But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the
  attainment of the path?

The path to nibbana has four steps as you mentioned stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship. As you have asked How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? I'll answer to that as below.

What is Stream Entry
When someone achieved this state he drops three fetters self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa). Ref. But there's a mistake in this. Which is how (sakkāya-ditthi) is defined. It's translated as self-view. With this mistake we are trying to think to attain stream entry we need to drop the myself view. Which is not the correct buddhism.

If someone feels like down voting this, first read this full and question back, before doing that. Because this is the real buddhism

First I'll prove why it cannot be self-view.

If someone drops him self in the first stage (drops the fetter of self-view) then who is going to attain the once returner state who is going to follow the rest of the path of Enlightment. To do that there should be a person, there should be a self who is doing that.
Dropping fetter mānasaṃ which happens when becoming Arhat cause to drop the self-view not the vise versa. And only after someone becomes Arhat he has no view of him self. He is not going to compare anything with him, as everything is irrelative (opposite of relative) to him (there's no him at this state).

Now let's see what's the real sakkāya means.
sakkāya means, Something you are attached (upaadanaya) is worth. As an example, we think nice car is something worth to have, pretty lady / handsome boy is worth, Think about anything that you think it is worth (This can be your children, laptop, parents, pen, pair of shoes, phone with latest Tech etc). Now ask the below questions from your self (If you are not Arhat then there's a self).

Why you think that's worth? : Answer would be it exists the way you want. You think the existence of that happens as per your wish. Until that happens, you protect it, you keep it, sometime you archive it saying that had been with you for this much of years (eg: you may keeping a pen which is no longer use, but just because it was given to you by someone special, therefore it's worth for you)
Is the same thing worth for some other person as well? : Answer would be No. Why? because it's something you build in your mind. If the real worthiness is in that object (eg: pen, phone, lover, car etc.) it should be worth to everyone. The only answer which explains why everyone doesn't like (doesn't think worth) the same thing, is because its made up in your mind.

So now it should be clear that the real worthiness does not exist in out side world (outside object). Its always something we build in our own mind. Now you should think deeply, how you can expect the same model which you built on your mind will be reflecting in the outside object. (eg: wife thinks, husband will love her forever, man thinks the car will exists as he expects). These are two different things. One in outside and one in your mind. And just because we attached to an outside world (external world) object, then we try to make / control outside world object to make it identical with the model we made it in our mind. But you will not be able to achieve this. This is the real meaning of Anicca not the impermanence.

Now back to sakkāya, It is that we think the external world is worth. And we attached (craving) to that without understanding (not knowing = ignorance) the Anicca behaviour of the world. Therefore to drop the sakkāya you need to understand the Anicca behaviour. Which make you understand nothing is worth in this world, but if you have experienced something is worth (exists according to the same picture built in your mind), it is because that's how it supposed to behave according to the law of nature (which is Pratītyasamutpāda), and not because of the picture in your mind or because of your wish. So when someone understand this he drops the other two fetters which are clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa)

  What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who
  has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the
  respective path?

Answer to the second part of the question:
An ordinary person and a faithful disciple who has not attained any path are the same Puthujjana level. And only the person, who has attained the stream entry (Sotāpanna) after knowing the Anicca behaviour of the world, acts differently. Because he knows the truth of the world, to understand that very well and he will not run after attachments as the way he used to be. He has slown down the speed of running after attachments as he knows and understands the truth up to some level.

So stream entry person starts meditating after he become stream entry, and get to the four stages of dhyana as he can deeply concentrate the truth of the world (Anicca) and how world behaves (Pratītyasamutpāda) in dyana state. Which cause him moving to the other three steps and finally attain Nibbana

Hope this clears grey areas in Buddhism.


This is not for other people to answer.

This is your own work. Only we ourselves can work and develop ourselves.

It can actually be harmful for a meditator to hear what lies ahead on the path before he or she has attained those fruits. That is because the Mind can then try to search for the things one has heard or read. That is not good. They should come naturally as practice develops.

Go meditate and find your answers or ask your teacher if you do not understand the practice or technique.


Does MN 60 contradict SN 12.15? If so, why is it so?

SN 12.15 says that "everything exists" and "everything doesn't exist" are opposite extremes and are both wrong view.

I guess there are different problems with each view: e.g. "everything exists" implies attachment and ignores conditioned/composite nature of everything; whereas "everything doesn't exist" implies nihilism and amorality.

I think that MN 60 concentrates its argument on one aspect, i.e. that the view that "nothing exists" leads to amorality:

  it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing

For that reason, "everything exists" is the relatively skillful view.

Incidentally I think that people sometimes talk about a "two truths" doctrine, i.e. that "conventionally things exist but ultimately nothing exists". Another way to express the "conventional truth (or relative truth) versus ultimate truth" duality is to call conventional "skillful" or "skillful means".


I would check out the (dubious) Digha Nikaya, particularly the Mahāpadāna Sutta.

  It is now ninety-one aeons ago, brethren, since Vipassī, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It is now thirty-one
  aeons ago, brethren, since Sikhi, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha
  Supreme, arose in the world. It was in that same thirty-first aeon,
  brethren, that Vessabhu, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme,
  arose in the world. It was in this present auspicious aeon, brethren,
  that Kakusandha, the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in
  the world. It was in this auspicious aeon, brethren, that Koṇāgamana,
  the Exalted One, Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It was
  in this auspicious aeon, brethren, that Kassapa, the Exalted One,
  Arahant, Buddha Supreme, arose in the world. It is in this auspicious
  aeon, brethren, that now I, an Arahant, Buddha Supreme, have arisen in
  the world.

MN 50 also contains a story.

  Venerable Mahāmoggallāna saw the Evil One stuck in the throat and said, I see you there too. You are stuck in the throat. In the past
  there was an Evil One named Dūsi. To me there was a sister named Kāli.
  You were her son. Then you were my nephew. It was at the time of the
  perfect rightfully enlightened Blessed One Kakusanda's time. To the
  perfect rightfully Enlightened One, Kakusanada, there were two chief
  disciples named Vidura and Sañjīva

(Disclaimer: Based on human & social evolution, I personally doubt there were any past Buddhas. For example, the Mahāpadāna Sutta appears state the very first Buddha had 6,800,000 or 68 lacs arahant disciples; the older the Buddha, the more arahant disciples they had, which seems to contradict historical evidence of human population. The above genre of suttas that number a handful among 1,000s of suttas, which also contradict SN 22.79 in talking about literal 'personal' past lives, I would speculate were later writings rather than words of the Buddha.)


Kamma and (psychiatric) delusions / madness

"The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma"

You have to look at the action (good or bad) and the  consequence( Kamma & vipaka). whether one has a sound mind or unsound mind doesn't matter, without intention there is no action.

Even a person suffering from psychosis uses his mind to do things,  so without thoughts nothing good or bad  happens( the thoughts may be abnormal,incomplete,unclear or confusing)  ,but a person with psychosis may not feel the consequences like a normal person ,so the magnitude of suffering may differ for the same actions committed by different people.


When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?

Formation is okay, back two other meaning are not okay.
Sankhara are coworker originators.
Sankhata are lucky men or victims.
Every aggregates must be many cause states (conditioners) and many effect states (conditioned).
There are only two unconditioned, Nibbāna and Illusion (Paññatti, included name).
Nibbāna, a reality, is not conditioned by any Sankhara because it is  the cessation state of Sankhara. It is the opposite of conditioned. Whoever , aggregates, knew Nibbāna must going to never born by conditioners again in 7 births. It is never arise but it is still a state either one know it or not. And  who want to know this reality must practice hard follow the Buddha only, except SammāSambuddha and PaccekaSambuddha.
Illusion (Paññatti, included name) is not conditioned because it is just imagination which must  imagined by  someone. It is not reality, not truth. And it is not the opposite of aggregates because erything, all aggregates, Nibbāna and all Illusions, can be imagined by thinking (mind;Cittu-Uppāda).
See Abhidhamma, especially Patthāna (24 conditions), for more information.


