terrifying, for the sûtra says,
  “the cause of enlightenment will not be and cannot possibly be
  engendered in icchantikas”,
  “they resemble burnt seeds because they have extinguished their
  wholesome roots”,
  “the icchantika has no seed and there is no possibility of him
  having any thought of confessing and begging for forgiveness”.
  In other words, the MPNS is quite emphatic in its view that these
  icchantikas will never awaken the potential of their
  tathâgatagarbha, never achieve liberation and never become Buddhas
  throughout all eternity.
  CONCLUSION
  There is one final twist to the story. As we have seen, the sad-
  dharma and the bodhisattvas who uphold it were predicted to
  disappear around 220CE, if our calculations are correct. It seems
  likely that the MPNS was circulated as the final life- belt for the
  sinking raft of the Dharma - those who had ears to hear had this
  last opportunity to save themselves. But what then ? No more
  authentic Dharma, no more true teachers and no hint here of future
  Buddha-saviours to come in this corner of sam.sâra. In fact, there
  is this chilling passage in the MPNS:
  “Who do not see the goal ? It is the icchantikas who will not see
  the goal, for they will not see the goal as long as cyclic existence
  lasts. I have summarized and taught the significance of this, but
  you should fear what is extremely fearful ! Supposing that all
  beings in unison were to become fully awakened to supreme and
  perfect enlightenment, then even if it were possible for the sinful
  icchantikas to become fully awakened to supreme and perfect
  enlightenment, they would not see the goal. In that manner, you, o
  hero, should understand things !
  “Whose goal does not end in failure ? The Tathâgata's goal does not
  end in failure. When all beings who dwell in the cycle of existence
  have become fully awakened to supreme and perfect enlightenment,
  then the Tathâgata's goal will not have ended in failure and then,
  having passed into parinirvân.a eternally, the Buddha will become
  impermanent, like the flame of a lamp whose wick has been consumed.”

Hieran anschließend folgt die Einschätzung:

  in this world - and eventually in the entire universe. Then, those
  who by definition can never be liberated - the icchantikas - will be
  left behind to wander lost life-time after lifetime for all
  eternity. What a bleak scenario !


Why do I get a feeling on my forehead as if someone is touching it during meditation?

Due to ones past store of conditioning one gets different experiences. The main thing is not to attach too much importance to these experiences as thinking about it will be a distraction main task at hand which is the meditation and also perhaps a source of attachment or aversion on how you react to it which is also decremental to meditation.


When should I stop my brain from going on auto-pilot mode?

Never ever go on "auto-pilot", might it because diffuseness seems to be most unproblematic. That's "animal practice" and absence of mindfulness and investigation, does not lead to discerment and bear a lot of dangers.

When doing, experiencing, what ever phenomena arises: know, investigate, judge it.

As for actions (body, word, thoughts):

  The Lost Wallet

  It's as if you leave home and lose your wallet. It fell out of your pocket onto the road away back there, but as long as you don't realize what happened you're at ease — at ease because you don't yet know what this ease is for. It's for the sake of dis-ease at a later time. When you eventually see that you've really lost your money: That's when you feel dis-ease — when it's right in your face.

  The same holds true with our bad and good actions. The Buddha taught us to acquaint ourselves with these things. If we aren't acquainted with these things, we'll have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad.

A maybe good and helpful talk on this matter, also in regard of the other current question by same questioner, by you:

  Seeds of Becoming , by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

  The author points out the place where we are able to lean to understand all issues which are moving this world. A Dhammatalk on Bhava (Becoming) and how we are able to transcendent birth, aging, sickness and death, exactly here and now.

  ...what happens a lot of times when people travel on a road day after day they start blanking out, actually stop noticing things. It's **like a person gets into a state of concentration and then just doesn't want to develop any discernment, just likes the blanking out, or the stillness, and just holds onto that and gets oblivious to other things, like the person who drives the road from the Valley Center to Escondido every day, after a while you just don't notice anything. It's where a lot of people are, their brains just go into automatic pilot...*

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


What is the link between calligraphy and Zen?

According to the short description of this book calligraphy predated the development of Buddhism in China and Japan. It also says the following about calligraphy:

  "... Calligraphy executed by Zen masters is said to reveal their understanding of the Dharma. It is common practice Zen monks and nuns to learn the art of calligraphy as a part of their monastic training..."

Here you can see some calligraphy letters used in Zen Buddhism and here is a Prezi presentation of Buddhism and Calligraphy. Here is a quote from the presentation:

  "... There are strokes in the characters as there are "eyes" in the sentences of Zen masters. Only those who have the "eyes" can know it. - Huang Tingjian.

Here is a very interesting website on Buddhist Calligraphy in ancient China. In here you will find:

Relationship between Buddhism and Calligraphy
Forms of Buddhist Calligraphy
Calligraphy in Manuscripts
Calligraphy in Inscriptions
Calligraphy and Buddhist Practice

Here is an article on Zen Art. This is a quote from the artiel:

  "... There is a tradition of art practice within Zen. Art arises spontaneously and manifests the buddha-nature within you. Art practice is mindfulness training. The art relies on a foundation of technical training that is then expressed in spontaneous practice. Zen art tends to be simple, sometimes stark, and always lovely ..."

