What sort of infinite regress to birth is Nagarjuna's MMK arguing for?

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over and over again, to make sure the reader is left with no doubts about the points made.

The initial verse introduces the subject of liberation from reification (paraphrasing Garfield's translation):

  I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
  the best of teachers, who taught that everything is dependently arisen --
  not dying, not born, not subject to annihilation nor permanence,
  not coming, not going, with no delineation, no [fixed] identity; -- to liberate from reification.

With arising/birth, just like with every other topic, Nagarjuna uses 'reductio-ad-absurdum' to show that discrete things are reified abstractions we impute onto reality, confusing them with reality itself.

Specifically, speaking about arising/birth, he tries to show that the notion of birth as a moment when something is born is incohesive under close scrutiny. He says, if something arises at point T1, then what is the moment T0 when this arising itself begins (arises). If we look at any such point, we see an infinite regress - not into the past, but into splitting each moment of arising into its "beginning" and the rest of the moment.

Equally, when we look at the moment when something has fully arisen... This notion of "having arisen" is absurd as well. This is where he gives that simile of the lamp, saying that where lamp with its light has fully arisen there is no darkness (absence of light), therefore arising of the lamp could not have possibly caused illumination of the darkness, because by the time lamp with its light fully exists, darkness has gone. This is a similar argument to the "initial moment of arising" argument, except now we're scrutinizing the final moment. As we look closer we see that there is no concrete point in time when something is "fully arisen".

All of this is meant to illustrate that the notion of arising, and therefore the notion of entity, is an abstraction, and that we should stop reifying things as solid and having clear boundaries, because in reality they do not.

In Yogacara's theory of three-fold-svabhava, reality can be analyzed from a perspective of how it appears to a mind of naive reification (i.e. that entities are real), from an analytical perspective of dependent-origination (which explains how entities gradually become more solid as a result of development of the mind of reification), and from an enlightened perspective of Buddha, who look at all this stuff with full understanding of how it works and therefore clearly sees the true "quantum" reality behind both the confused perspective as well as the analytical dependent-origination perspective.

P.S. to those wondering how all this relates to Noble Path and liberation from suffering: in Mahayana, reification of entities as something real and solid is considered the root cause of attachment, therefore of suffering. In Mahayana's interpretation, the ignorance Buddha spoke about, is exactly this naive ignorant reification, not understanding that entities are imputations and therefore grasping onto the phantoms. This in turn leads both to objective conflict because of clashing points of view, and to subjective suffering when things turn out to be different from the way we imagined.


How to disconnect family life & become monk?

MN82 discusses the drawbacks faced by Raṭṭhapāla when expressing a desire to  go forth:

  Please give me permission to go forth.”
  When he said this, Raṭṭhapāla’s parents said to him,
  “But, dear Raṭṭhapāla, you’re our only child. You’re dear to us and we love you. You’re dainty and raised in comfort.
  You know nothing of suffering.
  When you die we will lose you against our wishes.

Similarly, consider the needs of your spouse and children. Later in MN82 we see the impact on the wives:

  Then Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives each clasped his feet and said,
  “What are they like, lord, the nymphs for whom you lead the spiritual life?”
  “Sisters, I don’t lead the spiritual life for the sake of nymphs.”
  Saying, “Our lord Raṭṭhapāla refers to us as sisters!” they fainted right away.

Going forth affects many. Discuss this with them. Also think about your own motivations. Raṭṭhapāla felt he had no choice in life but to go forth:

  ‘I’ll either die right here or go forth.’


Buddhist meditation for intrusive thoughts and anxiety

I find these videos by Ven. Yuttadhammo on anxiety very useful:

Monk Radio: Calming Down, Panic Attack
Monk Radio: Meditation for Anxious People
Q&A: Anxiety and Depression
Monk Radio: Relaxing in Life

If you like to learn more about this type of meditation (Vipassana) practice you can find his introduction video series to the method here.
May you be well and happy.


Is our success predestined by our past karma?

Kamma is volitional or intentional action as Buddha said, “It is volition, bikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech, or mind.” It’s results ripens or takes effect in three ways; to be experienced in this very life, the next rebirth or at some subsequent occasion. Thus, as long as we travel on in the cycle of rebirths, our stockpile of kamma will  yield its due results. We have no escape from kamma so long as we make no effort to make an end to kamma by becoming at least a Stream Winner. Until one gets into the path, as Buddha said, “beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its heirs.”

In this way, the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. This is a universal principle, on which Buddhist morality is based. It does not assert that everything is due to Kamma. If everything were due to Kamma, a man must ever be bad, for it is his Kamma to be bad. One need not consult a physician to be cured of a disease, for if one's Kamma is such one will be cured.

Kamma is only one of the five all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. The other four ‘Niyamas’ which operate in the physical and mental realms other than the Kamma Niyama are… Utu Niyama, Bija Niyama, Citta Niyama, & Dhamma Niyama. Utu Niyama is that of the physical order such as seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. Bija Niyama is the order of germs or seeds. Citta Niyama is the order/power of the mind. Dhamma Niyama is that of those who tread the Path. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five.

It is this doctrine of Kamma that can explain all the inequality of mankind. But it does not mean fate as it is possible to change or reduce the effects of these past actions through present actions. That is why if a person who has much money, but no true, righteous friends should practice sila.  Such people who have no friends, very often single but keep on hoarding wealth have in their past lives given lavishly in generosity as dana but without any sila/morals in them. A person who is very generous but not virtuous (without the any personal virtue like the observance of the five precepts ) would inherit this kind of bad kamma. Even today many rich people are highly generous but the inevitable karmic law is that no degree of generosity can cover up the lack of virtue in personal life. This karmic law cannot be deceived. This is why it has been laid down that "give dana with confidence and always be virtuous" (daanam dadantu saddhaaya - seelam rakkhantu sabbadaa). The two aspects should be complementary to each other.


Is realizing anatta, will it help meditation?

Eliminating self-view (first realisation of Anatta) is the pre-requisite becoming a Sotapanna.
There is two type of meditation. (Samatha and Vipassana)
Realisation of Anatta is not required for Samatha meditation.
However, in Vipassana we contemplate on the Anatta.

My personal opinion is that realisation of Anatta will help both meditations.


As a person with obsessive thought disorder I might shed some light on this issue.

The very fact that you are overthinking is that you are clinging to resolving an issue you believe is of highest importance at the moment, as Andrei Volkov already wrote.

What you might do is to be mindful of obsessiveness as it comes. Label it "Obsessiveness." and continue with your mindful gate keeping. Don't let scattered thoughts (vicàra) roam freely unnoticed. Try to let only wholesome and directed thoughts (vitakka) free. It is the case of a habit.

It is mostly the issue that such thoughts of overthinking take on subjects that aren't important or even difficult to solve with calm and clear mind, so along with mindfulness of thoughts please add concentrating on breathing. Do not try to tackle such thoughts in the state of confusion, as you will be like a man standing on the deck of the ship in the middle of the sea storm - you don't want to be out in such conditions, it is far better to keep yourself safe inside the ship and wait for better conditions.

No matter how tempting it is to continue inner chatter or how critical it might seem - let go of the need. As what they say: Don't try to talk with the madman - it is not going to work.

Bonus: Ajahn Sumedho - Let Go, Let Go, Let Go


Is there any reason of restlessness in the afternoon?

Restless drowsiness is common after eating. AN7.61 discusses remedies at length, including:

  But if by doing this you don’t shake off your drowsiness, then—percipient of what lies in front & behind—set a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly immersed, your mind not straying outwards. It’s possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness.


Fun teaching techniques for children meditation class

Here's a video series on how to meditate for children:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB4C918E1E338A6F1

DVDs are also available.


How do I deal with Buddhist teaching's complexity?

"Im feeling very overwhelmed by the sheer amount of different things to remember and practice"
"*****"

No need to, that is why it is called gradual training. You take only one step at a time. In regard to four foundations of mindfulness you just practice the in and out breath until you master it.Then make an attempt to observe the five precepts. Then everything else will put in to place automatically.


Are buddhists also called brothers and sisters?

No, when speaking about a monk, you should use respectful words like 'Venerable', 'Bhante', 'Reverend' etc. If you are speaking of a layman, it's ok to call 'brother' or 'sister' or any other decent way of addressing.


Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom)

Improving Sati-Sampajañña is actually right samadhi. When you want to improve  "every day life situations", then you do Sati-Sampajañña. this is exactly the purpose of Sati-Sampajañña: sorting thoughts and perceptions-feelings in  the casual life, when you eat, drive a car and talk to people, before being physically secluded to do the jhanas...

Sati-Sampajañña is a bridge between sila and samadhi, especially for people who already are inclined to the sila that the buddha explains. for people who behave differently than whatever the buddha calls sila, they improve their sila by training for Sati-Sampajañña, or Satipațțhāna, ie watching their speech, their thoughts, their body movements, whatever daily life involves for a lay people...