What do Buddhists say about illogical self sacrifice?

Here are three possible angles to look at it from:

A genuinely selfless action can be a wholesome act of generosity and compassion. But...
A sacrifice of any kind can be wholesome or unwholesome depending on the deep motivation. If the action is meant to manipulate or punish others (or even yourself), it will have bad results. Sometimes we are not aware of how we can have selfish motives for apparently selfless acts, so we have to be careful.
One of the "fetters" that binds a being to endless rounds of rebirths is attachment to "rites and rituals". So fasting as an attempt to propitiate fate or karma or God, or to achieve some kind of magical outcome, is useless. Prior to his enlightenment, the Buddha spent years starving himself thinking that that was the route to liberation from suffering. His motivation was pure, but he realized that it was pointless to destroy his body.


According to AN 11.2 below, it says that skillful virtue (sila) leads to freedom from remorse, which leads to joy, which leads to rapture, which leads to pleasure, which leads to concentration of mind.

It says that there is no need to will for this - it arises out of the very nature of being endowed with virtue and consummate with virtue. This to me is a statement of the efficiency of the use of virtue to lead one towards concentration. Furthermore, I think it is far more efficient to start with the cultivation of skillful virtue and skillful thinking, rather than struggling directly with the five hindrances in meditation.

  "For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

  "For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

  "For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.

  "For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.

  "For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.

  "For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

  "For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.

  "For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.

  "For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.

  "For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of
  things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of
  release.


The metta sutta was probably addressed to monks because the stanza opens with already being established in the noble eightfold path, as follows:

  This is what should be done
      By one who is skilled in goodness,
  And who knows the path of peace:
      Let them be able and upright,
  Straightforward and gentle in speech,
      Humble and not conceited,
  Contented and easily satisfied,
      Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
  Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
      Not proud or demanding in nature.
  Let them not do the slightest thing
      That the wise would later reprove.
  Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
      May all beings be at ease.

Also, the Buddha indeed mentioned to care first for oneself and then for others. This is not egoism, but intelligent self-care. The dhammapada states:

  One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only one should teach others. A wise man should not incur reproach.

Dhammapada 158

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

Dhammapada 165

  For the sake of another's benefit, however great it may be, do not neglect one's own (moral) benefit. Clearly perceiving one's own benefit one should make every effort to attain it.

Dhammapada 166

Also, the Buddha was a proponent of flexibility in his approach. You might know this as conventional language (to lay people) and absolute (to monks). The teachings on both addressee vary. Sometimes, the Buddha remained even silent because it was not connected to the goal, i.e., reduce suffering (& Nibbana).

Take  for example MN 20 or Capala Sutta AN 7.58. In both suttas Buddha gave a number of strategies that can be employed. The idea is to be flexible and to see what works in any given time. 'Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't'. 'If it doesn't, let me use this instead'.


What are the benefits of Dhamma in this very life that could be understood by a beginner?

Karma works in this life too. If you are kind to people, you create friends, then friends will take care of you. This is called karma - creating conditions for your future, in this life.
When you are driven by emotions, like obsession or negativity - you become kind of blind, so you create bad conditions for yourself. So seeing your mind and developing ability to stop harmful thoughts is useful for you, in this life.
Stupid people always argue about things, they always see them from one side only. Buddhism teaches you that things have many sides, and when you see it from all sides - you don't argue. This is useful for you, in this life.


Content with that ...(see sutta)..., he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly


Different interpretations of the 6 realms

The psychological reality of the 6 realms is real & not metaphorical. Where as the  interpretations of the 6 realms as places that exist elsewhere, after the ending of life, is superstition. For example, when a vicious rapist or murderer or psychopath politician in the world is called "an animal", this is real & not a metaphor. They are animals & they are not human. In Buddhism, the word "human" ("manussa") means "high-minded" or "lofty-minded". The Pali suttas state a "human" lives in accordance with the Dhamma; with righteous conduct; without violence or exploitation ("devouring") of other beings. From the Buddhist point of view, not all people are "human". The book Buddha-Dhamma for Students may help here.

The real right understanding of the six realms is important to some Buddhists so they can see the world clearly (with dispassion), so they live the right way & so they can attain enlightenment. In other words, so they do not overestimate their spiritual progress & state. For example, many people who believe they are Buddhists & who are addicted to entertainment, sensuality, pornography, luxury, etc, believe the mind is "human" rather than the reality the mind is "hungry ghost". They believe by having superficial faith in the Buddha they will have a good reincarnation & don't realise the mind, in the here-&-now, is hungry ghost. This is how they overestimate their spiritual state.

Some Pali suttas listed below, which show the realms are mental states in the here-&-now.

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There
  whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable.

  I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’
  There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never
  undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.
  Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with
  the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever
  tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon
  one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely,
  never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.

  SN 35.135

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a god?... A monk
  enters & dwells is the first...second...third...fourth jhana...

  How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a brahma?... A monk
  pervades the entire world with loving-kindness... compassion...
  appreciative joy... equinimity...

  AN 4.190

  Living with Brahma are those families where, within the home, mother
  and father are respected by their children. Living with the early
  devas (gods) are those families where, within the home, mother and
  father are respected by their children. For what reason? Because
  mother and father are very helpful to their children, they take care
  of them and bring them up and teach them about the world.

  Mother and father are called "Brahma," "early teachers" And "worthy of
  veneration," Being compassionate towards Their family of children.

  Iti 109

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

  AN 6.39

  Bhikkhus, suppose a man would throw a yoke with a single hole into the
  great ocean, and there was a blind turtle which would come to the
  surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would
  that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years,
  insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole?

  If it would ever do so, venerable sir, it would be only after a very
  long time.

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

  SN 56.47

  Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come
  together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
  two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

  Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm
  (tiracchānayoniyā) are 'reborn' (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

  Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four?

  A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together with a
  female deva (god); a deva (god) lives together with a wretch; a deva
  (god) lives together with a female deva (god).

  When both are immoral, miserly and abusive, husband and wife live
  together as wretches.

  The husband is immoral, miserly and abusive, but his wife is virtuous,
  charitable, generous. She is a female deva living with a wretched
  husband.

  The husband is virtuous, charitable, generous, but his wife is
  immoral, miserly and abusive. She is a wretch living with a deva
  husband.

  Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and
  self-controlled, living their lives righteously, addressing each other
  with pleasant words.

  Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease. Their
  enemies are saddened when both are the same in virtue.

  Having practiced the Dhamma here, the same in virtuous behavior and
  observances, delighting in a deva world, they rejoice, enjoying
  sensual pleasures.

  AN 4.53

  And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
  there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
  requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
  condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes
  becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From
  birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the
  origination of the world. SN 12.44

  Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa). MN 79

  Sensual desire… ill-will (anger)… sloth & drowsiness… restlessness &
  anxiety… uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms the
  mind and weakens wisdom… when a monk has not abandoned these five
  obstacles… for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to
  understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is
  for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human (manussa) state
  (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is
  impossible. AN 5.51


What are the criteria for calling someone a high or low capacity?

EDIT: coming back to the notes of some Buddhist lectures I attended, I did find some references!

Low Capacity: remains a "faith follower" for a long time. Does not really understand the explanations, but follows the teacher with enthusiasm and determination. Usually has good but rather superficial morals. Requires much study over a long time, to imbue clear in-depth understanding of Buddhist principle-and-function.
Medium Capacity: remains a "dharma follower" for a long time. Has thorough intellectual understanding, but no true insight into the principle-and-function of Buddhism. Because of this, has one's theoretical constructs disconnected from one's daily life. Requires lots and lots of practice over long period of time, to cleanse the blockages and overcome habits.
High Capacity: gets the point with little to no explanations just by watching the teacher in action. Has capacity for intuitive grasp of the Truth.


