Seeking scriptural source for "all defilements temporarily suppressed when in jhana"

AN 9.36 Jhana Sutta:

  "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded (or "withdrawn") from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation [in the following way:] He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness [by thinking]: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'

AN 4.123 adds:

  He savors that, finds satisfaction through that.

AN 5.28 adds:

  He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

  Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

This is why we sometimes say that kleshas are temporarily suspended while in Jhana, because you "withdraw" from them by "turning your mind away" from their objects - all the worldly pursuits, goals, and judgements.

Again, I insist: it's NOT like Jhana happens by itself and as its sideeffect brings all these good qualities. We deliberately turn away ("withdraw") from negative thoughts and we deliberately generate positive thoughts.

So it is misleading to say "all defilements are temporarily suppressed when in jhana" - we deliberately put them aside, we deliberately generate bliss - and that's how we enter jhana.


How does one practice to develop super-mundane powers through meditation?

Part of Daniel Ingram's "thing" is to speak more openly and frankly about this kind of topic than "traditional" Buddhists are sometimes willing to do. So you could have a look at his "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha" which I think mentions some of these phenomena. Also, the site he started, dharmaoverground.org has an entire sub-forum dedicated to discussion of such things. Here's Ingram himself in that sub-forum.

I have to add, for completeness -- and I'm not criticizing your question -- that I personally look on all that stuff askance. I'm not saying it's not real (although the meaning of the word "real" seems to take a bit of a beating on those discussions), but it's not why I got and remain interested in Buddhism.


In what sutta/suttas did Buddha stated "I never admire samsara/bhava"?

The thing you are looking for is probably a misinterpretation of this passage from Maha-Parinibbana Sutta:

  ... among these five hundred bhikkhus even the lowest is a
  stream-enterer, secure from downfall, assured, and bound for
  enlightenment."

  And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
  Strive with heedfulness!"

Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.

And this one in regards to Samsara:

  “Just as even a little dung stinks, so I do not recommend even a
  little becoming, not for so much as a finger snap”


Theravada and Mahayana - The Crucial Differences

Just like with any other religion, when the author of the teachings is no longer alive to clarify what is authentic and what is not, the followers of the teachings will naturally come up with different interpretations and also mix things up with teachings of other religions or belief systems. Even in the time of the Buddha, Devadatta was able to have his own faction of monks. So Buddhism having different schools today is nothing to be surprised about.
The Mahayana school branches out to truck loads of many other schools like Vajrayana, Zen, Pureland etc. It seems to be a natural consequence of not being shy to change the original teachings of the Buddha.  So these days when you say 'Mahayana', it's hard to get an idea of what you really mean.
But if you want to compare the fundamental practices of Mahayana with Theravada Buddhism, here are some differences:

Mahayana puts emphasis on attaining Buddhahood or becoming enlightened while another Buddha is alive. Theravada puts emphasis on working to become enlightened as soon as possible and actually making use of the Dhamma preached by the Buddha to do so, even when he is not alive anymore. Theravada tradition generally discourages those who aspire to become Buddhas out of ego or due to their lack of understanding of the enormity of the task. However, it does give blessings to handful of people who have proven their worthiness through mastery of the Dhamma at the highest level, if they have that aspiration.
Mahayana seems to give precedence to the quality of compassion. Theravada gives precedence to wisdom. Compassion is practiced as a supportive quality of the mind for the cultivation of wisdom.
It appears that Vipassana meditation, the meditation that leads to enlightenment is mainly practiced in the Theravada school. Comparatively, Mahayana school seem to give precedence to chanting, rights and rituals.
Vegetarianism appears to be a requirement in Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism keeps to the word of the Buddha and leaves it up to the individual and does not view one's food preference as an important factor in attaining enlightenment.
Theravada tradition as a principal tries to understand the teachings of the Buddha without changing them to suit the popular worldview of the time. As a result, it is widely regarded as the school which is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.


The instruction to do "one thing at a time" is implied by the Buddha's praise of Sāriputta's practice, which was intense, deep and accomplished methodically one by one:

  MN111:1.6: The Buddha said this: “Sāriputta is astute, mendicants. He has great wisdom,  widespread wisdom,  laughing wisdom, swift wisdom,  sharp wisdom,  and penetrating wisdom. For a fortnight he practiced discernment of phenomena one by one.

That fortnight was critical for Sariputta because it made him an arahant.

  MN111:21.1: And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they have attained mastery and perfection in noble ethics, immersion, wisdom, and freedom, it’s Sāriputta. And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they’re the Buddha’s true-born child, born from his mouth, born of the teaching, created by the teaching, heir to the teaching, not the heir in material things, it’s Sāriputta.

Multi-tasking entails that one momentarily averts attention from one task in order to attend to other things in rapid succession. Clearly, driving while listening to the radio and thinking about what we want for dinner isn't practicing "one by one". Instead, conventional multi-tasking normally manifests as intermittent aversion to the unpleasant necessities while intermittently attending to the pleasant. The delusion that multi-tasking is effective is what makes it necessary to have laws that forbid dangerous multi-tasking such as texting and driving. Multi-tasking is therefore unskillful.

Practicing one by one is skillful.


How careful must monks be about their use of water?

The common answer is that microbes and smaller life forms are exempt from Buddhist classifications of sentient life forms.

I'd like to make a more nuanced point.

At the time it was written, this rule probably had mosquito larvae in mind.

Practically speaking, even abiding by this ontological line in the sand is difficult if the only source of water is infested with mosquitoes or the numerous life forms of tropical Asia. Most monasteries therefore often rely on lay helpers to perform water boiling and several other life tasks that might break the vinaya if a monk were to perform it.

To an outside observer this can appear dogmatic or a farce, and depending on the individuals involved sometimes it is so, but not always so. It aids in cultivation of zeal, and respect for the expectation placed on the monastic.

The whole of the spiritual life is doing one's best in trying conditions.

The Bodhisattva vows reflect this,

  However innumerable sentient beings are, I vow to save them.
  However
  inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them.
  However
  immeasurable the dharmas are, I vow to master them.
  However
  incomparable enlightenment is, I vow to attain it.

In traditional Asian cultures the laity often view these small inconveniences the monks undertake, like waiting around for a lay person to give them potable water as resolve strengthening sacrifices the monks make in the pursuit of the holy life. It also gives the laity a meritorious role in the life of the monastic, and keeps them inter-dependant.

This can also be a very instructive exercise in patience and virtue when applied correctly.

For example, if a novice monk is alone and thirsty in the forest, it must be very tempting to drink a cup of water after pushing aside the larvae on top of the forest pool.

This simple physical act is not so simple in the mind of a monk, given the vinaya. It leads him weigh his life against that of the organisms in the water.

In this way the monk comes to directly feel the enormous burden human life places on the planet, and the numerous beings and life forms including plants that we inadvertently or unavoidably destroy or disturb in order to live.

Thus chastised, the monk will truly consider the cup of water a precious cup of life, and endeavour to uphold the ideals of the holy life so stiffly purchased.

The rules are meant to aid the holy life, not become obstacles or rituals. The Buddha reveals this pragmatic distinction here:

  AN 3.83: Vajjiputta Sutta — The Vajjian Monk {A i 230; Thai 3.85} [Thanissaro]. A monk who is having difficulty following all the Pāṭimokkha training rules can boil them all down to these three: the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment.


Which branches of Buddhism acknowledge the Parable Sutra?

When a Sutra began with "佛说" (佛说譬喻经), it usually means remembering what Buddha said and retold by a third party. This a general understanding, but doesn't undermine the value of teaching contained in that Sutra.

This 《佛说譬喻经》 only one page, translated by Yijing (635–713 CE), is collected in the Jātaka Section. Some scholars and Buddhists doubt the authenticity of the Jātaka "tales" - also in the Theravadin Canon. The Chinese Canon captioned this Sutra 佛说 as the beginning, just reflected the meticulousness of the ancient Chinese Buddhist Masters, to differentiate if that 100% confirmed directly from the official Tripitaka collecting, or the source was with certain uncertainty. Captioned with "佛/说" (Buddha/Said), means it told by someone that the Buddha said this. However, judging the Sutra context and other evidences, they aligned with the Buddhist teaching thus accepted in the Canon.

