How does one practice mindfulness during thinking - e.g. thinking about how to solve a problem?

A.K.
It's not a foolish question at all,  I think it's something everyone spends sometime trying to understand when they first start learning meditation and mindfulness.

Mindfulness is being present.  If you're sitting you know you're sitting, if you're standing you know you're standing. If you are washing dishes you are only washing dishes, you are not thinking about the what happened at work, about the bills, or about any problems you may have had with your spouse or friend. Eventually with enough practice you can stay present while sleeping though I make no claims on being able to do this.

This can extend to studying, shopping, for groceries, driving, etc.  I meditate most days while driving into work, as I'm completely mindful of what I'm doing and undistracted,  I'm probably the safest driver on the road. As an "intellectual worker", I stay mindful and undistracted with the work I do.  I think many people do this and do not understand they are being mindful. Mindfulness is not "non-thinking" though it can be as being present doesn't require thinking, it's being completely present with and aware of what you are doing. Decisions can be part of the process but should be void of I or my, rather the appropriateness of the decision to completing the task in the physical world is the factor of action.

A suggestion is that you don't draw a distinction between being mindful in meditation and when you get up from the mat, try to find things to extend your mindfulness to as the day goes on, pick simple things at first like taking a shower, going to the bathroom, driving, and start working on extending it through the entire day.  You will find things like basic planning and paying bills will take care of themself to a large extent.  You won't forget your social security number or to pay the bills..no worries. It is also a process that takes years -> decades, etc to fully develop but it is well worth the effort.

Addendum: I realized I hadn't addressed part of your question. About being mindful with "engrossing" or something or really interesting. This is probably the unpopular part of the answer but truth is just what it is.  For monastics, entertainment is not allowed.  The reason for this isn't that it's evil, but because by design it "hooks you",  creating desire (i.e. Dukka - suffering).  There is no problem with experience happiness or suffering - but mindfulness is to help you not cling to good things "engrossing" and desire (Dukka - suffering) push away bad things.  If you are fairly well down the path you may be able to do this quite easily without suffering, but most of us aren't.  So if you want to know how "engrossing" things cause suffering, imagine being denied to watch the next season of "Game of Thrones" if you are a fan.  This is a gross example, there are much more subtle forms of suffering also, things that re-enforce I and my. So though some could be mindful watching "Game of Thrones" without desire/attachment/suffering, it's really tough for most of us.

2nd Addendum:
I believe there are two different issues that are being mixed, one is thinking or concentration, the other is actively encouraging suffering. When you are mindful,  you are not bored as you are present and observing, and as noted taking action (decisions and thinking) such as braking and not hit the stopped car in front of you when driving. Working on a really hard problem is not much different than washing dishes and deciding to wipe more or not, except that it's more likely to be iterative. If you are really mindful, it's not necessarily more focused as you can be really focused on simple tasks as well as difficult problems. Working difficult problems does not encourage I or my  (dukka - suffering), unless of course you scold or complement yourself on how stupid or smart you are.

The case of entertainment again is something designed to make you unmindful, to rouse desire and emotions (dukka), if they didn't then shows like the "Out of Focus Pages of the Telephone Book" would be very popular.  The "designed to make you unmindful" part again doesn't make it evil - it's just with Buddhism the long game is rejiggering your mind, taking advantage of neuroplasticity to break life long habits that lead to suffering.  If you meditate alot, you will find watching something like GoT will make it really difficult to meditate for sometime afterwards. You find that avoiding things like this make you a more contented person.  I know that if you watched GoT in a completely mindful way, it would be like having a teflon mind, nothing would stick, but you would also not get the "high" (or "low") from it, you would not feel jubilation when the bad guy gets killed or depression when the good guy gets killed - you would just be observing and noting.  Renunciation is a process, you don't do it in a day, it happens naturally while developing your practice. It turns out not to be a sacrifice or hardship when you really understand on a deeper level more than an intellectual level within yourself that you're really gaining peace by doing so. In the mean time go and enjoy GoT and note how if it disturbs your mind and do not take my word for it. If you find this is true as you develop a practice (meditation,etc), it will make you naturally draw back from watching other programs of this sort in the future.

3rd Addendum: From your last comment, I'll try my best to answer but I admit I am working somewhat out of my pay grade so take it as as a potentially flawed answer.  The purpose of meditation is as a vehicle to enlightenment which is the end of suffering by extinguishing the ego.  It is the ego that causes suffering,  not consciousness and not emotions.  With or without the ego emotions are still with us, it's just without the ego there is no suffering because the emotions are experienced without clinging and aversion. You can be happy, but as it passes since everything is temporary, you don't try to hold on to it or make it last longer, and when you're unhappy, you're not pushing this away. Without an ego there is no one to suffer. So an enlightened person can laugh and cry and is not an emotionless robot.  The difference is that there is no clinging or aversion.

An enlightened person may not detached from life at all, or may detach completely.  Though the next comment may cause some ire of others, I believe it to be true.  Many persons who very likely were enlightened have done things that people thought were unenlightened.  Examples are Suziki Roshi crying when his wife died, he mourned for a few days and some criticized him for it asking how could he be enlightened and do such a thing. He later commented that he mindfully observed his mourning. I've gone to a lecture with the Dalai Lama and he is very engaged, he often tells funny stories and jokes. Some of the best dharma talks I've heard could almost have been standup comedy routines. Metta meditation intentionally works to create compassion and raise positive emotions as does Tonglen meditation.  Probably more controversial would be Trungpa Rimpoche who drank, smoked, and was a womanizer, he never tried to hide any of this. You'd have to study his life and his work and try to figure out if you think he was authentic or not. I do personally. It's thought that this was at least in part to confound the minds of his followers as to what an enlightened being was and break their wrong preconceived notions.  When you read his writings and look at his accomplishments they were authentic and significant.  It would be tough to have much more of a less (apparently) detached life than his.

Monks are students, just like the lay Buddhist, it's just they've pledged their life exclusively to the path.  If they actually become a fully realized being, there are no longer bound by restrictions as those restrictions were only there to help them become a fully realized being.

I hope I answered you're question rather than creating more confusion.

I hope this helps..


I would recommend:

In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (alternate download link)
Art of Living by William Hart


Show your kindness (compassion), with Buddhist wisdom ;)

... for ur particular case, buy ur neigbhour a set of headphone in supreme quality, with a note inserted e.g.: my favourite brand, cool stuff. Enjoy music any time, day & night, dusk till dawn!

You may knock on the door to hand it to him, or send by mail. Remember, wrap it in nice gift paper, sign your name, with smile. Consider, the cost to move or cost of time to deal with engaging police/third party, this gift is tiny.

And surely you will then hv a neighbour who will let u stayed in raining day when u forgot ur key waiting for the locksmith... 囧


The Enlightened One taught that there is no cause or "creator" that was eternal or has immortality, such as; a soul or supreme being that was empirically knowable. The Buddha taught that there was causal conditions that are observable in the material world of form and in the conscious dispositionally conditioned state (samskrta). Simply put, the Buddha did not teach eternalism or annihilationism but that everything/everyone is streaming headlong towards becoming.  Perhaps an example might be useful.  A plant seed does not have an inherent cause within it.  It cannot become a tree in and of it's own.  The potentiality might be there but the tree is not evident.  The seed will not germinate without other causal factors; soil, water, temperature, atmosphere, and etc.  It is the causal conditions of these all these things that then cause the seed to germinate.  Once the seed has germinated, we now have the sprout.  Where did the seed go?  And, we no longer conceptualize the seed but the sprout.  Eventually, we may or may not have a tree because there are other factors (causal conditions) that may effect the tree's growth and longevity.
Even emptiness is empty of a state of a substantiality. Dependent arising is not a string of "moments" but a continuous flow of becoming.  If you are looking for a metaphysical cause ( "a final cause" , a "forever" something) that, is simply not evident.  What the Buddha taught was the means to end the general dissatisfaction we have with life and not a metaphysical philosophy. Nibbana is that liberation from dissatisfaction.


Can a puthujjana have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma?

Right view arises with two conditions:

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two? The words of another and proper attention.  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Unshakeable faith happens thus:

MN106:13.3: But sir, what is noble liberation?”  “Ananda, it’s when a mendicant reflects like this: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of the imperturbable, perceptions of the dimension of nothingness, perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; that is identity as far as identity extends. This is the deathless, namely the liberation of the mind through not grasping.

Importantly, "perceptions of the imperturbable" are also identity and to be relinquished without grasping. So declaring "I am imperturbable" misses the mark. Better to just walk while walking and just stand while standing.
Decades ago I went to a retreat, perceived non-self and freaked out. That was definitely unpleasant, but it was an important clue about the Noble Truths. It's taken a lifetime to muster proper attention and find the words of another. With proper attention and the words of another, one can have faith that the Noble Eightfold Path will give rise to unshakeable faith upon release from all the fetters.


Equanimity is not the central point of practicing the Dhamma but a high end tool. The central task is discrimination of phenomenas, mindfulness (on the four frames of reference).

In doing so, there is seen where a possible disturbance actually comes from, arises, and by uprooting the disturbance (inwardly), recognicing that one can be not really touched but it is just the grasping, of what is not real, by oneself, there such equanimity with phenomenas arise.