Is it possible to be reborn for all eternity?

Many people are interested in living forever (eg Christians) because such people do not think living is suffering. Instead, they wish to spend forever with their loved ones. That is why they are not queuing up to practise Buddhism.

My impression is Buddhists are similar, in that they wish to believe in reincarnation so they can live more lives. That is why most Buddhists are not practising the path, hardcore, but preaching that Buddhists must believe in reincarnation, rebirth, whatever.

Also, Buddhism does not state making merit ends suffering (SN 12.51) so what is its relevance?

Also, Buddhism does not state all beings are destined for enlightenment (AN 10.95).

Imo, the questions are an extreme & pointless misrepresentation of Buddhism. If the questioner truly believe they were suffering, they would be a monk urgently putting out the suffering, like as if their hair was on fire.


Role of suicide in the context of Dalai Lama's birthday and inevitable deathday

History of martyrdom in Buddhism

The Burning monk of Saigon, Thích Quảng Đức is perhaps the most famous of monks in recent times who self immolated for a cause, however he is hardly the first, in fact he follows a very ancient precedent set since before the beginning of history in Buddhism. The Buddha in his life just preceding his Buddhahood offered himself to a hungry tiger in keeping with his Bodhisattva vow of placing others before the self.

Also see, Benn, James A. (2007), Burning for the Buddha: self-immolation in Chinese Buddhism, University of Hawaii Press, 9-10.

Taking the Bodhisattva precept of protecting others can mean sometimes, usually very senior monks, will set themselves alight, or feed themselves to insects or abandon their body in other ways for a worthy cause.

Often the miraculously unburned tongue or heart is enshrined as a holy relic as a mark of the Bodhisattva's faith.

Technically, this isn't suicide but heroic martyrdom of the non-violent kind.

Specific case of Tibet

As a monk, the Dalai Lama is bound by the pattimokha (monastic rules) to not praise the desirability of death. Any monk who praises death, commits a Pārājika (very grave) (literal translation: defeated one) offence, and entails expulsion from the Sangha.

The Dalai Lama is not any ordinary monk, he knows his word carries enormous weight. If he were to even hint that martyrdom would be appropriate, tens of thousands would self immolate, or destroy themselves without a second's hesitation.

Therefore he is perfectly correct on both humanitarian and monastic grounds to insist vehemently that suicide is not an option.

Last, but not least, it is also tactically wise, since the Chinese would wait for just such an opportunity where a nuanced but confusing utterance can be turned into a controversy. He has to be very careful as a leader of a people, in issuing fool proof statements that cannot be misinterpreted.

However, Buddhism is first and foremost about personal responsibility. As rational beings, Buddhists can weigh the odds and decide for themselves if martyrdom is worthy. Certainly there is room for violating the mundane order of things, when one operates on a rather high level of attainment.

Thus, they are not disobeying the Dalai Lama, as much as respecting their inner conscience and spiritual path.

Often times such acts of martyrdom arise from pure Bodhisattva nature, however sometimes it is a copy-cat act done under peer pressure. Hopefully the Dalai Lama's objections will dissuade the latter kind.


Welcome to the in-betweens!  When someone starts meditating, there are generally a few phase that they will pass through.  These are all well documented, though I personally think they find the best expression in the 10 Ox herding pictures from Zen.  The first is quieting the mind.  In the series of Ox herding pictures, this is the state of seeing and taming the ox where the mind's unruly nature is first seen for what it is it's thrashings are subdued:

Once the mind settles, however, there is a very lengthy process of riding the ox to the mountain:

This seems to be where you are at now.  Take special note of that second painting.  I selected this artist's rendition specifically because I think it beautifully characterizes this phase of training.  The adept is riding the ox backwards.  He literally has no idea where he's going.  Indeed, this stage of training is very much categorized by a feeling of bumping around in the dark.  And it can go on for years.  Or it can be over in a matter of days.  There is literally no way of knowing how long it will take.  The adept doesn't even know if there is a mountain awaiting him!  He has no idea what's ahead!

The only thing you can actively do at this stage is practice with sincerity. Sit daily for at least an hour.  Apply your mind to your object of meditation.  Don't worry about what is a distraction and what isn't. The mind is entirely too complicated to sort those things out at this stage.  Moreover, much of what drives us into distraction is completely unconscious!  As you go forward, you might even find your mind filled with thoughts again as deep, forgotten memories or unseen, habitual obstacles begin to rise to the surface.  Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you go on retreats of three days or more.  This will go a long way to loosening the hold those subtle, unseen, and unconscious distractions have on your mind.  As they begin to fall away, your concentration will strengthen almost seemingly without effort.

If your practice has sincerity, eventually you will arrive at the foot of the mountain.  You just have to persist.


Finding the balance of thinking and working

Thinking is an essential activity, of course, and it's impossible to avoid doing any thinking.  The key is balance between being centered in the activity of your mind and being centered in your body.  The more time you spend feeling the feelings of your body, gradually the thinking activity will settle down a bit.


The difference between a great man and an enlightening being

An enlightened being is a great man.

A great man is not always an enlightened being.


What is the difference between Anapanasati and Vipassana?

Anapana is Vipassana Meditation also.
It has 16 stages. In sets of 4 (tetrads) they cover the 4 Satipatthana.
If I am to reinterpret the question above as "What is the difference between Anapansati and Satipatthana" as I feel this might be what you meant.
Satipatthana shares as section on Anapana. They come up to "Sabbakayapatisamvedi" - you are sensitive to your whole body; "Passambhayam kayasamkharam" - calming the body fabrication.
(Disclaimer: this might be interpreted differently by different linages / teachers.)
In Anapana you more on to feelings which has arisen (when you have calmed your bodily fabrications and you are sensitive on your whole body generally it is pleasant)
In Satipatthana stay with the body, looking at it in more detail and remedying general miss perceptions about it if you have such polarity. When you are doing this you are looking at the feeling outline of the body as initially developed you sensitivity so you can feel the full outline of the body.
Though at the very high level the flow of both methods are the same. Body <=> feeling (**) <=> mind <=> dhamma.

Also any Buddhist Meditation you start off with you have to come to the junction of Sabbakayapatisamvedi and as you progress it will not be limited to the Satipatthana you started off with. In Anapana you start off with the breath but all 4 Satipatthana develops in the process. All 4 has to develop as the Satipatthana correspond to the aggregates. Also any impact on one aggregate effects the others. Hence something you observe in one foundation of mindfullness will impact the other.


Plants may be sentient beings like animals so how do you decide what to eat?

Theravada and Vajrayana Buddhists (Tibetan, SE Asian) and Japanese Mahayana Buddhists are not vegetarian. So if you don't want to be a vegetarian, there are plenty of traditions that don't bother with this rule. And as for rules, there are plenty of traditions that de-emphasize rules altogether.

So that leaves East Asian Buddhism. The traditional arguments for vegetarianism are based on the traditional cosmology, which makes a distinction between plants and animals. Sentient beings can be born as animals but not plants.

If we don't believe in the traditional cosmology, the distinction between sentient and insentient remains.

According to wikipedia, some sects see plants as sentient being-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism) (Japanese and Tibetan, which aren't vegetarian). In Tien Tai, the founder suggested plants and even the insentient can attain enlightenment.

I'm not a radical non-dualist, but arguing that everything the same, (plants, animals, rocks) and that all states are the same (living, dead) is a typical radical non-dualist argument. The problem with nondualism applied to ethics is that it makes it easy to justify what ever you want.

And the "science" sounds like bunk. My computer feels pain when it overheats and ice cubes feel pain when they crack-- but only as a metaphor. My computer and the ice in my freezer (and the grass under my feet) has never had an original thought or even a thought. They don't have nervous systems of a sort that I'm familiar with (by my own experience of having a nervous system.)