And another quote:

  "... Japanese calligraphy is an art form spiritually expressed through Zen. The artist must be in touch with buddha-nature in order to create an expression of enlightenment. The brush stroke must come from a union with the world; no separation must exist — no I and pen, just the act itself. Japanese calligraphy dates back to the seventh century, where it was part of art practice and meditation in monasteries. Often, the subject of a Japanese calligraphy and painting would be a koan. One of the most common examples of zenga is the open circle, called enso. The simplicity of the enso was particularly popular during the Edo period of Japan in the eighteenth century. Enso symbolized enlightenment, emptiness, and life itself. In the series of ox-herding pictures previously mentioned, the eighth step in the sequence (both ox and self vanish) is represented by enso. During the execution of the calligraphy, the slightest hesitation on the part of the artist will cause the ink to blot on the thin rice paper, and the calligraphy will be ruined. Technique is learned and perfected over many years before such spontaneity is possible. Once the boundary between art supplies, art, and self are gone, the art can be executed ..."

Lanka


What does "heard" mean in "I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected..."

This translation says,

  If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it.

This commentary says,

  Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
  bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
  purpose of feeding bhikkhus.

Both of these imply only the first of your two possibilities.


The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method.

The Buddha's primary insight was acknowledging that all observed phenomena are conditioned and impermanent. This is not a speculation, but an observation. The reasoning then goes through the logical inference of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, stress/suffering - impermanent things cannot be permanently satisfactory), bringing around the doctrine of non-Self, anatta - which does requires faith in that the direct observation of this truth is only available upon enlightenment, or the ceasing of mental fermentations.

The Kalama Sutta and MN27 offer direct evidence that the Buddha's message was closer to a scientific method than a religion, though one with a soteriological goal.

  "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.'

(the above does still feature the wise, but not as absolute arbiters of right or wrong actions - that arbiter is solely the individual living his own practice, the wise offer previously gained experience, and are more accurately guides)

The similarities or differences between the modern scientific method and religions in general is what sources they accept for stated truths. Pramanas are a helpful guide for Hindu religions, but can be extrapolated to the Judeo-Christian world a bit.

Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link. Buddhism does not. Aside from direct perception as in MN27, inference is used in a limited way - as above when going from impermanence to non-Self, an inferred knowledge is gained about the nature of 'things', but this is not directly observed until nibbana, and inferred truths are not given any great weight within the scriptures. In addition, inferred truths can only arise from individually observed principles, so they rest on a base that is less prone to doubt than inferred truths resting on the base of prophetic statements etc.

Faith is required by a person who reads the Dhamma with respect to impermanence, if they at first disagree with it, and later non-Self, because gaining direct insight into this truth takes much more time and practice. Faith, so long as it starts from a verifiable base, is not by definition religious.

If you want the spiritual side, go to the source and read the Pali canon or Agamas (Chinese line), these are the closest you will get to the Buddha's direct words. There is philosophy, to the limit that it is a useful tool for gaining insight into things as they are, more often though it offers more practical lessons helping one aim for pacification of mind.

If you want the philosophy first, read Mulamadhyamakakarika - it is the culmination of Buddhist philosophical analysis. This is written 600-700 years after the Buddha, so is a more rigorous analysis of the above canon's statements on anatta.

It is, of course, possible to elevate Dhamma, 'things as they are', into a religion, and layties that have accepted Buddhism have often merged their cultural identities with the Buddha's message. But, to quote MN22, which sums up the process:

  “And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose
  burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer
  subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
  whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.

  “Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.

  “So saying, bhikkhus, so
  proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse
  Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’

  “Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the
  cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the
  Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no annoyance,
  bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect,
  revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that
  account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others
  honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the
  Tathāgata on that account thinks thus: ‘They perform such services as
  these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’

Religion - more broadly, any ideology - in my mind, ask for blind faith. The Buddha's message was only about dukkha and how be free of it. His method requires each individual to follow their own path, with an observer verifiable rationale behind it - blind faith never features.


What is the difference between a Vipassana Jhana and a Samatha Jhana?

There is no samatha jhana nor is there vipassana jhana mentioned in the suttas, I may have missed it!
There are the 4 rupa jhanas mentioned with each containing various jhana factors and 4 arupa jhanas.
IMHO, the distinction is made to rationalise some meditation practices which dispense with the development of jhanas as a necessary step.

Vipassanā jhanas are stages that describe the development of "vipassanā"meditation practice as described in modern Burmese Vipassana meditation.[31]
 Mahasi Sayadaw
's student Sayadaw U Pandita
 describes the four "vipassanā jhanas".

Origins

In the sutta pitaka the term "vipassanā" is hardly mentioned:
If you look directly at the Pali discourses — the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings — you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and vipassanā to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassanā — a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassanā," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassanā with any mindfulness techniques.[8]


How to avoid apathy in the absence of self?

Very good and relevant question. Based on hearsay and my own experience, I suspect this problem is rather common with serious, sincere practitioners.

On one hand, it is totally normal to keep getting dispassionate and detached as you grow your "eye of no-self". After all, the Buddhist realization was described by the Buddha himself as "dispassionment, disillusionment, disenchantment, nibbana" (or something like that).

On the other hand, putting too much faith in this idea of no-self (and its concomitants of "no future to strive for", "no sentient beings to save" etc.) as some kind of Final Truth indicates incomplete understanding of Dharma, at best.

In fact, my teacher strongly insisted that "3D vision occurs when you look with both eyes". Meaning, the anatta view and the "atta" view - are the two eyes. In one, there is no sentient beings and no suffering, no Path, no Attainment etc (quote the rest of the Heart Sutra) - and in the other there are countless sentient beings who suffer and need help. Enlightenment is called "the knowledge of all modes" exactly because it involves going beyond a single perspective, and seeing all perspectives (all "worlds") at once. Enlightenment is the pinnacle of empathy because it involves appreciating all perspectives out there, including perspectives of the most unfortunate, confused, and suffering sentient beings.