What is an extreme disturbance really? The perception of a mouse, news on TV, a day without food, an executor, a tiger in front, a lost leg, a wounded belly, sreeming child, broken computer? What disturbes? The own missing coffee or missing food for the third world? Minimum 50 years more to suffer here, and not to speak after, again and again?

My person found "Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice" merely disturbing, therfore:

  AN 4.100: Potaliya Sutta: Potaliya {A ii 100} [Bodhi]. Here the Buddha points out to an wandering ascetic that alienation and equanimity are not the higherst virtues in regard of praise and blame.

and maybe: The Integrity of Emptiness

Because if having started practicing one will soon know for oneself, without building on disturbing thought constructions.

Enjoy solution, discriminatingly, direct perceived.

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


What is the relation between the Eight Consciousnesses and the Five Aggregates?

All 8 types of consciousness described in Yogacara texts fit into the aggregate of consciousness, not perception. The confusion comes down to difficulty in the English translations for these terms.

The word translated as perception doesn't actually mean perception in the ordinary English sense of the word. In ordinary English perception means to be aware of something through the senses, but that is not the meaning of the word saññā.  refers specifically to the way that something is interpreted by the mind, especially in terms of pattern recognition and memory. For example, when you look at a chair, you are aware of actually seeing something (which is eye-consciousness) and at the same time you are giving an interpretation to what it is, which in this case is a chair. This second layer of gathering things together and interpreting them is what saññā is in Buddhism.


Are 'elements' defined as non-suffering?

MN 115 is a comprehensive discourse on elements (dhatu).

In reality, none of the many elements described in MN 115 are intrinsically 'suffering' because they, as mere elements, are not yet mixed with attachment (upadana).

Thus, MN 115 states:

  When, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements... in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer.

The 1st noble truth summarises all suffering as 'attachment' (upadana) and the 2nd noble truth explains the various cravings (tanha) do not give rise (samudhaya) to suffering (dukkha) unless craving creates new becoming (bhava), which is simply more solidified attachment (upadana).

To quote the 2nd noble truth from SN 56.11:

  And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

The teaching of the 'elements' ('dhatu') is the same as 'sunnata' ('emptiness') therefore any clear discernment of 'elements' quenches suffering because 'elements' are discerned rather than 'self'.

Again, to quote, this time from MN 62:

  Rahula... there are these five elements, Rahula. Which five? The earth element, the water element, the fire element, the wind element
  & the space element... Now both the internal elements & the external
  elements are simply elements. And that should be seen as it actually
  is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me,
  this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present
  with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the elements
  and makes craving for the elements fade from the mind.

The phrase: "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" is unrelated to this answer posted in the question because the word 'dukkhā' in this phrase does not mean 'suffering'. Instead, it means 'unsatisfactoriness', i.e., the incapacity of saṅkhārā (impermanent conditioned things) to bring lasting true happiness.

This is clearly explained, also in MN 115, as follows:

  Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation
  as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It
  is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as
  permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is
  impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could
  treat any formation as pleasurable ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might
  treat some formation as pleasurable ― there is such a possibility.’ He
  understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person
  possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such
  possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary
  person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’

Therefore for example, inanimate objects, such as rocks, trees or stars in the sky, are 'unsatisfactory'; they cannot bring or be relied on for true pleasure; but they are not 'suffering'.

To avoid doubt, Dhammapada 278 explains the experience of "sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" results in liberation rather than suffering:

  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.

  Dhammapada 278


Here are references to some studies on this.  I don't know how rigorous they are!

An abstract of a study:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/27/0956797612459659.abstract

Two articles in the Huffington Post that reference studies.  I imagine trying to google the universities and professors involved might get you some abstracts or summaries of results:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/meditation-better-grades_n_3053719.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/mindfulness-testing-focus-reading-comprehension_n_2957146.html


Any cure for blurred vision after sitting with eyes half-open?

Close them, would be maybe the most practical.


Mara (a psychic that decides to harass Buddhists) does suffer according to the suttas:

  Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. SN 5.10

  ‘Get out, Evil One, Evil One, get out. Do not annoy a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple, lest for a long time there be woe and sorrow for
  you.’...While he was looking around, Evil One, Dūsin the Māra deceased from that place and arose in the Great Niraya Hell. What was that Niraya
  Hell like where Dūsin the Māra was boiled, For striking the disciple Vidhura
  and the brahman Kakusandha? It was that of the hundred iron spikes,
  all suffered separately. This was the Niraya Hell where Dūsin was
  boiled, For striking the disciple Vidhura and the brahman Kakusandha. MN 50


lets me to wrong websites

When I quit smoking cigarettes, one of the techniques I used was to make it more difficult for me to have a cigarette.
For example, if I owned a packet of cigarettes, and the craving occurred, then it was easy for me to have one and I did.
One technique for making that more difficult was to not have a packet of cigarettes. So when the craving occurred, I didn't have one available, and to get one I would have had to walk to the shop etc. That walk (which would have lasted many minutes) gave me time to rethink my craving, or enough time for the craving to go away. It was more of an effort, and gross motor rather than fine motor activity. Although I could not control whether the craving arose, however I could control whether I acted on it or gave into it: I could decide or remember that there was a reason (that I had had a reason) why I didn't own any cigarettes, and I was able to decide not to put my coat on and go outside and walk to the shop and buy more and smoke more and continue that cycle.
There were some times, while I first quit, when I literally couldn't think about anything else except for wanting to have a cigarette, and (having decided not to go to the shop and buy some) I just had to stand there and wait for that craving to pass and for a next thought about something/anything other than that to arise.
So if you want to stop visiting some web sites, perhaps you can do the same, i.e. ensure that those web sites aren't easily available to you: for example install or enable "parental control" software on your computer, or edit the etc\hosts file (see e.g. here and here) to make the site unreachable from your computer. It's true that if you change your mind, if you decide that want to access the web site, then you can undo whatever you did to block the site ... but the fact that you need to undo/unblock it makes it a little bit harder, and acts to remind you that you had blocked it for a good reason.
I suspect that's true for most addictions: for example if you're a drug addict, it's easier to quit (and harder to continue) if you decide to move to a different environment where drugs and drug-using fellows don't exist.
In summary you might find it helpful to create a safe/insulated environment (or web browser setup) for yourself where temptation is less available or completely out of reach.
Two other suggestions: one is you might find it useful to log how you use your computer (for example, look at your browser History some times) ... that's on the theory that "you can't manage what you don't measure" so you measure/monitor your use of the web in order to manage it better; the second is that it's not a bad idea to do things with good friends ... they're likely to inspire or lead you towards virtue (e.g. you might think, "he is good and behaves well, I too can do what he does").
These are mechanical/physical suggestions, not just an idea to keep in mind, because you said you you want a practical solution for even when "thoughts come again".

I think you were hoping for an answer which didn't "sound very theoretical"; but you might wonder how this answer related to Buddhism.
Firstly, when I wrote the answer I was reminded of this topic: “Guard the sense doors”- What does this mean, and what is it's application?. That topic include, for example:

Guarding the sense doors is a way of protecting ourselves from being overcome by passion for the sensed object (which leads to dukkha). In his video Yuttadhammo mentions three ways to do this.

Physically avoiding the object (in relation to your example, when on alms round monks may keep their eyes facing down to avoid lust from seeing a beautiful woman).

So a mechanism which physically "hides your eyes", puts a barrier in place, might be an effective solution.
Secondly, there's a Buddhist doctrine of the "Twelve Nidanas", which teaches that what you think and feel and become attached to is conditioned by your senses, and specifically by contact between the sense-organ (eye) and sense-object (web site on a computer screen). Again that suggested that if you can't control your thoughts and attachments (which are conditioned by or which arise as a result of contact), perhaps you can control whether there's contact (again, by putting more of a barrier or filter between the sense-organ and sense-object).
Thirdly, Buddhist often choose or recommend seclusion or "a retreat": to avoid distraction etc. You might want to adopt a similar attitude -- especially on Uposatha days.
Lastly I'm reminded of this sutta, which describes how to overcome torpor -- not the details of it, but the strategy, the structure: "Do this: maybe this will work. But if doing this doesn't work, then do that. And if doing that does work, then ... and if that doesn't work, then ..." and so on, 7 or 8 different methods. So, whatever you previously tried (e.g. contemplating the body as a Bag of Bones), if that was too theoretical, then try something else!
Back to my personal experience, my experience is that it might be easier to control your (my) behaviour than thoughts: thoughts happen (uncontrolled) but you may be able to control (or decide to not act on) your reaction subsequent to those thoughts. Similarly it may be easier to control large movements of body over a longer time period (e.g. do you or don't you go for a walk) than small (hand or face) movements which you might do without much thought.
You're right though, it's kind of alarming to discover that you "can't control yourself". Buddhism sort of warns you about that, saying for example, "don't call thoughts my 'self' because if they were my 'self' then I'd be able to control them". Still it is possible to change, to learn to change, a habit (habitual behaviour).


Was Buddhism the dominant religion of India for one thousand years?

Wikipedia's History of Buddhism in India says that:

Maurya Empire (322 BCE–185 BCE) was Buddhist
Kushan Empire (30 CE–375 CE) was Buddhist

Decline of Buddhism in India says that decline began in late Gupta Empire (320 CE–550 CE)

So for more than 500 years, there were Buddhist empires ruling the whole of what's now India except its southern tip.


