How does one cope with despair using Buddhist practises?

In the Buddhist system, your mood is a function of your position, a subjective universe you get yourself in. Three factors in your control are responsible for creating your universe, these are your karma, your attention, and your perspective.

Karma has inertia, it takes time and effort to get to a different place. More then anything, it takes a firm decision or determination.
Attention is faster way to control your mood. The world you construct in your mind is constructed from fragments you pick by attending to them. This consists of observations about the world as well as facts and opinions about yourself.

A lot of times the reason we feel sad or depressed is the cyclical going over all the problems we see in the world and in ourselves. It's almost like we take pride in maintaining ourselves in the traumatized condition. This harmful habit can and should be unlearned.
The final part of the equation is your perspective, a set of expectations about how things are supposed to be, your basic frame of reference. If the fragments of your world (including your self-image) go against your "how things are supposed to be", then the overall state is evaluated as "wrong", and vice versa.

This allows another point of control, which is subtler and more powerful. Instead of shifting your attention entirely you change how you evaluate things.

For example, if you attend to true causes of things being the way they are, you will see that things actually are the way they are supposed to be, like the clouds morphing into their current configuration from their previous state, and on their way to next - then this picture of the world will be evaluated as "as it should be" - which is a happy state.

The ultimate trick is to hold multiple perspectives at once which is akin to being simultaneously in multiple worlds. The end result of this is that you end up having no single position. Having no position, you are immune to bad mood and are mentally invincible.

A great way to spend the time you sit in meditation is to play with these factors until you gain some level of mastery over them.


Can we define craving without mentioning self?

An example is there in the paticca-samuppada itself.

  Vedana Paccaya Tanha

Feeling gives rise to craving.
So in reality there's no "I like icecream".

It should be

liking arises due to taste
liking arises due to sight
liking arises due to sound etc.

There's no practicing Anatta. You practice mindfulness and the Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta natures are revealed. Practicing the noble eightfold path leads to the cutting off of craving and cessation of suffering. Mindfulness is a part of the noble eightfold path.


If you Consolidate the Satipatthana Instruction from the Tripitaka what would the additions and variation in Comparison to Maha Satipatthana Sutta

Here are four comparison tables that expose the similarities and discrepancies in  satipaṭṭhāna discourses from the Pāḷi Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas:
From Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan, p.166-169. Click the images to enlarge.


What's the role/relevance of drugs when Arada taught Buddha?

Intoxicants in Buddhism are frowned on by every Buddhist school of thought.

However you didn't ask that, so we won't dive into those details.

After some time looking i could not find any evidence that Arada, or the Sankhya practices used any kind of drugs.

It was mostly types of meditation, the last three stages can be found in this article which attempts to spell out the entire process of the practice from beginning to end in a way anyone can access and understand.

  Meditation on I-am-ness: Most of the time we mistakenly think that
  "who I am" is my mind and personality. However, as we gradually come
  to witness the subtle elements, the senses, and the mind itself, we
  come to see that there is a still subtler aspect, which simply
  declares "I am!" When it stands alone in this way, it is independent
  of the other manifestations.

Followed by...

  Meditation with Buddhi standing alone: Still subtler is Buddhi, which
  is the individuated intelligence itself. It doesn't yet declare itself
  to be this or that identity, but is the very intelligence, which
  supports the ego (Ahamkara), the senses and instruments of actions
  (Indriyas), and the constructs of the inner objects and physical body
  (Tanmatras and Bhutas).

  One of the final resting places of the individuated person is to know
  oneself as Buddhi, this most fine vehicle of consciousness (Purusha).
  It is still constructed of Prakriti, leaving that final discrimination
  or uncovering yet to be done. To know oneself at this level of Buddhi
  is sometimes called the level of bliss or ananda, as all of the other
  levels and false identities have temporarily come to rest or been
  transcended.

and finally ...

  Purusha resting in itself: Finally Purusha, pure consciousness, rests
  in itself, alone, separate from all evolutes of Prakriti. The seeker
  on the path of Self-realization seeks even a minute or a moment of
  this highest glimpse of Realization, after which he or she continues
  to purify the remaining samskaras and karmas. (See Yoga Sutras 1.3 and
  3.56)

These descriptions, as noted in the article, are designed to give the reader a general feel of the process.

To use your metaphor

  You're on a ship → then the ship's gone → the water's gone → you're gone.

We can say the ship is what disappears during Meditation on I-am-ness
The water during the Meditation with Buddhi standing alone

The last part of the metaphor is slightly misleading to match up with the last stage, it is not you're gone, but the ego that disappears, sometimes refereed to as Ego Death by mystics and psychedelic users. The last stage of Sankhya Purusha resting in itself could be compared to Ego death, and is a kind of pure conciousness that does not contain an I or an Ego, or any kind of self identity. This is the goal of the practitioner.

This is also the hardest thing to ever put into words.
So in conclusion and summary : did the school and practitioners use psychedelics, likely no, they did not. These states can be reached in meditation. Are these states similar to some reported psychedelic experiences, yes.

However the key difference is that psychedelics are somewhat unpredictable. You could take the same substance and have two incredibly different experiences, and even experiences completely the opposite of Ego Death. Whereas the practices of the Sankhya are designed to always lead to the same place, with time and effort into the practices.

Further I think it is worth mentioning that Buddha moved on from this school, was not satisfied with the result as a goal. He even stated it lay on one extreme of the spectrum which the middle way lay between it and the other end of the spectrum.


Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically?

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? ...

I think yes, you may. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

  Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home?

you may stop an intruder forcefully. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

But for me, being Buddhist, the answer will not end there. Both (two above lines) questions are based on teaching of Ahimsa (not to injure). If it is so then it is important to know how we interpret this teaching. Following are some of the points we can consider-

Buddhism is a religion of principles and not rules. (yes there are rules as code of conduct, but it is not religion of rules). It teaches you basic principles and you are expected to make the decision on basis of that according to the context.
Buddhism is religion with "Metta" (unconditional love). You even are expected to love your enemy. But you are not prohibited from defending yourself.
Ahimsa in Buddhism is not the same as it is in Jainism.

These are the points in short based on which I said you can physically defend and you are not stopped by Buddhism from doing so. I don't want to say that you should (or even you can) kill. But you may defend. Dr. Ambedkar's discussion on Ahimsa is very enlightening in this regard. You can find it here -The Buddha and His Dhamma, Book 4, Part II, Section 3. It is a good read and the best part is it covers the whole debate in two pages. I also found this article interesting discussing the same point.


Have all human beings got the capacity for compassion?

As i have understood it from a theravada buddhist perspective then all human beings consist of the five aggregates and in here is the 2th aggregate of sensations. As far as i know the feeling of compassion falls under either this aggregate or the 4th aggregate of mental formations since compassion is also one of the 25 beautiful cetasikas. Or maybe it falls under both aggregates.

So in that sense all human beings have the capability to feel compassion.

When that is said i can imagine some occassions where the surroundings might not "allow" for circumstances to be created in where the feeling of compassion could arise. As all the aggregates are subject to the three signs of existence the feeling of compassion is dependent upon causes in order to arise. If these causes cannot arise due to the human being existing in such a poor, dangerous or violent environment e.g. a prison or extreme poverty then the feeling of compassion might not arise.

Also there is the factor of how much spiritual work the human being has done in this life and past lives which might affect in what degree there can be created causes that leads to the feeling of compassion.

This is my own view on it based on my understanding of the buddhist doctrine. I might not be right about this so feel free to correct me if im wrong so i can also learn from it.


Here is what's going on in that text:

Bodhisattva "Pure Wisdom" asks "Buddha" to explain the levels and stages of attainment.

Buddha responds with a usual prajna-paramita explanation of emptiness: that Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi has no svabhava, that Bodhisattvas and sentient beings are mere illusory appearances, and that therefore there is nothing like “attainment” or “an attainer”, let alone any such "stages".

He then elaborates on this point by saying that because sentient beings are “thoroughly confused” and are bent on making things up, they can't help themselves but continue to contrive notions like “cessation” or “person who attains cessation” or "a level of attainment", hence the question about levels. When they attain real cessation, like that of the Tathagata, they will clearly see that all these notions are illusory, making the question irrelevant.

The phrase that you are interested in belongs to this line of argument. The exact phrase goes like this:

  ”Since they have not [mieh] [mieh] illusory activity, they automatically make discriminations.”