For there to be a scientific grounding for the idea that plants (and maybe rocks) are sentient, you'd have to demonstrate that they have something similar to a nervous system and can react in the same way that a thinking, feeling creature can.  I admit a scientifically grounded interpretation of sentience still has edge cases-- for example, nematodes only have a few neurons, so they are borderline insentient.


Did Siddhartha Gautam become Buddha using Vipassana alone?

It's  unlikely.
It's reported that Gotama spent 6 years training all sorts of things before he achieved Nirvana. This training involved studying under other ascetics and practicing austerity. Presumably he learned a lot during these times, though emphasis seem to be on things he learned that weren't fruitful.
But things that aren't fruitful aren't the whole story of this period. For example, he found some teachings of his previous teachers useful and kept teaching and exercising them even after Nirvana (e.g. meditation on nothingness/suññata) -- though these practices, by themselves, were remarked as insufficient for realizing Nirvana.
Another example of useful practice is the time when he decided to divide his thoughts in two classes:

“Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.
[...] “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of cruelty  arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty  has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty  arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
-- MN 19

An insight (no pun intended) on the kind of person Gotama was before Nirvana can be seen from the following passage, where he was training severe ascetism:

“I would make my bed in a charnel ground with the bones of the dead for a pillow. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears. Yet I do not recall that I ever aroused an evil mind of hate against them. Such was my abiding in equanimity.
-- MN 12

That is, even in extreme circumstances he already had some extraordinary domain over his mind or such a virtuous persona that unwholesome states of mind would not invade him in these circumstances. Also, the whole narration of the ascetism period shows how deeply dedicated he was.
That much can be read in the suttas from the period pre-Nirvana.
Many buddhists believe that this is due to his many previous lives acquiring merit and becoming such a person that would be able to, by himself, become the Buddha -- the Jataka stories illustrate that.
A complementary point of view could be to take the Dharma that he started teaching. As far as we know, he didn't taught vipassana for some 40 years, he taught the eightfold path. He also implied that the eightfold path is intrinsically the path Nirvana -- seeing one is seeing the other. In other words, this same path was discovered by all Buddhas.


The topic is too big to do proper justice in one response, but to summarize my thoughts very briefly:

Every crappy childhood is unique and every dysfunctional family is dysfunctional in its own way - but believe me or not, these type of issues are a lot more common than you realize. Pretty much every Russian person I know had alcoholism and violence issues in their childhood families. Many were subjects of bullying at school. I was one of them. Not saying mine - or others' - problems are equal to yours, we are all "unique" - but just like with snowflakes there are many similarities for sure.
Surprisingly, much real-life Buddhism (not the Buddhism you read about but the Buddhism you come to face when you talk to live Buddhist teachers) is dedicated exactly to solving these types of mental/emotional/circumstantial issues that come from messy karma passed on through generations. All this stuff you're talking about is completely normal, completely standard, and is bread and butter of Buddhist teachers. This is good, because it means there is a whole system in place for 2600+ years that was designed exactly to deal with these issues.
Of course the problem is with you, or rather, with bad karma you inherited - so the difficult part is meeting a teacher you can connect with. This basically means, meeting a teacher that your bad karma will feel good about. A teacher whose manner of expression will make sense to you (and to your bad karma), a teacher you (and your bad karma) will trust enough to hang around for a long time. And of course, the issue with bad karma is - it shapes your life in such way that you can't possibly get in touch with a teacher let alone establish a long-term relationship. Who knows, it may never happen - or it may happen tomorrow, it is useless to worry about this, another source of dukkha.
So meanwhile, start where you are. There is absolutely no way to jump somewhere where you are not. The only way to get somewhere is to work with what you have and then slowly slowly it will build. So start by learning to feel good about what's already good. You're a recluse? Fine! Buddha said, "enlightened person's mind inclines towards seclusion". You don't like people? Fine, most yogis did not. See? I just rotated your coordinate system in such a way that you can feel good about these things. That's the trick. Feelings depend on perspective. When you feel bad, that's because you're stuck in a perspective that says that something is wrong with you. Stop letting it chew you. Learn to be in control of perspective. First, learn to feel good about where you are. Stop comparing your present moment with some imagined life in the mountains etc. Stop worrying about friends, money etc. We only worry about this stuff because we heard it must be so good and now we compare ourselves with that idea. Stop doing that to yourself. You are here. The biggest achievement, the sweetest Nirvana, the highest Goal, the purest happiness - is to learn to be happy wherever/however you are. There is nothing, nothing, NOTHING higher than that. If you can do that - you are much better off than living in the mountains, or having friends, or money, or anything else you can think of.
The skill of feeling good about the present moment is called "standing on your two feet". It is something you must learn, like a baby learning to walk. Then, once you can stand on your own and walk around without losing the balance - only then can you start interacting with other people.
Most problems you list with people (egotism, vanity, superficiality, stupidness, ignorance etc.) are absolutely real. The world is pretty messed up. It's not you, it actually is a mess. However, as others pointed out, it is not because those people are awesomely strong and super intelligent and just chose such a life as their ideal way of living - no, not at all. It is exactly because we are weak and ignorant and are desperately trying to survive and get on top of each other - that we created and are maintaining this messy world. So once you can stand and walk, and keep your balance when pushed - then perhaps you can go and help some of them, so going forward there is a little more harmony and a little less mess.

I know it's hard. I am just like you, I was just like you, and now I'm just a bit ahead of you in that I can (mostly) stand and (sometimes) walk on my own. I know it's possible to learn this skill. I know and see it directly, from my own experience. If it weren't possible to learn this skill, I wouldn't say it's possible. So try to stop your head spinning with all these thoughts about the world, the people, your life, your childhood, what's wrong about all that - and try to focus. Drop all that, and learn to be stable and happy with nothing special. Learn to be happy when lying in bed, when taking shower, when eating, when sitting and doing nothing. This Peace is unsurpassable. If you master it, you win. Then slooowly, slooowly start moving around while learning to keep that peace. If there are any doubts/questions/confusion - ask here. There is nothing else that you need.


Is there any freely available English translation of the Peṭakopadesa?

The Pali Text Society is about the best authority for English translations, and they did produce a reference text in 1977. There is not a lot of online translations, but here is a link to the digital version of the book:

http://lirs.ru/lib/The_Guide,Nettippakarana,Nanamoli,1977.pdf


You can try the Kanduboda Meditation Center which teachers Mahasi Meditation. You have to inquire before hand about the length of your stay.

Also you can try Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya. Again double check the particular days. This teachers both Mahasi and Pa Auk methods under Most Venerable UdaEriyagama Dhammajiva Maha Thero

Also there are centres in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thai Land and Malaysia which you can try.

Also see: Meditation Centres in Sri Lanka by Andrew Quernmore

Also you might try to use World Buddhist Directory.

Also Goenka Centres does have long retreats if you fulfill some conditions:

  10-day Courses for Old Students have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. These courses are open to serious old students who have completed at least three 10-day courses and one Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta course, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, are trying to maintain the five precepts in their daily lives, and trying to maintain daily practice.

  Special 10-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  20-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses , one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  30-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of six 10-day courses (one since their first 20-day course), one 20-day course, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  45-day Courses are open only to persons involved in Dhamma Service and Assistant Teachers who have completed a minimum of seven 10-day courses (one since their first 30-day course), two 30-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least three years.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  60-day Courses are open only to active Teachers and Assistant teachers who have completed two 45 Day courses and conduct at least 4 courses annually.

  Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.

  Satipatthana Sutta Courses have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. The difference is that in the taped evening discourses the Satipatthana Sutta is carefully examined. This is the principal text in which the technique of Vipassana is systematically explained. These courses are open to serious old students who have sat (not including courses served) at least three 10-day courses, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, and who are trying to maintain their meditation practice and the five precepts in their daily lives, at the very minimum from the time of applying to the course.