As your realization of Emptiness matures, the idea of single correct point of view, or the idea of absolute truth should start making less and less sense to you. At the same time, being able to see things from other perspectives - and empathize their pain, which for them is certainly real! - is the foundation of enlightened compassion.

The dispassion that comes from liberation from any single point of view (atta, anatta, and all the others) and the compassion that comes from a realization that most of the sentient life is locked into a single point of view are the two signs of correct realization.

The above is about the View. As for the Action, this sense of apathy probably comes from an established habit of living a spiritually sterile life. The same exact principle is at work here. While you cling to a single point of view (that of spirituality), you try to be as honest to that as possible and this leads to this sterile lifestyle. Once you realize that Emptiness means no absolute reference point and this realization sinks in to the level of daily life, you will no longer be restricted by one model of behavior. Then your life can start getting back the colors -- without the passions that came from taking it all too seriously.


What am I doing to my self to make my natural state "I am trapped in pain" (This seems like a must for me and there is nothing I can do about it)

when the vision or clear seeing of "i am not my feelings" or "there is no self that feels" it brings me back automatically without my free will or volition to the situation that I am trapped in pain

I sympathise, I hope someone gives you a good answer.

I think my experience and the Dhamma includes something like,

Feelings arise, and cease (and arise again later, etc.)
Whether they arise depends on whether you "feed" them

I'm not sure how to explain feeding, it might include "delighting in" a feeling -- but "delight" doesn't seem a good description when it's a "negative" feeling like fear -- instead of "delight" maybe feeding a feeling also includes developing a "view" like "this is me" and "this is my feeling"

See also an answer to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for a further description of the difference between a "view" and a more transient conceit.
When they arise and cease (which might be frequently), there may be other feelings and thoughts (perceptions) and so on come to mind -- even including for example awareness of breathing, remembering Dhamma
Some changes happen quickly, and some slowly, the arising-and-cessation of a feeling may be a pattern which repeats itself -- and (perhaps if you don't feed it) changes gradually, by which I mean over the course of even a couple of years or more
I think we're taught that feelings arise from "contact" -- perhaps that means contact with a perception, a thought-object or memory -- one of the "slow changes" which might happen is that the contact (or trigger) continues to arise, but the feeling about it changes (or plural, the feelings about it change)
We're also taught that craving arises from feeling -- including for example the craving for cessation, the craving that a feeling might cease -- and that it's the craving (not just the feeling) which is dukkha -- so that's another point on the wheel at which to affect the cycle, i.e. to recognise that it's with craving that dukkha arises and ceases, recognise dukkha, let "craving" cease

that would mean that my mind,mind object and mind conciousness are contacting at the moment

Yes I think so from my experience -- some kind of "memory".

I'm not sure how exactly fits into the Dhamma of the 12 nidanas -- perhaps memory is a sankhara; and/or perhaps "memory" is simply our name for the re-arising of something, whether that's the re-arising of a view (perhaps a view of self), or a feeling, or situation (a memorable event).

I inexpertly classify those as, generally and simply, mind-objects (then there's contact between mind-object, mind-organ, and mind-consciousness).

How would I be able to stop it

My experience it you can't, contact just happens. But your reaction to it might change, become less painful, when you begin to see it from the perspective of the dhamma (non-self, uncontrollable, impermanent) and to identify components (e.g. craving and attachment) which are what make it painful.

Also if the mind is like a pool of water you might not control the waves which peak and drop, arise and disappear, each moment on the surface -- even so you might affect how agitated the water is, so it might become more or less troubled.

In other words is the feeling inside the mind object. or is it something different that arises after

I think the doctrine of the 12 nidanas says that contact causes feeling causes craving (which is suffering).

I'm not sure that's helpful since by the time you're suffering it has all already happened, so it might be more useful to think of them as "co-arising" or "arising together" -- and as beginning to cease when any of it weakens.

As those (suffering) thought-moments begin to pass or weaken, other moments arise, for example maybe contact with breathing or with memory-of-dhamma.

I'm not sure whether those other contact cause the cessation of suffering or merely co-arise with the cessation, it's probably true to say they at least don't "feed" the suffering nor serve to prolong it (which i.e. "not feeding" is kind of what I was trying to get at in the original answer above).

This seems to be a big confusion for me that would help me to understand

There's a famous story of a "Gordian knot" I heard as a child. It was a famous knot made of rope, a puzzle, and the two ends (beginning and end) of the knot were hidden away within the knot, and nobody could figure out how to undo it -- until someone (who was a Greek equivalent of a world-conquering hero) arrived and, looked at it and, took his sword and just sliced right though it and it fell apart into pieces.

I think that "knot" might be like a "thicket" -- A thicket of wrong views -- and possibly specifically related to any kind of self-view.

Maybe though, I don't know, the Abhidhamma tries to analyse or inspect that kind of detail.

Honestly just by doing this analysis I feel better inside my body beacuse I feel I understand better what I am doing to my self :D

Glad to hear that. Awareness of breath -- tension and non-breathing may co-arise too.

You might also consider doing something else -- being generous, acquiring "merit", doing (ethical) things you don't regret -- maybe that kind of thing results in a different (better) kind of contact.