Most people cannot hold naturally sila for more than a few days, and they can prolong that by forcing themselves, but they will fail eventually.
So they have to develop the next step to fortify the first step. The people who are already well behaved as the buddha defines it, ie at the very least the ''5 precepts'', they can go directly to Sati-Sampajañña and they will fortify Sati-Sampajañña by going further than Sati-Sampajañña, ie training for the jhanas, ie samadhi.

Sati-Sampajañña is really for everybody: bikkhus and lay people, noble ones or not.
Jhana is for people who "have gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building" for a few hours or days, which will mostly be bikkhus, precisely because lay people prefer to be busy with something else.

Then the next step is to get the fruit of sati, proper intention, proper examination, proper samadhi, ie panna, ie to terminate the mixture of ''meritorious activities with the beginning of  investigation into ''reality'' '' that is the noble path, ie  Sati-Sampajañña, right samadhi and sila, in order to become an arahant, or at the very least a sotapanna.
You do that with carrying sati over samadhi, which would be called ''sati samadhi'', but that word does not exist in the suttas. Right samadhi is actually this ''sati samadhi''.

Is is like doing a recipe [for a say  an omelette] : when you cook, you have a result in mind and  you have raw food that you transform in order get the result you want

sampajanna is the raw food = vitakka, vedanna, sanna
sati sampajanna is (the beginning of) what you do with the raw food.

with sati you manipulate the raw food towards the direction of panna. Sati is a direction, a view, a goal where you want to go (and in this case the direction towards nibanna, panna, right view and so on).

Sampajanna is the raw food and you can do several things with that, just like you can  do several things with an egg. For instance, the people who invented vipassana mediation, they play with sampajanna, ie with thoughts, feelings, perceptions, but they go in another direction than sati-sampajanna (even though they love to claim otherwise), because they refuse to judge and remove bad vitakka, sanna, vedana from what they experience, they lvoe the idea fo ''doing nothing'' and just watching perceptions, thoughts and so on, then they claim that this watching will get you to see anicca, then fear of dissolution, then some fruition, then sooner or later first path....

then you have samadhi, which is a a better food than sampajanna, and it must still be cooked, ie manipulated, treated, influenced to get panna.
You can do several thing with the jhanas, typically you can just ''abide in the here and now'' to generate merit, or you try to reach nibanna.

People today always wonder how to combine vipassana with the jhanas. They also wonder how much active thinking there is in the jhanas (because they read the vitakka and vicara in first jhana, but nobody know what they mean). For instance,

some people say that there is zero thinking in any jhana
some people claim that there is only active thinking  in 1st jhana, and zero thinking in other jhanas
some people say that there is active casual thinking in 1st jhana, zero active thinking in 2 and 3 jhana, but in 4th jhana, there is active thinking again, but this time, with uppekha and sati, and this thinking is  when you do vipassana
some people claim there is active thinking in any jhana

well the answer to ''how to do vipassana in the jhana'' is precisely ''right samadhi'', because the buddha says it is with right samadhi that ''seeing things as they are'' occurs, ie the samadhi which comes from right view, right intention, sati and this right view, sati, and so on carries over to samadhi:

when you watch a tv show for several days, or read a big book, or hear a music  which stays on your mind, you start saying the words that they use in the book or the tv show. Sometimes you an even start dreaming about the book or the show. or when you start living with new people, you start to use some of the words they use (and that you never ever used before). It is exactly this that is needed to convert samadhi into panna: you must carry the sati into samadhi.

With Sati-Sampajañña you saturate your ''mind'' (mano, citta, vinnana, whatever it is which memorizes and cognizes thougths) with sati, ie you think about and ponder the dhamma all the time, and this sati must carry over into samadhi, just like when you read a book for a long time, you start dreaming about it.
And whatever thinking you have in whatever jhana you dwell, the ''mind'' (typically in the jhana, it is the citta which is more important than mano or vinnana, because it is the citta which determines the next birth and the casual jhanas are all about merits and births) will have to be influenced by sati, right view, right intention which is this stuff:

  ‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’

and the result is:

  Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

like when you give an impulsion to a boat on a water to make the boat go forward ''alone'', sati from Sati-Sampajañña must give a momentum to samadhi. If there is thinking in the jhanas, then it is good news since it gives a new chance to influence the citta in samadhi, if the sati of Sati-Sampajañña is ''forgotten''; but if there is no active thinking, then all this influence relies on Sati-Sampajañña.

it is exactly the same thing with anapanasati: the raw food is listed as ''kāyasankhāraṃ'' and ''cittasankhāraṃ'' and you have to influence them with sati, right view, whatever wisdom and little tricks are memorized, in order to be sensitive to them and calm them until the citta is in samadhi, as per tetrad 3, instead of being distracted by rupa...

And anapanasati suffers from the same situation as the samadhi above : nobody knows what ''sankhāraṃ'' means and nobody knows what it means ''to be sensitive to the sankhāras'', in order to calm them [tetrad 3] and abandon them [tetrad 4], so you have to wait for a buddha to explain all that.


Source on the 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts

Actually there are 3 ways (of kamma), not four ("ultimatly" one incharge of the others, mind).

"Don't support others..." can be made in three ways as well, and the teachings are full of repeating about the kamma by own physical deeds (kaya-kamma), by verbal deeds (vicāra-, this included signs and gestures as well) and by mind/thoughts (citta-, approval, taking in account for ones own benefit, agreement, joy..., ignorance).

Kammapathapeyyālaṃ might possible give ways to approve.

To protect ones Sila, only one is required: either right view (than it would work out by itself), or strong faith into it, if not gained yet. Silas without the protection of right view are not really Silas but just better or more worse rituals, not penetrating till the mind.

If sensedoor are not guided one breaks the Silas (as factors of the path) actually all the time, steals/kills forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts. Having no silas, there will be no samma samadhi > no pañña > no right release: mostly just nurishing defilements. Without leaving home and become homeless (leaving the senses behind), it's not possible to develope the path, Silas, Samādhi, Pañña and gain release.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any worldly exchange and trade]


The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment

That feeling correlates to different mental states.
For instance, if you believe yourself to be privileged because you (unlike others) are only one step away from enlightenment, then the basic affiliated mind is one of 'pride'.

However, if it stems from your aspiration to enlightenment, and your aspiration itself is rooted in renunciation where you - having recognised the universal pervasion of the three marks of existence - are thereby determined to make use of every moment of your entire being to achieve liberation (and, in the Mahayana, all beings) then that feeling is of great benefit, and is a mark of 'effort'.  The 'three efforts' in Mahayana (not disparate from Right Effort in the eightfold path) are:

Unflagging energy in enlightening activity
Unfailing confidence in enlightening activity
Complete joy in enlightening activity


In Buddhism what is love meant to be and how is it shown and can two people love each other?

The Piyavagga & elsewhere refer to at least three kinds of love, namely:

(i) raga (lust);

(ii) pema; piya (affection; endearment);

(iii) universal or divine love & compassion (metta-karuna).

This is similar to the three kinds of love in Greek-Christianity, namely:

(i) eros (lust);

(ii) phileo (affection);

(iii) agape (self-sacrificing love).

People that realise the selfless ultimate reality love others with metta-karuna.


Sutta in which Buddha says that he/anyone don't have to take another person words?

It was in the Akkosa Sutta SN 7.2

This incident took place when the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Sanctuary. The angry young man was a brahman called Akkosaka Bharadvaja. He has heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the Blessed One. That is why angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: “What do you think, brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as guests?”

“Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to me as guests.”

“And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies?”

“Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies.”

“And if they don’t accept them, to whom do those foods belong?”

“If they don’t accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine.”

“In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don’t accept from you. It’s all yours, brahman. It’s all yours.

“Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It’s all yours. It’s all yours.”


Will power is very connected with virya - energy. Notice how, when you feel inspired, what they call "on a roll" - you can do things that are normally difficult, easily applying force as needed. In the same vein, when you are depressed and demotivated, doing even the simplest chores requires lots of effort to get going.

So the secret to will power is to develop the faculty of energy (viriyindriya).

Development of energy is not directly emphasized in Pali Suttas but in some Vajrayana schools it is the main practice, esp. in higher tantras.

So, how does one develop energy? In real teacher-student situation, you learn it by watching and imitating the teacher, and from occasional very casual and often sarcastic pithy instructions. To cover all that in a single answer would be impossible, but here is a brief summary of what I was taught:

Vitakka / vicara aka autosuggestion to raise inspiration, e.g. what football/basketball coaches do. It looks silly but it works, esp. if you connect it with emotion.
Wise application of attention - avoid dwelling on "victim-perspective" topics that make you feel hopeless, focus on things you are mastering / have mastered.
Discontinue or minimize activities known to sack energy, e.g. alcohol, masturbation, facebook, arguments.
Mindfulness of the body and overall grace. Learn to always feel comfortable: walk comfortably, sit in comfortable posture, stretch enough, move gracefully etc.
Mental comfort / speed - do not rush yourself, do not beat yourself, give yourself enough respect.
Take responsibility and learn to live on your terms.
Stop seeking outside stimuli (so-called "hunting dog mind"), slow down and find the right practice right where you are, in your everyday activities.
Use Meditation as another chance to stop and get to your senses, as opposed to forcing yourself into something contrived.
Develop stronger core muscles, esp. abdomen.