If Nirvana is unconditional then why is it not happening now?

If so then why is Nirvana not happening now?

Nibbana is an existing reality. Its obscured by defilements just like a blue sky obscured by clouds. Insight-meditation and Jhana allows for the practitioner to experience and eventually attain Nibbana.

  Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

A wholesome intention is the start but not enough in and of itself. It must be followed up by practice. We ourselves must do the work, ie. working for purification of body, mind and conduct.

I highly recommend reading the article "Nibbana", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.


'Dukkha': What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'?

'Unsatisfactoriness' is one of the Three Characteristics. 'Unsatisfactoriness' refers to an inherent quality of all (conditioned) material & mental things.

The cause of unsatisfactoriness is impermanence. Due to impermanence, all (conditioned) mental & material cannot be relied upon for lasting true happiness. Therefore, all impermanent things have a quality of unsatisfactoriness, be it major or minor.

A Buddha or fully enlightened person cannot eradicate unsatisfactoriness because every conditioned phenomena in the universe, including stars & planets & the body & mind of a Buddha, contains the characteristic of unsatisfactoriness. A Buddha experiences unsatisfactorines in everything they see, hear, smell, taste, touch & cognize (except Nirvana. Nirvana is satisfactory because it is the unconditioned peace experienced from letting go of craving).