(By “discriminations” he means concrete entities and events like “cessation”, “attainment”, “Boddhisattva”, “sentient being”, "a level" etc. By "illusory activity" he means reification, conceptual fabrication, and overgeneralization.)

The word "mieh" means “cessation” or “extinction”. It is not clear why it is repeated twice in the text. My understanding is that it is repeated for emphasis. IMO the meaning of the phrase is: “Since they have not ACTUALLY CEASED the illusory activity” – meaning, that even though some of them may be “advanced” Buddhist students and practitioners, they are still caught up in the habit of reification – and subsequent discrimination and attachment based on that reification. And so they still posit notions of "attainment", "one who attains", "levels" etc. Hence asking wrong question about levels.

That's the basic meaning of the passage. Now, Kihwa (whoever he is) chooses to read that "mieh mieh" repetition as “they have not ceased the cessation”, which he then has to interpret as “ceased the mark of cessation” or “extinguished the mark of cessation”. He then brings in an entire (unrelated) theory of Four Marks, which postulates that each dharma (phenomenon, NOT thought) goes through the four lifecycle phases (“marks”) of arising, abiding, changing (=deteriorating), and cessation. (See Mulamadhyamakakarika for Nagarjuna's take on emptiness of the four phases).

Kihwa says that all samsara is rooted in reification of these “four marks” as something substantial. He argues that in order to stop maintaining our delusion we should stop seeing Arising, Abiding, Changing, and Cessation (of any and all phenomena) as having concrete reality, we should see them as mere conventions, simplifications, arbitrary points of designation. Neither phenomena nor their phases of lifecycle have existence outside of the designating mind.

He goes on to explain that the notion of arising is the subtlest and hardest to stop reifying, while cessation is the easiest. Based on that, he says, we should start by ceasing reification of the notion of cessation (of all entities and phenomena), and then proceed to cease reification of “changing”, “abiding”, and finally “arising”. He then equates attainment of cessation of each of these four, with attainment of the levels of Faith-follower, Arahant, Sage, and The Fruition correspondingly.

He finishes by making an assertion, that when the Four Marks are completely extinguished, the practitioner returns to “original reality”, i.e. the actual ontological reality where the mind-made phenomena have never really existed. Since they never really existed, cessation of their designated point of cessation is not real either, and nevertheless it happens. All of this argument seems to be needed to support Kihwa’s position that while Buddha of the Sutra says that there is no attainment and cessation, in his, Kihwa's opinion there is still a sense in which a practitioner advances through levels and attains cessation. In other words, a practitioner advances through levels of understanding that there are no levels, and attains cessation of any notion of “cessation” (and other reifications).

To answer your question directly, “mark of cessation” is an arbitrary point designated as the moment when a phenomenon stops to exist. From the perspective of Madhyamaka such point is necessarily empty (=conventional, subjective), as is the point of arising, and the phenomenon itself.

In context of the Sutra speaking about attainment (of Enlightenment) aka cessation (of dukkha, samsara, avidya), this "cessation of [the mark of] cessation" refers to no longer reifying the notion of Enlightenment as something concrete that happens to a person at a point in time, since both the person and the cessation are empty conventional designations. In other words, Enlightenment entails no longer reifying Enlightenment, which has been the Sutra's message all along.

Now, if I can be as bold as to offer a connection with Dignaga's theory of apoha, I would say that it pertains to a relationship between "whatever actually happens in the ontological reality around the time we designate as the moment of cessation" and the (mind-made) designation of cessation. The exact question is, how are the two connected and are they. According to the top-down theory of Dignaga, the conceptually designated event of cessation serves as a conceptual relationaly-isomorphic stand-in for something actually happening in real life. While according to the causal chain theory of Dharmakirti, something in real life caused us to experience that particular locality of events as "cessation", and this causal relationship gives ontological credibility to the designation, however mistaken/simplified/reified it be. If you ask me, I prefer the second theory. The weakness of the standin theory IMO is that it still implies some sort of one-to-one correspondance between the experienced phenomena, the conceptual stand-in, and their ontological correlate. In real life this one-to-one correspondence falls apart under careful examination. The causal chain theory provides a nice and comforting explanation that although our notions and concepts may be reifications, simplifications, and overgeneralizations, their arising in our minds was caused by ontologically real stuff, making them not completely arbitrary and hopefully even partially useful within some boundaries.

In other words, even though cessation and Enlightenment are not something real, there's something real that leads to all these conversations, and the effort to achieve Enlightenment is not in vain.

P.S. I guess the overarching goal of this entire line of thought, is to show the connection between suchness and non-reification. Reification leads to invalid attachment and therefore to dukkha. Reification is samsara. Non-reification leads to suchness which is nirvana.


The force that keeps one bonded to samsara is desire. Desire for continued existence.

"Even in the midst of utmost Dukkha, why doesn't the realization come that let me leave this path that causes Dukkha altogether"

Because, most likely, you only intellectually realize Dukkha and unless you are enlightened , you have the habit of wanting to continue your apparent existence.

Many words, like "ignorance" are not exact and precise translations from the original Pali words. A better meaning of ignorance (in a Buddhist context) is what one doesn't deeply understand. If one only has an intellectual understanding of things like  dukkha, impermanence and not-self then one is still ignorant in the heart of those things.

People mix love and attatchment. This is just what is. It is possible to love without attatchment.

Maybe I am missing something somewhere but what does  our ability to love one another have to do with what keeps us bonded to samsara?


Did Buddha practice group meditation with bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and laymen, just like in today's meditation center?

Yes, it seems he did. For example in DN 2:

10. And when King Ajatasattu came near the mango-grove he felt fear and terror, and his hair stood on end. And feeling [50] this fear and the rising of the hairs, the King said to Jīvaka: ‘Friend Jivaka, you are not deceiving me? You are not tricking me? You are not delivering me up to an enemy? How is it that from this great number of twelve hundred and fifty monks not a sneeze, a cough or a shout is to be heard?’
‘Have no fear, Your Majesty, I would not deceive you or trick you or deliver you up to an enemy. Approach, Sire, approach. There are the lights burning in the round pavilion.’
11. So King Ajatasattu, having ridden on his elephant as far as the ground would permit, alighted and continued on foot to the door of the round pavilion. Then he said: ‘Jivaka, where is the Lord?’ ‘That is the Lord, Sire. That is the Lord sitting against the middle column with his order of monks in front of him.’
12. Then King Ajātasattu went up to the Lord and stood to one side, and standing there to one side the King observed how the order of monks continued in silence like a clear lake, and he exclaimed: ‘If only Prince Udāyabhadda were possessed of such calm as this order of monks!’
(Walshe, trans)


About suffering, expectations and unfalsifiable beliefs

The Buddhist problematic isn't about whether beliefs are true or false, or provable or unprovable. It's about whether we cling to beliefs, because the clinging itself creates dukkha.

So for instance, let's take your statement: "Our true self is formless, without comprehensible features." You adopt this belief, and like it, and it doesn't seem to interfere with your meditation or other practices. Fine. But then along comes another Buddhist, who says: "No, no no: that's not right.  What I believe is this...". Suddenly you find yourself involved in an intellectual dispute, wrestling (good-naturedly) with another practitioner about whose perspective is better, and which of you has more experience to back up their view. One way or another (unless you're very careful) someone's ego is going to get bruised. And then along comes some decidedly less enlightened person who says: "You two are a pair of blowhards and it's all a crock of sh*t anyway, so stop pretending you're so high and mighty." So not only did your statement make you a target for abuse, it gave this poor guy something concrete to vent about.

Fixed beliefs — even innocuous-seeming ones, and particularly ones that are not otherwise decidable — are focal points for conflict. Just think about the Christian faith, where a fixed, undecidable belief in a loving God indirectly fills the world with anger, resentment, and hate. I'm not going to go so far as to say that a belief like this is an obstacle, because beliefs like this are useful tools at certain stages of spiritual development. But in the end, even beliefs like this will have be released.


Actually, a point that is not well understood is that, among those who follow the Pali canon, there is no controversy over whether some jhāna is necessary; the answer is in all cases yes. The controversy is really over which jhāna is necessary.

There are three types of jhāna in total:

samatha-jhāna - jhāna based on a conceptual object that, due to its conceptual nature, cannot lead to the realization of the nature of reality.