Out of all these practices, the principal one, and what I will emphasize the most is living on your terms. Maybe because it was the most difficult and eye-opening to me when I learned it.

What weak-willed people do a lot is allowing circumstances or people to rush us or to force us do things we are not Okay with. Instead, we should learn to take responsibility for our lives, take a stance - and methodically live our life on our terms, step after step. If you start on a solid foundation, every subsequent action will build a solid step, and another one and another one. Do not let anyone ever force yourself go against your best judgement, nor go against your judgement because of urgency or time pressure. Do things impeccably to your own standards, look impeccable in your own eyes - and from this will come energy and strong will power.


Buddhist shaolin monks and their practice

Shaolin Buddhism
"Action Meditation"
Basically Shaolin martial arts come from the idea of “action meditation” of Chan (dhyana – Sanskrit, Jhana – pali) Buddhism (Mahayana).
The first Shaolin temple was started by an Indian Theravada monk called Buddhabhadra and the next Abbot of the temple was the famous Indian Mahayana monk called Bodhidharma who brought Chan Buddhism to China.
Batuo and the Shaolin Temple

The Shaolin Temple was founded in 495 by the Indian monk Batuo, or Buddhabhadra. After traveling to China, he received permission from Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei dynasty to build a temple at the foot of Shaoshi mountain in the Song mountain range in the Henan province. The word Lin means forest in Chinese, thus the temple was named Shaolin for the forest at the foot of Shaoshi mountain.
Batuo preached the orthodox teachings of Hinayana, or Nikaya Buddhism (Xiao Sheng in Chinese). In this type of Buddhism, which closely follows the teachings of Shakyamuni, there are 250 rules for monks and 500 rules for nuns. Batuo had two disciples named Sengchou and Huiguang, who were both martial artists before becoming monks. They were the first ones to bring martial arts to the temple.

Bodhidharma

Bodhidharma (PutiDamo or just Damo in Chinese) was another prince of a clan in what is now India. He also chose to leave the royal life to become a monk. When Bodhidharma came to the temple in 527, he brought the teachings of Chan Buddhism, part of the Mahayana (Da Cheng) school. This understanding had been passed down directly from Mahakasyapa to Bodhidharma's master Prajnatara, who was the 27th in the lineage. Bodhidharma was the 28th, and the first patriarch of Chan in China.
Bodhidharma created 4 integral parts of Shaolin Kungfu, also sutras. They were

2 qigong (Chi Kung) forms; the Yijin Jing (Muscle Tendon Changing Sutra) and the Xisui Jing (Bone Marrow Washing Sutra)
The Wuxing quan, the 5 original animal forms (Dragon, Tiger, Leopard, Crane, and Snake)
The Luohan Shiba Shou, The 18 Luohan Palms

Bodhidharma's disciple Huike was, like Sengchou and Huiguang, a military man before becoming a monk, and also brought martial arts knowledge to the temple. Huike became Damo's successor, and after him there were four more before the lineage ended. They were Sengcan, Daoxin, Hongren, and Huineng.

More on Shaolin Martial Arts


How can it be that two traditions have so radical approaches to our body ?

They have different teaching methods. Also, zazen is not usually presented with discrete steps (though there are some milestones), as opposed to the original "sati" meditations (anapanasati, satipatthana)

  Is it true that in Zen there are no stages where bodily sensations arise ?

I've never heard this said.

  If subtle vibrations arise while doing Zen, what is the right approach to them ? Ignore them ? Analyze them ?

The stock phrase in zazen is "you just sit".


Is it dangerous to focus on ticks from childhood during meditation?

Acknowledge the tick only a few times as it appears, but then acknowledge what else appears, your mind reacts to it somehow -- fear, anxiety, memories, analyses etc. And go back to the anchor (step or breath). This way the tick will lead you to the stuff underneath; if you stay focused on the tick, you are practicing concentration and will miss that reaction. Mindfulness consists in both the ability to acknowledge what is there right now (not what was there two seconds ago) and also the ability to let it go quickly (back to the anchor).

It is normal that things don't disappear when you acknowledge them. Do you expect to start levitating when you acknowledge sitting?

It is likewise normal that childhood stuff appears in meditation (be it really from childhood, or only believed to be, that does not matter), and such symptoms might get worse temporarily; acknowledge worries about it (you seem to be worried about it being dangerous) and keep practicing, that's the way to clear it out, and the truth will show itself.

Usually (no guarantee; speaking of my experience) these things disappear as meditation wears off in daily life (e.g. feelings of craziness, extraordinary/painful sensitivity, physical symptoms etc).

Good luck!

(P.S.: since you are in Panditarama, won't the teachers give you an instruction when you ask them?)


Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions?

Well, obviously the notions of production etc are dependent on having the notion of a finite, spatially/temporaly/qualitatively bounded entity (phenomenon) that is being produced etc.

Since the bounds determining the identity of any such entity (phenomenon) are necessarily a product of an act of analysis aka imputation, its production etc. is an empty conceptual construct.

As you correctly supposed, suffering, cessation of suffering, samsara, and cessation of samsara are conceptually constructed notions in the same vein. Hence all the Mahayana talk about transcending the duality of Samsara/Nirvana, liberation from even the concept of liberation, entering true emptiness, the groundless ground etc.


Sensual Pleasures and their removal (MN 19 & MN 75)

There is a sutta where the Buddha says that until he experienced piti during meditation; his mind was still capable of returning to thoughts of sensual pleasure.

This said, starting the path requires abandoning sensual pleasures before experiencing piti. The Buddha abandoned sensual pleasures well before his development of the 1st jhana.

The mind that never thinks of sensual pleasures is a non-returner yet the eightfold path for mere stream-enterers has the abandoning of sensual pleasures as its 2nd and 6th factor.

Believing the 1st jhana must be attained before abandoning sensual pleasures is wrong view.


Law of attraction to reach enlightenment?

"Law of attraction" is, by its meaning, total Dhamma and all works on that. It's the "law of attraction" that keeps one in the wheel, and that of escape, with faith into liberation as alternative attraction. For one once attrated by what is worthy to give in, one has already designed ones deliverance.

Without such as right imaging not much success, yes. Where ever one feels attracted to, what ever one nurishes, to that one falls and vici-versa.

  Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

That's most importand, and yes. The related emotion is called pasada and pushed by samvega.

Yet one has no pure imagination of full awakening since there is no reference experiance. But once faced only a little of liberation, once a base for imagination has been seen, there is no way back. So it's not wrong to say: "one who has a (real) imagination of liberation, is as good as already delivered there".

Now it requires a path to be developed to see the quality for one self, starting with right view, goodwill for all beings, right conduct, effort...

The first step is to purify ones image of perfect virtue, after refuge into the three main imaginations, Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, all to lift ones qualities and gain better imagination of a healthy being:

The usual nimitta, better kammaṭṭhāna is "the Buddha", as object of perfect release, the first Meditation object. It starts all with this imagination: Buddhanussati, followed by the next anussatis, attractive reflection objects.

Once a certain stage was once reached, one can go on with a more pure object of attraction, on vimutti by non-craving, liberation, it self. upasamanussati

  "Among whatever qualities there may be, fabricated or unfabricated, the quality of dispassion — the subduing of intoxication, the elimination of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the breaking of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, the realization of Unbinding — is considered supreme. Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

So the beginning imaginations are:

Buddhānussati, dhammanussati, sanghanussati, silanussati (ones virtue), caganussati (ones generosity), devatanussati (qualities equal the Gods).

Details are found following the links.

(Note: not given for trade, exchanges, stacks or other bindings but for freedom from entertaining)


I have worked with homeless persons through non-profit agencies for over twenty years, therefore my answer is based on much experience. You are wise to seek the compassionate response. There is tremendous judgement about people who beg: assumptions are made that they are addicts, or unwilling to work (prefer to beg), or uninformed about available social services, or simple-minded, or mentally ill, or lazy, or falling through the cracks, or __________ (fill in the blank with your thoughts about them).

You know what? Any or all of these things might be true of the next beggar you see. Or none of them might be true. Which is why it is wise to just rest in your compassion. The beggar you see is a human being first. Say hello. Smile. Give that person your full respect and do not assume for a minute that you know what is best for them. Do not assume you can gauge their capacity. Do not assume that you know anything About their past or present, or that you can predict their behavior (such as assuming they will buy liquor if you give them money).
Compassion validates human worth. Compassion listens. Compassion sees each beggar as an individual human being who is a very important person.