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death? Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form
  is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is
  impermanent. That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which
  is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end. Very good, my friend
  Yamaka. Very good. SN 22.85

~~~

  Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is
  held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is
  kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata,
  disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings,
  attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his
  body is more comfortable. DN 16

Experiencing unsatisfactoriness is the cause of eradicating craving & suffering. When conditioned things are seen with wisdom as unsatisfactory, those conditioned things cease to be desirable. Thus, when desire (craving) ends, suffering ends.

  Seeing (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with
  form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception,
  disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness.
  Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is
  fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully
  released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
  the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' SN 22.59

Therefore, unsatisfactoriness & suffering are not the same thing because experiencing unsatisfactoriness results in not experiencing suffering.

  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification. Dhammapada 278

Below are pictures of unsatisfactoriness; i.e, undesirable things that cannot bring true lasting permanent happiness.


How does one understand the elements of the Pure Octad in Sunlight?

Buddhism focuses on spiritual development, so the Buddhist analysis of rūpa focuses on sense objects, the sense organs and the body. Non-living things are made up of temperature-born pure-octad groups or temperature-born sound groups. The relevance of non-living things in the Buddhist analysis of rūpa is that non-living things are sense objects.

I would say that sunlight itself does not impact the sense directly, only indirectly. When sunlight bounces off a speck of dust or a wall, then we “perceive” the sunlight through the eye sense. When sunlight makes our skin warm or a rock warm, we “perceive” sunlight through the tactile sense.

The speck of dust, the wall, the skin and the rock… all of these are “non-living things” and are temperature-born pure-octad groups (the eight rūpa that you listed above). They are all to be understood as sense objects.

Using fire-element (tejo) as one example, some sense objects have greater intensity of the fire-element and will be “warmer” to the tactile sense than other sense objects with less intensity of the fire-element, but all sense objects include the fire-element rūpa. The other seven rūpa in the temperature-born pure-octad group can be seen in a similar way... always present, but with different intensities.


Is it proper to teach Dhamma to someone wearing a hat?

The following rules are part of the Sekhiya rules of the Patimokkha. The Patimokkha are rules for (Theravada) monks and nuns.

  I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed.
  I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

The explanation for these come in "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

  Sixteen of the Sekhiya Training rules set down how and to whom a
  bhikkhu should teach Dhamma. These rules are also concerned with the
  etiquette of showing respect, respect not only for the bhikkhu but
  more importantly for the Dhamma that he is teaching. (The Great
  Standards would imply here that modern ways of showing respect and
  disrespect would be similarly covered by these rules.) These rules
  prohibit a bhikkhu from teaching anyone he considers to be showing
  disrespect to the Dhamma. Here is a summary of these Sekhiya
  Trainings:

    "I will not teach Dhamma to someone who is not sick but who:

    — has an umbrella; a wooden stick (club); weapon in their hand.

    — is wearing (wooden-soled) sandals/shoes; is in a vehicle; is on a
    bed (or couch); is sitting clasping the knees; has a head wrapping
    (turban); whose head is covered; who is sitting on a seat while I am
    sitting on the ground; who is sitting on a high seat while I am
    sitting on a low seat; who is sitting while I am standing; who is
    walking in front of me while I am walking behind; who is walking on a
    pathway while I am walking beside the pathway." (Sekhiya 57-72; See
    BMC pp.505-508)

  How these rules are observed may diverge in different communities.
  Some will strictly follow the above while others will be more flexible
  according to modern conditions. As Venerable Brahmava"ngso remarks:

    "...These Sekhiyas ensure that one teaches Dhamma only to an audience
    which shows respect. One may not expound from a soapbox in the
    marketplace... to the indifference of passers by. However it is common
    these days in the West for a seated audience, wearing their shoes and
    maybe even a hat, to respectfully listen to a speaker standing at a
    lectern... and as the audience is considered to be behaving
    respectfully according to the prevailing norms there seems no reason
    why a monk may not teach Dhamma in such a situation." (AB)


Playing repetitve music as meditation practice

The biggest issue with music is:

you can get attached to it
can created mental recitation of the lyrics which in turn creates verbal fabrications

Hence best is to resort to more conservative meditation pratice. Having said this Richard Shankman of Metta Dharma Foundation teachers mindfulness of sound as an alternative meditation technique. Excerpted from “The Art and Skill of Buddhist Meditation”:

Mindfulness of Sound
In the instructions for mindfulness of breathing we let all other experiences stay in the background of our awareness, not forcing or pushing them away but bringing a gentle sense of allowing them to be in the background while giving some preference or predominance to awareness of our breathing. In the same way, with this practice we allow other experiences to stay in the background and we give preference or predominance to the experience of sound. You may feel a natural draw or pull to awareness of hearing, and this practice can be very calming and settling. Those for whom mindfulness of sound works well commonly report it as an easily accessible and even compelling meditation object. You may be drawn to awareness of the sounds themselves or you may be more naturally aware of the act or the process of listening or hearing.
Mindfulness of sound entails working with either inner or outer sound. Even though it may be very quiet where you are meditating, you may feel drawn to rest your awareness in listening to however many or few sounds may be present at any time. Other people hear an inner sound, a clear perception of ringing or some other sound, experienced not through the ears but in the mind. You can see if you have such an experience and if you are drawn to rest in awareness of inner or outer sound.
If you are working with mental noting, you can mentally repeat hearing or sound if that helps keep you stay connected and centered with the auditory experience. If you practice mindfulness of sound, just substitute hearing every time I use the terms breath or breathing.

Since you seem to like music the main question would be how you can do this without attachment in order to make this effective, i.e., using music as a means to meditate.

Also perhaps the following might might help you (thanks to @ThiagoSilva for point out): Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta


One shouldn't practice that way if one is practicing Vipassana. The sole goal of Vipassana meditation is to be able to directly see the reality in front of you, so setting up other goals doesn't fit.

If one is having a persistent problem in meditation one can switch over to other techniques to deal with them however. For example, if a meditator keeps having angry thoughts towards people coming up in meditation practicing loving kindness meditation is an effective antidote.

Generally though if you are practicing Vipassana you should only apply these remedies as needed to overcome distractions instead of trying to work them out ahead of time.


Bhutan is a Buddhist country famous for its Gross National Happiness metric. So far, poverty is a drag on that metric: Bhutan Happiness Index: Buddhist Country Fails On Its 'Gross National Happiness'

Other economists have thought about happiness and how Buddhism might figure in to it, ref. Happiness and economics: a
Buddhist perspective (too much material to summarize quickly).


Question about how to generate more motivation to meditate.

It's really important to do wise and healthy things even if they take a bit of effort to get the ball rolling.  Very fortunately, we can use habit to overcome our habits, which is something very beautiful.

Personally, on days when I do not formally sit I cultivate many aspirations and cast the thought (joyously) "How good it would be to sit and meditate, to cultivate wisdom and insight, to perfect samadhi."

Meditation is not the only branch of the Eightfold path as was historically presented by Shakyamuni Buddha, so keeping all the folds in balance will help with your meditation, and vice versa.

The purpose of meditation is to uncover these enlightened qualities that are within us all.

On a mundane, physical level meditation strengthens the density of the cortical structure of the brain.

Please read about the methods of calm abiding, insight, and the altruistic motivation, because knowing what those are can really help nudge our patterned-ways into open ways.  In general, reflecting on the many benefits and really making a strong wish to spend more time and regular time meditating will be great.

It has been taught that beings should seek enlightenment like trying to put out a fire on their heads.  It's true!  Based on how well we can see the value of our present condition (!) and how well we understand what we can accomplish through practice, the more clear it will be the need for meditation in our daily life, until the blurry edge between formal and off-the-cushion becomes such a natural and melodious flow that we will wonder why we had not been doing it this way the whole time.


Can you translate, from Pali, this sutta about Equanimity?

The Pali is:

  Susāne seyyaṃ kappemi,  Chavaṭṭhikaṃ upanidhāyahaṃ;  Gāmaṇḍalā
  upāgantvā,  Rūpaṃ dassentinappakaṃ.

  Apare gandhamālañca,  bhojanaṃ vividhaṃ bahuṃ;  Upāyanānūpanenti,
  haṭṭhā saṃviggamānasā.

  Ye me dukkhaṃ upaharanti

  Whatever difficulty presents itself

  ye ca denti sukhaṃ mama;

  Whatever comforts he is offered/Whatever happiness he offers (?)

  Sabbesaṃ samako homi

  Always/everywhere existing (with) the same (calmness)

  dayā kopo na vijjati.

  Kindness but no irritation is found

  Sukhadukkhe tulābhūto

  Remaining/existing/being balanced in pleasure, pain [feelings]

  Yasesu ayasesu ca

  Fame/success & obscurity

  Sabbattha samako homi

  Always/everywhere existing (with) the same (calmness)

  Esā me upekkhāpāramī”ti.

  That is perfect equanimity

  https://suttacentral.net/cp35/pli/ms

Click on the Sutta Central link; then click on the cog wheel at the top right; active the Pali-English function; highlight the Pali & try to do the translation for yourself.


Just the prayer and syllables in question, not the surrounding prayers and other elements of the practice (e.g., the refuge prayer), but this is the prayer that I was thinking of (བླ་མའི་རྣལ་འབྱོར, called the "lamai naljor prayer", also transliterated as "lamé naljor", or translated as "Guru Yoga prayer"):

  སྤྱི་གཙུག་བདེ་བ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཕོ་བྲང་དུ།
  དྲིན་ཆེན་རྩ་བའི་བླ་མ་ལ་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས།
  སངས་རྒྱས་སེམས་སུ་སྟོན་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ།
  རང་ངོ་རང་གིས་ཤེས་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབས།

Transliterated:

  Chi tsuk dé wa chen pö po drang du
  Drin chen tsa wé la ma la söl wa dep
  Sang gyé sem su tön pa rin po ché
  Rang ngo rang gi shé par jin gyi lop

It has been translated as:

  On the crown of my head, in a palace of great bliss
  Benevolent root lama, I pray to you.
  Precious one that reveals that my own mind is Buddha,
  Bless me to recognize my own true nature.

I have also seen it translated a little more poetically:

  From the crown of my head, palace of great bliss,
  I pray to you, benevolent root lama.
  O precious one, grant me the blessings
  To recognize my own true nature as a Buddha.

There is a version of this practice found in Opening the Door to Bön by Latri Khenpo Geshe Nyima Dakpa Rinpoche, in the 5th preliminary practice, "Connecting With the Teacher", which provides a virtually identical prayer with a slightly different transliteration and another translation.

It also includes a lot of the surrounding details, visualizations, and prayers. This version of the practice is subtly different from the one that I learned, but the bones are very similar if not identical.

The three syllables are:

AH – White, Forehead
OM – Red, Throat
HUNG – Dark Blue, Mind

These are Bön-specific seed syllables and other branches sometimes use variations.

I don't own the book and so can't speak to its contents in any great detail, but Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche has written a book called Guru Yoga: According To The Preliminary Practice Of Longchen Nyingtik would seem to cover the practice from a different angle.