  Old Student Short Courses (1-3 days) are for any student who has completed the 10-day course with S.N. Goenka and his assistant teachers. All old students are welcome to apply to attend these courses, including those where it has been some time since their last course.

Source: https://www.dhamma.org/en/schedules/schtapovana


There can be many specific reasons why this sort of thing happens but generally speaking it's because the body posture is only a conceptual entity in the mind, formed based on individual, momentary experiences. If for whatever reason your physical experiences are out of the ordinary, it is common for them to give rise to erroneous conceptualizations in the mind of how the "body" is situated, as the mind tries to relate the new sensations to old conceptualizations. Feeling like part of your body is bloated, twisted, tilted, or even disappeared are all commonly reported experiences.


Does downvoting an answer qualify as divisive and harsh speech?

Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.
A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.
Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.
Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!
In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.
Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.
From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.
I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.
As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.
Then again, I think this falls into the territory of "the right timing and a sense of tact". Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.
Just my 2 cents.


I think that the second noble truth says that suffering co-arises with craving -- and the third noble truth says that cessation (of craving and suffering) happens.

It's being called "pervasive", I think, comes from the tilakkhaṇa -- i.e.:

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
  sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Note that it's "sabbe saṅkhārā" i.e. "all conditioned things" -- not "all dhammas" -- that are unsatsifactory.

Also note that "dukkhā" there is translated "unsatisfactory" not "suffering" -- i.e. the things themselves are unsatisfactory and impermanent.

Whereas "suffering" (with is another translation of "dukkhā", a context in which "dukkhā" is used) might be slightly different -- i.e. an aspect of consciousness which co-arises with craving and attachment -- i.e. craving and attaching to sankharas which are unsatisfactory and impermanent.


Searching for a Pali sutta where Buddha said "Enough!" to rebirth speculations

SN 42.3 (To Yodhajiva The Warrior) and SN 42.2 (To Talaputa the Actor) both contain the phrase,

  "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

The reason why he says "enough" seems to be that he doesn't want to have to tell them that they'll be reborn in hell or the animal realm.

The sutta to the Warrior includes a warning against wrong view; and the sutta to the Actor a warning against delusion, passion, intoxication and heedlessness.


Music is not good as a meditation object as it arouses craving.
If you analyse the 40 meditation objects of Samatha, you can identify 3 kinds of objects:
neutral objects, virtuous or holy objects and unattractive or repulsive objects. All carefully chosen to subdue certain defilements or achieve Jhanas.

  What did the Buddha say about music?

For monks:

There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a sustained melodic intonation.

Which five?

Oneself gets attached to that intonation
Others get attached to that intonation
Householders get angry:
'Those ascetics who are followers of the Sakyans' son sing in the
same way that we do!'
There is a break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality
And the upcoming generations imitate what they see.

For Lay people:

7th of the 8 precepts

Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
- I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

The 8 precepts are usually practiced on Poya days and when you stay in a meditation center


This is something I keep hearing from my grandmother that keeps annoying me so much. Although I am well off age (26 to be precise) I am still expected to listen to almost every word that my parents say (at least according to my grandmother). Not to bring in any personal matters into the site but I keep arguing that not listening to parents should not be considered as ill-treating them.

Not listening is not necessary ill treating but if you are intentionally hurting them then it is negative Karma.
Any way it is a good idea to listen to your parents but it does not mean you have to do exactly. They may have experiences you might not have. So best cause of action is to get their input and them proactively take the best possible and rational action. Sometimes by just listening you parent maybe happy.
Also be diplomatic when when you have a difference of opinion.

They expect me to wear nice clothes but I don't (I prefer wearing the same clothes. Who has time for fashion?).

Fashion is actually changing and attitudes. Getting too attached or averse to them is not skillful. Best is to get into a happy medium. If you are scruffy then your social acceptance will also go down hence there is some point in having to dress nicely. Everyone has to depend of society even monks to get their requisites hence you should be reasonably acceptable and presentable.

They expect me to marry the one they want.

If you have someone see how you can present the person of your choice. Sometimes there may be issues with your choice you might have not considered. If it is purely driven by lust it might not work. So think about compatibility. Play it tactfully.
Also the following answer maybe of some help: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14207/295 in choosing the right person.

They always say that as Buddhist I should be very obedient and these days when your turn the TV to listen to some Buddhist advice, monks most of the time talk about parent-child relationship and goes on about how children should always listen to parents.

As mentioned above getting wider range of input is beneficial to make optimal decisions. More than just robotically doing what you parents say what is needed is to make the relationship more cordial. This maybe difficult due to the generation gap.

I am not saying my parents ask me to do anything bad. But as children we know (sometimes not always) what is best for us.

Life choices perhaps may not be determinable until it plays out when you do not know who is right. All you can do make decision with the best facts you have.

But when we do what we want all hell breaks lose, daddy shouting mommy crying and granny shouting my bad karma will eventually give me disobedient children just like me.

Disobedience and rebellious behaviour sometimes maybe rooted in version. What you have to is to see if there is aversion or some sort of irritation is present and this is influencing your cause of action.
If 3 people feel your are in the wrong perhaps take a step back and see if actually what you have done is the best and what other alternatives would have been there. I am not saying you might be wrong but when this happens it is good through revisit something you have done just to reaffirm what you did is best with the information you had.
In addition willfully making your parents happy would be positive karma. So if you can do something to make them happy go for it. It is some time very little things which go a long way.

Jokes aside, I want a serious explanation when it comes to parent-child relationship. I am quite aware of the singalovada sutta but when we do something we want and parents get hurt is it always bad karma?
It can't be right?

If you do it with intention to hurt or your are due to being internally angry then it will be. So try to get into knowing your true intentions and motivation and what it is rooted in.

Otherwise the amount of bad kamma prince Siddhartha would have gained after all the pain his father went through... Pleas share your thoughts.

Prince Siddhartha left the householder's life with the intention of liberation and helping mankind. This is positive. Though incidentally his father maybe hurt it was not his intention.
If you can think of ways to do something without hurting someone then this would be the best cause of action. But with many lifes choices not everyone will be always agreeable and satisfied, hence try to be accommodating as possible within reason and follow through with the best action taking into account to all opinions and parties affected. Keep in check there is no negative motivations, volition of roots in what you are doing.


Iconography in Buddhism - from the Greeks? And why isn't the Buddha bald?

About the Statue called Laughing Buddha...

The Statue called Laughing Buddha is not Lord Buddha or any Buddha. He is some local divine figure in some culture in the east and this statue is misunderstood as a Buddha because it has a name that sounds a lot like Buddha. It's correct pronunciation should be like this or something close - Laughing Budhai

About the Greek connection...

The statues were not made by the Asian artists because of respect and the fear of their creation being not god enough, This should go withot saying Gauthama Buddha was considered the most charming person in India and people even became monks just to see Buddha's beauty.

As the story goes the appearance was unique and it was not alike with any other person (But as the suttas say only The great arahant kashyapa looked a bit like Lord Buddha). With the scientific knowledge we have today we can say the DNA structure of a Lord Buddha is either unique or a complete anomaly.

A king called Kanishka who ruled a certain part of India took a Greek wife and with her came a lot of people as it was a tradition to send skilled people as gifts with princesses who marry to countries abroad.

At the time Buddhists had many other depiction of Lord Buddha to worship Like the "Anandha Bodhi" - Video and Lotus carvings on rock pallets.

The princess questioned the king Kanishka why there is no statue of Lord Buddha in his kingdom and the king explained why. So she ordered her people to create a statue and with time finally Asian artists came up with their designs.

Why Buddha is not bald and what was the appearance of Gauthama sage?

When Prince Gauthama started his journey he used his sword to cut his hair. But later on even though Lord Buddha advised monks to shave the hair there is no mentioning about Lord Buddha shaving hair. This should go with the special look all the Lord Buddhas shared "The hair with very small curves." A lord Buddha never appears without hair and the unique hair is sign for others to know who it is.