For Theravada, they have only one section out of the Twelves Sections of the Buddha Sutras. They may unlikely can have this in their canon. The Three Turning of Twelves Dharma Wheels was recounted in event of 500 Arhats collecting the Tripitaka after Buddha in Nirvana, recorded in at least all the survived Vinayas in the Chinese Canon, more detail in this post. The Mahisasakas Pratimoksa, one of the Early Eighteen Buddhist Schools, appeared in Ceylon supposedly split from Sthavira, but kept in the Chinese Canon. Surprised this Vinaya completely missing in the Pali Canon; their Vinaya Pitaka is with unknown origin.

Due to their lack of writing material to record large quantity of Sutras, only mean was relied on oral memorizing; Pali wasn't formally invented and synthesized, Theravada Suttas when finally they had the mean to write them down, was first written in Sinhalese letters imitating the "Pali" (Buddha never spoke Pali; Pali wasn't any ethnic language spoken by any race, the language existed and spoken by the ancient was called Paiśācī, and Prakrit, etc., not Pali; neither Pali appeared in the Ashoka Edicts, nor found to be used in any survived literature works apart from the Pali Canon) until Buddhaghosa translated all their Sinhalese records to Pali -- they likely incapable of holding this Sutra in their collection. Let alone if from the island they had means to access to all Sutras that circulating in the Indian Penisula, also wars, at that time. The only uncertain event recorded the Buddhist teaching arriving the island Ceylon was the story of Mahinda, even their own Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa had conflicting accounts on this story. If this story to a certain degree credible, how many Sutras could be bought by just one time of missionary effort?

Therefore it's not surprised this Sutra if not existed in the Theravada Canon, and not surprised many many Sutras also missing in the Theravada Canon. Just one Chinese Agama Section has the complete and extra Sutras that covered the totality of Sutta Pitaka of Pali Canon capable of keeping.


Nothing happens to that person when consciousness ceases - there was never a person to begin with, only arising and ceasing of experience.

I realized after the fact that I can't sufficiently cite sources while on my phone - apologies for such an incomplete answer, I'll try and expand later :)


The 5th precept is not about addictions. It is referring to taking substances that lead to heedlessness, whether you get addicted to it or not.

Love/sexual misbehavior is covered under the 3rd precept. Again, it's not about addiction.

The intoxication discussed under the 5th precept is chemically muddling your senses. Especially the mind. Ignorance plays a role in wanting to do that. Once you are intoxicated, it leads to more ignorant acts.


Wikipedia says that she is "protector of fishermen, sailors, and generally people who are out at sea".

A Chinese dragon is esteemed (a symbol of the emperor), and "traditionally symbolize potent and auspicious powers, particularly control over water, rainfall, typhoons, and floods", also prosperity and good luck and so on, rulers of weather and water.

So I assume that riding a dragon like that symbolizes control over the sea (part of being "protector of fishermen and sailors").


SN 41:3,4 Where do these monks vanish to?

It should be not understood as "rejection" or disprove if offered isn't made use of, good householder, can have many reasons, often Vinaya. Ones act of merits (if meritorious intended) within such giving still presist and not touched by the receivers circumstances, deeds on it.
Noble Ones (as well those understanding Vinaya an following it) do not receive gift in return of having given Dhamma, their assistance, good householder. They avoid feeding ideas of interests in nourishment for relations. And they act in ways so that one hardly could say that they assist for a livelihood, good householder (especially the psychic power case would easy lead to bad reputation if accepting rewards, yet, because other dangers forbidden to provide such at all. Easy to be called "making favors (even for gain)" ). So it's general good and importand to make gifts in advance if wishing to do such.
Receiving a meal, for excample, after having taught the Dhamma, would be a transgression of the monk's rules. But the matter goes of course even deeper.
That's by the way the reason why common consumer hardly ever would perform high Dana with great fruit.
A giver who is actually not free from corruption gives to bind, if he gives in advance, suggest things to be "free" and the fools get trapped, of course not unwilling and innocent at all, as the pig searches for it's holder, disire for birth feeds death.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


Perhaps, you're looking for the five hindrances, namely, sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. These definitely hinder meditation, but they also appear habitually in the mind even at other times, for those who are not yet advanced on the path.

This essay by Ajahn Brahm provides useful info:

  Sensory desire refers to that particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste
  and physical feeling. It specifically excludes any aspiration for
  happiness through the sixth sense of mind alone.

  In its extreme form, sensory desire is an obsession to find pleasure
  in such things as sexual intimacy, good food or fine music. But it
  also includes the desire to replace irritating or even painful
  five-sense experiences with pleasant ones, i.e. the desire for sensory
  comfort.

  The Lord Buddha compared sensory desire to taking out a loan. Any
  pleasure one experiences through these five senses must be repaid
  through the unpleasantness of separation, loss or hungry emptiness
  which follow relentlessly when the pleasure is used up. As with any
  loan, there is also the matter of interest and thus, as the Lord
  Buddha said, the pleasure is small compared to the suffering repaid.

  In meditation, one transcends sensory desire for the period by letting
  go of concern for this body and its five sense activity. Some imagine
  that the five senses are there to serve and protect the body, but the
  truth is that the body is there to serve the five senses as they play
  in the world ever seeking delight. Indeed, the Lord Buddha once said,
  "The five senses ARE the world" and to leave the world, to enjoy the
  other worldly bliss of Jhana, one must give up for a time ALL concern
  for the body and its five senses.

  When sensory desire is transcended, the mind of the meditator has no
  interest in the promise of pleasure or even comfort with this body.
  The body disappears and the five senses all switch off. The mind
  becomes calm and free to look within. The difference between the five
  sense activity and its transcendence is like the difference between
  looking out of a window and looking in a mirror. The mind that is free
  from five sense activity can truly look within and see its real
  nature. Only from that can wisdom arise as to what we are, from where
  and why?!

  Ill will refers to the desire to punish, hurt or destroy. It includes sheer hatred of a person, or even a situation, and it can
  generate so much energy that it is both seductive and addictive. At
  the time, it always appears justified for such is its power that it
  easily corrupts our ability to judge fairly. It also includes ill will
  towards oneself, otherwise known as guilt, which denies oneself any
  possibility of happiness. In meditation, ill will can appear as
  dislike towards the meditation object itself, rejecting it so that
  one's attention is forced to wander elsewhere.

  The Lord Buddha likened ill will to being sick. Just as sickness
  denies one the freedom and happiness of health, so ill will denies one
  the freedom and happiness of peace.

  Ill will is overcome by applying Metta, loving kindness. When it is
  ill will towards a person, Metta teaches one to see more in that
  person than all that which hurts you, to understand why that person
  hurt you (often because they were hurting intensely themselves), and
  encourages one to put aside one's own pain to look with compassion on
  the other. But if this is more than one can do, Metta to oneself leads
  one to refuse to dwell in ill will to that person, so as to stop them
  from hurting you further with the memory of those deeds. Similarly, if
  it is ill will towards oneself, Metta sees more than one's own faults,
  can understand one's own faults, and finds the courage to forgive
  them, learn from their lesson and let them go. Then, if it is ill will
  towards the mediation object (often the reason why a meditator cannot
  find peace) Metta embraces the meditation object with care and
  delight. For example, just as a mother has a natural Metta towards her
  child, so a meditator can look on their breath, say, with the very
  same quality of caring attention. Then it will be just as unlikely to
  lose the breath through forgetfulness as it is unlikely for a mother
  to forget her baby in the shopping mall, and it would be just as
  improbable to drop the breath for some distracting thought as it is
  for a distracted mother to drop her baby! When ill will is overcome,
  it allows lasting relationships with other people, with oneself and,
  in meditation, a lasting, enjoyable relationship with the meditation
  object, one that can mature into the full embrace of absorption.

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
  The Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark
  cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In
  meditation, it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even
  lead to falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.

  The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.

  Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the first
  signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach and
  take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in a
  road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.

  Restlessness refers to a mind which is like a monkey, always swinging on to the next branch, never able to stay long with anything.
  It is caused by the fault-finding state of mind which cannot be
  satisfied with things as they are, and so has to move on to the
  promise of something better, forever just beyond.

  The Lord Buddha compared restlessness to being a slave, continually
  having to jump to the orders of a tyrannical boss who always demands
  perfection and so never lets one stop.

  Restlessness is overcome by developing contentment, which is the
  opposite of fault-finding. One learns the simple joy of being
  satisfied with little, rather than always wanting more. One is
  grateful for this moment, rather than picking out its deficiencies.
  For instance, in meditation restlessness is often the impatience to
  move quickly on to the next stage. The fastest progress, though is
  achieved by those who are content with the stage they are on now. It
  is the deepening of that contentment that ripens into the next stage.
  So be careful of 'wanting to get on with it' and instead learn how to
  rest in appreciative contentment. That way, the 'doing' disappears and
  the meditation blossoms.