Abhramcharya means non-celibacy. Avoiding bhramcharya is not the 3rd precept within the Five Prevents. Avoiding abhramcharya is for monks or for strict followers of the Noble Path following Eight or Ten Precepts.

As for Ud 6.8, it does not appear to be about celibacy but about attachments arising in the mind due to celibacy. In Ud 6.8 (Ganika Sutta), there are lay people involved in immoral sex. Then the monks became morally outraged by this and criticized to the Buddha those lay people involved in immoral sex. Thus the Buddha remarked: both the immoral laypeople and the monks disturbing their minds via aversion to immorality are both on the wrong path.


Did the Buddha discover jhana by himself?

I quote an excerpt of this answer from Ven. Yuttadhammo. You may read the answer for details.

  The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by
  the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.

  The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation
  countless times in his past lives before finally discovering
  vipassana.


How Does Buddhism Handle Internal Conflict

It's important to understand that any amount of external situations happen which may not go your way. When it goes your way, you're happy and God doesn't come into the picture. And when it doesn't, sometimes God doesn't help. ;)

So the idea is to accept the external situation as it is, because it was never in your control. And keep living with the moments in life. If you let an external situation faze you out too much, you're lost.

Understand this fact. What we are in control of is ourselves, our internal reactions and responses to anything.

So whatever situation life brings you, just take it in the right stride and keep smiling and going. Simply accept it. There is no need to fear anything. Fear is ego's response to a threat on its existence.

Don't struggle with yourself. If you put an ad in the matrimonial page, don't expect things to go right. But don't expect things to go wrong either. Just let it be. Because the future is only imaginary if we think about it. So let the future be whatever it is. Have faith in yourself that you can deal with anything.

The way to deal with it is to introspect if you are ready, put the ad. And hope it goes right by analyzing the person clearly. Go with the flow. Because life is to be lived whatever the situation may be, sportively.

(PS: And please, don't expect a certain God, to help out whenever you are in trouble. That is simply wishful thinking.)


Why Alaya Vinnana and Manas is not supported in Theravada?

It is - https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha195.htm

"Thus we can see that vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense-organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the vijnanaskandha. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of Consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. The Sandhinirmocana-sutra also says that alayavijnana is called citta (Tibetan sems)."


Is the following quote in conventional lanaguge?

It appears to me those Brahmins believed in none existence.
It appears they did not believe in kamma and rebirth.
What Buddha taught was the dependent origination.
It is not enough to understand the not self. That has to be realised through dependent origination.


My impression is BSE is 5.4 years old and is unrelated to other Buddhist forums.
The first major Buddhist forum I was aware of was called E-Sangha, which was extremely sectarian, and banned lots of folks, including DD. Legend says it was cyber-attacked. Read here.
From the ashes of E-Sangha appeared to arise a number of Buddhist chatsites created by David N. Snyder Ph.D, such as:

dhammawheel.com (Theravada)
zenforuminternational.org (Zen; now defunk)
dharmawheel.net (Mahayana)

Most of the founding members of dhammawheel.com were active on E-Sangha, such as the current admin Retrofuturist and Venerable Dhammanando (and some now ex-DW moderators).
There is also a current chatsite at newbuddhist.com with moderators who were E-Sangha members (however, possibly not the site owner).
Another independent forum is buddhismwithoutboundaries.com, which I and another ex-E-Sangha-bannee posted a lot on.
There is the low traffic Goenka orientated vipassanaforum.net and more low traffic off & on forum called freesangha.com and low traffic secularbuddhism.org/community/
There is dharmaoverground.org, where members focus heavily on personal claims of attainments.
There is discourse.suttacentral.net, which appears to have a narrow doctrinal focus
There is bswa.org/forum/, connected to Ajahn Brahm's monastery.
That's probably it.
Oh... and there is Reddit, which looks like a sectarian free-for-all to me; where folks can set up their own site and cult.
I post/have posted on most of them, under various pseudonyms, unless I am banned or forget them.

Because I'm in the habit of reinterpreting scripture, and questioning traditional authorities, I often find that fundamentalists are upset by what I write. For instance some time ago a chap going by the name of 'Namdrol' on the E-Sangha bulletin board, in a discussion of the Theravāda three lifetimes model of the nidāna chain - for which there is no Pāli Canonical authority - declared: "to reject the three lifetimes model is harming the dharma". I mentioned back then that I thought this a fundamentalist view, but was told that the word "fundamentalist" was banned in that forum (along with any reference to the New Kadampa Tradition which was a bit of a give away). E-Sangha died not long afterwards, but not before I realised that online forums, and arguing with strangers on the internet generally, were a waste of my time and started focussing on writing this blog.
Jayarava - BSE member


The way Trungpa Rinpoche explained metta, you must start with yourself. Sit and love yourself, respect yourself, give yourself a break - until you feel a relief. This may take days, weeks, or months - do not rush. The goal is to recover your sense of your own basic goodness, your fundamental sanity.

Often we judge others because we are strict to ourselves. Often we are strict to ourselves because our parents were strict to us, or our early environment was, like school teachers or peers. We may feel like we are high strung, we are under pressure to deliver excellent result, we are afraid to be a failure.

It takes a lot of courage to surrender, to sink into your own suchness, whatever it is. When you do it right you can feel the changes in your body. Your breath should get deeper and calmer. Your body should sink down and get more steady. At the same time you will feel like you can move your body freely without loosing your balance. Your face muscles should relax.

It feels like you can almost have a conversation with your own heart. "Forgive me my heart that I was so tough on you all these years. I'm so sorry, now I know how painful it was. Thank you for staying alive through all that. I love you, together we are one". You don't need to actually say or think any of this - but this is the feeling the right metta gives. The feeling of warmth.

This is 75% of the work. Then from this warmth, from this acceptance of yourself, you expand to accept and give warmth to everyone else. This is like having the same Sorry-Thanks-Love conversation with your cat, relatives, friends, strangers, enemies, and then the rest of the world, back to past ages, and forward to future ages. You don't need to visualize every one of them in great details, what matters is the sense of connection, the sense of appreciation, the sense of mutual acceptance, validation, and support.

It is a very heart-warming exercise. Don't be surprised if you find yourself overwhelmed with emotions and sob, that's a good sign.


My interests have changed. I wonder how to keep my previous life?

You have a family to take care of & livelihood is a factor of the Buddhist 8 fold path. You must earn a living.

If you have an intellectual talent for philosophy & have spent time & money in nearing completion of major studies, I would suggest you consider forcing yourself to complete your studies because your qualification can be used for livelihood. For example, once you complete your PHD, you can do some studies in Buddhism &/or psychology and thus branch out into that more practical & benevolent field (rather than work in pure Western philosophy). Formal qualifications can be very useful things.

For example, when I was young (23 years old) & first discovered meditation, I practised for a whole year, full time, and felt very free. I did not understand Buddhism well & left the meditation monastery to study psychology at university so I could learn to help people. I found the studies not practical at all; so I completed the 1st year of study, left university & returned to the meditation monastery. Some years later, after I discovered certain Buddhist teachings which are for helping ordinary people & returned to Western society, I regretted not completing the psychology degree. What you can do with a qualification is often more relevant than what you must study to obtain the qualification.

I don't wish to burst your 'enlightenment bubble' but it appears you are 'attached' to this 'enlightenment'. While I am being humorous here, often ideals must be abandoned or modified for more practical considerations.

I would suggest for you to consider (weigh up) how you could use the PHD in a more practical way.

While you are correct in stating Buddha-Dhamma should be given freely, I personally do not believe it is a crime to earn a living from Dhamma. Many universities have Buddhist studies; the lecturers/professors must have proper secular qualifications (rather than just be monks); therefore individuals, such as yourself, must fulfill these roles.

There are ex-Theravada monks who are now paid university professors, who still are part of the Theravada Buddhist community; including liaising with monks. They are never criticized.


Whatever Buddha taught was aimed at attaining nirvana. Vipassana meditation is to achieve nirvana. If you go through this journey, you can pick up something you want on the way. If you do so, there will be the delay and even you may lose bearing. What you mention are just like the stations you have to pass on the journey by train. If you are waiting one by one you will get it but slowly and not all at the same time. If you target at nirvana, you will get these all in a short time definitely.


Difference between Pin (Punya) and Kusal(Kushala)?

Pin(Punya) and Kusal are both same. Pin means that which purifies the mind. Kusala means that which is born of wisdom or that which counters defilements. The good deeds that lead to birth in heavenly realms are called Wattagamini-Kusala and the good deeds that lead to Nibbana are called Viwattagamini-Kusala. Here's an explanation by ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma Thera.


I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference (between "theory" and "doctrine"), or perhaps not one which every agrees on.

Per Google these seem to be used with the same frequency/popularity:

doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results)
theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though.

If you use the Ngram viewer (which I think only searches books), then "doctrine of emptiness" is the more popular.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=doctrine+of+emptiness%2C+theory+of+emptiness&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3

So published (book) authors tend to call it a doctrine.

As an aside -- not about Buddhism but about the way the word "theory" is used in English -- the word "theory" isn't necessarily pejorative (e.g. meaning "speculative , unproven, and wrong"): especially when scientists used that word.

For example it tends to be called "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", not because that's wrong or unproven, but apparently because it's an explanation (perhaps even akin to a doctrine) not just an observation.

This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term.

See also Laws and theories explained on Physics.SE.

Also note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic) -- a "law" needn't be "more true" than a "theory".

But the shades of meaning are a bit subtle, perhaps you can't infer much about why people might use or the other.

Certainly "doctrine" though, anyway, right?


Why don't animals(animal realm) commit suicide?

I'm not sure that they don't, not sure that it is never observed -- sometimes an old dog walks in front of a car for example, and is killed, and I wonder if they knew what they were doing.
But your question reminds me of a poem, by a non-Buddhist author, it's short and says:

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

It's a famous poem, striking, maybe worth considering from a Buddhist perspective.
I'm not even sure about that poem, though, not sure that it's true either: its author didn't always write kindly even about people (perhaps he was wrong about animals, too) -- it's hard to be sure of others' motives.
Animals sometimes feel sad, I'm pretty sure of that, and apparently mourn their dead; but perhaps self-pity depends on the ability to tell (or fabricate) a story about oneself: which, maybe, animals don't.


SN 12.51 Why are meritorious formations rooted in ignorance?

It seems to me that meritorious formations would be rooted in ignorance because wisdom would see the emptiness of such formations. If ignorance is abandoned then such formations and their karmic functions cease to play a role. They have been transcended.