I believe that when you embrace your compassion, you will see the person. The person. And when you see the person, and have some conversation (or just simple eye contact and a nod), that your compassion will direct your actions. When you see the person, and listen, and pay attention to them, you will be positioned to help should you choose to do so. Perhaps Money. Perhaps bus fare. Perhaps food. Or perhaps a handshake and small-talk well-wishes.

There is no one-size-fits-all when we talk about people and their needs. It is wrong to put up a sign that points to a group of people as less-than, which is the essence of the  "don't give money to beggars" sign... It is giving the message "do not feed the animals". It is taking away their human dignity.


Buddha as "lord" and Buddha as "choosing" his followers

"Lord Buddha" is used all the time ". Translations from Pali would often use language from the Bible, at least in earlier translations.

Sounds like appreciation to Lord Buddha for plucking one out of the fire of sensual desire.

Many people asked to be taught the teachings in many ways, some misunderstood the teachings before they asked and some understood at least what they were basicly about but in the above I think perhaps they are using poetic licence.


Meditation practice - Meditation Odd Effect -

Should I do simple anapana, Not vipassana?

Spend 1/3 time in Anapana and 2/3 time in Vipassana. If you are doing a 1-hour session to about 10 to 20 minutes of Anapana and then Vipassana.

  How can overcome it?

When you are doing mediation different sesations surcafes due to past conditioning and perceptions surfacing. People experience different sensations like tingling, falling, inflating, deflating, floating, burning, frightening images, please images, traumatic memories of the past, etc. The objective of meditation is to train one's mind to be equanimous to them and face them. So do not get averse, or worried about that you are experiencing and be equanimous about it and continue your practice.


OP: Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and
Alara Kalama.

The reason for this is that they had already passed away at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment.
From MN 26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He
has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the
Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came
to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And
knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days
ago.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Alara Kalama
suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly
understood it.'
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent,
intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were
to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this
Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died
last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka
Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great
loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he
would have quickly understood it.

The sutta proceeds with the Buddha selecting the five monks at the Deer Park at Isipatana, to be his first disciples. They are the ones who attended to him when he practiced extreme asceticism.

OP: Question 2: What is the difference in form between
the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

If you mean the traditional Buddhist cosmology of the 31 planes of existence, please see the AccessToInsight page on The Thirty-One Planes of Existence:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless
jhanas.
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees
of mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have
attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed
to (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to
possess extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these
realms, the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have
attained to "non-returning," the third stage of Awakening. The
Fine-Material World and the Immaterial World together constitute the
"heavens" (sagga).
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five
senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include
our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The
lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the
animal and hell realms.

The details of all 31 planes are on that page.

OP: Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is
implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there
also have a form of some kind.

If you look at that page, it says that unconscious beings (asaññasatta) who are on plane #22 have body but no mind. On the other hand, the top four types of beings in the arupa-loka have mind, but no body.
Doesn't that conflict with the definition of name-and-form in Dependent Origination?
My take on it is that the Dependent Origination taught in the Pali suttas applies to humans, and any beings with both body and mind. The Buddha, being a pragmatic teacher, targeted this teaching only at those who are able to listen to it and understand it. This does not include the unconscious beings (asaññasatta), those beings in the arupa-loka, and also the beings who are in the state of deprivation (apaya).
There may be more to Dependent Origination as in how it may apply to those beings with mind and no body, or with body and no mind, but this is one of those things which the Buddha did not teach us because it is not useful to us.
As we see in SN 56.31:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.

There is an alternative view to this.
The alternative view is that the 31 planes of existence are just different states of mind, that is to say not a literal physical rebirth into those planes, but rather the momentary rebirth of one's personhood into those planes i.e. entering different states of mind. This is usually supported by the association of the 4 rupa jhanas and 4 arupa jhanas, as well as brahmaviharas with different planes.
This is like a more subtle perspective into the teachings, compared to the one previously mentioned, which is gross.


Ego is identification. Some thought experiment, that consider the option to have action without identification, may point it out:

Would you invest the same amount of time if it was completely anonymous?
If someone would downvote your answer, how would you feel?
Would it make a difference whether your answer is downvoted with your name in in the answer, or completely anonymous.
If you could choose to add your name or signature to it, would you care?
If you had to choose up front, with your name/signature, or without, not knowing whether your answer will be up or down voted. Would you wish you have added your name/signature if everybody is upvoting your answer like crazy. And would you be happy that you didn't add your name when everybody was downvoting it like crazy.
Some extremes to create clear contrast: Someone asks a question why to continue with life because he/she is horrible depressed for years and seriously considers suicide. You provide an answer and he/she completely turns around and started living life to the fullest, the moment he/she read your answer. Would you tell this story to your friends/family including that it was you that provided the helpful answer. Or would you just tell how someone was helped by some answer and don't care at all to mention that you gave the answer.


Understanding compassion fatigue from a buddhist point of view

I don't know the definition of "compassion fatigue", or who defines it.

The link you posted includes,

  People who experience compassion fatigue can exhibit several symptoms including hopelessness, a decrease in experiences of pleasure, constant stress and anxiety, sleeplessness or nightmares, and a pervasive negative attitude.

Why do you say, "there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas"?

Perhaps there's some traditional Buddhist practice which provides occasion for that experience -- Maraṇasati.

The "fatigue" aspect of the condition may be less than ideal -- maybe let's say, "unenlightened". There are suttas about caring for the sick, as a duty, maybe in the vinaya too, and about being sick.

But mightn't some of the other "symptoms" in that definition -- for example "decrease in experiences of pleasure" -- be to some extent or in some ways promoted by Buddhist doctrine, which might call that "dispassion" or something (depending on how you define "pleasure")

If one names a mental state or "symptom" -- for example anhedonia -- it might be difficult to say in isolation whether that state is pathological. I think that any serious diagnoses might require meeting in person (a Buddhist teacher or, like, a psychiatrist). So far as I know, practicing clinicians have their own mentors.


Pure Land practice survived only in the Chinese lineage, for only the Chinese Canon has the totality of the Twelve Sections of the Sutras. The other lesser lineage has only one section of the Sutra (Sutta) with large portion missing, could be due to their lack of writing media relied only on oral memorizing. Example, Madhyama Āgama [Wikipedia has most of the articles on Buddhist topics written by Theravadin sympathizers with distorted accounts or misleading narrations] has 222 Sutras but the counterpart Pāli Majjhima Nikāya kept barely 152 Suttas. The Twelve Sections of Sutras such arrangement of all the Buddha's teachings were recorded in the Vinaya(s) recounting the historical event of the 500 Arhats collecting the Sutras:

Mahisasakas Pratimoksa

迦葉即問阿難言。佛在何處說增一經。在何處說增十經大因緣經僧祇陀經沙門果經梵動經 (Do these Sutras exist in the Pali Canon?? Anyone without bias knows the correct answer)。何等經因比丘說。何等經因比丘尼優婆塞優婆夷諸天子天女說。阿難皆隨佛說而答... 名雜阿含。此是從一法增至十一法。今集為一部名增一阿含。自餘雜說今集為一部。名為雜藏。合名為修多羅藏 (Sutra Treasure)。我等已集法竟。
(A Vinaya existed in Ceylon belonged to Mahīśāsaka School, collected by
Faxian (337-422CE). However, it's so unfortunate we found none this Vinaya existed in the Theravada Pali Canon, who self-claimed the oldest tradition or of the "Early School" - how does it relate to the old Sthavira apart from holding a name that meant "elder"?)

Sarvāstivāda Vinaya

三轉十二分法輪行 (Three turning of the Twelve Dharma Wheels)... 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。(The Twelve Dharma Wheels are the Twelve Sections of the Sutras, with Prajna Paramita as the 2nd Wheel, which reconfirmed if one read the Prajna Paramita Sutra in it said as the 2nd Wheel)

Dharmaguptaka Pratimoksa

大迦葉即問阿難言。梵動經在何處說。增一在何處說。增十在何處說... 如是生經本經善因緣經。方等經 (方等: Vaipulya, meant deep deep very profound teachings = Mahayana teachings, survived only in the Chinese Canon, one of the Twelve Sections) 未曾有經譬喻經。優婆提舍經句義經。法句經... 集為阿毘曇藏 (Collected as Abidharmas Treasure)... 時即集為三藏 (at that time there collected Three Treasures (Tripitaka))。

Tibetan Buddhism has practice based on Amitabha, and very high level of visualization meditation related to Amitabha (very few got such knowledge) - correct me if I missed something.
All cultivation the fruition must come through some form of Dhyana (Pali: Jhana), even dealing Koan the mind must be in a state of Dhyana so that the clarity of mind be obtained to see beyond the conceptual contriving.
Therefore the real Pure Land practice is a Dhyana practice, in short. However, I cannot know what you saw of that local group, since most of the real Buddhist practices are done in the wrong way the meanings are lost these days.
Pure Land the practice method is generally called 念佛 (Niànfó, Japanese: Nembutsu). The real meaning of this character 念, is remembering, or recollecting, even with a sense of missing (missing like missing someone dear to you, here the dear one is Buddha Amitabha, in simplicity). This remembering most common expression is by chanting the name. Chanting can be a loud chanting, or chanting for your own self to hear, or chanting in your heart silently. By this very method, the practitioner's thoughts (fetters) are abandoned, focusing only on ONE thought, that is Amitabha. He should chant and hear his own chant, he should "lose" himself, the chanter and chanting becomes one... This the most effective for modern man to achieve Dhyana, since human faculty in general is in declining cycle from the Buddha's time. Of course there are exceptions.
More sophisticated practice is related to visualization meditation, taught in  Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, of 16 scenes. Each of these scenes has profound effect, and meaning.
A related post is here. There are more important Sutras related to Pure Land, also the higher meanings, however it seems here to keep this simple is just right. Often time, Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) may incorporate Pure Land, or vice versa.