  Remorse refers to a specific type of restlessness which is the kammic
  effect of one's misdeeds. The only way to overcome remorse, the
  restlessness of a bad conscience, is to purify one's virtue and become
  kind, wise and gentle. It is virtually impossible for the immoral or
  the self indulgent to make deep progress in meditation.

  Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
  "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
  even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
  that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
  at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
  clarity.

  The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.

  Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
  map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
  territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
  one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
  teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
  team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
  will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
  follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
  also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
  is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
  the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
  highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.

  The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.

  The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
  trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
  Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
  trust in the driver.


Dhamma makes one dispassionate then how can one be compassionate?

Maybe this article will be useful: Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism

Viraaga literally means the absence of raaga: the absence of lust, desire, and craving for existence. Hence, it denotes indifference or non-attachment to the usual objects of raaga, such as material goods or sense pleasures. Non-attachment is an important term here if the Pali is to be meaningful to speakers of English. It is far more appropriate than "detachment" because of the negative connotations "detachment" possesses in English.

The word which Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated as "dispassion", e.g. starting this sutta, is virāgā.
And,

In fact, at least three strands of meaning in the term "compassion" can be detected in the texts: a prerequisite for a just and harmonious society; an essential attitude for progress along the path towards wisdom; and the liberative action within society of those who have become enlightened or who are sincerely following the path towards it. All these strands need to be looked at if the term is to be understood and if those who accuse Buddhist compassion of being too passive are to be answered correctly.

IMO a simple analogy might be that a doctor doesn't need to be ill in order to help their patients -- it's better if they're not.

I also recommend this article on the Brahmaviharas in general (including compassion and equanimity): The Four Sublime States by Nyanaponika Thera.

There's also for example this essay, Toward a Threshold of Understanding, which says that it's a mistake to see Buddhism as "indifference" toward the world:

he Pontiff describes Nibbana as "a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world," adding that in Buddhism salvation means "above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil" (p.86). By such statements he represents Buddhism to his readers as a quietistic doctrine of withdrawal which can address the momentous problems that face humanity today only by politely turning its back on them. This is hardly a satisfactory depiction of Early Buddhism, in which transcendence of the world is stressed, let alone of Mahayana Buddhism, in which the bodhisattva's compassionate activity on behalf of the world becomes the guiding ideal.
The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.
If Buddhism in practice has not always lived up to the high ideals posited by the original Teaching, this is to be understood as a result of the downward gravitational pull of human nature, not as a consequence of any emphasis on apathy and indifference in the pristine Dhamma. The Buddhist texts provide ample evidence that the attainment of Nibbana does not issue in a stolid indifference to the world. The Buddha himself, the ideal model for his followers, led an active life of 45 years after his enlightenment dedicated to the uplift of humanity. Throughout Buddhist history, the great spiritual masters of the Dhamma have emulated the Awakened One's example, heeding his injunction to wander forth "for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans."


Citta-Rupa simply refers to resp. the mind and the body. According to the Abidhamma, this is the everyday human experience where Citta conditions Rupa. What you are referring to as "self will dissapear" is called nirodha samapatti, as detailed in the Abidhamma. It refers to a state of Nirvana while still living in Samsara.

To attain Nirvana, the Abidhamma refers to a specific Citta called Cuti-Citta, this is the mental precognition of physical death:

  Even though there is a single nibbana as its nature, nibbana is talked
  to have two different forms, saupadisesa nibbana and anupadisesa
  nibbana. Saupadisesa nibbana is nibbana when sattas are still in the
  samsara are when they are alive. This nibbana is only present in
  arahats or anagams while they are in nirodha samapatti. Nirodha means
  disappearance and samapatti means to be in a state of. Anupadisesa
  nibbana is the state immediately after cuti citta of arahats.

  Immediately after cuti citta of arahats, there is no more kammaja
  rupa, cittaja rupa and aharaja rupa. That state from the sattas just
  gone to nibbana is said to be the state of nibbana called anupadisesa
  nibbana as there is no trace of so called satta that is no citta, no
  cetasika, no kammaja rupa, no citta rupa, and no aharaja rupa. Utuja
  rupa just left is like other bahiddhika rupa and not attached to any
  satta. So such nibbana is a complete and absolute peace. This is the
  state all Buddhists are trying to attain after their paccima bhava or
  final life .

Note that in Theravada Buddhism Nirvana without residing in Samsara can only be attained upon physical death. In Mahayana Buddhism, this "requirement" is eliminated, though many Mahayana traditions still refer to the moment of enlightenment as "The Great Death".


How to reduce distractions in sitting practice?

How are people supposed to practice sitting meditation when there are so many distractions around like working, internet social media pages and other things like that?

1.You can try to make the time to do sitting meditation.Even if it's just for 5 minutes.Put it down in your organizer or calender. Hopefully this will give you the motivation to do it.

2.Practice working meditation,social media meditation,and other things like that meditation.What i mean is practice being aware of what you are doing.If you are working be aware of working.If your on social media be aware of being on social media.Whatever you do just be aware of it.Nothing is beyond awareness.You can be aware of anything from the greatest happiness to the most torturing pain.

Basically what you need is Right Effort.


There's a post here on that subject, which isn't long but difficult to summarise: The Dharma of Non-Duality

In the first (main) part the author says:

The word for "non-duality" is advaita
The Buddha didn't use that term (because it was already used then to mean "union of soul with God")
The Buddha did teach "non-duality" is many ways -- e.g. "neither self nor no-self", "middle way", "form and emptiness" (in the Heart Sutra), and "dependent origination implies neither self nor other"
Nagarjuna "used non-duality" in his Mulakarika
Etc.

In a second part (posted as a long comment on the first part), Hans Gruber argues that neither Nargajuna nor the Buddha teach non-duality:

Non-clinging isn't non-duality
Emptiness isn't non-duality, and different things are different even if they are dependently originated
Moving towards liberation (by reducing ignorance etc.) isn't non-duality
The Buddha didn't teach non-dualism as a metaphysical principle, instead he taught dependent origination (also didn't teach anatta as a metaphysical principle or abstract terms, but only as a "predicate" or "practice instruction" applicable to concrete terms i.e. any and all dhammas).

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

Yes I expect it's the same root: a+dvaya ("not a pair").

Looking at advaita compared with advaya reminds me of, I wonder if it's similar to, tatha versus tathata -- where one is the adjective (e.g. "true" or "non-dual, single") and the other is an abstract noun ("truth, suchness" or "non-duality") -- or Suñña versus Suññata i.e. "empty" versus "emptiness".

That might fit with Hans Gruber's saying that the Buddha didn't non-duality as a principle (e.g. as an abstract noun).


If someone insults you what should you do?

Well actually your question has 2 different aspects,so does the Buddhism. They are 'laukika' and 'lokottara'.

The excellency of Buddhism always goes with its 'lokottara' content, where the path to nirwana. For a person who are in lokottara track, what to do when some one scolding is just to ignore. It is all about removing tanha from our mind. If we can't hold other's scolding that's just because we have tanha on our image/social aspect or any other.

But as most of us are just partially or not at all lakottara people, we may feel hard to do that. But at least we can behave thinking about the consequences what will be happened if we get into a counter argument/fight etc. So at least we should be able to understand that the best way to bear it is the silence and make that person convince, not to be get tempered.


If hatred rises, How far I am to Nirvana?

I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true?

When you attain Nirvana both unwholesome or wholesome roots do not arise, you have also have eliminated the Five hindrances. Therefore, if any roots or hindrances appear in your mind then you are not in Nirvana. If there is a increase of roots, particularly unwholesome roots and then this can be viewed as moving away from Nirvana, hence moving away from Nirvana may be the right way to put it. Hatred has the root of dosa and also linked to Ill Will (vyāpāda). More on this see The Roots of Good and Evil, by Nyanaponika Thera and The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera

  Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

There are many measures of progress but the most reliable is equanimity as if this is present then unwholesome roots of aversion and craving does not arise. More on this see this answer and this answer.


What words in Pali are correctly interpreted as rebirth/reincarnation?