Perhaps one could see this as progressing from the teachings of the first 'Turning' to the fundamental teachings of the third.

EDIT: In the third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma the Buddha "taught about the Buddha nature, the enlightened essence of luminous clarity that is the true nature of the mind of every sentient being."

This is the stage of thorough analysis in which, "in order to help his disciples abandon their clinging to non-existence, the Buddha taught that genuine reality transcends the conceptual fabrications of existence and non-existence, appearance and emptiness, and any other notion of what it might be."

Quotes are from The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso


When did the Buddha get surrounded by lots of animals?

An image (a painting) of the Buddha with many animals is the subject of the children's story, The Cat Who Went to Heaven.

Some of the animal vignettes in this are each taken from a traditional story (e.g. Buddha and swan, and e.g. Buddha and Banyan deer).

The painting is of the following scene:

  When he was eighty, he knew he was near
  death, and he saw the skies open and all the Hindu gods of the heavens, and
  of the trees, and the mountains, with his disciples, and the animals of the
  earth came to bid him farewell.

I don't know whether that scene is from any traditional story (I don't think it's a Pali sutta).


In school, teachers was asking students their resolutions, they can be not to lie, getting high score and so on.
But after some days or times gone no one seem aware of resolutions they had made at start of new year. Seldom of them aware of it; so if I've made resolution as not to lie, first thing I need to remind myself about it for practically achieve it. Need to mind control to not to lie. And so you asking for making year peaceful and happy then you can set it as practicing better than before and so many as you wishing. Meditation is there also you can made resolution of it and you'll have peaceful and bright year, not even year but life.


Sutta request: dedication of offerings in another ones name

This being a gift of devoted and faithful ancestors of yours, having it once dedicated that you might be able to nourish and grow to a better with it:

The most common, (guessing Nyom Medhini asked with kusala and devoted heart) is: 7. Tirokudda Kanda — Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

If further understanding is searched anonymously like a hungry shadow, may it be understood to be dedicated toward the many donors lost ancestors behind the walls: [Q&A] Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead and Sharing merits - Freude teilen (pattanumodana & pattidana) [Forum Guide]

Common one tries to reach ones departed ancestors in states where they could rejoice with ones deeds and so it might be that they find better rebirth. That is why there are made certain funeral fests and long ceremonies. The dedication toward the Sangha "secures" that they might meet the Sangha in other existences and with it the Dhamma at later time, and by nourishing it"s existence, making each other familiar, Nissaya and possible meeting increases.

Dedication for and offerings toward the ancestors is one of the laymans duties, if wishing after good and better.

Good if being aware of the many goodness many did by sacrifices for you and use it for good and best, never hurting or harming, misguiding others and become another of the Sages step by step. Anumodana! and Mudita.

So powerful is this,
    the accomplishment of merit.
Thus the wise, the prudent,
    praise the fund of merit
    already made.

In the case one or another has a hard to nourish and swallow it: Not having done merits in the past, even if given by ones previous beloved, one would be incapable to receive/take it. Something to think about if possible to do.

(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, although hungry ghosts are incapable even for such, but for getting out of bondages)


How can evil doers be 'reborn' as 'human'?

might be lost in translation somehow.   from this

  "No ce kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ
  upapajjati, sace manussattaṃ ..

if replace "in stead of" with "if not" , that it makes more sense.

  if not reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination,
  the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state,....

It could also mean that when karma is exhausted in suffering plane, and being appear in human world after? So once you burn your "debt" you move to the next phase or rebirth, lacking the "debt"

The vice versa is said to occur at the end of a rebirth in the heavens as a god. They burn through their "good debt" quickly and tend to fall into the lower realms when their dues are paid.

I am an amateur self taught Pali.  I could be wrong but at least it opens up for those who know more about Pali to chime in.  Could "No ce" together with rest of a sentence,  is better to translate to "if not" rather than "instead of"?


The term Zazen (Chinese 坐禪, zuò chán) just means seated meditation. It doesn't itself specify what kind of meditation is being practiced.

Just Sitting refers to Shikantaza, which is the type of meditation taught by Dōgen Zenji, the founder of the Sōtō school of Japanese Zen. He famously explained it in the Fukanzazengi saying :

  Once you have adjusted your posture, take a breath and exhale fully,
  rock your body right and left, and settle into steady, immovable
  sitting. Think of not thinking. Not thinking-what kind of thinking is
  that? Nonthinking. This is the essential art of zazen.

There are similar practices in other schools of Zen in China and Korea, but it is less prominent as Koan practice is more common.


Is insight meditation counter-productive (sometimes)?

The statement:

  "By developing a non-reactive awareness we begin to see why we think, speak and act the way we do"

When there is awareness, there is mindfulness and clear comprehension of the situation, which is, the thinking, speaking and acting, which continues the way it is because it is conditioned; but because there is this clear comprehension, there is this "pause", "space" to breathe before we commit to the thinking, speaking and acting, allowing the mind to depart from the conditioning.

It is just like a mother watching over the child, doing her thing and only making the child more aware of what she is doing, so she contemplates before doing anything. The mother (awareness, sati-sampajanna) is one thing, the child (mind, vinnana) is another, eventually.

In the beginning of the practice, awarenes is patchy; and the thing that interrupts thoughts in the mind is not the awareness itself but the thought to re-establish awareness again and the act of re-establishing this awareness. So in the beginning these interruptions are distracting but soon they are reduced depending on one's progress.

One can learn, create and be absorbed with the awareness attending, and that learning, creating and absorbing is much more intense and wholesome.


Can a person become a buddha after reaching nirvana?

According to Mahayana, a person can become a buddha after reaching nirvana. We hold that all sentient beings will, sooner or later, become buddhas - be it after they reached nirvana or not.

As to the hearers and solitary realizers, we say that while they dwell in abiding nirvana, the buddhas manifest to them and encourage them to enter the Mahayana path, so that they will in turn become buddha - thereby achieving their own benefits completely, and the benefits of others. This is the presentation of the Abhisamaya-Alamkara:

  The arhat without the contaminated aggregates will hear the voice of
  the Buddha telling him or her something like “you are free from the
  suffering of samsara, but still you have not gained nonabiding
  nirvana. Therefore, you need to enter the Mahayana path.” With these
  words the Buddha wakes up the arhat from their blissful meditative
  state.

In this context, there are two types of nirvana:

Abiding nirvana. It is the nirvana of hearers and solitary realizers. We refer to it, in a somehow derogatory fashion, as "individual liberation".
Non-abiding nirvana. It is the final true cessation, the nirvana that bodhisattvas attain when they achieve full perfect enlightenment - the path of no more learning.

In his commentary to Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra Geshe Gyaltsen said:

  Non-abiding, the nirvana of a buddha, is a nirvana not abiding in the
  two extremes. It is not the nirvana of a hearer or solitary realizer,
  but the nirvana of the highest state of development of a buddha.

The following passage also shows that the one who has attained abiding nirvana did not abandon all objects of abandonment.

  Abiding nirvana is a temporal goal. Temporal has the connotation of
  being ordinary. This is because there is still something to abandon.
  But it is tricky because the term 'nirvana' is also synonymous with
  '[final] true cessation'. And the true cessation of a buddha is not
  something that is ordinary.

There are buddhas who did not enter abiding nirvana, but buddhahood is non-abiding nirvana. After a bodhisattva enters non-abiding nirvana, he abides in neither of the two extremes of peace (abiding nirvana) or samsara. This is because here, samsara is understood as the contaminated aggregates. A buddha is free from contaminated aggregates, and he can manifest countless enjoyment body and emanation bodies. For instance, we say that an already enlightened one showed the aspect of being born as Shakyamuni, and then showed the aspect of undergoing austerities and achieving enlightenment while he was, in fact, already enlightened. We say that Shakyamuni buddha was a supreme emanation body, one of the countless bodies a buddha can emanate so as to benefit sentient beings.


Why will-power could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?

I have no knowledge of Thai but what I think is said here is:

Anatta nature is such that you cannot effect any of the aggregates by will power alone in an absolute way ever lasting way. You can stay in one posture but this is to a limited time. So you have limited influence but not absolute at a grosser level. At the level of arising and passing you have no control, whatsoever. When phenomena arises you cannot make it not pass away. You cannot stop phenomena arising.

But having said this you can have limited influence over all the aggregates by what you do at the present moment though influencing the fabrication process (Karmic and Citta Niyama resultants). E.g. by calming the breath you can calm the bodily fabrications. Certain volitions give certain results later. These can be viewed as regulating, i.e. you regulate the present moment. Awareness of the arising and passing away of: the aggregates / mind matter process / within the 4 foundations of mindfulness, equanimous to sensations devoid of clinging and craving, creating positive fabrication (like Metta), etc. are forms of regulation.


In my opinion, the Dhamma is in-between those two extremes. The Dhamma teaches us Dependent Co-arising.

One's mind is not free from the influence of past conditions. What affects the aggregates in the present will influence its future state (or the state of the next group of aggregates causally derived from and connected to a past group of aggregates). In that sense, the mind is not free, at least not in an absolute sense.

On the other hand, is not only the past what influence the way the aggregates are or present themselves; the present, "external conditions" (external to the aggregates) also play a part in determining the state of the mind and the body. When we say "external conditions", we mainly refer to sensory stimuli and sense information, including thoughts (which are the stimuli of the mind, the sixth sense door in buddhism). That's why I think "external" is not a precise word for what I'm trying to say; maybe a better word could be "sense objects". In sum, sense objects contacting with sense organs/doors influence the aggregates, so we cannot say that only the past is responsable for present conditions; and so, we are not determined only by the past, at least not in the absolute sense.

The aggregates are conditioned by both past and present events, and this is precisely what allows us to change and to overcome and eradicate past kamma, to create new habits and tendencies leading to liberation.

Kind regards, and welcome to the site!


At a Theravada monastery:

You have to be familiar with taking refuge in the Triple Gem and taking of the five precepts:
http://refuge.sirimangalo.org/
Remove shoes and hats when you enter the monastery.
Wear conservative clothing. White color clothes are more appropreate.
Avoid shouting, idle chatter and laughter(can smile when appropriate) while you are there
Avoid running. Walk quietly.
While listening to Dhamma talks or meditating with others, turn off your phone or keep it in silent mode. If you need to answer an urgent call or text, quietly go outside the room.
If you make an offering to the Buddha or the Sangha, do it using both hands and bow afterwards.
If you offer food, do it well before noon as monks cannot accept food after noon. Make sure the food is prepared for consumption as monks are not allowed to cook food.
Do not offer food that is already consumed by another.
When offering food to monks, don't place it on the table expecting them to take, like in restaurants. You must personally serve every curry into the bowl or plate. If they don't prefer a certain dish, they will indicate by covering the bowl with hand as you try to serve.
Don't consume food while attending meditation sessions or listening to Dhamma talks.