Who is Amitabha? For modern man who incapable of relating to immaterialistic existence this can be explaint neatly with modernized materialistic etymology, same as Avalokiteshvara, or Manjushri...


If physical action causes reaction, doesn't mental action cause reaction too?

Is Newton's action- reaction law true for only on the body? Isn't it true for our mind?

In relation to kamma the physical universe has a tendency to balance itselt out towards the zero-state. The various conservation laws can be an example of that. Take for example the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you alter one of the vectors the others vectors will "react" and change in accordance in order to maintain the zero-state.

The most common example used is the ice skating figure doing a pirouette. Here the skater begins with arms stretched out and thereby having a large moment of inertia. Then the skater pulls the arms closer to the body and thereby decreasing the moment of inertia. In order to conserve the angular momentum something else has to change and that is the angular rotational component.

In the same way when we commit actions by body, speech or mind there will be an reaction. Like when disturbing the universe it will wobble a bit and then balance itself out again.

When that is said i do not think that your question is really about buddhism and it maybe better to ask the question on Physics SE since you will probably get a better answer there.

When answering your question i tried to make the reaction-mechanism of our actions a bit clearer by making a comparison between the physical universe and kamma (i do not know if such a comparison is valid and this one is merely for the sake of understanding the mechanism). In buddhism we call that cause and effect as its also been mentioned previously in this thread.

Lanka


"Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs""

A little context: I assume the 62's mentioned above are the same as found in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta) translated as "The sixty-two kinds of wrong views" by Walshe (MN 102 also develops on these wrong views).

Now, "wrong view" is understood as either "not according to the damma" or simply "not in accordance with reality". In this sutta, we read the Buddha say:

  There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, having fixed views about the past, and who put forward various speculative theories about the past, in eighteen different ways [...]

And he proceeds explaining the many ways in which a person may mislead him/herself into concluding something false about the past. The first, for example, is this:

  Here, monks, a certain ascetic or Brahmin has by means of effort, extortion, application, earnestness and right attention attained to such a state of mental concentration that he thereby recalls past existences -- one birth, two births, ... ten births, a hundred births, a thousand births [...] Thus he remembers various past lives, their conditions and details. And he says "the self and the world are eternal, barren like a mountain-peal, set firmly as a post. There beings rush round, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. Why so? I have by means of effort, extortion, attained to such a state of mental concentration that I have thereby recalled various past existences...That is how I know the self and the world are eternal"

Above he is denouncing the fragile leap of conclusion: a person remembered many past lives [and contractions and expansions of the universe] and without identifying an origin, he/she concludes there is none, "so it is eternal". Now, the buddha, when confronted with this particular question, simply declares there is no discernible beginning (SN 15:3) -- something very different from "it is eternal" and "it is not eternal".

Another example of misleading conclusion:

  Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: "The self and the world are eternal"

In these ways, he alerts about the delicate trap of drawing wrong conclusions based on what one believes to be careful examinations (either by some experience or by some abstract reasoning) but that weren't careful enough. Moreover, he illustrates flaws using as example contemporary theories (eternalism, annihilationism, and the spectrum in between) pushed by other sects.

With these things in mind, he did not claim rebirth or views/knowledge of past existence to be false. Quite the opposite, he declares himself to have the ability to recall his past existences (and often describes episodes from them). Finally, exploring this ability is also part of an often-repeated formula for arahantship (and arahants are also described developing this ability). In MN 39, after exposing the Fourth Jhana:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, [...], many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance

Furthermore, he used to announce the rebirth of disciples who have died -- though not of the ones who reached the supreme goal (SN 44.9).

"Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions""

Yes. But it is important to emphasize it is "unanswered"; not a negative or positive. Even if we put aside the fact that this is a question about a Buddha, it is hard to use this to develop a trust on either view.

"The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?"

As far as I can tell, in the [pali] canon it is not said "there is no self". Rather, mostly we read instructions to observe several [conditioned] things in order to directly see "this [the thing] is not self". Additionally, we read declarations such as "All phenomena are non-self" ("sabbe dhammā anattā" -- AN 3.134).

An important point to consider is that it appears something very particular is meant by "self" which does not fit well with our common understanding of this word. In SN 22:59:

  Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

And:

  Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself? -- No, venerable sir.

Often times, when a challenger debates with the buddha claiming a self/eternalist view, he is debunked with questions such as "if that is so, can you change your form?". Therefore, I guess we need to, first, understand what is meant by "self" from propositions extracted from such discourses.

As for "birth" instead of "rebirth", though it's not clear to our reasoning "what re-borns" (all things above considered), the minimum takeaway of the use of this word in the discourses is that it denotes continuity.

"If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience"

Difficult indeed. But the texts support the possibility of personally testify it.

"is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)?"

I guess it depends on what you mean by faith. I find it difficult to recall important claims made by the buddha that weren't suppose to be verified by one's effort in this lifetime -- so, as far as my knowledge goes, yes it would be unusual. From the canon alone, I wouldn't say this is a matter of faith in the devotional or "Belief" way, where one just take it as it is and assign a special value to it, often developing an emotional dependency towards it -- the clinging buddha frequently alerted about.

But faith as in a trust we give to something or someone while we are applying ourselves to personally verify it, I think it fits pretty well with everything else.

"Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream?"

I honestly don't know how I would proceed to scrutinize an experience of recalling my past lives.

"is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about?"

One thing we can see explicitly in the texts is that he discouraged speculations, and this subject draws speculations easily, giving its such a puzzle for reasoning and concerns the mystery of our future. Having said that, I think its safe to say it wouldn't make much sense for him to require listeners to believe and internalize "the fact of rebirth", to consider it something central to the training (if it was that important, he could have made an extra noble truth out of it :).

There are a lot of aspects of the Dhamma that receive special attention and frequent emphasis. Urging people to believe rebirth as some sort of requirement or at face value is not something I've seen (MN 60 illustrates how the buddha approached this specific matter).

Now to the specific question: from the canon alone, rebirth is important (though, arguably not an urgent concern in the most practical sense). And, to say the least, the Buddha apparently considered worth talking about, so widespread this subject appears in the suttas, fulfilling roles therein, either as an aspect of the Dhamma, providing a broader exposition of our condition, or simply used to inspire and help us take the road to do something about it, etc. In the case of Dhamma, and this is significant, "no rebirth" does feature in wrong view.

But again, one thing is saying rebirth is important in buddhism. Other is saying (the belief of) rebirth is important to the practice. Other is saying rebirth is important to some buddhists ...

Edited to include a few more references (thank you @Unrul3r) and provide more direct answers to the questions


One to one comparison with Satan is not possible, but there's an angel called Mara who dislikes the existence of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. He tries to stop beings from attaining enlightenment.


Do Buddhist texts record or comment on the then-prevalent varna or caste systems?

Straight forward answer is Buddhism never accept caste system or the color. In "Wasala suthra"  (as I remember the name) Lord Buddha has clearly mentioned that, a person doesn't become noble by his birth, caste etc but by his act (behavior).

Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (SN 1.7)

  Now at that time a fire was burning, and an offering was being prepared in the house of the brahman Aggikabharadvaja. Then the Blessed One, while on his alms round, came to the brahman's residence. The brahman seeing the Blessed One some way off, said this: "Stay there, you shaveling, stay there you wretched monk, stay there you outcast." When he spoke thus the Blessed One said to the brahman: "Do you know, brahman, who an outcast is and what the conditions are that make an outcast?" "No, indeed, Venerable Gotama …


Different transmissions for reciting various versions of a same mantra acc. to any of Vajrayana branches

This is a very partial answer because I can provide no textual reference.

Differences between mantras of the same deity are of two types:

In terms of length (short version / long version)
In terms of category

For instance: Vajrasattva has (1) a short mantra, (2) a long mantra, and (3) a mantra associated with its wratful aspect, that is another category, such as 'Heruka Vajrasattva'.