The article titled The Way of Wisdom says the following, which explains a connection between greed and faith,

It is usual to classify types of personality according to whether they are dominated by greed, hatred or confusion. Those who walk in greed are said to be more susceptible to faith than the other two, because of the kinship which exists between faith and greed. To quote Buddhaghosa (Visuddhimagga III,75):

"As on the unwholesome plane greed clings and takes no offense, so faith on the wholesome plane. As greed searches for objects of sense-desire, so faith for the qualities of morality, etc. As greed does not let go that which is harmful, so faith does not let go that which is beneficial."

So then, looking at the next section of Visuddhimagga, that explains a connection between aversion and wisdom (literally intelligence and understanding),

One of intelligent temperament is parallel to one of hating temperament
because understanding is strong when profitable [kamma] occurs in one of hating
temperament, owing to its special qualities being near to those of hate. For, in an
unprofitable way, hate is disaffected and does not hold to its object, and so, in a
profitable way, is understanding. Hate seeks out only unreal faults, while
understanding seeks out only real faults. And hate occurs in the mode of
condemning living beings, while understanding occurs in the mode of condemning
formations.

Reading further in the Visuddhimagga I don't see a similar relation delusion and equanimity. Paragraph 77 relates delusion with a "speculative" temperament:

One of speculative temperament is parallel to one of deluded temperament
because obstructive applied thoughts arise often in one of deluded temperament
who is striving to arouse unarisen profitable states, owing to their special qualities
being near to those of delusion. For just as delusion is restless owing to perplexity,
so are applied thoughts that are due to thinking over various aspects. And just as
delusion vacillates owing to superficiality, so do applied thoughts that are due to
facile conjecturing.

I'm not sure that "speculative" is good nor related to equanimity.
There is one paragraph later on, though, which clearly relates delusion with equanimity ... because, it says, delusion is an equanimity cased by unknowing,

And by seeing and so on: when one of greedy temperament sees even a slightly
pleasing visible object, he looks long as if surprised, he seizes on trivial virtues,
discounts genuine faults, and when departing, he does so with regret as if unwilling
to leave. When one of hating temperament sees even a slightly unpleasing visible
object, he avoids looking long as if he were tired, he picks out trivial faults, discounts
genuine virtues, and when departing, he does so without regret as if anxious to
leave. When one of deluded temperament sees any sort of visible object, he copies
what others do: if he hears others criticizing, he criticizes; if he hears others praising,
he praises; but actually he feels equanimity in himself—the equanimity of
unknowing. So too with sounds, and so on.

In summary:

Greed searches for and tries to keep for objects of sense-desire – faith searches for and tries to keep qualities of morality.
Aversion rejects things because it's of a hating temperament, and looks for unreal faults – wisdom rejects formations, and looks for real faults.
Delusion feels equanimity because it's ignorant.

The context comes from a previous paragraph, i.e. they're meant to be descriptions of different "temperaments".

But mundane concentration should be developed by one who has taken his
stand on virtue that is quite purified in the way already stated. He should sever
any of the ten impediments that he may have. He should then approach the good
friend, the giver of a meditation subject, and he should apprehend from among
the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament. After that he
should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and
go to live in one that is favourable. Then he should sever the lesser impediments
and not overlook any of the directions for development. This is in brief.


Wrathful Buddhas (or wrathful gurus for that matter) are not actually angry, in the way untrained people are. In Vajrayana before we even reach highest tantra, we learn to transmute emotions. If you are not good at it yet, at the very least you should be able to transmute anger into headache. Once you reach some mastery though, you can transmute any emotion into pure energy. When you have direct insight into the nature of mind, emptiness, attachments, and emotions - you can ride a wave of energy and even display wrath (an appearance of anger) without really taking it seriously. This is then used as a tool in those cases that demand such approach. Like getting angry at kids, you are half faking it, half letting yourself get carried by anger - to add your show more weight.


Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions

I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).

It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.

See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.

It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.

I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).

This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.

I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".


The key point here is that the concept of speed is dependent on space (speed = distance/time, distance = spatial position B - spatial position A), which in turn is a derived product of matter.

Mind, being immaterial (and moreover momentary), does not "move", per se. It arises based on one of the six senses and ceases in the next moment. It never takes up space, nor can it be said to "move" in ultimate reality.


The illusions and delusions of the world

The Theravada tradition has the concept of conventional truth and ultimate truth. You can read about it in this excellent answer.
It does not say that the universe is unreal. Rather, it differentiates what we sense from the six sense media, from the concepts that we create in our mind through reification (papanca).
Although the Buddha himself was fully enlightened and saw things exactly as they are, and did not cling to concocted concepts, yet he made use of concepts as far as they were useful. He did not cling to them but saw them as mere conventions. After all, are not the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha all mere concepts?
The monastic rules of the Vinaya has rules pertaining to food, lodging, medicine, conduct etc. There are rules pertaining to medical care. The Buddha ate, slept, wore robes, took medicine when he was ill etc.
The Middle Way of the Buddha avoids both extreme indulgence and extreme asceticism. It includes moderation in food, healthcare and living. To neglect healthcare is to go against the Middle Way of moderation.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: he does
what is not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount
in things amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does
not tell his symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse
desiring his welfare, saying that they are worse when they are worse,
improving when they are improving, or remaining the same when they are
remaining the same; and he is not the type who can endure bodily
feelings that are painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent,
disagreeable, life-threatening. A sick person endowed with these five
qualities is hard to tend to.
"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Based on this Vinaya quote, I would say that the Buddha himself would have wanted his followers to practice moderation, and accept the advice of healthcare professionals and the government when dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Also, spreading misinformation about Covid-19, masks and vaccines is against the fourth precept of not speaking falsehood.
Wearing a surgical mask is more for the wearer to avoid spreading pathogens to others, than for the wearer's own protection from contracting an infectious disease. As such, wearing a mask with the explicit intention of reducing others' suffering, is also an expression of compassion (karuna).
The quote from DN 26 below, also shows that the Buddha did not promote anarchy. He stated that the wheel-turning monarch should provide just protection and security to his subjects and also care for their welfare.