Don't smoke inside the monastery.
If a monk is standing and addressing you, don't be seated. If a monk is seated on a couch/bench, do not sit on the same at the same time. Sit on the floor or sit on a chair which is lower and less luxurious. Do not sit directly facing a monk or a Buddha statue. Sit to the side. When sitting(chair), do not put one leg over the other or sit with your legs wide open or stretched  infront.
Do not address the monks by name. Use respectful terms like 'Bhante', "venerable sir" etc.
Do not try to shake hands with the monks, pat on the back etc. Avoid all unnecessary physical contact within the monastery.
Do not take selfies with Buddha statues or monks. Do not take pictures with your back turned to the Buddha statues.
Do not try to practice your own method in the monastery. Follow the instructions by the teacher.
If you wish to make a donation, don't hand money to the monks as they are not allowed to handle money. Instead, look for the donation box or ask them how to make a donation.


According to the Pali suttas, the Buddha seemed to praise honoring him & his virtues, i.e., for the right purpose (such as did not occur in the case of Vakkali, who was rebuked).

If a Buddha pagoda helps you practise better, be more mindful, virtuous & wise, it is generally held to be praiseworthy.


A literal reading of this translation brings the conclusion there is the same person transmigrating or reincarnating from life to life. Therefore, there will obviously be the impression of a permanent substance, such as a "soul", reincarnating from life to life. The Neo-Buddhists can argue until they are blue in the face that what transmigrates is a "re-linking consciousness" (which the Buddha did not teach) but, whatever it is called, it retains the characteristics of a soul (which is probably why Buddhism became extinct in India, given the common person could not distinguish between Neo-Buddhism & Hinduism).

Personally, I regard Chapter 15 of the SN to be either "fake dhamma" or, otherwise, mostly metaphorical language. For example:

Literally, the word "saṃsāro" does not mean "transmigration". It merely means "continuance". SN 22.99 is a sutta using similar language to SN 15.13 yet describes samsaro as the ignorant mind, similar to a dog tied to a post, continually circling around & attaching to the same aggregates as "self".
Literally, the word "satta" ("beings") does not refer to "sentient beings" but merely refers to a "self-view" produced by ignorance & craving (refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10, which define what a "satta" or "being" is). Therefore, what is continuing from an inconceivable beginning might be the production of self-views.
Metaphorically, SN 47.20 uses the metaphor of a "head chopped off" for a loss of mindfulness. Therefore, when SN 15.13 refers to continually being beheaded, this may refer to continually lacking mindfulness.
Metaphorically, suttas such as Lokapala Sutta refer to goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs and jackals as representing sexual promiscuity (or unwholesome non-humane behaviours).
Literally, similar to the Lokapala Sutta, SN 15.13 thus continues by referring to thieves, highway thieves, adulterers, which are unwholesome behaviours bringing punishment and even execution by the king. There are many suttas referring to the king cutting off the head of thieves, murderers & adulterers.


Knowledge has limits.

"Mind is not Buddha. Knowledge is not the Way." But then, even saying this is leading you astray again, so I should shut up. Your question can be asked, because you have asked it. But not all questions make any sense. I think that the error is the choice of your second word, "Suppose you..." This word has no referent. But to communicate with you, I need to resort to meaningless terms like 'you' and 'I'. Try not to get hung up on them.

"Have you had breakfast?"


Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

I might start by saying that I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything.

A mathematician proves theories by defining axioms and showing that the theories derive from axioms
A physicist proves laws by defining laws and showing that the laws predict observed physical behaviour

This topic about 'proofs' in philosophy says,

  [Except in "formal logic"] the best you get is an analytically-reasoned argument.
  If I can show that a given position is self-contradictory then I have proven the position false. In terms of positive proof for a position, then it does not seem that there is anything available quite equivalent to mathematical proof in either rigour or epistemic certainty.

So I don't understand the question as-asked. But (instead of answering the question) perhaps analysing the text and looking at definitions of the words will be a partial answer instead.

I just read Chapter 37 (only).

It's translated from Chinese, which is difficult -- I must read an English translation.

I do't entirely trust that because I think that word-for-word translation are inevitably inaccurate -- e.g. the Pali word dukkha has various translations, like "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" etc. -- or Pali has three words for different aspects of "mind" -- but anyway I'll try what I can with the English translation.

To start I note it starts with orthodox/standard doctrine ...

  Because of this, know that Sramana Gautama has no father and no mother. If he has, how can he say:

    "All things are non-eternal, suffering, void; and all have no self, no doing, no feeling?"

... i.e. it says that the Buddha's doctrine is as quoted above (e.g. "all things have no self").

I'm not sure what "have no self" would be a translation of, if the original were in Pali -- I think it could be anatta or sunyata -- but the previous clause said "void" which I take it was a translation of "empty" or sunyata so I guess that "have no self" is a reference to anatta.

Incidentally the Pali phrase or doctrine is something like sabbe sankhara anatta (i.e. "all things are non-self") -- but "things" there isn't a great translation of sankhara, a better translation might be "compound things" (or "things put together from other things" or "things which depend on other things"), and perhaps specifically in contrast to nibbana which is called a dhamma and not a sankhara.

Anyway I think the word "self" (in common English and in English translations of buddhist texts) might be ambiguous and depending on context it could refer to different things:

Something eternal (a soul, a god, perhaps something "space" or "light" or "time")
Something unconditioned, which exists independently of other things
Something in the I/me/mine kind of realm, e.g. "my soul" or "my consciousness" etc. -- or conversely that the Self is the possessor not the possessed, etc.

The first mention of "Self" seems to be here:

  That is to say that all things are non-eternal, suffering, non-Self, and non-Pure, and that only the Tathagata is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.

I have to guess at what "non-self" and "non-pure" mean; but the Wikipedia article you quoted says some things about that.

The "six masters" then say something like, "Well if you have Self then so have we. For example maybe Seeing is Self (and we see)", and the Buddha replies that seeing isn't Self. Here is the Buddha's argument:

  The Buddha said to the six masters: "If seeing is the Self, you are wrong. Why? You take up the analogy of an object and say that we see by it. Now, man uses together the six sense-organs to one object. If there surely is the Self and we see unfailingly by (means of) the eye, why is it that we do not cognise all objects with that one sense-organ? If one does not meet with the six sense-fields, know that there is no Self to talk of. If things are thus with the sense-organ of sight, there will be no change even if years pass and the sense-organs become ripened. As "man" and "object" are different, one sees one's own self and the other. If it is thus with the sense-organ of sight, there must be the seeing of one's own self and the other at (one and the same) time. If not seen, how can we say that there is the Self?

I think that's saying:

Seeing isn't Self because we cognise sense-objects with several senses (not just seeing)
Seeing is dependent on contact (with the sense-fields), if there's no contact then is there no "Self"?
Sense organs (e.g. the eye) change with time
Another argument I don't understand

I wanted to analyse the argument in order to understand (or reverse-engineer) the definition of "Self" that's being used.

I think the first bit of the argument is that if something (e.g. seeing) is Self then there can't be something else (e.g. hearing) that's also self.

And so on. If you analyze subsequent paragraphs in a similar way you derive different characteristics or definition of Self, for eample:

  If one cannot do as one wills, know that this indicates that assuredly no Self is there.
  The body of the Tathagata is not based on causal relations. Because there are no causal relations, we say that there is the Self.
  If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another?

I think this is more-or-less the conclusion:

  The Buddha said: "If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another? If a person does good or evil at (different) times, how can we say that the Self is boundless? If the Self does, why would one practise evil things? If the Self is the doer and if it is the wise, how can one doubt about the selflessness of the being? So, we can say that there can definitely be no Self in the doctrine of the tirthikas. The Self is none other than the Tathagata. Why? Because his body is boundless and there exists no doubt. On account of non-doing and non-receiving (of karmic consequences), we say Eternal. On account of birthlessness and deathlessness, we say Bliss. As there exists no defilement of illusion, we say Pure. As he does not have the ten aspects of existence, we say Void (i.e. void of all that causes suffering). Hence, the Tathagata is none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure, and the Void, and there is no other aspect to speak of.

I think that's not a clear (or it's a difficult) explanation of why "the Self is the Tathagata" -- I think the reasoning is that it's consistent with the definitions or properties of "Self" -- e.g. (I paraphrase) "seeing can't be self because it's limited, light can't be Self because it's caused by (dependently originated from) a lamp, but the Tathagata is unbounded".

You might like to see also Why is the Buddha described as trackless? -- because I think that's an example of the Tathagata's being called unbounded in the Pali suttas.

I'm not sure what the point is, what the benefit is, for having this kind of doctrine abut Self. It's unusual, the Wikipedia article Ātman (Buddhism) which you quoted says,

  Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self', and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.

So if the Brahmins are teaching about the Self, then the Buddha has two ways to contradict them:

"There is no Self"
"The Self is the Tathagata"

Another theory is that it might be intended to contradict the Three marks of existence -- i.e. if things are "negative" (unsatisfactory and non-self) maybe there's something else that's "positive" ... even attractive.

Finally I note there's something else in that same Wikipedia article:

  According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

    The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

  In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

I haven't tried to find the location in the sutra where it says that, you might find it interesting to do that.


Does Yogacara deny atoms exist or does it just say that atoms are just appearances?

This idea is well known in Mahayana literature, one could say it's a standard idea. What the argument is about, though, is not whether atoms exist at all, but whether they exist as something substantial. Similarly, we are not questioning the existance of rainbows, rainbows do happen - they just don't exist as something solid one could touch.
You won't argue that atoms are not solid nor made from smaller pieces of matter. Even the planetary model is a vast simplification. And of course, the elementary particles that atoms are made from - are not substantial either.
The point of the argument presented by Vasubandhu and others is that as you go down to the microscopic level, you won't find any matter, nor anything substantial at all, nor will it be static and stable, as everything under closer examination is a dynamic system made up of something else, of some interactions.


What are some resources on Mahayana forms of Meditation?

For example, a great classical source on zazen would be Bendōwa by Dogen, which people jokingly pronounce bend over.

If you include Vajrayana under Mahayana umbrella, then there are bits on tantric meditation in Introduction to Tantra on Lama Thubten Yeshe, or Guru Yoga by Tsongkhapa, which is a manual. In the same subject of Samatha there is great treatise commentary in Alan Wallace's Stilling the Mind: Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence from perspective of Dzogchen. There will be companion book by Alan Wallace Fathoming the Mind: Inquiry and Insight in Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence that takes on another section (Vipassana) of Vajra Essence treaty.

Apart from that, many references directly pointing at texts can be found in this section of Buddhist meditation on Wikipedia.


The "awakened" outside of a monastic/retreat setting?

Milarepa