It can work out that Satipatthana can help one let go of desire. Usually, as you may know, Satipatthana isn't to suppress but to see the truth.

Our sex drives are strong though and if they are too strong for standard Satipatthana then they can be surpressed by other techniques like the naming of the parts of the body, that can have a repulsive affect on sensual desire. An other good technique to turn one off quick is to look at autopsy photos. That is also good for reflecting on death. These little practices really are very supportive of the main Satipatthana practice.


Can I say that this question exists but no questioner is found?

can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?
I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely "saying" it isn't enough to make it arya or wise, useful in practice.
Saying "no questioner is found" reminds me of this Zen story, Nothing Exists -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another.
He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154):

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!

Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.


Buddha-Dhamma & Western families are often a problematic combination. Even in Asia, some families object to their members pursing the Dhamma. Even when a person's life is transformed so much for the better by Buddhist practise, often family members struggle to attribute appreciation towards Buddhism due to their own prejudices, misunderstandings &/or lack of spiritual values.

Ways to overcome sadness & guilt in respect to his situation is:

Reflect on the correctness of the Buddhist path.
Properly attribute causes or 'blame' to the other rather than to yourself.
Keep being nice & hopefully they will change via appreciation.


Why must the goal be everylasting? (Anicca)

It is unfortunate if everything is impermanent but I think this is a mistake, a false conclusion, that you shouldn't be attached to anything which is impermanent. It is not 100% awful if everything is fleeting.

That sankharas are impermanent seems to be an observable fact as well as theoretically plausible.

Whether that seems "unfortunate" is more debatable. (reference)

Also FWIW I think that the Buddha defined "unfortunate" (in the first and second noble truths) without mentioning "impermanence".

Does one practise metta just for the sake to cleanse one's karma, for the wish that the other escapes samsara (which is ok if one literally - and not metaphorically - believes in it) and to not being reborn in this - im sorry - "mess" yet again?

I think it's better for everyone, isn't it -- better for you, for me, for everyone else -- if for example I have metta towards you than if I were to hold ill-will. And better now, not just in the future.

There's the eightfold way, which starts with right view (i.e. wisdom). And there's the three-fold training, which starts with virtue and ends with wisdom. It's a bit like a chain, you can see how it works by examining it from-front-to-back or from-back-to-front ... it seems to me that metta is associated with virtue and wisdom, i.e. it's "right" and "wise".

But I think it's practical. There are many articles written about the brahmaviharas, for example:

  These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

That article says quite a lot while hardly ever mentioning karma and samsara.

I think, it is better to stick to an agnostic "i don't know" attitude concerning rebirth, samsara, nirvana or rather reinterprates them than to greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving and could foster laziness, selfishness and everything which is contrary to the teachings.

I mentioned it in a previous answer yesterday, but in case you didn't catch it there, I think the idea of "greedily chase for liberation which is just another craving" might be addressed in this sutta: Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).


What is Completion Stage Meditation also known as Nispannakrama?

According to what I understood from explanations given to me in one of the temples in New Kadampa Tradition, completion meditation is an antidote to potential sideeffects of generation meditation. If practitioner gets too attached to (image of oneself as) one's yidam, they are prescribed certain exercises designed to help them let go.


Can the dhatu elements be considered as permanent?

As far as I can see any thing is impermanent. What is impermanent defies description or conceptualization.

Here is more info on the subject.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

  All things arise due to causes and conditions. As causes and
  conditions are impermanent and will cease one day, all things will
  also cease correspondingly. When there is rising, there will be
  falling; when there is existence, there will be extinction. The rising
  and existence of things has its natural tendency towards cessation and
  extinction. It is like a wave; it comes and goes. Thus, when one sees
  the truth of "what this is, that is; this arising, that arises", one
  should also see the truth of "when this is not, that is not; this
  ceasing, that ceases". The Law of Dependent Origination pointed out
  the possibility of ending worldly suffering. It shows the way of
  liberation that corresponds to the Law of Cause and Effect.

  "When one is born, one will die.  One who admires high status will
  fall one day."

  This is the natural Law of Cause and Effect. It is also an inner
  implication of the Law of Dependent Origination. It can be called the
  Cessation Process of the Law of Dependent Origination.

As soon as one starts discussing permanence, it is already in the field of impermanence. Intellectual understanding may suggest a path. The practice of the path can lead to the unknowable. No one who has been here has ever said anything that could describe it.


First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called "What Makes You Not a Buddhist":

  It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist (ref).

If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can 'take refuge'. This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions. More info also here

Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion. You do not need to give up Hinduism. To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche:

  ... it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. .... Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so. (ref).


Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?

Sure! It is allowed for lay people, as long as they observe the five precepts and virtue (sila), which includes Right Livelihood (samma ajivo). Please also see this answer.
The Vanijja Sutta states:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
engage in."

The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.
By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.'

The Adiya Sutta talks about the five types of benefits that can be obtained from wealth, which are summarized below:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

Also from the Anana Sutta which talks about "the four kinds of bliss that can be attained in the proper season, on the proper occasions, by a householder partaking of sensuality", summarizes it as follows:

Knowing the bliss of debtlessness,
& recollecting the bliss of having,
enjoying the bliss of wealth,
the mortal then sees clearly with discernment.
Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.

Billionaire businessmen can support society by creating jobs, fulfill the needs and wants of the people through supply for demand, and be philanthropists (similar to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) who donate to charitable causes and also to Buddhist causes.
As pointed out by Samana Johann, Anathapindika is a great example of a very wealthy man in the time of the Buddha, who used his wealth to contribute to the spread of the Dhamma.

Anathapindika had many carts filled with gold coins, and had them
spread out upon the site. Finally only one small patch of ground at
the entrance remained bare. He gave the instructions that more gold be
brought, but the Prince Jeta announced that he was prepared to build a
mighty gate-tower on that spot at his own expense. This imposing
bastion and gate protected the monastery from the outside world,
shielded it from the noises of the road, and emphasized the dividing
line between the realms of the sacred and the worldly. Anathapindika
then spent another eighteen million for buildings and furnishings. He
built individual cells, a meeting hall, a dining hall, storerooms,
walkways, latrines, wells, and lotus ponds for bathing as well as a
large surrounding wall. Thus the forest glade was transformed into a
monastery and stood apart as a religious sanctuary.

Addendum:
Added later to show the benefit of using one's wealth to give gifts to "the upright ones".
This is the story of householder Ugga of Vesālī, who gave a lot of gifts to the Buddha. The Buddha accepted them out of compassion. I only quote the final portion of the sutta here.
From the Manāpadāyī Sutta:

“Bhante, in the presence of the Blessed One I heard and learned this:
‘The giver of what is agreeable gains what is agreeable.’ Bhante, my
couch spread with rugs, blankets, and covers, with an excellent
covering of antelope hide, with a canopy above and red bolsters at
both ends, is agreeable. Although I know this is not allowable for the
Blessed One, this sandalwood plank of mine is worth over a thousand.
Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed
One accepted, out of compassion.
Then the Blessed One expressed his appreciation to the householder
Ugga of Vesālī thus:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable,
when he gives willingly to the upright ones
clothing, bedding, food, and drink,
and various kinds of requisites.
“Having known the arahants to be like a field
for what is relinquished and offered, not held back,
the good person gives what is hard to give:
the giver of agreeable things gains what is agreeable.”