One strong impression from the Pali suttas (due to the lack of discussion with Brahmins on the subject in the suttas) and the little I have read of the Vedas is the Vedas did not contain any systematic teachings on the subject of reincarnation.
The impression (from the little i have read) is the Vedas taught about two worlds, namely, this world & the other world, which i imagine was the heaven of Brahma. Otherwise, three worlds, here.
For example, I recall recently reading (somewhere) Sariputta & Moggallana were formerly disciples in a sect that believed in going to heaven with Brahma after death.
My vague recollection from chatsite banter, including by the Ven. Sujato himself, is systematic doctrines of reincarnation began forming in the later Upanishads; which 'reincarnation' aficionados, such as Sujato, who appear to go for refuge in non-Buddhist scholars, attempt to date prior to the Buddha; even though there is no account of any Upanishads in the suttas.
My recollection is the Ven. Yuttadhammo has posted on these matters, here and here.


How to understand a patient's coma status in Buddhism

Whether a person can hear, see, smell, taste etc. while in a coma is probably a question for medical science.

From a Buddhist perspective, it can be seen as a case of senses being shut off as in when you are in deep sleep. Only Bhavaanga Cittas(life continuum) are present in deep(dreamless) sleep.

Alternatively, it could just be a case of the patient not being able to respond in anyway. Here's such an instance.

The situation is probably different from patient to patient.


Why did Buddha need a personal physician?

Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases?

Nowhere in the suttas did they say the Buddha "needed" a personal physician. People volunteered their services to Him and He accepted it in the spirit of good will and possibly allowing good opportunity for the donors to practice generosity and attaining great merits at the same time.


One should teach the dhamma for the sake of revulsion, of dispassion, of cessation, regarding:

decay-and-death,
Birth,
Existence,
Clinging,
Craving,
Feeling,
Contact,
The 6 sense-bases,
Name-and-form,
Consciousness,
Decay of Formations,
Ignorance

(Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta

The above included:

the 3 good truths (saddhamma);
the 12 links of dependent arising (paṭicca,samuppāda); and
the “revulsion” (nibbidā) formula.

See introduction (Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta by Piya Tan

Also the teacher should:

talk on the progressive teaching
teach understanding the context
teach the Dharma out of compassion
teach the Dharma not for the sake of material gain
teach the Dharma without hurting myself or others

(Dhamma,desaka) Udāyī Sutta

  what if I teach the dhamma in a wrong way? Is this causing demerit/bad merit/bad karma?

Yes it would.

  What if I mean to teach it in a right way, but it comes out wrong or even causes the listener to have a strong aversion to buddhism/listening to the dhamma?

As long as you have been diligent and taught the right way and tries to correct misunderstanding then what can you do? It is not your fault.

Make sure you do not contribute to the disappearance of the Dhamma. See: Sugata Vinaya Sutta, Candûpama Sutta and others which deal with decline of the Dhamma and impure ways to teach.


Does this kind of meditation have grounding or an equivalent in Buddhism?

OP: Then try and notice any attachments or aversions that I feel in the moment.

This seems right:

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings;

Pahāna Sutta

OP: ... Allow the aversion to be there ...
OP: ... Allow the attachment to be there ...

I believe you have to remove attachment and aversion:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta


Looking for a book that covers the biography of the Buddha's life

You may see these two books:

Buddha by Karen Armstrong,
The Life of Buddha according to the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Nanamoli.


Self invoked feelings during meditation allowed?

Yes, it is a properly defined method of meditation.

Meditation isn't the absence of thoughts, but the awareness of them. Training the mind to a point when you can sit still without any thoughts is an extraordinary feat (which I suppose you're referring to as "blankness"), but in the Buddhist manner of training, it is also only the first step.

After you are keeping still, the second step is the single-pointed concentration or Samatha, where you keep your focus on one single activity/phenomenon, usually your breath.

Samatha is followed by Vipassana, i.e. meditation of insight, also sometimes called analytical meditation. From Samatha, you can move on to choose a phenomenon/event that you want to gain insight into (Buddhists usually contemplate on Buddha's teachings such as emptiness). Once chosen, you can move to dissect it pieces by pieces. It is important to retain the single-pointed concentration while doing this.

I personally as a practitioner prefer to be in Samatha for about 5-15 minutes, before I choose to go deeper into Vipassana. I have used it to analyze things such as my fear of house lizards or spiders. In here, I try to dissect the problem into smaller more precise questions such as:

Why I am scared of spiders > 1) They can kill me? 2) They can give me diseases? 3)They are ugly? 4) What makes they ugly? 5) Do they bring me any benefits?

I think dissecting the issues like this during meditation brings amazing clarity into irrational behavior, and helps us realize the emptiness of any being or phenomena existing from its own side.

The nun who taught me meditation once told me about how she would use the analytical meditation to think about the act of her boyfriend cheating on her, back when she had a lay life — an event which had an overbearing effect on her life.

She would dissect into smaller questions like "Was it the fact that he humped someone other than me?" "Is it the act of two sweaty bodies just going against each other that hurt me?" "Was it the breaking of the promise of exclusivity?" "Was it my sense of him "belonging" to me? Or, being my "possession" of sort?"

So, yes, you don't just have to sit still trying to avoid thoughts. The purpose of buddhist cultivation of mind is to gain insight into life, not avoid living.


Logic of Emptiness still unconvincing. Please help explain

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :)
You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right now it is real, it exists, regardless of the observer, you say.
The problem is not that it does not exist. The problem is that in the ontological reality there are no distinct objects. Whatever actually exists is delineated into "objects" by the perceiving mind.
This delineation (identification of objects in time and space, and by their characteristics) depends on the scale and perspective of observation.
You think, first the objects exist, and then we identify them. But it is the opposite, first we pick our perspective and criteria (either deliberately or, more often, because we were conditioned to see things in a certain way) and then we delineate and designate objects. So what is it that exists before delineation? Whatever it is, it's not "objects". Let's call it Emptiness ;)
Because the range of your perspectives is very limited, it seems to you that the way objects are usually designated/delineated in our society is the only way that makes sense, and therefore it seems to you that this way to designate them is identical with their ontological nature.
Take a chair, for example. When we say "chair" is empty we don't mean that nothing at all exists out there. We mean that the delineation and designation of objects by e.g. humans, ants, and some hypothetical aliens is potentially different. An ant perceives chair as part of the landscape. An alien living a different temporal scale may perceive chair as a final phase in life of a tree.
And yet, a chair is a chair, you'd say, even if some other species ignorantly misperceive it. We know that this in fact is a chair, you say - and this is where you're wrong, according to Mahayana Buddhism. This is just a habit of anthropocentric thinking, that's all.
Of course most of the objects we deal with in our social reality were specifically designed for convenient usage in some pragmatic contexts. This tricks our mind into confusing their symbolical meaning in our reality (their pragmatic function) with their essence. But if you go outside human world, ambiguity of delineation/designation will be easier to spot. Take the clouds for example, or the mountains, or the water streams, or the natural species - especially if you observe them over long time. Do they have rigid well-defined identities? No, they are notoriously hard to delineate.
It's not just delineation though, it goes even deeper than defining spatial/temporal boundaries of our objects. The thing is, in the act of identification we focus on certain properties of phenomena and ignore other aspects or properties. If we were to focus on other properties we would not just draw different boundaries, our phenomena would be delineated by other measurements than their positions or sizes in time and space. Again, think about the boundaries of species, in what space are they located?
Everything exists in some way, sure, but nothing exists as conveniently separate, clearly identifyable, qualitatively static, and with its true workings perfectly matching our idea of its external appearance - as naive people and children tend to imagine.
Nothing is as solid as it appears.
This is what's meant by Emptiness, and the more your perspective expands the deeper it gets. It's not about existence vs non-existence, it's about conceptualization, identification, recognition, delineation, designation, reification - and getting mentally and emotionally attached to spatial/temporal/conceptual abstractions.


What is the buddhist way of responding to compliments?

Just because you're Buddhist doesn't mean you can't say "thank you" :P

All facetiousness aside, Buddhism is clear about the practice.  For instance, it stresses compassion and non-attachment, so evaluate your course of action against those two.

If someone compliments you and you don't politely acknowledge the
compliment, this person may be offended.  That isn't compassionate of you.
If someone compliments you and you let it get to your head, you could
be fostering attachment towards self, the thing about which you were
complimented, and the praise of others.

So how can you approach compliments in a way that takes the above into account?  Well, you could thank the person while remembering that you are thanking them out of compassion and consideration for their feelings and not because they gave you some validation you needed.