...His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life...

Then later in life he came to meet his teacher Marpa the translator

...he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence...

Tilopa

He practiced this teaching at Somapuri, but when the monastery saw him take a female consort for the practice of union yoga, he was forced to quit the community.

Tilopa profited from his expulsion by travelling throughout India, searching out many teachers and learning their methods.

Naropa

Several years later, at twenty-eight, his interests drew him to Nalanda University, near Pullahari, famous for its Buddhist philosophers...But then a dakini appeared to him, telling him that meditation practice was more important than philosophizing, and that he should search out a certain Tilopa for instructions.Leaving the monastery...

This is an entire lineage Tilopa->Naropa->Marpa->Milarepa

As they say :The truly enlightened are not necessarily very religious. Religon is a convienent description to take care of our fears, to passify us.


Mindfulness improves academic performance?

This question appears not answerable. For example, if your vipassana practise is highly successful, your mind could become "dispassionate" towards mathematics. Instead of earning a PHD, you might become a monk & spend your life wandering among peasants in Cambodia.


Yes. Those who want good things to happen them should be heedful in doing meritorious deeds.
From the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
the wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.

Those who do not want bad things to happen to them should be mindful of their conduct.
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.’

So, who says there is no bank account of kamma in Buddhism?
Yes, there is. But where does it end?
Everyone works to earn money to fill their bowl with food. Then they eat enough to have sufficient energy so that they can go back to work, to earn more money.
Similarly, everybody is busy running on the kamma hamster wheel to ensure that the periodic kamma bank balance (hopefully) looks positive.
Don't you get tired of that?
Also from the Themes Sutta:

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

If you're tired of running on the hamster wheel, well, that's suffering.
Suffering, not because you did past bad kamma and have bad things happen to you.
But rather, suffering, because you have to struggle to keep going. And despite struggling and working hard to have a good future, it never permanently satisfies you. Good outcomes don't last forever and bad outcomes cannot be avoided forever.
Congratulations! You have just stumbled onto the first noble truth. Next, go on to the second, third and fourth noble truths, to find your way out of suffering.

P.S. Please note that not everything that happens to you is due to kamma. Sometimes it's due to other reasons like weather, bile, phlegm, clumsiness, harm done by others etc. - please see Sivaka Sutta and Devadaha Sutta for details.


Should detachment, and letting go, be an appropriate response when you are owed money?

Imagine a monkey came to your house and grabbed something of value and climbed a tree. You tell the monkey "please give it back to me! Be a good monkey!". But it doesn't respond. What would your plan of action be? Start cursing and hating the monkey? No! You would try to lure the monkey with a banana or something. If that's not successful, you might call a wild life officer. You have to use your wisdom instead of getting all emotional. And if you still can't get it back, you don't wish for the universe to resolve it. ex: Wishing for the monkey to be struck by lightning. :) You just let it go and credit it towards experience or a lesson learnt and see what you can do to prevent the same from happening in the future.


What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana (and how do we work to get there)

From my own experience, at certain point in one's practice, one's ties with the regular world reduce so much that one no longer gets any energy from participating in mundane affairs ("There is nothing further for the sake of this world").

At this point one has only two choices: either go 100% hardcore ascetic ("Arhat") or engage with society in the teaching/helping capacity ("Bodhisattva") - either openly or secretly. One can't really be "normal" anymore, pursuing success and entertainment, since one's value system no longer goes up to worldly goals. So if one were to engage with the world lukewarmely on samsaric terms - then one would either die miserable death, or regress badly -- hence only two reasonable choices. I suppose this is why it is often said that once you go far enough there is no turning back.

As to which option is preferable, I think it's totally up to personal inclinations. Some people are very self-sufficient and very comfortable being the end in themselves. For them the peace of minimalism is way more agreeable than the high drama of Bodhisattva's path. Other people need to get energy from the outside, so they chose to give something, to get something in return.


Can an ordained person keep a late sleep schedule?

Yes, such a person can appropriately hold monastic vows in the Geluk tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. There are sleeping restrictions in the Vinaya, but not regarding the time or length of sleep. Although Vinaya states that sleep is an impediment to the three trainings, in any case over-sleeping (are 8 hours of sleep over-sleeping? this is open to interpretation) would not constitute a downfall since it is not the breaking of a vow.

However, sleeping at such hours and for so long would be seen as inappropriate by many. In addition, a monk could hardly stay in a monastery or in a center (even in the West) with such a schedule, because there are (1) monastery-schedules, and (2) rules that are not Vinaya but institutional. It is not rare to have pujas in the morning, etc. Of course, Western institutions are not as strict as  the Tibetan ones (for Tibetan have to wake up at 5:30 am, and if they do not, they are fined by the disciplinarian) but still.

Most of the western sangha are relatively wealthy elderly women who live in their houses, enjoying various floors, living with their cat, great gardens and the like, on their own, and not all taken that seriously by monks.

I suggest you read Lama Yeshe's Advice for monks and nuns.


How is a Buddha able to do things beyond the laws of cause-and-effect?

That sounds like it might be one of the Four Unconjecturables.

  "There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

  "The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[ 1 ] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

  "The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[ 2 ]

  "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

  "These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

  Notes

  1.
  I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.

  2.
  I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

But that is an interesting question. :)


Can anyone identify which suttas these quotes (having to do with the sense of self) come from?

I think the first one is for example the Kutuhalasala Sutta (SN 44.9) (S iv 398), the relevent sentence in that translation being:

  Instead, he describes him thus:

    "He has cut through craving, severed the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit has made an end of suffering & stress."'

I think that "rightly breaking through conceit" might be a translation of of the same text as "rightly understanding ‘I am’" (because "breaking through" = "understanding", and "I am" = "conceit").

There's more about the relationship between "conceit" and "identity view" in the answers to this topic.

Another translation is here:

  But, he declares of him, thus:

    “He has cut off craving, and through full mastery over conceit, he has
    made a total end of suffering.”

This gives the Pali in a footnote:

  Acchejji taṇhaṁ vivattayi saññojanaṁ sammā,mānâbhisamayā antam akāsi dukkhassâ ti.

Here's part of a dictionary definition of one of those words, Abhisamaya

  Abhisamaya, (abhi + samaya, from sam + i, cp. abhisameti & sameti; BSk. abhisamaya, e. g. Divy 200, 654) “coming by completely”, insight into, comprehension, realization, clear understanding, grasp, penetration.

So you can see how that word might be translated as "understanding" and/or "penetration".

A later part of that same dictionary definition says,

  sammā-mān’âbhisamaya full understanding of false pride in ster. phrase "acchecchi (for acchejji) taṇhaṃ, vivattayi saññojanaṃ sammāmānâbhisamayā antam akāsi dukkhassa" at S.IV, 205, 207, 399; A.III, 246, 444; It.47

... in other words:

It's a "ster. phrase" (maybe "stereotypical phrase"?)
That dictionary translates it as "full understanding of false pride"
It can be found in several suttas, including S.IV (205, 207, and 399), A.III (246 and 444), and It.47.

And indeed, as stated in that definition, here it is again at the end of (for example) the Nissaraniya Sutta (AN 5.200) (A iii 245):

  He has cut through craving, has turned away from the fetter, and by rightly breaking through conceit he has put an end to suffering & stress.

So it's found in at least two of the suttas (quoted/hyperlinked above), and presumably found in at least all 6 of the suttas referenced in the dictionary definition above.


What is (re)born? Did the Buddha explicitly state that it is "the mental idea of the self" that is reborn?

From Milindapanha:

-- “What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
-- “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
-- “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
-- “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.

Just like an adult "inherits" results of the choices made by the child - even though most of the original body cells are gone, similarly future existence "inherits" karma from the past existence.

--“Can there be any rebirth where there is no transmigration?”
--“Yes there can, just as a man can light one oil-lamp
from another but nothing moves from one lamp to the
other; or as a pupil can learn a verse by heart from a teacher
but the verse does not transmigrate from teacher to pupil.”

It is information and causation that is reborn, or is re-embodied. Or, as Chogyam Trungpa said, it is our neuroses that are reborn.


Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

Can you remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

I think that Wikipedia's article suggests not:

  Rhys Davids & Stede (1921–25) state in part that "Freedom from the 'Āsavas' constitutes Arahantship."

And

  These points are collected and summarized by Bhikkhu Bodhi thus:

    The āsavas or taints are a classification of defilements considered in their role of sustaining the forward movement of the process of birth and death.

    The three taints mentioned in the Nikāyas are respectively synonyms for craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and ignorance. [The fourth āsava, attachment to views, appears in the commentaries.] When the disciple's mind is liberated from the taints by the completion of the path of arhantship, he reviews his newly won freedom and roars his lion's roar: "Birth is destroyed, the spiritual life has been lived, what had to be done has been done; there is no more coming back to any state of being."

There's another question about asava here: What is effluent? The answer to that question is I think a good explanation, and it includes two references for further reading.


Could dhammanupassana be to remember satipatthana?

Your question is about the 'goal' of dhammanupassana. You are rightly careful to not think of it as the only 'benefit' of dhammanupassana.

Establishment of sati, is fourfold. Fourfold establishment means that sati is perfected when sati (awareness) is established over the 4 categorized mind-body phenomenon. That is to say, mind-body phenomenon is viewed in terms of the 4 categories, awareness of body (kayanupassana), awareness of sensations (vedanupassana), awarenesss of mind  (cittanupassana) and awareness of the nature/law of mental-contents (dhammanupassana). Pefrection of sati is gradual and happens in all 4 categories (since there are no 'categories' as such, but the term is used conventionally to make sense of mind-body phenomenon). Of course, establishing awareness of body is easier than the rest, nonetheless, perfection (perfect establishing of sati) which is to say , complete awareness happens only when progress is made on all '4' categories.

I do no unedrstand what you mean by heart in this context. Memory is a mental phenomenon and so perfection of dhammanupassana, of course, results in sharper and clearer memory (only as an off-shoot; not the main goal(or even an intended goal) of dhammanupassana).
As to the question about 'viriya', while in a subtle (and indeed profound) sense, viriya specifically implies for the meditation period, in a superficial sense (very usefull and certainly not wrong) it also implies to right effort in one's everyday life.

But to answer your question in the simplest way, in the context of meditation, certainly viriya must be applied to get back on the path as one strays and becomes aware that one has strayed. Just dont stop with viriya there!

References-
You may refer to Sattipathana sutta and Mahasattipathana sutta for  better understanding based on your own reading.

NOTE-

I have used 'awareness' as the english translation for sati. 'Mind-fullness' works equally well in this case.
I have used 'effort' as the english translation for viriya. 'Energy' would be an equally goood translation in this case.