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

I would even say that a responsible Buddhist should support his or her government and follow its advice, if the government is discernibly doing the right thing, and if its advice is in accordance with the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood. For e.g. conscription into military service is against Right Livelihood.


How did Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche justify drinking alcohol?

Quoting from "Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa, with commentary by Longchen Yeshe Dorje, Kangyur Rinpoche, with a foreword by H.H. the Dalai Lama:

  Alcohol, the taking of which is a downfall according to the shravaka
  Pratimoksha and constitutes a fault in the bodhisattva discipline, is
  regarded in the Mantrayana as a substance of samaya that must
  always be present. The Guhyagarbha-tantra states:

    Meat and alcohol must not be lacking
    For they are substance of accomplishment,
    Food and drink, essences and fruits
    And all that is a pleasure to the senses.

  and also:

    In particular, it is improper for meat and alcohol to be lacking.

  It is taught that such substances are to be enjoyed by yogis who,
  by means of the practice of the stages of generation and perfection,
  are able to overcome the power of their thoughts—which at first
  seem so solid and real but which at length appear as the very deity. In
  general, this refers to the aspirational deity, for those who are on the
  path of accumulation; to the deity of wind-mind, for those who are
  on the path of joining; to the deity of luminosity, for those who are
  on the path of seeing; to the deity of the united level of learning, for those who are on the path of meditation; and to the deity of the
  united level of the Dharmakaya and Rupakaya, for those who are
  on the path of no more learning.

  Practitioners of the inner tantras of the Mantrayana act without
  dualistic clinging, in such a way as to support their view of the purity
  and equality of phenomena. Through the skillful means of the
  generation stage, their own aggregates and elements, the universe
  itself, and all the beings that inhabit it arise as the display of the deity,
  mantra, and mudra. Such practitioners bless the substances of the
  sacred feast, or tsok offering, transforming them into amrita. And
  when they enjoy them, the alcohol is no longer ordinary; neither is
  their attitude one of ordinary indulgence. Within this state of great
  purity and equality, their perceptions are transmuted and they
  experience themselves as the deity and the alcohol as amrita. In such
  circumstances, yogis and yoginis are allowed to consume alcohol.
  They do not cling, out of self-interest, to ethical precepts concerning
  what is to be adopted or abandoned, regarding them as truly existent
  and immutable values, and they are not attached to their self-image as
  bhikshus and bhikshunis. Neither do they cling to the notion of
  altruistic generosity in the relative, materialistic sense, clinging to the
  idea of being Bodhisattvas. Yogis and yoginis who are thus allowed to
  partake of alcohol are not like Shravakas, who must repudiate desire
  because they have no means whereby defilements and sensual
  pleasures may be harnessed on the spiritual path. Neither are such
  practitioners like ordinary people, who, in the grip of negativity,
  accumulate actions that propel them into samsaric existence. Through
  the profound yogas of generation and perfection, all perceptions are
  transmuted. All appearances become the infinite mandala of deities.
  The samaya substances, alcohol and so forth, are enjoyed as amrita,
  and for that reason they may be consumed. Not only is no fault
  committed but merit increases, for yogis and yoginis who enjoy such
  samaya substances are in fact making offerings to the Three Jewels
  and the Yidam deity. It is thus that their accumulation of merit and
  their development of spiritual qualities are enhanced far more
  intensely than if they were to make offerings to the Sangha—the
  Sangha, that is, composed of monks and nuns confined to the
  pratimoksha discipline, or of ordained Bodhisattvas who strive for the
  sake of others but who as yet lack the view of purity and equality.


What is the practice people call "shamata practice". Where did this idea come from?

The custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" probably originates from wrong or faulty practise, where excess or faulty suppression concentration causes calmness to predominate.
As for the original teachings attributed to the Buddha, 'samatha' is merely one of two results (the other being 'vipassana') of developing right concentration.

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for
him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight
(samatho  ca vipassanā ca).
MN 149

If we are not clear about what right & wrong concentration are, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa offered his opinion:

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.


Can meditation change your hormone and neurotransmitter system?

So far I have only one first-hand report of a practitioner diagnosed with ADD due to dopamine re-uptake problems, who says meditation helps him regulate the levels of dopamine.

From buddhist theory we know that the Four Jhanas meditation is intended to produce joy, which should correlate with the functioning of the reward mechanism of the brain, which is primarily dopamine-based. So another way to see the Jhanas, esp. the first and second one, is as mastery over one's dopamine levels by taking control of the reward mechanism.

As far the levels of other hormones and neurotransmitters, I can only assume they get "better", but there is nothing I know first-hand. A nice book on the topic seems to be Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness but I have not read it.


From a Buddhist point of view, what are the benefits of supernormal powers?

Just from inferring from the texts, you can see how the Buddhas ability to read people's minds allowed him to teach them exactly what they needed to hear. So such an ability would allow someone greater ability to teach people. I also seem to remember in the dhammapada, accounts of the Buddha using his omniscience, seeing understanding arising in monks minds, to telepathically communicate with the monks who were practicing far away in a forest to give them assurance on their path. So as far as I can tell, these powers are to be used to help others on their paths.