Generally, there is no objection for practitioners who received an initiation to recite both short and long version of a mantra of the same deity. As to reciting the mantra of another category/aspect of that same deity (in the given example, that of Heruka Vajrasattva), you must ask your teacher. In Kopan monastery - and so Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche - they do allow one to recite Heruka to those who took just Vajrasattva. If you are not a student of his, ask your own teacher.


Lord Buddha advice on contemplation of man-made things

OP: Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes then how?

You can meditate on kasinas. Please see the wikipedia page on kasina.
Technically, this is concentration on a man-made mental object.
I quote from it below.

Kasiṇa meditation is one of the most common types of samatha
meditation, intended to settle the mind of the practitioner and create
a foundation for further practices of meditation. In kasiṇa
meditation, a mental object (kasina) is used as the object of
meditation, being used to keep the mind focused whenever attention
drifts.
The meditation treatise the Visuddhimagga is centered around
kasina-meditation. According to American scholar monk Thanissaro
Bhikkhu, "[t]he text then tries to fit all other meditation methods
into the mold of kasina practice, so that they too give rise to
countersigns, but even by its own admission, breath meditation does
not fit well into the mold." He argues that by emphasizing
kasina-meditation, the Visuddhimagga departs from the focus on dhyana
in the Pali Canon. Thanissaro Bhikkhu states this indicates that what
"jhana means in the commentaries is something quite different from
what it means in the Canon."
There are ten kasiṇa described in the Visuddhimagga, which are also
mentioned in the Pali Tipitaka:

earth पठवी कसिण (Pali: paṭhavī kasiṇa, Sanskrit: pṛthivī kṛtsna)
water आपो कसिण (āpo kasiṇa, ap kṛtsna)
fire तेजो कसिण (tejo kasiṇa, tejas kṛtsna)
air, wind वायो कसिण (vāyo kasiṇa, vāyu kṛtsna)
blue, green नील कसिण (nīla kasiṇa, nīla kṛtsna)
yellow पीत कसिण (pīta kasiṇa, pīta kṛtsna)
red लोहित कसिण (lohita kasiṇa, lohita kṛtsna)
white ओदात कसिण (odāta kasiṇa, avadāta kṛtsna)
enclosed space, hole, aperture आकास कसिण (ākāsa kasiṇa, ākāśa kṛtsna)
consciousness विञ्ञाण कसिण (viññāṇa kasiṇa, vijñāna kṛtsna); in the Pali suttas and some other texts; bright light आलोक कसिण āloka
kasiṇa according to later sources, such as Buddhaghosa's
Visuddhimagga.

The kasiṇa are typically described as a colored disk, with the
particular color, properties, dimensions and medium often specified
according to the type of kasiṇa. The earth kasiṇa, for instance, is a
disk in a red-brown color formed by spreading earth or clay (or
another medium producing similar color and texture) on a screen of
canvas or another backing material.


If Rebirth is not taken literally then why seek Enlightenment?

I am a Rinzai Zen Monk with a decade-long monastic background so my answer will be relevant within our school's framework.

From a Zen POV being 'reborn' exists only within Reality.
Reality is purely this one moment here and now.
With each breath, with each action we are reborn. The choices we make are fresh and new. The Enlightened being will make those choices in accordance with what they experience.
Because they are living in the here and now they are also making these choices without any reference to the past or the future because these are purely abstract concepts since neither of them is here and now.

The Enlightened person is literally reborn with each and every experience (in Japanese Zen terms these are known as 'Nen' - ie. the time it takes to register each experience). An Enlightenment experience is when you fully experience this for the first time: when a drop of water falling on your head or the call of a crow suddenly awaken you to this new awareness

There are other types of rebirth of course. Such as the delusional rebirths, when one succumbs to any of the poisons (Ignorance, Anger, Greed) and is reborn in 'hell'.

Buddhism is a very wide philosophy with a wide application of the same basic terms and concepts. What i have just said is not really valid for a Theravada Buddhist. It would be explained, understood and practiced differently by someone of a Pure land Path (JoDo ShinShu for instance) even though they are part of the Mahayana.


The last paragraph ("she is 50yo. She had 3x stroke") reminds me of the first few verses from the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

I say this because it's possible that, after she has died, or when you are dying, you'll prefer it if you made peace (or even tried to make peace) with her.

I think that Buddhism says that ethics are important; and it recommends against bad (immoral) companionship. So I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt whether) Buddhism would recommend that you help to "enable" her to behave immorally ... for example by buying her drink (enabling her substance abuse) and doing whatever/everything she tells you to do.
If one extreme is to "leave her" (i.e. "no relationship") and another extreme is to "obey her" (i.e. a "bad or abusive relationship") perhaps you can find a "middle way" between those two extremes.
I imagine that perhaps there are some things that are good to offer her, and some things that aren't. So try to clarify in your own mind what the difference is, where the boundary is.
Also I guess to some extent you have already left your mother, i.e. you're in another country. Maybe what you ought to want is the best relationship you can have, and not to have a bad relationship.

Speaking of boundaries (and the following is personal advice now, based on personal experience ... the above was more-or-less loosely based on Buddhist suttas), you may want or need to say "no" to certain requests of hers. I assume she tries to make that (your saying "no") difficult (by arguing with you), which is why you want to say "no" to the whole relationship.
You (and she) might be able to have something of a relationship, if you say "no" when you must.

Also, well done for going to school and so on, working hard, having friends, and starting to learn about Buddhism. I hope that works out well for you.


We can derive some clues about how to deal with kukkuca, if we look at its characteristics:

It is a mental factor (cetasika)
It is one of the five hindrances (nivarana) during meditation
It is originating from aversion (dosa)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kukkucca

Seeing as it is considered a cetasika, we can try to still it during meditation, and proceed to investigate them mindfully as with any mental factor.

  And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is stillness of awareness. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.

The fact that it is based in aversion, means that we can dilute the karmic effect of the aversion by practicing metta bhavana, not least towards those who struggle with the precepts/vinayas.

  And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is awareness-release [through goodwill, compassion, empathetic joy, or equanimity]. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN46_51.html


How did Buddha's teachings about samsara differ from earlier Indian tradition?

I’m not sure what you mean by six stages here.  Actually, it seems that the rebirth/samsara concept was not that old when Buddhism came on the scene.  Gananath Obeyesekere is an anthropologist who wrote a book about rebirth across a range of cultures.  He begins by trying to situate the Buddhist idea of ethical rebirth in the history of Indian religion:

  I will begin with Hinduism and the problem of origins.  The association between karma and rebirth is not at all clear in the earliest texts and discourses on Indic religions.  There are virtually no references to rebirth or to an ethical notion of karma in the Vedas or in the BrāhmaNas, the oldest texts belonging to the Hindu tradition.  The first significant references appear in an early Upanishad, the BRhadāraNyaka UpaniSad, probably composed sometime before the sixth century BCE, followed by the Chāndogya and the KauSītaki.  A hundred years or more later these theories appear in full bloom in the so-called heterodox religions – particularly in Buddhism and Jainism – that have karma and rebirth at the center of their escatological thinking.  Soon afterward these ideas surface in mainstream Hinduism itself and become an intrinsic part of the eschatological premises of virtually all Indic religions.

Karma in the Vedas and karma in Buddhism are different:

  The word karma, which etymologically means “action,” has the meaning of “ritual action” in Vedic (pre-Buddhist and pre-Upanishadic) thought, where it is neither fundamentally ethical nor related to rebirth.  By contrast, in Buddhism karma refers to intentional ethical action that determines the nature and place of rebirth, and this definition of karma has influenced the many Hinduisms that came after.

In The Wonder that was India, A. L. Basham writes about “transmigration” as a new development in Indic religion:

  As Āryan culture pressed further down the Ganges it absorbed new ideas about the after-life.  In the Rg Veda the fate of the dead seems to have been finally decided when they died – they went either to the “World of the Fathers” or to the “House of Clay”, where they remained indefinitely.

Basham cites the same Upanishad text as Obesekere as the first appearance of the rebirth doctrine, but in a “primitive” form.  In this text, he points out,

  this doctrine [...] is put forward as a rare and new one, and was not universally held at the time of the composition of the UpaniSad.  Even in the days of the Buddha, transmigration may not have been believed in by everyone, but it seems to have gained ground very rapidly in the 7th and 6th centuries BC.

It’s impossible for us to know if the rebirth concept came from some other tradition within India, since no texts have survived.  Anyway, it seems to have been “in the air” during the Buddha’s lifetime.  Probably the intellectual appeal of the concept, the justification it gives to ethical behavior, helped Buddhism spread and establish itself.  Also, the whole point of Obeyesekere’s book is that this idea is not unique to India – you also find it in Native American cultures, for instance.

Sources (bold text is my emphasis):

Gananath Obesekere, Imagining Karma:  Ethical Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist and Greek Rebirth (U. of California Press, 2002), pp. 1-2.

A.L. Basham, The Wonder that was India, (Rupa 3rd ed., 1967), p. 242.