Ultimately, it's about skillful means.  Don't seek every possible situation in Buddhist texts; rather, make sure you understand the principles and use that understanding to guide your actions.


Why the students shout at the master (after meditation)?

Hah!  I've always wondered what someone outside of Zen would think if they ever saw what went on in the dokusan room.  What we have here is the Mu koan.  It goes like this - "A monk asked Josshu 'Does a dog have a Buddha nature?'  Josshu replies '"Muuuuuu!!!!!!!' (literally "does not; nothing; or no").  Now, of course, according to the Mahayana, everything has a Buddha nature.  What, oh what, could Josshu possibly mean by that?
In order to really know what this Mu thing is, you have to sit on the cushion.  You have to practice and practice deeply and sincerely sometimes for years.  The gist of what you have to do is say "Mu" on your out breath.  Take it all the way to the end of your exhalation.  At the end of the breath, maybe you notice a little bit of space (though, trust me, at first, you won't).  Over time, that little bit of space at the end of the breath becomes larger and larger.  Eventually, as your smaller self starts to drop away and you descend deeper and deeper into samadhi, it will start to overtake your entire being.  Then, we can say, the fun really starts.  That space at the end of your breath, that emptiness, that no-thing, that Mu, will one day begin to crackle with energy with no exertion of your mind's power.  When you are no longer in the way, Mu becomes a living, breathing, force that is like bottled lightening.  And like bottled lightening, it starts to look for a way out.  At this point, your body might begin to shake.  You might feel like you want to jump up and run around the zendo.  Maybe you start crowing like a rooster (that would be such a great answer!) .  Mu wants to express it self.  Mu wants to be seen.  Mu wants to be heard.  Now is the time where you present Mu to your teacher...which is what the student is doing in that video.
The really beauty of the Mu koan is that calling Mu - the act of presenting it - cannot be faked to someone who has sat in Mu themselves.  We know who's putting on airs.  You can hear it in their answer.  Someone who is truly in the energy of Mu need only open their mouth and Mu will come pouring out.  It's like turning on a faucet.  You don't reach into the tap and pull out the water.  The water comes out all of its own accord.  Someone who is not in Mu has to supply their own energy (which is the case with the student in the video).  Someone who is not in Mu may also be self conscious and block Mu from coming forth.
Don't worry if none of this makes any sense.  The only way it will is if you work with Mu yourself.  If you do, given enough time, I promise you that you will mingle your eyebrows with the patriarchs and speak the very same Mu that Josshu uttered more than 1200 years ago.


What does Buddha mean with '' to not sacrifice one's life for another' (Dhp 166)?

I like this reference to the Dhammapada, because it includes the "story" behind each verse (note that it's the verse itself that should be treated as "Gospel", the story is commentary, sometimes allegorical).
So verse 166 can be found here: Dhammapada Verse 166 ... from which I take the following to be the essential message:

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus,

"Bhikkhus, those who love and revere me should act like Attadattha. You are not paying me homage by just offering flowers, perfumes and incense and by coming to see me; you pay me homage only by practising the Dhamma I have taught you, i.e., the Lokuttara Dhamma."

In other words, the Buddha taught what he did to let each person to attain liberation. That's what the Buddha wants: for each person to attain liberation. So if you do something other than that, "for the sake of another's benefit", then you're missing the point of the Buddha's message.

Also, "not sacrifice your life" is a paraphrase or extrapolation of the verse, not a quote; actually it says,

Verse 166: 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.

Also there are stories (fables) of the Buddha having sacrificed his own life, in past lives: for example, there's the story of the tigress (here's the short version and a longer version). Actually that story is told as admirable and perhaps even as a necessary step in the Bodhisattva's evolution towards birth as a Buddha. The Jataka tales are not entirely canonical though.

Also Buddhist are taught that generosity is a virtue (perhaps the first virtue; or maybe the second virtue after "harmlessness").
I'm not sure that generosity is seen as "sacrifice" though.
And literal "sacrifice" (perhaps using fire?) was a feature of the contemporary (pre- and post-Buddhist) religion: performed by priests of the "Brahmin" caste.
I think that the whole last chapter of the Dhammapada is on that topic: saying that what makes a person "holy" isn't sacrifice and so on, but self-restraint and so on.
There are some similar doctrine addressed to a Brahmin in the suttas also.


if deities are merely creations of mind,how can there be purelands?

Deities are not completely creations of one meditator's mind. Meditator receives instructions from his/her teacher about how the deity looks, based on traditional description - so in some sense the deity exists in those descriptions and in the minds and stories of meditators passing the idea of the deity on, from generation to generation. So in a certain sense the deity exists over the lifetimes of many meditators who carry it on. And in some sense the character of the deity, the mood or style of the deity (as it's described and is then visualized) is an active force that conditions the meditator's mind.
So in a certain sense the deity actually has independent existence and plays an active role. It's not just meditator's imagination. Once you get seriously in touch with a traditional deity cultivated by thousands of meditator's over the course of many centuries you may realize that this imaginary entity nevertheless has power far beyond your own.
Now, to get to the purelands. The reality we perceive - the world we find ourselves in - is a result of our interpretation. Our reference point, our imprints, our selective attention, our associations, and our mental cycling - are the ingredients our world is assembled from. Correspondingly there are infinitely many worlds we can find ourselves in, some drastically different from a world of an average human.
These worlds can be dark&troublesome or high&pure, depending on the mind of a sentient being assembling that world. Sentient beings sharing a common mindset create a common world they can share.
Purelands exist as a continuum of worlds in the total range of assemblable worlds. So I see nothing strange in the fact that experienced meditators of the past visited other worlds, or were guided by deities helping them visit their world.
Perceiving our world as the only reality, and assuming that our own existence is more substantial than existence of deities is only a habit we are unwittingly cycling in.


How can we say no without giving explanations?

I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

If that's what you feel, you should exactly say that. The more you allow yourself to relax and express what you really feel, without fear of judgement, the easier it becomes as you do it again and again, and you arrive at a place in your life when you can be truly yourself and happy, because you will be spontaneously manifesting your own true nature. Just a matter of getting comfortable and free from the grasp of fear and the control of preconceptions, and allowing yourself to be yourself.


Buddhism and the surrounding environment

I think you will end up getting better answers to your question. But I'll answer what I can. :)

It truly is exhausting to be in a mind state of continually judging every experience and every facet of life as positive or negative and trying to continually change things to be as you would have them. One of the reasons people come to mediation is because they realize they can't change the world and they want to learn to live in the world in a way that causes less suffering for themselves and others.

Meditation is something an individual does but because of the way it changes the individual; it also changes things in the individual's world. Spending time in meditation can help a meditator to become very aware of things they are doing which are causing suffering for themselves and others. It can help one to realize that suffering comes internally by identifying things as me and mine and trying desperately to prop up that fragile ego of me and mine.

The relief of learning to loosen the grip of needing to have everything under your control and everything to your liking is tremendous. I don't think it can be properly explained; it's something that needs to be experienced.

If you are concerned that meditating will make you indifferent to the needs of others, I can only say that because you are, examining your own mind when you meditate, you really can't hide anything from yourself. So if you are doing something that causes suffering to others, it'll be clear and you won't want to continue.


Tips to improve mindfulness in daily life

If you meditate regularly, the mindfulness in daily life will increase automatically. Perhaps a useful tip may be to have an activity - e.g. brushing your teeth (as suggested by a teacher in the tradition of Jon Kabat-Zinn) or showering, that you always try to do mindfully, that is, by just being aware. This is not a substitute for meditation, but it may be a way of assessing whether you are mindful at that time. SN Goenka says that it can be helpful if you are mindful when you fall asleep and just after you wake up, just observing sensations on your body and nothing else.


Is it bad karma to think but not claim that one is enlightened, or just bad for your practice?

It is delusion, with all resulting kamma. This case is addressed in MN1:

  They perceive extinguishment as extinguishment. But then they identify with extinguishment, they identify regarding extinguishment, they identify as extinguishment, they identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

It may sound like progress, but it isn't. In fact, the Buddha would say the same about conquerers such as Alexander the Great, who grasped at earth:

  “Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons. They perceive earth as earth. But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Constrast this with how the Buddha describes a Realized One. Notice that identify view is absent:

  He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

Per MN1, even a trainee "shouldn’t identify as extinguishment, they shouldn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they shouldn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? So that they may completely understand it, I say."