I imagine Buddhism is about following the path and then, if you can, influencing others to follow the path. I imagine Buddhists such as the Buddha or Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa had the ability to influence political activists & leaders. When I lived in Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's monastery, I met the Thai Prime Minister more than once.

However, I think Buddhists can only lead by example and be careful about how they engage in political talk. For example, Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa influenced many Communists, where I imagine some of them were "martyred" in the 1976 Thammasat University Massacre.

For example, the Dalai Lama mingles within the corridors of world power but Dalai Lama appears to not actually influence evil politicians to change their ways. It is the opposite. The evil leaders appear to use the Dalai Lama to make themselves look better. Dalai Lama was paid US$180,000 per year for many years by the CIA.

Famous monks such as Ajahn Brahm often name-drop how they know this politician & that politician but, at least in Australia, the political environment moves further & further away from Dhamma each day. In fact, Ajahn Brahm maintains harmful & dangerous political narratives, such as the myth of 'Islamic terrorism' (which, in reality, is a UK-US-Saudi covert operation since WW1).

It was very unfortunate to witness the Western monks & nuns affiliated with Ajahn Brahm become politically active in Anti-Trumpism, where, even though Trump's anti-war rhetoric was obviously a lie (based on the Iran-Hater who was funding his presidential campaign); these monks & nuns were politically active supporting the major war maker Hillary Clinton & Obama, who destroyed at least three countries, namely, Libya, Syria & Yemen; plus escalated conflict in Ukraine & elsewhere.

Bhikkhu Bodhi openly lamented when Trump threatened to ban abortion. Bhikkhu Bodhi, appearing to pander to a liberal left-wing supporter base, somehow believes Buddhism supports "women's reproductive rights". While monks & nuns can plead ignorance & having no psychic powers when their political endeavors actually support covert wars, Bhikkhu Bodhi's political stance based on "women's reproductive rights" dropped the jaws of many Buddhists.

At least in Australia, recently, the religions, particularly the Catholic Church, were mostly silent about the international intervention in Syria, where covert terrorist squads murdered thousands of Christian & non-Christian people. The Christian religions in Australia were mostly silent when old Christian monastery towns were liberated by Syrian & Hezbollah defenders. This shows how narcissistic religion has become.

Today, there are Western monks grovelling to left-wing political correctness, such as attempting to appeal to the LBGT & Identitarian movements. Will siding with political correctness help Buddhism survive into the future? Or will this alliance harm Buddhism by wrecking its doctrine more than it is already wrecked in the West?

Ordinary people (puthujjana) look for affirmation in religion. They want a Protestant-style Jesus and an amoral metta Buddha to not judge or criticise them at all. Ordinary people (puthujjana) want to be justified by religious figures. Therefore, politics can easily wreck religions, such as Protestantism wrecked Christianity or Wahhabism wrecked Islam. When religion becomes mere amoral narcissistic metta, it becomes worthless. As Jesus said: "You are the salt of the earth but if the salt loses its saltiness it becomes worthless".

Often there is little we can do as Buddhists, apart from following the path and hopefully setting an example and possibly influencing others, high & low, if we can. But using the brute (military & police) force of politics - no - that does not appear to be Buddhist.

Therefore, to offer my opinion on the questions:

Yes, Buddhists can assist in creating the structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can embrace the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can assist defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that defense & enforcement accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can, without violence, push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that new group or new society accords with Buddhist doctrine.

In other words:

Supporting Communism appeared not Buddhist.
Edorsement of violent Western imperialism appeared not Buddhist.
Supporting the myths of the $7 trillion taxpayer funded War On Terror against nations unrelated to the 9/11 attacks that kills & uproots millions of innocent people is not Buddhist.
Supporting psychopathic mass-murders who create deadly covert wars is not Buddhist.
Promoting abortion is not Buddhist.
Actively recruiting unsuitable people to Buddhism who may actually not be partial to the true teachings & thus attempt to change the true teachings, doesn't sound like it is Buddhist.


The Buddha taught many forms of mindfulness and meditation.  I encourage you to check out the Satipatthana Sutta and Ven. Analayo's absolutely indispensable commentary on it.  Teachers like Goenka are also worth a look.  That being said, nothing can replace seated meditation; there is nothing available that has the same effect on consciousness.  You simply cannot calm and slow the mind to the same degree with any other practice.  Concentration is necessarily diffused when mindfulness is carried into activity.  With that limitation, mindfulness can only take you so far.

All teachings on mindfulness culminate in seated meditation.  In fact, awareness of the breath is one of the deepest mindfulness practices available.  While other mindfulness practices are a great supplement to your time on the cushion, they cannot replace it.


There is a lot you can do to make the best of your situation. I can tell you what's been helpful for me.

Social interaction regarding worldly things can seem like a ridiculous waste of time; but social interaction regarding the Buddha's teachings can be energizing. Reducing your old ways of social interaction and time spent on entertainment can give you time to find others, both online and locally, who share your interest in the Buddha's teachings.

A job can seem very dreary when the old ambitions you had no longer motivate you. But you can keep in mind that your job gives you the opportunity to give dana and support the Dhamma and that is really an honor, I think. Learning to live frugally so that you can give dana can be rewarding.

You can set a quiet, good example for everyone in your world by keeping the five precepts, following the noble 8 fold path, and letting it drop in casual conversation that you are Buddhist or that you meditate. You don't ever have to try to convince anyone about your beliefs. Just let your actions and demeanor speak for itself. Seeing positive changes in you may create interest in Buddhism or meditation in those around you.

You can join in a sort of spiritual solidarity with monastics by keeping the 8 precepts as often as possible. That's good for focusing on your practice too.