For example, in the Visuddhimagga:

  The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be
  given attention. But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention
  should be given by setting the mind on the [name] concept as the most
  outstanding mental datum, relegating the colour to the position of a
  property of its physical support. That [conceptual state] can be
  called by anyone he likes among the names for earth (pathavī) such as
  “earth” (pathavī), “the Great One” (mahī), “the Friendly One”
  (medinī), “ground” (bhūmi), “the Provider of Wealth” (vasudhā), “the
  Bearer of Wealth” (vasudharā), etc., whichever suits his manner of
  perception. Still “earth” is also a name that is obvious, so it can be
  developed with the obvious one by saying “earth, earth.” It should be
  adverted to now with eyes open, now with eyes shut. And he should go
  on developing it in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, and
  even more than that, until the learning sign arises.

  Path of Purification, IV.29

2. vipassana-jhāna - jhāna based on ultimate reality that allows one to see the three characteristics and thus attain nibbana. As the Mahasi Sayadaw states:

  The tranquillity that occurs while one contemplates various phenomena is called momentary concentration, the concentration that lasts momentarily during contemplation. No insight is possible without this momentary concentration. The meditator who has no basic [samatha] jhānic experience and relies on insight meditation alone develops insight through momentary concentration and attains the noble path. This concentration for insight is not confined to a single object. The meditator practising it notes all the mental and physical phenomena that arise. However, at the moment of noting, his mind is fixed on the object and free from distraction. This is obvious to the meditator who practises effectively.

  http://www.aimwell.org/sallekha.html

3. lokuttara-jhāna - jhāna that takes a supermundane object (nibbana), and is equivalent to attaining the noble path and fruition. According to Bhante Gunaratana:

  But the four jhanas again reappear in a later stage in the development of the path, in direct association with liberating wisdom, and they are then designated the supramundane (lokuttara) jhanas. These supramundane jhanas are the levels of concentration pertaining to the four degrees of enlightenment experience called the supramundane paths (magga) and the stages of liberation resulting form them, the four fruits (phala).

  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas01.htm

It is this third type of jhāna that everyone agrees is necessary. The problem is with deciding which type of jhāna the Buddha is talking about in specific contexts. Since these three types of jhāna are not enumerated in the sutta pitaka, the debate centres around whether lokiya (mundane) samatha jhāna are necessary, since that is the only type of jhāna recognized by certain Buddhists.

This too can be seen as a misunderstanding, since samatha jhāna according to those who hold that it is not necessary is not exactly the same as jhāna according to those who hold that lokiya jhāna is.

According to those who say lokiya jhāna is necessary, they seem to believe that lokiya jhāna is a practice which allows for the realization of insight, in which case it cannot be samatha jhāna as understood by those who believe that samatha jhāna cannot lead directly to insight, unless the former group actually believes that jhāna based on a conceptual object can allow for the realization of insight into reality, which I'm pretty sure is not the case.

So, the debate is really not all it is cracked up to be, unless there are people who believe meditation based on a non-real conceptual object is sufficient for attainment of understanding of reality, in which case they are in contradiction with the sutta pitaka, not to mention the abhidhamma and commentaries.

I suppose there could still be room for debate over whether samatha jhāna based on a concept must be cultivated prior to Vipassana; the yuganaddha sutta probably shows this to be false:

  Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html

Of course for anyone actually adhering to the Theravada (I.e. the commentaries, patisambidhamagga, and abhidhamma), there isn't much room for controversy. Most of the debate is over whether to follow the existing commentaries or create one's own.


One of the best descriptions of the structure of consciousness from a Abhidhamma standpoint is found in Lama Govinda's 'The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Philosophy" pdf page 121. Recommend the entire book, as a user friendly account of the Higher Doctrine of the Buddha i.e. Abhidhamma.


The fear of committing to a monastic lifestyle

By practicing monastic life, if you mean becoming a monk, it's a no go with your current condition. But if you just want to practice meditation, staying at a monastery, you still have to give up Marijuana and Nicotine. No serious monastery would allow you to smoke while you stay there.

Some monasteries allow lay practitioners to take just 5 precepts and have food in the evening as well. But usually you have to bring your own food for evening meals.

I would suggest for you to do an online meditation course and to get advice on how to give up your addictions while consulting a doctor to treat your ailments without Marijuana and Nicotine.


Keep motivation to stick on one meditation practice :Ven. Mahasi Saydaw

Some advice by Ajaan Fuang here:

  § Many were the times when people would tell Ajaan Fuang that — with
  all the work and responsibilities in their lives — they had no time to
  meditate. And many were the times he'd respond, "And you think you'll
  have time after you're dead?"

  § "If you're single-minded about whatever you think of doing, you're
  sure to succeed."

  § "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

  § "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."

  § A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."

  § The seamstress, after practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang for
  several months, told him that her mind seemed more of a mess than it
  was before she began meditating. "Of course it does," he told her.
  "It's like your house. If you polish the floor every day, you won't be
  able to stand the least little bit of dust on it. The cleaner the
  house, the more easily you'll see the dirt. If you don't keep
  polishing the mind, you can let it go out and sleep in the mud without
  any qualms at all. But once you get it to sleep on a polished floor,
  then if there's even a speck of dust, you'll have to sweep it away.
  You won't be able to stand the mess."


Sabba - all

pāpassa - of the evil/sin/

akaraṇam-non-doing

kusalassa-of the wholesome

upasampadā-acquiring/undertaking

sacitta-own mind

pariyodapanam-purification

etam-this

buddhāna-of the Buddhas

sāsanam-teaching/dispensation

Note that “assa” means ‘of the’ (genitive singular)


I had strange things showing up while meditating

Your question is about immersion, so let's address that first:

AN4.41:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these four ways of developing immersion further. What four?
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness.
There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements.

Your question can then be understood as asking whether there is bliss, knowledge and vision, mindfulness and awareness and the ending of defilements. If not, then this is not right immersion.
Studying more in the suttas, we read that immersion is preceded by seven other steps. We must therefore ask ourselves if those steps have been followed:

AN6.63:13.1: And what is the cessation of sensual pleasures? When contact ceases, sensual pleasures cease. The practice that leads to the cessation of sensual pleasures is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

And yet even the first step is mysterious. What is right view?

SN45.8:3.1: And what is right view?
Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

These are the four noble truths. Without knowing the four noble truths, we fall into wrong immersion.
Keep studying the suttas. Keep meditating. Find a good teacher. Be a good person.


Wallace's samatha practice, based on Padmasambhava: Am I doing it right?

I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths.

This is right. Anapanasati Sutta mentions about discerning long or short breaths as the 2nd step in the 1st triad.

  When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing.

Realising that thoughts arisen itself sometimes bring you mind back. If not 1st be aware of the through and breath. Then look for any sensation that the thoughts might have brought, e.g. discomfort if they were angry thoughts. Finally actively redirect you mind to the chosen object.

  When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing.

Initially you have to keep brining back you mind to the breath even if it does not wander away.

  Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind.

This is how some meditation master teach this, but thinking and pondering is verbal fabrication which need also be calmed. [Samma,ditthi Sutta]

Also the following might be of interest: Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu


(N.B. This is from a Theravada perspective)

If a person is all three (i.e. gentle, loving, anxious, and longing) then what determines their future rebirth?

Karma is a complex system; there are three sets that you have to understand, one mentioned by Sankha:
By order in which they operate:

weighty karma
karma performed at death
habitual karma
other karma

By their function:

productive of new results
supportive of other results
destructive of other results
detractive from other results

By the time it takes them to bring results

in this life
in the next life
in some future life
already finished

So, to say that behaviour X leads to hell is just a simplification - it should be taken as a guide, not a dogma. The Buddha himself said:

“Therein, Ānanda, when a recluse or brahmin says: ‘Indeed, there are evil actions, there is result of misconduct,’ I grant him this. When he says: ‘I saw a person here who killed living beings…and held wrong view, and I see that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he has reappeared in a state of deprivation…even in hell,’ I also grant him this. But when he says: ‘On the dissolution of the body, after death, everyone who kills living beings…and holds wrong view reappears in a state of deprivation…even in hell,’ I do not grant him this. And when he says: ‘Those who know thus know rightly; those who think otherwise are mistaken,’ I also do not grant him this. And when he obstinately adheres to what he himself has known, seen, and discovered, insisting: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong,’ I also do not grant him this. Why is that? Because, Ānanda, the Tathāgata’s knowledge of the great exposition of action is otherwise.
--MN 130 (Bodhi, trans)
Why are 'anxious' and 'cruel' both reborn in hell?