It is possible to describe the nibbana, but non ariya practitioner can't understand the description.

In abhidhamma taught that the non ariya practitioner can't know the real nibbana, until he will be ariya. Because he has not enough ability.


What would be the relationship between mindfulness, enlightenment and incubation?

Their principle relation is they are merely words and concepts with obvious and less obvious "mental molding". Mindful of the process or not, setting aside or not, we can not fully explain in words even the simplest of sensations, like lifting your arm, or the taste of fruit. Words are extremely limiting if you truly want to describe your complete experience of reality. For example, if you see a "table", you will limit your perception and mentally push aside the potential of this object being a drum, a raft, or firewood.
As long as one thinks of enlightenment as the "solution", they will "push aside" the reality right in front of them. Attainment does not "promote" one vision of reality over all other ones. It is the concepts limiting our vision of reality that are shown to be void of distinction.
The same goes for "incubation". Most "problems" are mental constructs based on language and grammar. For example, in Indo-Germanic languages such as English, a verb must have an object. So we get strange constructions like "it's raining", or "problems have dimensions" and think of these constructs as real. What you describe as incubation is used in some Buddhist schools in some form or another, for example with Zen Koans. It is however not the same the experience as attainment. It's more like a "mental tripwire" that  a teacher will set up, that lets your mind stumble out of its preconceptions, for just a moment. The "lightning that strikes" at this moment is a glimpse of reality before it is conceptualized.

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple
where Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Soon it ran out of heating
fuel and  everybody was shivering in the cold.
Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put
them into the fireplace.
"What are you doing?" the monks asked. "You are burning our holy religious
artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!"
"Are these statues alive and do they have Buddha nature?" asked Master Dan Xia.
"Of course not," replied the monks. "They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature."
"Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating
fuel," said Master Dan Xia. "Can you pass me another piece of firewood
please? I need some warmth."
The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down
and burn incense sticks to them.
"Are you worshiping firewood?" asked the monks.
"No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honoring the Buddha." replied
Dan Xia.


Warning: To not make it too long, I avoided quotes. In addition, this is merely a summary. Just like with Theravada, there are interpretations. Since I present things in a traditional way, please do not take it personal when I seem to despise so-called Hinayana tenets or practices.

We say that a Hinayana arhat still has limitations, obstacles that prevent him from achieving the welfare of others as well as his own. On the other hand, a [fully enlightened] buddha abandoned all obstacles and thus is able to achieve the welfare of others, and achieved his own. This is because there are two obscurations that a buddha has abandoned:

Afflictive obscurations
Knowledge obscurations

Since a Hinayana arhat has uprooted ignorance - the root of samsara - he has abandoned afflictive obscurations. This is because ignorance, anger, desire, etc. are afflictive obscurations, and once the root has been abandoned, all the other afflictions  as well. However, a Hinayana arhat has not abandoned knowledge obscurations. Only a buddha has abandoned both obscurations.

There are four divisions of nirvana but I will speak of two. A Hinayana arhat achieved abiding nirvana. We also call it 'individual liberation' or 'solitary peace.' We say that this abiding nirvana is the extreme of peace. According to Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi and other texts, after some time, the buddhas wake them up from their blissful individual liberation and tell them that more is to be done.

A buddha abides neither in the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana), nor the extreme of samsara. He achieved a non-abiding nirvana. He has abandoned the two obscurations and is, in this sense, beyond limitations. Therefore, he is able to benefit all sentient beings.

The way to abandon afflictive obscurations is by generating the wisdom of emptiness. Different Mahayna tenets posit emptiness differently, but they all posit the two selflessness: emptiness of person and emptiness of phenomena. As the Heart Sutra puts it:

  Phenomena also are empty.

The way to abandon knowledge obscuration is by having the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with Bodhicitta. By generating spontaneous bodhicitta, one enters the Mahayana path of accumulation. On the Mahayana path of seeing, the wisdom of emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta. When wisdom is imbued with bodhicitta, the mind becomes powerful and vast enough to abandon knowledge obscuration. We often refer to the following analogy:
The wisdom of emptiness is like an axe cutting through the two obscurations, while bodhicitta is a strong arm. Without bodhicitta, one's arm is not strong enough and can not abandon the two obscurations, thus achieving buddhahood. A Hinayana arhat has abandoned afflictive obscurations, but since he did not generate bodhicitta, he has not abandoned knowledge obscuration.

There are two divisions of knowledge obscurations:

The imprints of ignorance, and
The appearance of true existence that is caused by the imprints of ignorance.

Only a buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. Therefore, when a conventionality appears to a buddha, it does not appear together with the appearance of true existence and he realizes both truths simultaneously and with the very same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha. On the other hand, whenever a conventionality appears to a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of true existence. Consequently, a sentient being cannot realize the two truths directly and simultaneously.

The omniscient mind of a buddha (the wisdom truth body dharmakaya):

Directly realizes the two truths, simultaneously
Is free from conceptualization, and unmistaken
Knows all existent, past, present and future

In addition, according to Mahayana, a buddha obtained the four bodies (kayas). There are ways of dividing the kayas into two, three, four, or five but we generally speak of four. A buddha has a mental body that is seen only by Mahayana aryas and that teaches them only the Mahayana Dharma. It is called Enjoyment body (Sambhogakāya). A buddha has body that is seen even by ordinary beings and this is the Emanation body (Nirmanakaya). We say that Shakyamuni Buddha was a supreme emanation body because he taught he possessed the 32 marks and the 80 signs. A buddha has an omniscient mind that we call "wisdom truth body". It gives birth to the teachings that emanate from it, like the rays of the sun emanate from the sun. It is by emanating in this way that he benefits all sentient beings (even though not all sentient beings interact with his teachings, but that is another subject of debate.)


Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha who ever existed?

No! All Sammasambuddhas are equal in their attainment of Buddhahood. They are all omniscient, equal in virtue, concentration and wisdom. However the time they take to cultivate Paramitha might vary from Bodhisatva to Bodhisatva. There are three classes of Bodhisattvas, namely; Intellectual Bodhisattvas (Pannadhika), Devotional Bodhisattvas (Saddhadhika) and Energetic Bodhisattas (Viriyadhika).

The minimum time it takes to become a Buddha after getting the confirmation from another Buddha is called "Sara Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". Intellectual Bodhisattas take the minimum time. Our Buddha was an intellectual Bodhisatta. Saddhadhika Bodhisattas take double that time. Viriyadhika Bodhisattas take 4 times the minimum time required. Buddha Maitreya who will appear in the future is said to be a Viriyadhika Bodhisatta. But after attaining Buddhahood they are all equal.

Apart from that, there are 30 similarities and 8 dissimilarities. The dissimilarities are not directly related to Buddhahood. Ex: The tree under which they attain enlightenment, the life span, parents, wife, chief disciples, whether there's a Vinaya pitaka etc.
Read the Buddhawamsa for more details.


This is not lying unless you pretend or say you follow the advice.

Dhamma practice is a gradual exercise hence one does not become perfect at once but it is a matter of putting int the effort to increase one's perfection:

cultivate what is wholesome which one does not already do
increase what is wholesome which one already does
abandone what is unwholesome which one already does
prevent the arsing of what is unwholesome which one does not already do


I can easily stay focused, but I cannot narrow my attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose.

If you are craving when you manage to get the attention, or being averse when you cannot, you are not doing the meditation right.

Early on, the results are not due to the fact that you were (or weren't) able to keep your attention: they are due to whether you had sustained effort, to keep your attention, by bringing your mind back to the middle of the upper lip of the nose area. This is what Vitarka and Vicara are.

  Yet, neither seem fruitful in my practice. I remain very weakly focused on an imprecise object, more or less the face and nose area.

You seem to be craving to be able to do this.

Initially say you mind stick to the chosen object, nevertheless you should continuously try to bring it back. At the start of the breath, see if the breath is on the chosen spot: if not, bring it back, if it is on the breath still redirect it back to the chosen spot as when you would bring it back when the attention had gone away.

When your mind goes away to another object, or just thinking and pondering, there are three sensations which come by: i.e. sensations are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Try to see the thing's sensation before bringing your mind back. For example if you get a leg pain, see the pain and some aspect of its impermanence. Then bring back your mind.


If devas are real, than why don't they show us themself?