Furthermore, per MN1, only "an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones" would "identify as extinguishment."

Therefore, if we can agree that uneducated ordinary persons are entangled in suffering and kamma, we can infer that to think of oneself as enlightened is unskillful, uneducated and ordinary, with all corresponding kamma.

Other suttas reiterate this cautionary point about non-identification with extinguishment in different ways. For example, there is MN44:

  “A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Both MN1 and MN44 stress non-identification even for those with experience of extinguishment such as stream-winners. In our practice, we should note that mind is included in good conduct (DN33). And therefore if we do not speak unskillfully, we should also avoid thinking unskillfully.

  Three ways of performing good conduct: by body, speech, and mind.


You should use the 5 faculties and 5 powers to balance you mind to dispel some the niwarana.

When restless this is because your have become too energetic but lacking in concentration. Best is to do Anapana to increase concentration
When sleepy this is because you have high concentration but lack energy best is to practice Satipatthana, or instruction in the Capala Sutta
You have too much faith backed with little wisdom, you accept theory due to faith than at the experiential level, then you should develop your wisdom to see what you have faith in, at the experiential level.
When you have lack of faith or doubt the teachings (you have learned too much with little experiential knowledge) you might either get lazy, so develop some confidence to practice by contemplating qualities of the Triple Gem enough to get you to practice and experience in reality the truth of what your have learned
When you have ill will try metta or realise you have will will
When you have desire realise it or contemplate on impermanence or realise have desire

To realise that the hindrances are arising you have to develop strong mindfulness.

Also as a final note with any hindrance or any other mental state there is and associated sensation. This arises and passes away. At 1st you will see it at a gross level as e.g. just sleepy but then you will sense they are made of smaller quantum of smaller sensations arising and passing away. Having said this the feelings and their arising and passing away due to metal factors or content is very difficult to sense. The Vipassana method based on the Pacalā Sutta:

    “Nothing is worth clinging to”

    When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
    “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”

    “Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.
    And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all].
    Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
    things.

    Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.

    As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

    he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;

    he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;

    he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;

    he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

    When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.
    Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.


What does "I worship the Lord of the Thunderbolt" mean, in a translation of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara?

I would think it refers to the author's main Vajrayana teacher. As ChrisW rightly notes: Thunderbolt is a translation of Vajra. the lord The student-teacher relationship is very important in Buddhist tantra and Santideva was an Indian practitioner of Buddhist tantra.

There are several reasons to think that it refers to his personal teacher:
1) in tantra one is supposed to see the teacher as one with the highest Buddha
2) in the text here it says that the author has neglected 'his instructions' - that is, the instructions of the Lord of the Thunderbolt. That makes most sense if it does refer to his personal teacher.


Should Buddhists give their time to helping others?

To evaluate this question correctly, it is essential to look at the difference of Theravada and Mahayana, since answers given by people from these differing traditions are bound to be slightly different also. It appears to me, the four seals are a mahayanic equivalent to the (not-only) theravadic three marks of existence. Also the Theravada/Mahayana-difference is also highly relevant to the question of time being compounded.

Essentially this difference consists the ideal that people strive after, which is the Arahant in case of Theravada - someone who destroys all bondages and gains enlightenment for himself and the Bodhisattva in Mahayana - someone who strives to enlighten all beings before attaining Nirvana himself or herself. (I'm being very brief here.)

The interpretation you refer to, charity as the answer to impermanence of things sounds to me to be typically mahayanic or vajrayanic (Vajrayana developed out of Mahayana).

About time: this is one of the trickiest subjects of Buddhist thought. Thinking over the Buddha's denial of ultimate ontological status for compounded entities (like "the person"), Buddhist thinkers tried to find out, what in the end has this ultimate ontological status, things that are uncompounded - asaṃskṛta/asaṃkhata. One of the perished schools of Buddhism - the Sarvāstivāda was especially noted for the theory of uncompounded, sort of atomic entities called dharmas, time being also made out of minimal time-quantums that all exist simultaneously in the present (past and future as well).

Nāgārjuna is supposed to be the first, definitely the greatest early Mahayana-teacher and his teaching polemicizes precisely against this theory of uncompounded smallest entities, claiming, that they do not exist, that really everything, including Nirvāṇa, Pratītyasamutpāda and time is compounded. His teaching can also be read (thereby being truly mahayanic) as a rejection of self-centered hunger for enlightenment and thirst for Nirvāṇa.

Therefore, at least according to Mahayana the answer to your questions are yes, time IS compounded, we SHOULD disconnect ourselves from it, from clinging to it and we SHOULD freely spend it on others.

EDIT: replaced Hinayana by Theravada.


What is intellect-consciousness and why is it different from intellect itself?

This is just bad translation. "Consciousness" is the common word for vijnana. A better translation of vijnana is "(subjective) experience". Meaning, you see something => you recognize it => you make sense of it => you experience it.

"Intellect" is how they usually translate manas or mind.

So "Intellect-consciousness" or mano-vijnana, is therefore the subjective experience of what's going on one's own mind. It's when you "see" what you're thinking about etc. I think it's called re-representation in modern cognitive science.

It does not require a higher mind or anything like that. Based on my meditation experience, it works as a cycle. Normally the input from sense organs goes to memory to find matching associations, this is how recognition happens, the basis of vijnana. With manovijnana, instead of the sensory organs, our attention grabs data from short term memory, finds matches in long term memory, puts that back in short term memory - voila, manovijnana.


There're a few different interpretations of the word Gotrabhu, which Ven. Bodhi commented to AN 9.10 in his "Numerical Discourses":

  "Gotrabhu. In his translation of Vism, where the word is used in a technical sense, Nanamoli renders it “change-of-lineage” (see Vism 672–75, Ppn 22.1–14). Mp explains this person—in accordance with the exegetical scheme of the commentaries—as “one with a mind of powerful insight that has reached the peak, the immediate condition for the path of stream-entry.” Mp is here referring to the gotrabhu mind-moment in the cognitive process (cittavithi) of the path, the mental event that immediately precedes sotapattimaggacitta, the mind-moment of the path of stream-entry. Since this scheme is relatively late and presupposes the Abhidhamma theory of the cognitive process, it is unlikely to reveal the original meaning of gotrabhu. In the Nikayas, the word occurs infrequently. In the present sutta it seems to mean simply a virtuous monk or nun who has not reached the path of stream-entry. We find the plural form at MN 142.8, III 255,6–7: “But in the future, Ananda, there will be clan members, with ochre [robes around] their necks, immoral people, of bad character” (bhavissanti kho pan’ananda, anagatamaddhanam gotrabhuno kasavakAttha dussila papadhamma). In the latter passage it has a pejorative sense, referring to those who show merely the outer marks of a monastic without worthy inner qualities."


What is a Buddhist approach to reducing envy?

The Pali scriptures say the antidote for envy is to practise 'mudita', which is to be happy for the happiness & success of others. The phrase for the practise/recollection of mudita is: "may all beings not be parted from the good fortune they have attained".


Did the Buddha ever say something proven wrong later?

The Buddha's Dhamma is Universal Law of Nature, open for scientific examination, timeless, when practiced lets you to understand the ultimate realities and is something that can be realised at the experiential level.

There can be issues with the different interpretations after 2500+ years and some may be miss specified in transmission, and some sayings may be even later compositions incorrectly attributed to the Buddha.

But having said this there cannot be anything which the Buddha said which can be wrong since what he taught is (according to him) what he experienced directly which can also be experienced by any body by practicing the well laid out path.

Ultimately what you should believe is what you experience for your self within the framework of the body. This is what you should take as the teaching of the Buddha, as he has emphasised.

The 6 qualities of the Dhamma in detail:

  Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed" or "self-announced"). The Buddha's teaching is not a speculative philosophy but an exposition of the Universal Law of Nature based on a causal analysis of natural phenomena. It is taught, therefore, as a science[11] rather than a sectarian belief system. Full comprehension (enlightenment) of the teaching may take varying lengths of time but Buddhists traditionally say that the course of study is 'excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end' (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom).

  Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dharma is open to scientific and other types of scrutiny and is not based on faith.[12] It can be tested by personal practice and one who follows it will see the result for oneself by means of one's own experience. Sandiṭṭhiko comes from the word sandiṭṭhika which means visible in this world and is derived from the word sandiṭṭhi-. Since Dhamma is visible, it can be "seen": known and be experienced within one's life.

  Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "timeless, immediate"). The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now. There is no need to wait for the future or a next existence. The dhamma does not change over time and it is not relative to time.
  Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" — from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma invites all beings to put it to the test and come see for themselves.

  Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). Followed as a part of one's life the dhamma leads one to liberation. In the "Vishuddhimagga" this is also referred to as "Upanayanam." Opanayiko means "to be brought inside oneself". This can be understood with an analogy as follows. If one says a ripe mango tastes delicious, and if several people listen and come to believe it, they would imagine the taste of the mango according to their previous experiences of other delicious mangoes. Yet, they will still not really know exactly how this mango tastes. Also, if there is a person who has never tasted a ripe mango before, that person has no way of knowing exactly for himself how it tastes. So, the only way to know the exact taste is to experience it. In the same way, dhamma is said to be Opanayiko which means that a person needs to experience it within to see exactly what it is.

  Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be meant to perceive directly"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Buddha) who have matured in supreme wisdom. No one can "enlighten" another person. Each intelligent person has to attain and experience for themselves. As an analogy, no one can simply make another know how to swim. Each person individually has to learn how to swim. In the same way, dhamma cannot be transferred or bestowed upon someone. Each one has to know for themselves.

Sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Buddhism)


Why does the Buddha appear androgynous in some depictions?

It's an artistic style. The impression of androgyny is arising in the mind of the viewer (not necessarily every viewer), and part of its cause is our arbitrary cultural standard of how men and women should look.


What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse?

The Pali scriptures (SN 12.17) state, from the perspective of ultimate truth, that the cause of suffering is 'ignorance' (rather than 'one-self' or 'another').

However, in the conventional scenario presented in the question, the father is causing the suffering because a 3 year old child does not have the cognitive capacity to engage the Buddhist path.

What is occurring to the child has no relationship to any (imaginary) past lives. I have never read this idea in the Pali suttas, where suffering (dukkha), let alone the suffering of helpless small children, is attributed to past lives.

The suffering is due to the evil within the mind of the father because the child cannot overcome the in-born ignorance in their mind that is causing the suffering.

Dhammapada 137 clearly states there are "innocent" victims of crime & AN 3.61 states what a person feels in not related to past kamma.

  137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:

  138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in
  hell.

~~~

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.


I've never understood why people somehow think that the Matrix is somehow a Buddhist movie. It's actually a very thinly veiled allegory for Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, you have the idea that an evil creator god called the Demiurge created the physical world and trapped the souls of people in physical bodies to have dominion over them, and the goal of Gnosticism is to escape physical existence.

Most of the Matrix is a copy and paste of that. The core ideas of Buddhism really aren't in that movie in any real sense.


Why are exceptionally tall statues of the Buddha and Guanyin built?

OP: Why are such tall statues built?

Why do people have statues for the Buddha?
From DN16, the Buddha explained to Ananda, why it is beneficial to have a stupa for a Tathagata (a Buddha):

And why, Ananda, is a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One
worthy of a stupa? Because, Ananda, at the thought: 'This is the stupa
of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' the hearts of
many people will be calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with
their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the
body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly
happiness. And so also at the thought: 'This is the stupa of that
Paccekabuddha!' or 'This is the stupa of a disciple of that Tathagata,
Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' or 'This is the stupa of that
righteous monarch who ruled according to Dhamma!' — the hearts of many
people are calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds
established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after
death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness. And it is
because of this, Ananda, that these four persons are worthy of a
stupa.

I would therefore extrapolate that the purpose of the statue of the Buddha is similar to the purpose of the stupa of a Buddha, which is, to be an inspiration for peace of mind and happiness.
Today, people in USA remember Martin Luther King, people in India remember Mahatma Gandhi and people in South Africa remember Nelson Mandela. They may have photos or statues of these revered persons put up in public places and treated in a respectable way. The statue of the Buddha is no different. They are there to serve as icons of inspiration.
The Buddha, at least from a Theravada perspective, is no more supernaturally reachable through prayers and rituals, than King, Gandhi or Mandela.

OP: What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents?

Now, how was the stupa of a universal monarch or a Buddha built?
From the same sutta:

"But how, venerable Ananda, do they act respecting the body of a
universal monarch?"
"The body of a universal monarch, Vasetthas, is first wrapped round
with new linen, and then with teased cotton wool. And again it is
wrapped round with new linen, and again with teased cotton wool, and
so it is done up to five hundred layers of linen and five
hundred of cotton wool. When that is done, the body of the universal
monarch is placed in an iron oil-vessel, which is enclosed in
another iron vessel and a funeral pyre is built of all kinds of
perfumed woods, and so the body of the universal monarch is burned. And at a crossroads a stupa is raised for the universal
monarch. So it is done, Vasetthas, with the body of a universal
monarch.
"And even, Vasetthas, as with the body of a universal monarch, so
should it be done with the body of the Tathagata; and at a crossroads
also a stupa should be raised for the Tathagata. And whoever shall
bring to that place garlands or incense or sandalwood
paste, or pay reverence, and whose mind becomes calm there — it will
be to his well being and happiness for a long time."

So, the Buddha stupa was not a simple tomb. Rather, it was a very grand memorial shrine.
Similarly, I extrapolate that the purpose of the great height of the statues of the Buddha is to function as a grand memorial.
It's no different to the giant 38m tall statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro or the giant statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
Doesn't the giant 24m tall statue of the Buddha (the Great Buddha in Bodh Gaya, India) below make you think "this is the statue of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!" Doesn't it inspire you and fill you with awe?
Around 2.5km away from this statue, you can visit the Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree, the exact location where the Buddha was said to have attained enlightenment. More places of inspiration.
The Great Buddha in meditation pose:


Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective?

Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.


'Hinduism' did not exist when the Buddha was alive, as follows from Wikipedia:

  This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300
  CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 to 500 BCE), and
  flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in
  India

  Wkipedia: Hinduism

When Buddha was alive, the religion of the Brahmin priests we call 'Brahmanism', which was far more limited in scope than Hinduism, per the stock description from the Pali suttas below:

  Now at that time the brahmin...had mastered the Three Vedas, together
  with their vocabularies, ritual, phonology and etymology and the
  testament as fifth. He knew philology and grammar, and was well versed
  in cosmology and the marks of a great man.

  MN 91

The Three Vedas are explained in Wikipedia as follows:

  The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold (turīya) viz.,

  Rigveda (RV)
  Yajurveda (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
  Samaveda (SV)
  Atharvaveda (AV)

  Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also
  called "trayī vidyā"; that is, "the triple science" of reciting hymns
  (Rigveda), performing sacrifices (Yajurveda) and chanting songs
  (Samaveda). The Rigveda is the oldest work, which Witzel
  states are probably from the period of 1900 to 1100 BCE. Witzel, also
  notes that it is the Vedic period itself, where incipient lists divide
  the Vedic texts into three (trayī) or four branches: Rig, Yajur, Sama
  and Atharva

  Wiki

If you read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, there was no Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism, as inferred by Wikipedia (in the 1st quote above), probably copied from Buddhism.

For example (while I am happy to be corrected), I do not recall reading in the Pali suttas any detailed discussion/debate between the Brahmins & the Buddha about respective theories/doctrines of karma & reincarnation. In the little I researched, I found no systematic doctrine of karma & reincarnation in the Three Vedas. Even when I browsed some later 'Upanishads', I found no mature systematic doctrine about karma & reincarnation (apart from the ideas of one certain individual philosopher).

Again, if we read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, we find the Brahmins were similar to the Hebrews (and probably many other tribal groups), where their belief system was about how they were 'God's chosen people' or 'born from Brahma's mouth/breath' (while the other castes were born from lesser parts of Brahma's body).

Some useful links from Sutta Central, with lots of links, books & research, are:

The early Upanishads: a nice introduction to the pre-Buddhist tradition
Rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahman Vedas

Note: While the Pali suttas never mention the 'Upanishads', the reincarnation orientated leader of Sutta Central, namely, Bhikkhu Sujato, appears intent to follow conventional historians rather than follow the Pali suttas, in his efforts to back-date the Upanishads to prior to Buddhism. If we place our trust in the Pali suttas, we find what existed prior to the Buddha was the Three Vedas & their accompaniments.

An answer about this topic by Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo is here: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?

Lastly, if you wish to be a real Buddhist, it is not possible to believe the Buddha copied any of his core teachings from Brahmanism/Hinduism because the suttas say what the Buddha taught he "never heard before". "A Buddha" cannot copy other doctrines otherwise he/she cannot be called "A Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha" ("Sammasambuddha").

  'Arising, arising!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light.

  'Cessation, cessation!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light."

  SN 12.10

  Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:

  Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta


Annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation during meditation?

I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana.

The purpose of Vipassana is to gain insight. Is there any way you can gain insight into the workings of your experience through your newfound aversion? You can observe any experience to gain insight into the truth, but looking into suffering is particularly helpful. Moments of suffering house so much delusion, they are information treasures!

Wishing your physical condition to go away is a manifestation of fundimental aversion. Next time you are meditating, I encourage you to ask yourself these questions.

What makes up your desire to have your condition go away?
How often is the desire/suffering being felt by you?
What physical and mental sensations occur that show you your desire is absolute/a need?
What part of you is your condition harming?

The beautiful thing about being dissatisfied is that although it is painful, it is an insight jumping in front of your face, ready to occur!

Best of luck to you and I hope you find what you are looking for!


Is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating?

Noises are going to be a problem if you are just starting out.  This is especially so if they are the abrupt, jarring type of sounds that you seem to be contending with.  I would highly recommend that you do your best to find a quiet place to sit at first - even if this means leaving your home and sitting somewhere else.  You might be surprised to find that many of the more liberal Christian denominations and the Unitarians might offer you some space in their respective sanctuaries to practice.  The same goes for campus chapels.  My own sangha has used everything from a classroom in a Methodist Sunday school to a yoga studio!

If you must sit in a noisy area, my best advice is to treat sound just as you would any other distraction or phenomenon you might encounter on the cushion.  This is going to vary depending on your tradition, but coming from the samatha school that I practice, I'd advise you to double down on your meditation object.  If you are following the breath, continue to watch the whole body of your breathing as closely as you can.  Be with it for its entire duration.  Watch the blankness in the space between your exhalation and inhalation.  Sound is a difficult obstacle to work with, but like pain, agitation, sensual desire, or really any of the five hindrances, it won't be able to gain a foothold in a mind that is closely applied to its object.

Also, for the love of Pete, don't spend your time on your cushion fantasizing about how much better your meditation would be if only it were quieter!  That'll kill your concentration faster than the sound of a truck driving through a nitroglycerin plant!


What is Buddhist doctrine on the question of counterfactual definiteness?

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?

That's easy to answer: the only good use of mano ("mind") for anybody who want to stop dukkha is the yoniso manasikara ("appropriate attention"), which is, in one word, phrasing sati (awareness, mindfulness) and what you do with sati, in terms of mano. This is the first step of the path (after, of course, hearing the doctrine to remember) -- the famous "proper attention" on the source and ending of whatever is dukkha, from the reply "you need a good friend and proper attention" of the buddha, when he was asked what is required to reach nibanna.

Also, The standard procedure for understanding anatta has nothing to do with "investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined." Leave drawing conclusion to the toxic puthujjanas (wordlings): the logicians, the daydreamers, the creators of views, the people who love to argue about views.

Use mano only for ascertainment, for attestation, for witnessing, of the source and fall of phenomena, of vedana (feelings), of sanna (perceptions) and so on -- and of course, for the ascertainment of the failure or the success, from the activities you have done so far, of your practice (then you pursue successful activities and you abandon failing activities).

Here is what happens when a puthujjana uses mano for something else than yoniso manasikara:

  Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention (SN 9.11)

  I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.

  Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:

  From inappropriate attention
  you're being chewed by your thoughts.
  Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
      contemplate
      appropriately.

  Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
  the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues
  you will arrive at
      joy,
      rapture,
      pleasure
      without doubt.

  Then, saturated
      with joy,
  you will put an end
  to suffering & stress.

  The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Here is the proper use of mano:

Natumha Sutta -- Not Yours (SN 12.37)
Channa Sutta -- With Channa (SN 35.87)

Use mano for striving to find the sources of what comes to be, and the ending of what came to be -- of how things arise and how they pass away (and not "see things as they really are", contrary to the worst translation ever, created by a puthujjana craving to cram the word "real").

Now, tHe standard procedure to "understand anatta" is the one to become an arahant -- and the standard procedure to become an arahant is for the citta to have samadhi, and once the citta has stable samadhi, to use sati to focus on anatta through the sequence anicca, dukkha, anatta -- or to just hear the discourse by a Buddha which will be about this sequence anyway.

Since the bikkhus  do not know what is anicca, but are already more or less good at getting the citta in samadhi by being good ascetics, they once more rely on a discourse, this time directly from the Buddha, like the second one (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta -- The Not-self Characteristic) where as usual the five aggregates that any human knows and experiences are anatta -- so no need to go deep looking for anatta.

Now atta is  only a word, so what experience is there behind this word?
Well as usual the answer is given, and it is:

  This is mine, this is I, this is my self

... and what does this apply to? The 5 aggregates -- which is the sakya-ditthi (i.e. the view that the aggregates are self) and the only ditthi (view) that you must care about and reject, once you want to stop dukkha --- which of course has nothing do with eternalism or annihilism, and the fantasy of some puthujjanas that the dhamma is some middle way between the two, because those people love to (very dubiously) tack their favorite  words like "existence", "real", "self" on their experience and these words are even more meaningless when they are used to talk about the Buddha.

The (non-ascetic) lay people who stop being puthujjanas do so by listening to the Buddha, and they become stream-enterers. After that the remaining work no longer concerns views. Instead the remaining task is to destroy various lusts, and the energy spent fueling those lusts. A puthujjana is done with views as as soon as the puthujjana become a sotapana.


How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?

We say that contaminated virtue perpetuates samsara. The intention mental factor in the retinue of contaminated virtue is a contaminated mental karma that gives rise to suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings (suffering of change). An example of contaminated virtue is the virtuous intention to give - generosity - in the continuum of an ordinary being. An example of uncontaminated virtue, however, is the mind of generosity conjoined with a wisdom of emptiness.

Here, when generosity is conjoined with both the wisdom of emptiness and bodhicitta, it is a skillful means because it is a uncontaminated virtue in the continuum of a being that never forsakes the welfare of others. So, every virtue in the continuum of an arya bodhisattva is a skillful means, since it is conjoined with both wisdom and bodhicitta.

In the Ornament of Clear Realization, Maitreya/Asanga say:

  The mind generation [i.e. bodhicitta] possessing skillful means, as
  the subject, is like a virtuous spiritual friend because by way of the
  four immeasurables, the method for not rejecting sentient beings, it
  never forsakes the welfare of sentient beings.

In his Commentary on Seventy Topics and Ornament for Clear Realizations by Geshe Jampa Gyatso:

  “Skillful means” refers to the fact that a bodhisattva with this mind
  generation is able to transform every single virtue into a cause for
  enlightenment. A virtuous spiritual friend is one who guides sentient
  beings on the spiritual path; in particular, one who is fully
  qualified is able to guide his disciples appropriately. “Not rejecting
  sentient beings” refers to not rejecting even one sentient being which
  if done would create negative karma and break both the bodhisattva and
  tantra vows.


There are two levels of Teaching, for the common people, and for professional seekers of Nirvana.

To first, Buddha taught no-nonsense ethics, chastity etc. Sex for procreation, faithful marriage, these kinds of things. Going mostly by his basic principle of "what leads to peace and harmony is good, what creates causes for potential conflict is bad" - applied to the social norms of those days.

To the second, he taught universal principles operating at cosmic scale. Natural evolution ("dependent origination") emerges as cyclic self-perpetuating tendencies. These self-perpetuating tendencies culminate in arising of sentient experience. Information trapped in these tendencies identifies some elements of this experience as "self". What in reality is a perpetuating part of the tendency (its capacity for continued existence) in sentient experience arises as something subjectively desirable. This includes sexual attraction.

Therefore, breaking through the charm of seemingly pleasant, and correctly attributing its nature to the self-perpetuating tendency for continued existence, is an appropriate component of practice leading to liberation from the trap of subjective experience.


References, Suttas, on the effects of rejecting (gifts)

I can recall there is a Sutta where a monk reject the robes offered to hims as he had plenty of robes.


The reflections you are doing are both excellent & necessary however they are the development of right view and not the development of right concentration. The development of concentration is developing a quiet & still mind. In developing a quiet & still mind, the right view reflections you are doing are used only when a hindrance arises or when grasping/attachment to meditation arises.