Orthodox Theravada theory says that, in general, anger leads to the hell realm, greed leads to the ghost realm, and delusion leads to the animal realm
Anxiety could refer either to worry or fear. If it refers to worry, it is a delusion-based state and will incline one towards the animal realm. If it refers to fear, it is an anger-based state and will incline one towards teh hell realm. Note that simple worry and fear shouldn't lead to either realm, unless it is serious enough to lead one to break precepts - harming others or oneself out of fear or worry. Taking strong anti-anxiety medication might arguably fit the bill (leading to animal realm); killing or stealing could lead one to hell, and could ostensibly be performed out of fear-based anxiety.
Cruelty is anger-based, so yeah, always inclining one towards hell.

Isn't someone who is cruel more harmful than someone who is anxious, and therefore more 'deserving' of hell?

One would think so, probably because we use the word anxiety to refer to a mild form of anger (fear) or delusion (worry). These states can, however, become intense and destructive to the point of suicide, drug addiction, etc., which can in turn easily be more destructive than mild forms of cruelty, like insensitivity to the feelings of others, etc.

Is an anxious person reborn in hell because anxiety a hellish (unpleasant) experience, i.e. if you choose to live a life of anxiety you're therefore inclined to choose to be reborn in hell?

Unwholesome-inclined individuals don't really get the chance to "choose" where they are born. Somewhere, the Buddha is said to have taught that it takes morality for one to have a stable enough mind to actually choose where one is born, IIRC (can't remember the source off-hand). But yes, the general idea is that one's prevalent state of mind inclines one towards hell; it doesn't have anything directly to do with the judgement of others.

Do cruelty and/or anxiety correspond to kilesas?

Answered above.


From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Assu Sutta: Tears


Feeling the Need to Take A Deep Breath After Developing Concentration

If your breath becomes shallower faster than the extent you have calmed down the fabrications this tend to happen. Sometimes the breathing stops and suddenly after someone time you gasp to breathe. But again these inconsistencies reduce after some practice so might be safe not to pay attention to it and keep your focus on the breathing process.

Alternatively you might be trying to control the breath even without your knowledge. You might be "forcing" the breath to be shallow causing a gasp to breathe.


Possible to intentionally kill without "intention"?

Quoting from The Pāṭimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu

  The non-offense clauses state that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who acts unintentionally, not knowing, or without aiming at death. In the Vinita-vatthu, unintentionally is used to describe cases in which a bhikkhu acts accidentally, such as dropping a poorly held stone, brick, or adze; removing a pestle from a shelf and accidentally knocking off another one. Not knowing is used in cases in which the bhikkhu deliberately does an action but without knowing that his action could cause death. An example would be giving food to a friend not knowing that it is poisoned. Not aiming at death is used in cases where the bhikkhu deliberately does an action but does not intend that action to result in death. Relevant examples include trying to help a bhikkhu who is choking on food by slapping him on the back and inadvertently causing his death; telling a bhikkhu to stand on a piece of scaffolding while helping with construction work, only to see the scaffolding collapse; describing the joys of heaven to an audience, only to have a member of the audience decide to commit suicide in hopes of going there.

  Thus, to fulfill the factor of intention here, a bhikkhu must be acting intentionally, knowingly, and aiming at death.

  The word-analysis covers all the same points—although it shuffles the terms around—when it defines intentionally as “having willed, having made the decision knowingly and consciously.” Without teasing out the differences in terminology, we may simply note the important point added in its analysis, which is that an act of manslaughter counts as intentional here only when the bhikkhu has made a clear decision to kill. Thus if he were to strike a person unthinkingly in a sudden fit of rage, without being clear about what his intention was, it would not qualify as “intentional” here. The Commentary seconds this point when it defines having made the decision as “having summoned up a reckless mind state, ‘crushing’ through the power of an attack.” The Sub-commentary does not explain crushing or attack here, but apparently they mean aggressively overcoming, through a brute act of will, any contrary or hesitant thoughts in the mind.

Quoting from Getting the Message (also by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu),

  Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

    "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

    -- MN 21


From Zen Master Chinul's 'Straight Talk On the True Mind', ~1205 CE. Translated by Robert E. Buswell, Jr.

  ...
  Question: We have already given rise to right faith, but we are still uncertain what is meant by “true mind.”

  Zen Master Chinul: To leave behind the false is called “true.” The numinous speculum is called “mind.” The Suraligama Sutra sheds light on this mind.

  Question: Is it only named true mind or does it also have other appellations?

  Zen Master Chinul: The names given to it in the teachings of the Buddha and in the teachings of the patriarchs are not the same. First let us explore the teachings of the Buddha.

  In the Bodhisattvasila Sutra it is called the “mindground” because it produces the myriads of good dharmas.

  In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is referred to as “bodhi” because enlightenment is its essence.

  The Avatamsaka Sutra names it the “dharmadhatu” because it interpenetrates and infuses all dharmas.

  In the Diamond Sutra it is called “tathagata” because it does not come from anywhere.

  In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is also referred to as “nirvana” because it is the sanctuary of all the saints.

  In the Golden Light Sutra it is said to be “suchness” because it is true, permanent, and immutable.

  In the Pure Name Sutra it is named the “dharma-body” because it is the support for the reward and transformation bodies.

  In the Awakening oj Faith it is termed “true suchness” because it neither arises nor ceases.

  In the Mahaparanirvana Satra it is referred to as “Buddha-nature” because it is the fundamental essence of the three bodies.

  In the Complete Enlightenment Sutra it is called “dharani” because all meritorious qualities flow from it.

  In the Srimaladevisimhananda Sutra it is named “tathagatagarbha” because it conceals and contains all dharmas.

  In the definitive sutras it is named “complete enlightenment” because it destroys darkness and shines solitarily of itself.

  As Zen Master Yen-shou’s Secrets on Mind-Only says, “The one dharma has a thousand names: its appellations are each given in response to different conditions.

  The true mind appears in all the sutras, but I cannot cite all the references.

  Question: We now know what true mind means in the teachings of the Buddha, but what about the teachings of the patriarchs?

  Chinul: In the school of the patriarchs all names and words are severed; not even one name is sanctioned, let alone many.

  In response to stimuli and according to faculties, however, its names are also many.

  Sometimes it is referred to as “oneself,” for it is the original nature of sentient beings.

  Sometimes it is named “the proper eye,” for it makes visible all phenomena.

  At other times it is called “the sublime mind,” for it is empty yet numinous, calm yet radiant.

  Sometimes it is named “the old master,” for it has been the supervisor since time immemorial.

  Sometimes it is called “the bottomless bowl,” for it can survive anywhere.

  Sometimes it is called “a stringless lute,” for it is always in harmony.

  Sometimes it is called “an inextinguishable lamp,” for it illuminates and disperses delusion and passion.

  Sometimes it is called “a rootless tree,” for its roots and trunk are strong and firm.

  Sometimes it is referred to as “a sword which splits a wind-blown hair,” for it severs the roots of the defilement.

  Sometimes it is called “the unconditioned kingdom,” for the seas are calm there and the rivers clear.

  Sometimes it is named a “wish-fulfilling gem,” for it benefits the poor and distressed.

  Sometimes it is called “a boltless lock,” for it shuts the six sensedoors.

  It is also called “a clay ox,” “a wooden horse,” “moon of the mind,” and “gem of the mind.”

  It has such a variety of different names that I cannot record them all.

  If you penetrate to the true mind, you will fully comprehend all of these names; but if you remain dark to this true mind, all names are only a block.

  Consequently, you must be precise in your investigation of the true mind.

  ...

  If we have faith in this, we should realize that all the bodhisattvas of the three time periods are studying the same thing -- this mind. All the Buddhas of the three time periods have the same realization -- the realization of this mind. The teachings elucidated in the tripitaka all elucidate this mind. The delusion of all sentient beings is delusion in regard to this mind. The awakening of all cultivators is the awakening to this mind. The transmission of all the patriarchs is the transmission of this mind. The search in which all the patchwork[-robed] monks of this world are engaged is the search for this mind.