Then, after expressing his appreciation to the householder Ugga of
Vesālī, the Blessed One rose from his seat and left. Then, some time
later, the householder Ugga of Vesālī passed away. After his death,
the householder Ugga of Vesālī was reborn among a certain group of
mind-made deities. On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at
Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Then, when the night
had advanced, the young deva Ugga, of stunning beauty, illuminating
the entire Jeta’s Grove, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to
him, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then said to him: “I hope,
Ugga, that it is as you would have wished.”
“Surely, Bhante, it is as I had wished.”
Then the Blessed One addressed the young deva Ugga with verses:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable;
the giver of the foremost again gains the foremost;
the giver of the excellent gains the excellent;
the giver of the best reaches the best state.
“The person who gives the best,
the giver of the foremost,
the giver of the excellent,
is long-lived and famous
wherever he is reborn.”


Being empty is to be lacking inherent existence, which is to be lacking in fixed self, which is to be lacking in self. So a thing cannot be empty, and have a self, because being empty is to ultimately have no self, and all objects and phenomena are empty. It is not an either/or scenario, it can never be an either or scenario.

It is like asking if a canvass can be either paintless or blank. It is really a meaningless question, because it is just two ways of pointing at the same truth. It is meaningless to assert that paintless is either less or more substantial than blank. Is the son of a barren woman less substantial than the horns of a rabbit?

The karma is only as real and impactual as the blind attachment, and therefore assumptive delusion of self and true existence or true existential status. These volitional formations can be transcended in practice by developing equanimity, awareness, and insight


What is the Theravada Buddhist lay lifestyle?

Generally, we try to submit each question individually, but I'll do my best to answer these briefly from the Theravada tradition and give links for further information.

A lay Buddhist follows the teachings of the Buddha and observes the Five Precepts. A lay Buddhist also Takes Refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.
The Buddha defined 4 types of followers: monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The special name for a lay man is Upāsaka and for a lay woman is Upāsikā.
All four types of followers listed above are important. Buddhism was the first religion to accept women as equals. A woman can become enlightened. A Buddha however is always a man. However, with rebirths, we'll all be men, women, etc. at one time or another, so nothing needs to be ruled out. ;-)
As a practical matter, a woman in the Theravada tradition needs to keep some distance from an ordained male and a man needs to keep some distance from an ordained female. There is no physical contact such as a handshake with an ordained person of the opposite gender. Really the most appropriate way to greet a monastic is with palms together at the heart or at the forehead.
You can handle money, only monastics have rules against that.
On ordinary days you eat as normal, though mindful eating is always good. On Uposatha Days (or during a meditation course or retreat) you may wish to observe the 8 Precepts instead of 5 Precepts. In that case you would eat only between dawn and noontime. And yes, no alcohol at all.
You don't need a shrine. Some people like to have a statue of the Buddha or an area dedicated to meditation. But it's optional.
Yes, you can have entertainment although if you are observing the 8 Precepts you would avoid entertainment during 8 Precept observation. Buddhists who are concentrating on beginning or continuing a meditation practice often limit entertainment as it's not conducive to meditation.
If you observe the 8 Precepts you wouldn't eat after noontime. But you would generally eat a full meal before noontime. So extended fasting is not really part of Buddhist tradition. It's considered an ascetic practice and Buddhism is more about the middle way.
Ordained Buddhists shave their heads. It's not necessary for lay followers; but not disallowed either. The only clothing that is different for lay followers is sometimes at intensive meditation courses or on Uposatha days or other special occasions, lay followers wear all white. It's a tradition in Thailand and other Buddhist countries in Asia and sometimes that tradition is followed in the West as well. But not always.
A regular meditation practice is considered very important. Not all Buddhists chant, but that too can be considered an important part of the practice. Some people feel chanting helps settle their mind for meditation.
Yes, you can meditate at home and find support for your practice online in communities such as this and others. But the funny thing is, there can be Buddhist temples tucked away in lots of Western communities that people don't even know about. Many are smaller and don't really stand out. Some don't have websites or do any advertising or promotion. So it can take a while to know for sure whether or not there are any local Buddhist temples, groups, or meditation centers in an area. If there is a University near you, you might find a Buddhist group that meets there. I hope you'll be happily surprised to find something near you to support your practice. But if not, the online Buddhist community is a great help as well. Best wishes. :)


How does an ordinary person adopt Right View concerning the the hardships of the Buddha's earthly life?

Well first putthujjanas won't know anything about the dhamma until they become at least sotapanna. Until this, all puthujjanas have is believes and doubt. It's completely normal.
All the puthujjanas can do is cultivate what the buddha recommend to be cultivated, that is the 8 fold path. This is pretty hard for anybody. It's worse when there is no buddha.
Since the big claim of the buddha was that craving causes dukkha, you test this and can keep a diary for a few weeks where

you note when you notice a craving
you note the object of your craving
you note when you do not crave some objects and in this case if you suffer from not-craving those objects
you note when you suffer
you note if you think that you suffering can be linked to some craving for something (ideas or just sense objects) and if you see them as part your self
you note what happens if you try to force to view as not-self all the stuff you so far view as self


Do parents' karma affect their children?

Karma of one person is not shared or inherited. Say a parent has a bad Karma to suffer. This might some times instrumented by means of a child getting sick. This does not mean the Karma has being pass to the child. Say the child leaves the household then perhaps this may manifested through another calamity even maybe another loved one getting sick.

Karma is Fabrications. The volition creates fabrication giving, pleasant, neutral, painful experiences in the future. This is Karma. This cannot be transferred or inherited or stolen. When this gives results there should be a medium for it to manifest. Generally though the people and the environment around us. The working of Karma is complex. There could be a case some one dear might die so we experience sadness. In such a case it is not the Karma of the person who died inherited our bad Karma. If there are X & Y who are dear, if there is a chance X may go and in case the opportunity does not present itself for X and Y is there then Y maybe the person to die. This is not X or Y's karma but our own which manifests itself to give pain. If say the opportunity of you get hurt though X & Y does not present itself as the environment and situation did not arise, it does not mean the Karma will also follow X & Y but it will follow you and will give results at a later time if it is potent and the opportunity present itself. In this case if is Z how is close and dear to us and the karma is that for a loved one to depart it might be Z who takes the fall.

Also it is not wise to be around people doing or having bad Karma, or situating where bad Karma is in effect. E.g. if you see a rioting or fighting crowd get your self out of there and if you have the slightest part Karma to get beaten up this might be the best opportunity for it to manifest itself. Also if you do not have such Karma getting being at the wrong place at the wrong time, may mean you can get hurt.


According to the Noble Eightfold Path, is it poor practice to speak poorly in solitude?

Solitude is the best time to practice skillful behavior!  When you don't have anyone else watching you, it's that much easier to lag in your discipline.  The best noble qualities are ones that are intrinsic to your character.  They show that your integrity is deep and that your practice is strong.


Not sure of what Mr. Ryan speaks (reading just the word), but Atma can remember that he once had similar thoughts in regard of Buddha. Thinking he might had caused a lot of people suffering by being attached to him.

But the more one knows the real teachings, one sees that he actually did not let such a kind of kamma behind. Its simply by people taking it wrong, that they have problems.

There is of course this danger, which you mention, that one would automatically accumulate everything, starting form the moment people see "ohh that is not a normal one" but there is nothing better as to practice the 13 Dhutangas which protect one self and people well and actually the most serious monks keep them.

Taken for example SEAsia. If people get to know that there is anywhere a Dhutanga Monk, they would come form near and far and would like to make donations, since such is a high merit. If people (monks) do not really stick hard to the Dhutangas they are caught immediately. One sees that well when observing the Thai Forest Tradition today. Their honor had actually "killed" them practical and they have already become "normal" ordinary people. Yet still living form the reputations of their teachers of old times.

So there are certain dangers and they are even covered by a downfall rule, for hard cases:

  Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation. BMC1

But as you can read there, even if people out of faith would address one Arahat, there is no fault for one. So if people "love" one, one having practiced proper, does not make anything wrong. That's great, even mostly not welcome for the serious practicing monk.