When monastics depend on laypeople for support and laypeople depend on monastics for spiritual support and teachings, a wonderful synergy is created. And both sides of the coin are important. I recommend a book called The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity at Home, at Work, and in the World. http://www.amazon.com/The-Buddhas-Teachings-Prosperity-World/dp/0861715470# It has many teachings directed at laypeople that you don't often hear and can help you understand the important of laypeople in Buddhism.

Best wishes in your journey.


First of all, the commentary to that sutta doesn't use the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' for the sixth abhithana, it uses the term 'aññasatthāruddesa', which means 'proclaiming another teacher', i.e. setting oneself up as a student of a teacher with views outside of the Buddha's teaching, something an enlightened being cannot do (abhabba kātuṃ).
As to what the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' (pernicious wrong belief) means, the MN tika says:

ahetukadiṭṭhiakiriyadiṭṭhinatthikadiṭṭhiyova niyatabhāvaṃ pattā niyatamicchādiṭṭhidhammā.
Views such as the view of causelessness, the view of non-action, or the view of nihilism, when fallen into a state of certainty are called states of pernicious wrong view.
(MN-t 22)

Basically, the meaning is that any wrong view becomes 'pernicious' when it is clung to as a certainty.


About the "knower" disappearing during vipassana

Knower dissapears when "knowing" disappears.

How to achieve this?

Complicated answer is: with stopping craving.

Simple answer is: with calming of the mind and letting go completely.


Help to identify origin/history of a statuette of the Buddha?

Looking at the way the robe is set, It does not look like a Mahayana Buddha's statue. It seems it is Theravada Buddha. It is possible from Sri Lanka or Myanmar. I may be wrong. By the way, it is a good choice.


Art can be a continuation of samsaric inertia, or it can be an expression of the enlightened mind. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?


Suppose World War 3 occurs and manages to wipe out all humans and animals. Is the cycle of death and rebirth broken?

'Humans' are people who have a moral conscience & are humane.
'Animals' are people driven by instinct (such as survivalism, tribalism & terroritalism), emotion, without reflective wisdom.
'Human' & 'animal' are states of mind rather than physical qualities.
For example, the 'human state' is described as follows:

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
SN 56.47

AN 6.39 says:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
AN 6.39

As for Nirvana, the suttas described it as the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion. There is no 'journey' to 'Nirvana'. To 'journey' is to 'wander & roam'. 'Wandering & roaming' is called 'samsara'. 'Nirvana' is found in the present. 'Samsara' is not 'Nirvana' and 'Nirvana' is not 'samara'.


Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export?

While "Buddhism" is already quite a difficult terminus, since there is a host of sects, schools, vehicles and apart from that another host of indigenous practices that infiltrated Buddhism in places it went to, "Hinduism" is even more difficult.

Just an overview:

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India, dating back to somewhen between 1800 BC and say 1000 or 800 BC. The Vedic Religion is a religion of sacrifice. These are important in so far as practically all Hindus consider the Vedas as holy scriptures and their religion based on it.
By the end of the Vedic Era, maybe 800 or 700 BC the first Upaniṣads began to appear and with them the ideas of an eternal individual soul (ātman) opposed to an all-encompassing world-soul (brahman), rebirth in an endless cycle (saṃsāra) determined by the deeds of an individual (karman).
From about 700 or 600 BC onwards there was a movement of people who tried on their own, to find a way out of the cycle of rebirth by meditative and ascetic practices, the so-called Śramaṇa-movement. Theoretically this movement was heavily indebted to to the Upaniṣads.

Buddhism ultimately developed out of this heterodox movement (the Śramaṇa-movement) and except for the person of the Buddha and the theory of no-soul/not-the-soul (anātman) shares almost all of the common features of this movement, namely denial of Vedic authority and rejection of the caste-system. The Samañña-phala-sutta gives a good idea of views held in this movement and the relation of Buddhism to these views.

Now, as it comes to Hinduism, "classical Hinduism", if such a thing exists, surely did not exist in that time. In Hinduism there are six orthodox systems of philosophy, the first of which, Sāṃkhya, developed alongside with Buddhism, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later. All the other orthodox systems (Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mimāṃsā, Vedānta) developed later and under more or less heavy influence from Buddhism.

To give just on example: Nyāya is classically the school of logic in Hinduism. It was the theory of Pratītyasamutpāda, that generated a need for a deeper understanding of causation, conditionality and logic, which in turn gave rise to a development in logic in India and ultimately to Nyāya. Similar indebtedness has also been claimed for the Hindu philosopher Śaṃkara to maybe the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna.

Now, Śaṃkara is also responsible for the Hindu renaissance in India and for the final i-dot on the Vedanta-system. What Hindus believe in today is in no mean way shaped by his thinking (although we should always keep in mind, that it is impossible to point to that which "Hindus believe in") and therefore ultimately by Buddhist ideas and developments in refutation of Buddhist arguments.

Getting back to the question. It is very true, that Hinduism cannot or can hardly be exported, it is bound to a priestly class which in turn is bound to India (Brahmins not being allowed to defile themselves by leaving India), it does not or does hardly convert (sects like Hare Krishna disregarded here), the gods reverred are rather local deities without universal appeal and so on. And on top of that: missionary zeal is rather foreign to it.

Buddhism on the other hand had this "missionary zeal", though not to be compared with the Abrahamic religions, right from the beginning, embodied in the Buddha's wish and urge to teach the truth he had found. So what is true in Watts is that Buddhism is much more universal(ly appealing) than Hinduism. But the quote of Watts somehow implies two more things, both of them being wrong:

That Buddhism is some sort of Hinduism. That this is wrong should have been shown by the above historical sketch.
That Buddhism was designed to be exported. This is wrong since Buddhism was not designed.