  ...

    The mind: it is vacuous, empty, sublime, and exquisite; it is clear, brilliant, numinous, and bright. It neither comes nor goes, for it permeates the three time periods. It is neither within nor without, for it pervades the ten directions.

  ...

  This essence is not only the Buddha-nature with which all sentient beings are innately endowed but also the basic source of creation of all worlds.

  ...

    The wind moves but the mind shakes the tree.

  ...

    Those who are aware of it know that it is the Buddha-nature; those who are not -- call it soul or spirit.

To me, this sounds synonymously with Rigpa, Awareness of the Ground.

If you're looking for a straightforward contemporary explanation here is mine: The Universal Mind is Information at large. Or more accurately, it is the informational aspect of the energy flow in thermodynamically non-equilibrious systems.

Although, in my personal opinion, all these reifications of the absolute are dangerous and misleading. This is why I prefer the supra-conceptual teaching style of Zen and Dzogchen/Kagyu, because it turns your eyes to the moon, instead of talking about the fingers.


What is eradication of the fetter of identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)?

The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in
  a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in
  order to become a sotapanna or stream winner.

It's actually the other way around, meaning becoming a stream enterer will be 'done' before the belief in a self is eradicated.

After becoming a stream enterer you'll realise that you are nothing more than a process (for the lack of words).
Before becoming a stream enterer the mind will pick and observe one of the three characteristics: anicca, dukkha or anatta. And when this characteristic is understood/seen completely the mind will release and let go.

And even though the stream winner knows then, from experience, that (s)he is nothing more than a process it doesn't mean that (s)he also experience everything impersonal. Awareness itself for instance will still feel as 'I am aware of this or that'. The difference is between deeply knowing from experience (entering the stream) and experiencing or feeling, or sense of self as you put it.

That sense of self will be eradicated with the uprooting of conceit.


What to do when music gets played in the mind

Music playing in the mind are mental formations. Approach in the same way as all other mental formations. Notice that it's there but try not to add feeling or thought to it. Doing so will create frustration. In the case of this happening, notice the thoughts you attach to the music in the same way and be with the feelings that occur.

You may say "this repetitive music is annoying me" then you may feel an unpleasant feeling. Notice this! Notice without judgement.

Alternatively, switch your attention to something that requires a high level of focus like creative writing. The music will stop. Become very curious about how it stopped being careful to note the change in mind state and degree of alertness. This will tell you something about your various states of mind namely lower levels and higher levels of functioning. In the lower levels mind has a tendency to do what it likes perhaps governed by the autonomics of conditioning. In the higher levels, conscious directed thought allows you to step out of this process where you can have more choice about how to use your mind.


The 'two truths' in Pali Buddhism are different to the 'two truths' in Mahayana Buddhism. Possibly, the 'two truths' of Mahayana Buddhism are more relevant to Plato's Parmenides.

In Pali Buddhism, the 'two truths' refers to the difference between how enlightened & unenlightened people interpret certain (mundane/moral) teachings of the Buddha, as follows:

  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.

  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  false speech does not arise in the Teacher,  who is Lord of the World,  when he speaks
  according to conventions.

  Commentary by Buddhaghosa

In Pali Buddhism, the translations "being" ('bhava') and "non-being" ('vibhava') refer to two kinds of dependently originated 'becoming' ('bhava') based on two kinds of dependently originated craving (as defined in the 2nd noble truth in SN 56.11), namely, 'bhavatanha' (craving to be) and 'vibhavatanha' (craving not to be). Both kinds of craving & becoming involve 'self-view'.

In other words, 'non-being' is not synonymous with the enlightened or unconditioned state of selflessness/emptiness (sunnata).

Some relevant texts that show how the translations 'being' & 'non-being' are used are below:

  Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī,
  seyyathidaṃ—kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence/becoming (bhava), accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
  sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.  SN 56.11

~~

  So neva taṃ abhisaṅkharoti, na abhisañcetayati bhavāya vā vibhavāya vā. So anabhisaṅkharonto anabhisañcetayantoanabhisañcetayanto: ? bhavāya vā
  vibhavāya vā na kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ na paritassati, aparitassaṃ paccattaṃyeva parinibbāyati. ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ
  brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