There have been occasions where when lot of people came to visit the Buddha and he denied. Even if monks begged him "Now is the time for the Blessed One's acquiescence, lord! Wherever the Blessed One will go now, the brahmans of the towns & countryside will be so inclined." he refused, at least saying "But when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating." Yasa Sutta: Honor

So in regard of your formulation: No, there is no reason why a Bhikkhu should step back form his virtues, what ever they are or to even cheat, so that he would prevent certain attachments and problems with fans and so on.

If one reads the Suttas, one could easily believe that its all about self-aggrandizement, but actually it was a certain scarify of the Buddha, to that extend, that even no monk after him would need to use it in the same way he did. (Atma guesses the questioner understands what he tries to say)

One does actually not easy accumulate when always straight and honest (in a sense of beneficial and true for the path) and without any flavor of socializing or concern about reputations.

As for the OP question it self: "Should a Monk speak out in favor of doing good?" such is most critical, if speaking what people like and mostly a heavy offense which is called a corrupter of families, sadly one of the most, even whole communities faults.

  This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.
  "Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, having finished his
  Rains-residence among the people of Kāsi and on his way to Sāvatthī to
  see the Blessed One, arrived at Kīṭāgiri. Dressing (§) early in the
  morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he entered Kīṭāgiri for
  alms: gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward
  and behind, drew in and stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast,
  his every movement consummate. People seeing him said, 'Who is this
  weakest of weaklings, this dullest of dullards, this most snobbish of
  snobs? Who, if this one approached (§), would even give him alms? Our
  masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, are compliant, genial,
  pleasing in conversation. They are the first to smile, saying, "Come,
  you are welcome." They are not snobbish. They are approachable. They
  are the first to speak. They are the ones to whom alms should be
  given.'"

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya (On Right Speech) shows well that sweet talks are nothing that are welcome if it is not simply for the path and to let go.

So it should cover all possible aspects of the question and at least maybe, a monk is no and should not be a social worker. That's a job he left behind by going forth. (females are always included speaking of monk)

Maybe one in addition. It is not allowed (out of this reasons) to receive a donation after having taught the Dhamma. So if one likes to benefit a monk, he would do good to do such in advanced. The story about the Buddha in such cases can be read here: Discourse to Bharadvaja, the Farmer A good talk about the matter of being first on giving is: Better to Give than to Consume, if one like to understand the matter also from a practitioner side as a layperson.

So there are certain ways to cut off the danger of doing a favor but less really less make such their habit today. Its all about gain, becoming, honor and for "higher purposes" (for simply this world) and seldom for Nibbana.

  Asked: "others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly?"

One somebody may think, one can not manipulate or change and there is also no use for such (if one is not attached to his reputations). As seeing the motive and virtue of a monk and if he is walking the path is very difficult to find out for laypeople. Actually only a one already on the stream would recognize a straight person (in Dhamma sense). So once a king tried to test the Buddha and taught him about the possibilities to judge a person: Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion and it end (after an explaining with a important exclamation:

  One   should not make an effort everywhere,
  should not be another's hireling,
  should not live dependent on another,
  should not go about
        as a trader in the Dhamma.

And then, taking the original question again:

  If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so?

Let Atma bring a sample of how such could look like. One likes to give a donation and would ask "do you like coffee/or water?", than he would stay silent. So suggestions of that kind are not proper. If one actually gives, fine, but usual ways monks on many places even tell people "you have to ask me first" (as the other extreme) is simply wrong. It also happens that monks would say "If you give me a donation, you make much merits" or other things. All this kinds of "doing others a favor" are fine, even it would be such (which not even the Buddha told people, given that they would have made much merits if done so)

So even hinting is walking on the edge. Good teachings about that are this short essays: No Strings Attached, The Economy of Gifts

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


Any ideas about the energy feel I constantly have?

Sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito.

The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.

When meditating and you mind gets sensitive you will start feeling the vibration in your body. Also when meditating when old formation dissolve this creates different experiences including vibrations.


Where can I read more about the rare special supernatural creatures mentioned in Buddhism?

I think you're looking for or trying to reference the "Petavatthu" in the Khuddaka Nikaya.

Wikipedia says,

  The Petavatthu is a Theravada Buddhist scripture, included in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon's Sutta Pitaka. It is composed of 51 verse narratives describing specifically how the effects of bad acts can lead to rebirth into the unhappy world of petas (ghosts) in the doctrine of karma. It gives prominence to the doctrine that giving alms to monks may benefit the ghosts of one's relatives (see Ancestor worship).

A Google search for Petavatthu returns other references and sources and translations on this subject.

Beware that S. Dhammika writes,

  Interestingly, the Buddha considered ‘talk about ghosts’ (petakatha) to be unedifying and unbecoming for serious Dhamma practitioners (D.I,8). The Petavatthu would by any interpretation qualify as ‘talk about ghosts.’ It is also interesting to note that the Thai Sangha has never recognized either the Petavatthu or the Vimanavatthu as canonical. All scholars who have examined the Petavatthu – Rhys Davids, H. S. Gehman and Prof. Abhayanayaka – ascribe to it a late date. Winternitz wrote that it ‘probably belongs to the latest stratum of literature assembled in the Pali Canon.’

He also says that that doctrine was an existing Brahminical belief.

There seems to be English-language translations of (at least 20 of) the stories here: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Petavatthu inluding at least one about a creature which eats it's own babies.


Noble Eightfold Path - applicable by lay practitioners?

The Noble Eightfold path is a path of celibacy. Sexual misconduct in the Noble Path is defined as "unchastity" ("abrahmacariyā"). In the 1st sermon, the Buddha taught the Middle Way, which avoids sensuality, is for those who have left the household life.


Deva realms with maidens - samsaric and sexist?

I'd rather not answer my own question, but these thoughts occurred to me about the lure of deva realms in general, and I guess this is as good a place as any to put it down.

There are several kinds of people, some have strong delusion, so for these people a little incentive to make them commit is upaya.
The Dhammapada story of Buddha's nephew who follows the Buddha into monastic life yet yearns for his fair wife back home comes to mind. He agrees to practice hard only after the Buddha promises him fair maidens in the deva realms when he completes his attainment of arahatship. Fellow monks aren't so understanding and label him a mercenary monk. It appears only the Buddha is compassionate enough to not poke fun at him.
Perhaps the Buddha's largely male audience was a bit of a boy's club - no harm in throwing in the lure of fair maidens - again upaya? He was after all preaching to cow herds and farmers who could only dream of riches and fair maidens. Then again, most monks and Arahats were royalty and Brahmins too.
I guess they don't have to pay estate taxes, mop the floors and mow the lawn on mansions in deva realms. If someone else is doing all the heavy lifting then celestial mansions aren't as much of a bore. This is also why human life is considered good for spiritual attainment because every sense pleasure here carries a stinger unlike the deva realms. Perhaps the fair deva maidens never cling, never fight or demand expensive gifts (I can't help taking a sexist tone here, the situation is overtly so, my apologies). It will only bother those who realize it is all unreal.

This still doesn't answer why women are nowhere in the equation. Aren't women equally tempted by luxuries? Shouldn't there be a deva realm filled with Adonisesque serving men? Or filled with babies that are always cute and never hurt the parent?


What's is the Buddhist view on persistence or grit?

It's one of the 4 Iddhipadas, namely the second one.:

Four Bases of Power or Success (Iddhipada)

Desire (chanda)
Persistence/Energy/Effort (viriya)
Intention, Mind, Thoughtfulness (citta)
Investigation/Discrimination (vimamsa or panna)

They are all needed in order to progress on the Path. Without them (especially the second one) the mind will not be fit for meditation practice.
One needs energy to apply the mind to the arising and ceasing of phenomena. Constant application of mind leads to concentration and mindfulness which leads to clarity of mind. Seeing clearly leads to freedom from suffering which eventually leads to Nibbana.
So yeah, these qualities should be valued and cultivated.