They are around, just that you don't see them. Likewise bacterias are everywhere, you don't see them.
Not seeing/hearing is not existing obviously is scientifically proven false, but people tend to dwell in this fallacy without remorse.
The way to learn is to improve the capacity. Bacterias can be seen by inventing microscope, but the Buddha seen them 2500 years ago. Maybe one day someone can invent devascope to see them; yet again you can learn what Buddha was capable and see them ?year ahead the inventor ~ :D

- The OP asks for elaboration, I extend my answer -
Dialogue for those who's minds are not contaminated by the neo-Buddhist. (Neo-Buddhists - those who believed in their "scientifically-authenticated-Buddha".)
Prelude:
Buddhists from tradition and Buddhists at heart are seeing the emerging of the trend of neo-Buddhism, a Buddhism invented by applying so-called scientific methods, surgical skills and dissecting analysis are callously utilized. Taking the convenient standpoint that Buddhism is a religion/(not a religion) appealed to reasoning, unlike Christianity or other faith-based. Therefore, anything that's not scientifically proven should be stripped, for it's either misunderstanding/mis-translating the words, primitive superstitions or later additions by fanatic religious... etc. In a nutshell, they want to reduce the Buddha to be a merely human, any feature of Buddha a Buddha is committing suicidal scientific fraud.
Traditional Buddhist and Buddhist at heart knows the Buddha is the Buddha, yet Buddha is also human therefore it completed the teaching that we humans can become the Buddha, or be liberated forever like the Arhat/Arahant by dwelling in Nirvana.
The blindness of the neo-Buddhist is that they equal reasoning with science. Science is only one of the many methods for searching the ultimate, science is not the ultimate. Reasoning includes scientific methods, but scientific methods not the totality of reasoning. Buddha's teaching is the teaching from the ultimate, he is not searching for the ultimate; reasoning is a method taught by the Buddha to realize the ultimate by oneself, reasoning itself is not the ultimate.
We are seeing science characterized by the ability to re-adjust itself, such as Newtonian physics disproved by Einstein's Relativity. The day will come when E=mc2 being disproved (I said the c, speed of light, is false. How do I know? I learnt it from the Sutras - not directly the Sutra with explicitly this saying but one has to really get it). This is the goodie of science - being able to adjust; the very way science survived is by disproving itself. Applicable is this rebuttal logic used by the Epicurean refuter on "pursuing happiness is the very reason happiness will never be obtained by the pursuer", likewise science is refuted. We can never predict what science will come up next, but surely can predict whatever come up next will be refuted late; hence a sound mind can infer thus see clearly that "scientific methods" we called nowadays can never obtain the ultimate. Therefore, can we trust scientific authentication? You know better than me. Do you trust someone who come up day after another day, time after another time, telling you, "Sorry, what I said before was wrong, in fact it should be so and so...?"
The Dialogue:
Why don't the Devas show us themselves? I don't think I can answer this question on behalf of the Devas, or as the envoy of the Devas ;). Ultimately one should get his own answer by knowing it directly himself. But I put in my two cents to enrich this investigation:
A) It's really as hinted above, they are around but we don't see them since we don't have the ability to see them, nor it's their duty to let themselves be seen by us.
Here is the incident I read in the Vinaya, that may illustrate this: A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.
B) Only with special cause that the Deva to the human can be seen.
A case to illustrate this is from a linked Sutta I read in this forum. In it talked about a Bhikkhu visited by a Deva requested to bring him to the Buddha for asking a question, for the Buddha was surrounded by many higher Devas he didn't have a chance to get near. The reason for this Deva to seek for his help was due to in eons lives before, they were relatives... or something like that.
Therefore, there must be cause (Karma) to fulfill the criteria. Likewise, Aishwarya Rai won't come to see everyone in Mumbai, but she may come to see her friend if she has one there.
C) It's not allowed for the Devas to take "mass-appearing" to induce people following Dharma/Dhamma, for it violated the rule:
(i) Another incident I read in Vinaya, about Maudgalyāyana/Moggallāna being accused faking Dhyana/Jhana for he told the rest that State A would win the battle against State B for he saw the Yaksas (city protecting Deva of State A) winning the other Yaksas in their battle. But it turned out the opposite for while M. reporting this the battle of the Devas made a significant turn...
(ii) Another case I read from the Sutra, said Śakra/Sakka paying tribute to the Buddha for Buddha's teaching turned more people to good hence it increased his citizens decreased the Asura's citizens.
Therefore it shows that the Deva worlds and human world are synchronizing, the battle of the Devas is playing out in the human world, so is the human world reflected back to the higher realm. Imagine, if the Devas made their mass-appearing to induce followers, then the Asuras will do the same, then the battlefield will be shifted to the human world... can the human world sustain such turmoil? (I think the Mahābhārata was such event happened eons ago when Planet Earth was the celestial realm, or semi-celestial realm, before it degraded to be only suitable for humans).
(iii) Last, the Parinirmita-vaśavartin (pleasure from other's pleasure), the highest of the celestial realm ruled by desire, the Lord of this realm is Mara, named Pāpman (Pali: Pāpiya or Pāpimant), his sustaining and joy is produced by the desirous activities carried out in the lower realms, particularly the human realm, he won't allow this mass-appearing, he would prefer humans staying in Samsara, being under his rule.
Ok, it's a bit too sophisticated for it related to ample studies in the Sutras, Vinayas and Sastras to understand, especially many of the sources are not available in English.
The above is very pictorial, vivid, narratively dramatic... for in the tangible it manifested as people, places, events... but in the intangible, it should be decipher differently.
... is it enough now to buy a Big Mac meal in McDonald's, huh?


Can advances in neuroscience help attain enlightenment? Will it make Buddhist traditions obsolete?

I think that if someone has a brain disease that is interfering with their practice neuroscience may be able to fix their disease allowing them to practice, but apart from that I don't see much help it can do.

Enlightenment isn't a peaceful state of mind. It is the product of gaining very deep insight into the very nature of reality itself, and I can't see how neuroscience can implant even ordinary knowledge in a person, so how much less possible would it be to artificially create in a person the profound non-conceptual direct perception necessary to reach Nirvana.


Actually abstaining from breaking the precepts does a lot more than just passive non-doing. By asbstaining from killing, one's given a great gift to many others: the freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction:

  "“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness." ~~ AN 8.39 ~~


That sounds like the hindrance of "sloth-torpor". There are lots of ways to counter this.

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Sloth

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

  Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
  Changing the bodily posture;
  Thinking of the perception of light;
  Staying in the open air;
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

Mindfulness, investigation of reality and energy are factors that will help overcome sloth-torpor.

Also, don't lay down when you are meditating and experiencing sloth-torpor or you will probably fall asleep. If you need to, get up and practice walking meditation . . . or splash water on your face.


Yes, they are Asuras. They are not created. They are also hell beings who become stronger from time to time due to their past good Karma and assume a position of command. At other times, they suffer like the rest.

They are not hurting people(humans). They are hurting beings who are at the bottom of the scale of virtue. So the Karma they get is comparatively less. In any case, they don't get any opportunity to do good. So, unless a past good Karma resurfaces, they have to wait till the end of the world to escape from hells.


5 precepts and the mental factor of sila

The undertaking of the five precepts normally refers to the lay people. While monks also practice them, their discipline is far more numerous and it is called Patimokkha. The five precepts should not be seen the same way as "The Ten Commandments" as they serve as practice  guidelines instead of an absolute rule handed down by a supernatural being. If a lay person were to conduct an action against the precepts, there is no penalty or punishment although the action is unwholesome and unskillful. However, it is possible that such an action will result in unpleasant karmic retribution in the future. On the other hand, if a monk were to break one of the rules in the Patimokkha, the offense depends on the seriousness of the unskillful actions.


what separates us from our identity to another person

Hindu hates Muslim beacuse i am hindu .
Muslim hate hindu beacuse you are muslim.
Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian.
Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan.
Every one carry identity.
Identity create conflict

Identity doesn't create conflict, clinging to a sense of self-identity does. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference nonetheless. If it was true that "identity creates conflict", there would be absolutely zero Hindu who loves Muslims, zero Muslim who loves Hindus, zero Indian who loves Pakistanis, etc. But quite the contrary, any "self-identified" Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, etc. who sincerely and honestly practices their faith would treat one another like brothers and sisters in the same family.


Does Mahayana Buddhism worship the Buddha as a God and, if so, why?

No, the Buddhas are not Gods and Mahayana does not conceive of them as such. In fact, all forms of Buddhism - not just Mahayana - largely agree with the following:

However, let's be clear on the many ways in which Buddhism does not conceive of the Buddha:

The Buddha did not create the universe.
The Buddha did not create man.
The Buddha is not singular in the sense that many are described as Buddhas.
The Buddha was once an imperfect sentient being just like us.
The Buddha does not pass judgement and enact cosmic justice.
The Buddha does not cause the workings of karma.

Now, let's examine some of the ways Buddhism does conceive of Buddhas that seem to have some similarities with different definitions of "God":

Buddhas are perfected beings.
Buddhas have some forms of omniscience.
Buddhas have what appears to be some forms of supernatural powers.
Buddhas are the greatest of teachers.
Buddhas are worthy objects of refuge.

I think most if not all extant traditions of Buddhism would agree with the above and not just Mahayana.

Now, are Buddhas worthy of "worship?" Well, I don't know about that word, but I would say they are worthy of the highest respect and veneration. They have perfected themselves for the sole benefit of others. They have perfected all virtuous qualities. If you define "worship" as the highest respect and veneration, then I would say they are worthy.