  He does not form any condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or non-being. Since he does not form any
  condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or
  non-being, he does not cling to anything in this world. When he does
  not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally
  attains Nibbāna. He understands thus: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy
  life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no
  more coming to any state of being.’ MN 140

~~~

  sato vā pana sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti

  Those who describe the...extermination of an existing being (satta)...Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake, through fear of identity and disgust with identity keep
  running & circling around that same identity... MN 102

'Samsara' is defined as the state of the mind circling & running around in ignorance & craving:

  From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving are running around & wandering on....Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person...keeps running around and circling around that
  very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very
  fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from
  form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from
  fabrications... not set loose from consciousness...

  SN 22.99

Therefore, dependently originated "being" and "non-being", namely, wanting to be this & not wanting to be that,  are certainly  characteristics of 'samsara' & probably reinforce each other.

However, whether they relate to Plato's Parmenides is another matter.


What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

Some scholars, notably Dan Lusthaus, have argued that Yogācāra is not a form of Idealism. Lusthaus is one of the leading living authorities on Yogācāra and author of the authoritative analysis, Buddhist Phenomenology. The charge of Idealism is simply a mistaken reading of Yogācāra. For example in the introduction to his paper, What is and isn't Yogācāra he argues

  Yogācāra focused on the processes involved in cognition in order to overcome the ignorance that prevents one from attaining liberation from the karmic rounds of birth and death. Yogācārins' sustained attention to issues such as cognition, consciousness, perception, and epistemology, coupled with claims such as "external objects do not exist," has led some to misinterpret Yogācāra as a form of metaphysical idealism. They did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate.

However, some scholars, for example Sean Butler, in his essay Idealism in Yogācāra Buddhism *, remain unconvinced by Lusthaus's argument. Butler cites Vasubandhu's Trimsika for example (and here he cite's Lusthaus's own translations):

  The transformation of consciousness is imagination. What is imagined by
  it does not exist. Therefore everything is representation-only.
  For consciousness is the seed of everything. Transformation in such and such ways Proceeds through mutual influence, so that such and such imagination is born.

A note of caution is that Butler seems to be confused by Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which is not really a form of Idealism, in that it does not argue that the mind is all there is, but does argued that experience is all that can be known (Transcendental Idealism is not an ontological theory in the way that Idealism is). But he does go on to discuss more relevant definitions of Idealism. Butler weighs the arguments for and against labelling Yogācāra as Idealist and considers that he has decisively shown that it is.

Although Yogācāra is not my area of speciality, I am an advocate for Dr Sue Hamilton's hermeneutic strategy of treating all Buddhist doctrines as though they are addressing the topic of what we experience rather than what exists, which she outlines in Early Buddhism a New Approach. This outlook is in fact evident in Early Buddhist texts. As Bhikkhu Bodhi says:

  “The world with which the Buddha’s teaching is principally concerned is ‘the world of experience,’ and even the objective world is of interest only to the extent that it serves as that necessary external condition for experience.” (Bodhi 2000, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: 394, n.182)

If we read the early Buddhist texts as being concerned with experience, or in Buddhist terms with the arising and passing away of mental states, then a number of confusions are resolved. We can for example dispense with the confusing Two Truths doctrine that phenomena are both existent and non-existent. Early Buddhist texts take the view that when it comes to experience, ontological commitments like "existent" (atthitā) and non-existence (n'atthitā) simply do not and cannot apply. This need not imply a commitment to the proposition that only mental states exist (which is what Bishop Berkeley claims). But like Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, we might have to conclude that there is an epistemological limit on what we can know, since all of our knowledge comes via experience.

There is accumulating evidence that this early Buddhist outlook continues into the Prajñāpāramitā literature (See my long essay Form is (Not) Emptiness). So that it might persist into the Yogācāra ought not to surprise us. And for this reason I am predisposed to give Lusthaus the benefit of the doubt and accept his assertion that Yogācāra is not Idealist because it sees vijñāna as only conventionally real, in line with the Yogacāra interpretation of the Two Truths, which is distinctive to the Yogācāra. (Incidentally Lusthaus has written a good article on this subject: The Two Truths (Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya) in Early Yogācāra. Despite the philosophical problems entailed by the Two Truths, the fact that Yogācārins accept the consequences of their version of the doctrine makes it unlikely that they fell into the Idealist trap.

However one has to weigh the criticism of Butler and others. I think the jury is still out.


Is the sexual act contrary to achieving enlightenment?

That was referenced in this answer.

The word used there is abrahmacariyā and associated with celibacy.

That word used that way (celibacy) in the 3rd of the eight precepts -- see the references at the start of this answer -- a different word is used in the 3rd of the five precepts.

I think it has a broader meaning than celibacy though, e.g. it's used in SN 54.2 -- so instead of or as well as "celibate" it's translated "the holy life" or "the spiritual life" -- I think it refers to a monk's life, including keeping the rules of the vinaya and the company of other monks.

Where it's used in SN 45.8, I note that the three types of wrong action which are listed there -- i.e. killing, stealing, and sexual intercourse -- correspond to parajika offenses which result in someone's automatically losing their status as a monk or nun.


it's not enough air. A bit scary too.

It's quite difficult to give detailed advice over the internet. What you describe is actually somewhat concerning. The best advice would be to seek out someone who could watch your meditation and advise.

For example, a common reaction to fear can be to hold one's breath so that a predator cannot detect our breathing. Meditation should feel relaxed and secure and peaceful, especially if you are alone without support. Simple things like poor posture can magnify suppressed anxiety. For example, if my chin is sticking out a bit, then fear tends to arise. However, if I am sitting straight and relaxed, chin in and back of neck smooth and unkinked, then I feel secure and fear evaporates.

Please do seek at least a friend who can compare your sitting posture with a picture of a meditating teacher. Such a friend would be a good spiritual companion.


Where are the Eight Worldly Winds and how to deal with them described?

Mentioned in both the Lokavipatti Sutta in the Pali Canon, and in verse 29 of Nagarjuna's "Letter to a Friend."

The short answer on how to deal with them is: see them for what they are. Transient sources of suffering.


Like the sutta explains, if the Buddha said there is a self it would be wrong since it comes under eternalism. If the Buddha said there is no self, Vacchagotta would have taken it as Annihilationism. Vacchagotta's mind was probably capable of grasping only one extreme or the other instead of viewing things as mere experiences rising and falling. That's probably why the Buddha stayed silent.


pranayama unsettles my meditation practice

Yoga does have both physiological and psychological benefits, when practised lightly and not as an ascetic practice, however, it is not tied to the Buddhist goal of Nirvana. The Buddha also practice certain forms of it and gave up as it was not linked to the goal of Nirvana which The Buddha was searching. At certain extremities, this is counterproductive, for physical well being, psychology and meditation.

As you have said, some forms can be unsettling and not conducive to meditation. This is especially true for mindfulness.

E.g. following is a paragraph which highlights extreme forms of Khecarī mudrā / kriya leads to unsettling which is not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Clenched teeth, tongue pressed against the palate

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me,
  ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back,
  and crush the mind with mind.’

  So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held back,
  crushed the mind with mind. While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits.

  It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain,
  subdue, and attack him;

  even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held
  back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits.

  But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm,

  because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similarly, extreme Prāṇāyāma and Bandha also leads to unsettling experiences not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Breathingless meditation

  (1) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise the breathingless meditation.’

  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose.
  While I did so, there was a loud sound of winds coming out from my ear-holes, just like the loud
  sound of winds from a smith’s bellows.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  ARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (1)

  While I did so, violent winds cut through my head, just as if a strong man were splitting my
  head open with a sharp sword.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (2) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (2)

  While I did so, there were violent pains in my head, just as if a strong man [244] were tightening a strong leather strap around my head as a headband.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (3) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE BUTCHER

  While I did so, violent winds carved up my belly,
  just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  were to carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (4) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE TWO MEN

  While I did so, there was a violent burning in my body, just as if two men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of burning coal.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. Now, Aggivessana, when the devas saw me, some said: ‘The recluse Gotama is dead!’
  Other devas said: ‘The recluse Gotama is not dead but dying!’
  Still others said: ‘The recluse Gotama is neither dead nor dying: he is an arhat;
  such is how arhats
  dwell!’

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similar accounts are found in: (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, Bodhi Rāja,kumāra Sutta, etc. where pitfalls of these practices are discussed.

Yoga practices are fabricating practices creating new Saṅkhāra while the Buddhist practice avoids creating new Saṅkhāra, hence different in the final results.


What happens if a monk is called for jury duty?

There is another question on here about whether or not a buddhist can harm another person https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7767/471 it claims that the buddha said that judicial action wasn't blameworthy.
So you could get away with saying that taking part in judicial action was not blameworty, but if it was me, I would have great difficulty in judging whether or not they had actually committed the crime. And it would be upsetting to discover that they were innocent but my vote was for guilty.


how important is self forgiveness in karma ?

In my understanding,

The original action is one source of karma.
The hidden agenda (intention,attitude) behind that act is another source of karma.
Our thoughts reflecting on that after it happened is the third source of karma.
Our decision to explain what happened and why, in one specific way, is the fourth source of karma.

Each of the four components can be wholesome or unwholesome, so there are 16 combinations in total, or 16 gradations - from 100% unwholesome, to 100% wholesome. Also, the combinations vary by the timing of their effects, producing a complex mixture of some immediate and some latent results.

In context of this question, what we are interested in is the difference between the last two components.

The thoughts about the event (going over it, analyzing, evaluating oneself) can generate either pride and joy, or shame and guilt. This guilt, by itself, is a dukkha, disease. Maintaining oneself in a maimed and injured condition creates negative karma that keeps the vicious circle going.