The equally polemic counter-attitude to Watts would be that Hinduism is just Buddhism flavoured with some archaic elements (reverence of the Vedas) and stripped of anything too hard to understand for common people (like anātman) and anything that might offend a priestly elite (like "equality of men"). Like Watts statement it is basically wrong with a pinch of truth in it.


Differences between U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka

From many of S.N. Goenka's writing it is implied that U Ba Khin gave explicit instruction not the change anything regarding to the technique and I believe this is the case. Also many times in this writing S.N. Goenka has expressed profound and deep respect to his teacher. So it is unlikely there would have been any changes.

Since U Ba Khin died some time back, while S.N. Goenka taught based in India while U Ba Khin this would only be known to someone who was a student of both masters if at all who might be surviving would be very few who would know the this for sure.

Also see: U ba Khin / Goenka Vipassana putting stress only on vednanupassana


I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things.

There's no contradiction between the 4NT vs. great achievements and accomplishments. Matter of fact, the greatest achievements/accomplishments are those driven by a selfless nature:
The polio vaccine - Dr. Jonas Salk


Why didn't the Buddha write a book outlining his teaching?

The four nikayas do not mention "writing". However they do mention "reciting" many times. One mention, in particular is quite interesting:

AN8.20:6.4: It’s impossible, mendicants, it can’t happen that a Realized One could recite the monastic code in an impure assembly.

In another sutta, the Buddha instructs:

DN29:17.1: So, Cunda, you should all come together and recite in concert, without disputing, those things I have taught you from my direct knowledge, comparing meaning with meaning and phrasing with phrasing, so that this spiritual path may last for a long time. That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.

What is notable about these and many other quotes is the amount of care mandated in transmitting the Dhamma. The transmission of the Dhamma goes beyond mere written duplication via Gutenberg printing press or mindless scribe. The transmission of the Dhamma requires transmission of pure understanding, with care taken to ensure the meaning and phrasing of what is spoken and heard. Specifically, what is required is:

AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.

In my own experience, I have found that hearing, reciting and discussing the Dhamma to be far more powerful and effective than mere reading. I have found the eye to be fickle in its grasping as it flits from here to there seeing what it wants to see as it skims the written word. In contrast, hearing and reciting and discussing demand far more attentiveness. And although the Dhamma is available for reading, I myself study the Dhamma by listening, reciting and discussing. The difference in understanding is remarkable. I cannot say what the Buddha intended. All I can say is that reading is too superficial for me. Instead, I rely on hearing, memorizing and speaking the Dhamma in concert. And that oral tradition does indeed work for me. The oral tradition facilitates proper attention.


Not breaking the first precept vs. developing compassion

Compassion is a wholesome quality, but compassion cannot take you to Nibbana. We use the practice of compassion to counter cruelty in the mind. But the goal of Buddhism is not about dedicating your life to the cultivation of compassion. If that is the case, you will have nothing else to do in life other than looking for beings in misery and trying to help them. How can you even eat, drink, wear clothes if all your actions are dedicated to compassion? There are always beings who do not have food, water etc. You should give all your food to them and starve to death yourself, if compassion is all that you should cultivate.

Vegetarian food production causes much killing as well. So why not starve to death to save any possible loss of life? This kind of thinking comes from Jainism. Buddhism does not fall into these extremes. The goal of Buddhism is the end of suffering and there are other more important qualities that one must cultivate to achieve that. Being vegetarian is not one of them.


Why mind is all set to achieve something unknown during meditation?

There is craving and intention. Enlightened people had intention but not craving to achieve their goal which is what you should aim to develop. Craving for the goal also will set you back.


How much concentration do I need to practice vipassana?

In Tibetan tradition, before you can do Vipashyana, you have to practice Shamatha-type meditation until you learn to attain so-called "Calm Abiding" or "Fully Pacified Stable One-Pointed Effortless Meditative Equipoise".

According to a traditional presentation, Calm Abiding is considered attained when a meditator can effortlessly focus on a chosen object of observation, without getting distracted and without falling into lethargy, for a substantial period of time.

"substantial period" is  a subjective measure. Some say it is 2 minutes, some say 10 or 15.
"object of observation" means any object or theme, like a flame of a candle, flower, a far away mountain peak -- or a visualized/imaginary object of any kind, the most popular being an image of Buddha statue. (With imaginary objects it is best to use something very familiar that you remember very well.)
"without getting distracted" means without forgetting about meditation and getting carried away in thoughts.
"without falling into lethargy" means, without getting sleepy or even losing clarity of mind.
"effortlessly" means without fighting with oneself over distractions and lethargy.

Here is a set of more detailed guidelines on achieving Calm Abiding: an excerpt from a lecture given by Gelug meditation master Lati Rinpoche.


How many dimensions are there according to Buddhism?

The Sigalovada Sutta mention "the six directions":

  At that time a young householder named Sigalaka arose early and set out from Rajagaha with freshly washed clothes and hair.[3] With palms together held up in reverence,[4] he was paying respect towards the six directions:[5] that is east, south, west, north, lower and upper.

I take that to imply three dimensions.

It's not explicitly about dimensions but it casually implies in passing that there are three dimensions (perhaps as if it's the kind of thing that everyone knows and doesn't need explaining).

Modern maths (since the late 18th century) has described "time" as a kind of dimension. Buddhist texts imply that time, too, can be perceived.