The decision to explain what and why happened, in a specific way, is the most important component for the long term effects of the action. What is "specific way"? Usually, real life situations are not unambiguous. Instead, they usually have an element of ambiguity, a quantum element so to speak. In most situations we can come up with a number of narratives or interpretations, that will present situation and your role in it rather differently.

What often happens when we analyze a troublesome situation, is we can't decide which perspective we should take. So we keep going over it again and again, replaying it in our head, which can bring a lot of guilt and suffering. Instead, if we decide on one perspective, and make a firm decision to stick with it - then we can stop replaying the situation, and clearly describe what happened and exactly why, and based on this choice of explanation our future will change accordingly.

The perspective Buddha suggest we should take, is that of responsibility, but at the same time the one that will make us strong, not sick with guilt. Here's what happened, here are the attachments that were at play, here is the confusion that was at play, here's the lust and aversion that were at play. Here's why I thought it was a good idea to act like that at the time. However, now I clearly see how and why my actions created that harmful effect.

It is an important skill, according to my teacher, to never betray one's past decisions. If we decided to act a certain way, we must have done it out of our best understanding at the moment. Given our understanding at the moment, we could not have acted differently (if we could we would). However, if we act now, we will act out of our new best understanding, which may be different this time.

The only function of "taking the blame" is to admit that situation indeed happened the way it happened, and that our actions played a role in that. We were acting out of our best understanding, but because our perspective was limited, we participated in creating these negative results. With our new understanding we can see that a better action is possible, and we want to try it that way next time.

This is called "master mind" as opposed to "leaking mind". Leaking mind is the mind that betrays its own foundation, it's own past decisions all the time. Leaking mind says "oh I was so stupid yesterday" or "so wrong" etc. Master mind has an element of confidence and stability, it honorably inherits its past actions and choices, while never getting attached or stuck in the past and taking into account new information as it becomes available.


How to cultivate the perception of 'Anatta'?

Well, it's actually not that difficult. Stop thinking in terms of persons and start thinking in terms of information, tendencies, and influences.
When you see a person doing something, don't think: "this person has decided to do this and that". Instead, think in terms of influences: there were these circumstances that formed this view and led to this behavior.
Similarly, when you think about yourself, don't think "I have decided to do this and that". Think, "here are the habits, here are the influences, here are the attachments, here are the stereotypes, here are the reactions, here is the knowledge of Dharma - and here's the behavior emerging from the interaction of all of the above."
For those who prefer official Theravada terminology, think in terms of skandhas. The key thing to understand is, they are not found inside a person. They span people and time.
And of course, the most essential Anatta practice of all: never acting to benefit one's ego.


What tenets must a person accept to be a Buddhist?

You just need to take refuge in the Triple Gem sincerely.

Buddham saranam gacchami - I go to the Buddha for refuge.
Dhammam saranam gacchami - I go to the Dhamma for refuge.
Sangham saranam gacchami.- I go to the Sangha for refuge.

Refuge here means spiritual refuge. It doesn't mean you reject medicine for physical ailments like in some Christian sects.

Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem. Those who are Noble Ones will never break with their refuge. But ordinary people, through ignorance, doubt, and wrong knowledge about the special qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, are susceptible to breaking their refuge.

Read more at How to Take the Triple Refuge.


Is killing vermin and insects justifiable?

The beauty of the precepts is that they are impossible for ordinary human beings to fully observe.  The precept against killing is an example of this. My body's immune system kills all lifeforms that it doesn't recognize.  I step on and crush innumerable microorganisms.  But the first precept asks us to minimize the amount of harm we do in the world.  In the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, the precepts are trainings, not commandments.


Is turning off a patient's life support system encouraging to kill?

No it is not killing. Because there's no intention of killing. You just stopped doing things to sustain his life. It doesn't even have to be a relative. So many people die due to famine all over the world. So many animals are being slaughtered every day. You could stop everything you are doing right now and go and try to save them with all your time and money. But by not doing that, are you killing those whom you might have saved? No! Not doing a good deed isn't necessarily doing a bad deed.

But if there's the intention of killing, turning off the switch breaks the 1st precept.


Why should one not address a venerable as friend?

Junior monks have to greet senior monks as "venerable sir" and lay people have to greet monks as "venerable sir" (and not as "friend" or by name) because this is part of the culture of respect and reverence in Buddhism, and South Asian culture in general, both in ancient and modern times.

It is part of the whole package of reverence to parents, teachers and elders. Of course, in the modern day, this is changing due to exposure to culture of other parts of the world.

Below are some examples from suttas and vinaya:

In AN10.16:

  “Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of
  hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an
  unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the
  Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one
  liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body
  witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the
  Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten
  persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
  offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of
  merit for the world.”

From AN8.59:

  Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential
  salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?

  The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the
  course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the
  once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the
  realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one
  who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of
  non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course
  for arahantship

In AN5.199, the Buddha taught:

  "On the occasion when a virtuous person who has gone forth approaches
  a family, the people rise up to greet him, bow down, give him/her a
  seat. On that occasion the family is practicing the practice leading
  to birth in a high family.

In Mangala Sutta:

  "Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise;
  and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest
  blessing.

In AN 4.32:

  "There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, & consistency in the face of
  events, in line with what's appropriate in each case, each case. These
  bonds of fellowship [function] in the world like the linchpin in a
  moving cart.

  Now, if these bonds of fellowship were lacking, a mother would not
  receive the honor & respect owed by her child, nor would a father
  receive what his child owes him. But because the wise show regard for
  these bonds of fellowship, they achieve greatness and are praised.

In AN5.58:

  Now on that occasion a number of Licchavi youths had taken their
  strung bows and were walking and wandering in the Great Wood,
  accompanied by a pack of dogs, when they saw the Blessed One seated at
  the foot of a tree to dwell for the day. When they saw him, they put
  down their strung bows, sent the dogs off to one side, and approached
  him. They paid homage to the Blessed One and silently stood in
  attendance upon him with their hands joined in reverential salutation.

In MN86:

  "Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"

  "We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense.

There are numerous examples of prostration before the Buddha, where the translations say that somebody bowed down then sat to one side.

In MN 90, we see prostrations with head placed at the feet.

  King Pasenadi Kosala said to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Go to
  the Blessed One and, on arrival, showing reverence with your head to
  his feet in my name, ask whether he is free from illness & affliction,
  is carefree, strong, & living in comfort, saying: 'King Pasenadi
  Kosala, lord, shows reverence with his head to your feet and asks
  whether you are free from illness & affliction, are carefree, strong,
  & living in comfort.' And then say: 'Lord, today King Pasenadi Kosala
  will come to see the Blessed One after his morning meal.'"

And also in SN22.87:

  “Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with
  your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is
  sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with
  his head at his feet.’

Part of the Sekhiya rules of the vinaya on a bhikkhu teaching the dhamma:

  When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the
  listener:

  has an umbrella, staff, knife, weapon in his/her hand.
  is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
  is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
  is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
  is sitting holding his/her knees.
  is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
  is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
  is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
  is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
  is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
  is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path. (Sk 57-72)

This theme is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, in the "A Brief Teaching on The Bodhisattva’s Garland of Jewels" with translation and commentary by Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche. This text might apply to other Mahayana and Vajrayana schools too.

From this section:

  Refrain from meaningless chatter,
  And speak only true words at any time.
  Whenever you see your guru or khenpo,
  Offer to serve with devotion and respect.

  Commentary:
  In every moment, refrain from any talk that does not refer to the
  Buddha-dharma or spiritual practice. Never say anything that may cause
  others to slander the guru or the Three Jewels. Some people pay close
  attention to their own speech, and will carefully consider if what
  they are about to say is meaningful or meaningless, and if they find
  that it is meaningless, they will refrain from speaking at all. Others
  however, very much like talking and gossiping about other people’s
  faults. They do not even notice that they are doing it! This can bring
  a great deal of trouble both to themselves and to others. It would be
  better for this type of person to remain silent and avoid committing
  so many negative actions. Our speech should always be true speech,
  meaning that it is in accordance with the truth, is meaningful and
  brings no harm to ourselves or to others. Whenever we meet our root
  guru or khenpo, we must give rise to reverence and respect from the
  depths of our heart, and offer to serve them with respectful devotion.
  Some people might occasionally become caught up in anger or resentment
  towards their guru. This creates very severe negative karma and should
  be remedied with their utmost efforts at sincere confession and
  clarification. Some people do not know how to act when they see their
  guru or khenpo, and so will try to hide or run away. This is not
  right. What is appropriate is to just remain calm when seeing your
  guru, and, from the heart, offer to serve them with devotion and
  respect.

We also see this in the Manusmrti or Manu's Laws, a Hindu legal text, on respect to elders:

  2.119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a
  (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

  2.120. For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting
  he recovers them.

  2.121. He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life,
  knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

And this from the Manusmrti on reverence to the teacher / guru:

  2.146. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for
  the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in
  this (life) and after death.

  2.147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was
  born from the womb (of his mother).

  2.148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is
  real, exempt from age and death.

  OP: I'm not sure I understand "why", though. For example, a venerable is a friend -- or are they not? Is the behaviour (or mode of
  address) mere ritual? Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose,
  some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind, or even
  for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the
  classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another might
  be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen
  without yet knowing)

Argument 1: Korean Air Crashes

A theory on this is explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, as summarized here:

  As a closing point to consider the value of the wide use of formal
  speech in Korean, let me add a story regarding Korean Air discussed
  among others by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ``Outliers." Korean Air
  had in the 1990s become one of the world's most dangerous airlines,
  with so many crashes that it was eventually excluded from its airline
  alliance.

  The management of Korean Air at that time brought in an American team
  of consultants to analyze the problem and recommend a solution. While
  the Korean management had suggested more mandatory hours of flight
  simulator training for all pilots, the Americans advised them to
  introduce English as the official on-board language and ban the use of
  any Korean communication from the cockpit. Korean Air went ahead with
  this solution and as a result the crashes ceased, the airline's
  reputation was restored and it became an alliance member again. The
  consultants had discovered that the reason for the numerous accidents
  was that co-pilots could not inform captains about mistakes or
  potentially dangerous situations, because they had to use the most
  formal style of speech when addressing the captain and this created a
  barrier, which made criticism almost impossible. Once they used
  English, this "artificial wall" was torn down and teamwork and
  cross-checks became easy.

According to this theory by Malcolm Gladwell, Korean co-pilots spoke in Korean with each other that had a formal style of speech when addressing the captain, and this created an artificial barrier of respect that prevented first officers from directly criticizing their captains.

They were politely making suggestions with hints to the captain, when they should be communicating directly, clearly and bluntly in the case of a flight scenario where timeliness is critical.

On the other hand, in English, they would address each other simply as "you" or "I" instead of using honorifics. This apparently broke down the artificial barrier of respect and contributed to a reduction in crashes.

I would argue the reverse.

The use of honorifics like "bhante" and "ayasma" would create the right context and climate of respect that makes it conducive for teaching and learning the Dhamma.

Argument 2: Courtroom Decorum

Another way to argue this is to use courtroom etiquette or courtroom decorum as explained by these guidelines:

  Be Respectful in Your Public Requests, Comments, and Dealings with the Court. Adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect
  for the authority of the court. Common phrases that are used when
  communicating with the judge include the following: "May it please the
  Court," used as the greeting at the outset of your opening statement
  and your opening argument; "With Your Honor's leave (or permission), I
  would like to, " used when seeking permission to do something; "As the
  court pleases," "Very well, Your Honor," and "So be it, Your Honor" -
  used when you are acceding (consenting) to an unobjectionable oral
  direction or order of the court. "As the Court well knows," used when
  you are getting ready to educate the judge about something s/he
  probably doesn't know. Don't interrupt the judge. Listen to what the
  judge says. The judge has considerable discretionary power that can be
  used to help you or hurt you, even in jury trials where s/he serves
  only as the referee. Something as nebulous as the judge's tone of
  voice in ruling on objections can influence the juror's perceptions of
  your credibility. In jury trials, treat the judge as though s/he was
  the foreperson of the jury. Every judge has quirks. In some locales,
  there are published Judge's Bench Books that describe the
  peculiarities, predilections, and requirements of each local judge.
  These may be useful reading if you are not personally familiar with
  the way a certain judge runs his or her court.

Similarly, we should adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the teacher.

What would happen if courtroom communication was informal and casual? The authority of the court and the judge would not be respected, and justice would not be served.

Similarly, we need to be formal in front of the Dhamma teacher to respect his authority.

This establishes the atmosphere conducive to learning and teaching the Dhamma.

Argument 3: Your child is not your friend

From a parenting website:

  There are parents out there who are concerned about being their
  child’s friend. What is challenging is that if you are, first, a
  friend, then when the child is a preteen or teenager, the child will
  not need you as a friend. By then, he or she will have friends their
  own age to listen to. As teens, they need you as a parent, but they
  are not going to tell you that. When you become their friend first,
  parenting becomes difficult to establish. The child may not see you as
  an authority figure, and when you try to establish authority, the
  child will most likely question you even more. That’s not what you
  want.

  When you are a friend first, it sends a message that you want your
  child to like you, to share with you, and to help you feel connected.
  If that’s the case, that puts a lot more pressure on the child. It is
  not your child’s job to help you feel good about yourself. If that is
  why you are your child’s friend, rather than being his/her parent,
  then you may need to get some counseling for yourself. You and your
  spouse (if married) will need to focus on a healthy relationship so
  the lines of parenting and friendship, even with your child, can be
  reassessed and altered, if need be.

If parents become friends first with their child, their child would not respect the authority of the parent.

It is the same with the Dhamma teacher.

Hence formal communication is needed to establish authority.


In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops.

Like this: mmmm, she is so sexy, the way she looked at me, wow, it's like she's begging for... Something around her eyes... And she's so small... I imagine how she would... If only I could... I feel the pull when she's near. She's so sweet, I almost want to bite her. Etc.

  "Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."

Like this: I've been through this before. She knows she's sexy and is using it. She's definitely very manipulative. If I lose control she'll take advantage of me. I will get in trouble. I'll lose everything I have: job, family, my stable life. And for what, for that same age old slimy game of moving in and out? She's probably not even smart. What would we even talk about? Besides, I hate losing control. I don't like when my head is spinning and I can't focus because of a woman. I like my normal sober mind. I don't want to be lost again, like that last time. Etc.

Simple, right?


Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill?

Bad Karma are caused by the three evil roots.

Lobha - Craving/Lust
Dosa - Aversion
Moha - Ignorance

Doing something bad without knowing it is bad falls under ignorance. Ignorance is there in all bad Karmas. But in the case of a lion killing a deer, it is stronger compared to a human killing a deer, given that he knows it is wrong. So the lion has strong ignorance on top of strong aversion and craving. That makes the Karma worse. One thing you have to understand about the law of Karma is that it is a law of the nature. It is not a god. So there's never a question of whether it is fair or not. Is it fair for children to get burnt if they touch fire without knowing it burns? Probably not! But the fire doesn't have a conscious to decide whom to burn or not to burn.


What is the mind-state during vipassana after anger disappears?

The state of mind according to your question is doubt or confusion. It is Kilesa(ignorance). Otherwise it is simply the awareness that anger has disappeared.


Why is it hard to concentrate on Kusala?

If we were completely separate from the world, completely independent - then the perfect focus on virtue would be easy.
But we are not separate, not isolated. We are connected with people and events around us. We are part of the web of influences.
These influence create context for our existence. Our desires and decisions come from this context. A lot of time we are carried away by these impulses, despite our best intentions.
The easiest thing we can do to overcome this is to choose which influences we expose ourselves to. Move to kusala city, make kusala friends, watch kusala movies etc. Surround yourself with kusala and it will be easier to focus on it.


Wrong meanings commonly associated with the notion of Gratitude

Good householder asks in an enviroment where even gratitude for low goodness is denied. What does he expect to be capable to grasp the topic rightly if bond to such circumstances? How ever, for those capable to get healed:
The gratitude toward being given sensuality, is a gratitude that bind one in the world, makes one the servant of Mara. The gratitude toward wrong views, a gratitude that honors the food for defilements, is a gratitude that turns one downwardly. The gratitude toward giving sort lasting happiness is a gratitude the leads one to go after such...
If interested there are some points of kinds of giving, goodness, guṇa.
Proper respect and veneration means understanding gratitude: Respect and veneration
And it's because ordinary people feeling gratitude in regard of what has no essence, doesn't lead to essence, that essence and what leads to it isn't seen.
Much done is there, not really possible to repay:

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

[Note that this isn't given for trade, stacks, exchange and not for use for Vollkoffer, but for an escape from this wheel]


Is the path of Zen compatible with computer science?

Look at a Zen rock garden and look at well crafted code and then tell me the two aren't compatible.


Unfriendly and unapproachable faces - Metta Practices

Loving Kindness, I would think.

You are asking, really, what should we do when confronted with an unpleasant person (who is unpleasant in any way, including appearance). We cannot NOT be human, and so our reactions are, and will be, whatever they will be.

However, if you relax and give freely, of your attention and time, you may find their attitude changing towards you. You will also find your reactions changing. Through that process of feedback comes learning.

To be very clear, "giving freely" doesn't mean "giving without discretion". Give only what you would give to anyone on earth. Use your discrimination to determine how much farther you are willing to go in compassion. And end the interaction if you decide it is no longer fruitful.


How to be mindful while doing routine activites like walking on a street known for years?

There isn't anything that I haven't observed...

My person doubts, even outwardly there is nothing not changing, not different, now it's even more of value to look at the frames of references for mindfulness.

When walking, look where you put the next step, step by step, know, lifting, pushing, setting down, take care not to step on someone, get slowly a "An All-Around Eye".

Giving way, while walking (dana, generosity), not to step on someone, no short cuts, no violation of rules (sila, virtue), walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it. When willing to look on the side, stop, turn, then look and watch out the greed that normaly drives one to try to do all at one time. One of the frame of references (meditation), then watch out thoughts, feelings, arising, moods, if the first is already managed good.

Put the sense under control, not letting the eye, ear, nose... follow contact of objects.

One practicing, one being mindful, is never bored and later gifted with right gained ease and re(a)l-ease. And, as a side effect of step by step, one reaches his place faster as any vehicle could provide it.

Start be simply train your body posture, putting your steps straight | not / or \ one after another, not bending more than the head, not walking like a duck or a rooster. Don't swing your arms, don't twist the body while walking. One movement consciously after the other. Simply that training will be maybe very hard for a good time, but give one real good results.

Direct relations are found also in your parallel questions in this answer

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


It is the start of Abhisanda Sutta (AN) 8:39:

  "Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?

  "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life.  In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning taking what is not given (stealing), the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning lying, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from lying. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

  "Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. […]

These are the "five precepts" or pañca-sikkhāpada. They are frequently stated in English as:

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

Which you can see along with the Eight Precepts at The Five Precepts


According to Buddhism, what separates humans from animals?

According to Buddhism there 31 planes of existance out of one which is the animal kingdom.

Your next birth is decided by the last thought moment where you remeber a recent or grave act of Karma which you have performed. So what decides or separates us from animals the Karma which decided our birth.