What would be the motivation for an arahant to perform generous deeds?

"Compassion is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering. Its function resides in not [enduring] others' suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside, and it fails when it produces sorrow." -Visuddhimagga

Compassion is a wholesome quality of the mind. It's not eliminated when one attains enlightenment. So when an Arahath's mind focuses on the suffering of a being, compassion arises naturally.

Craving is what is eleminated when one attains enlightenment. Craving is of 3 kinds.

Desire for sensual pleasure
Desire for becoming
Desire for non-becoming


How is re-linking consciousness reconciled with MN 38?

So, how does the Abhidhamma reconcile the concept of re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) with MN 38 above?

It doesn't have to because Abh. and MN 38 talked about different consciousnesses. "Consciousness" is a very broad term and require specific context for a specific meaning. And this is why the Buddha specifically asked Ven. Sati: "What is that consciousness?" in which he replied: "Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”, ie. the senses consciousness (one that which is experienced in conjunction with the six sense media). It'd be interesting had Ven. Sati mentioned the rebirth-linking consciousness or the consciousness without feature (Viññanam anidassanam, DN11, MN49). Kinda similar to the situation with modern science where the kind of "matter" as we know only takes up 4.6% of what's out there in the universe, while the remaining 95.4% are composed of "dark matter", 23%; and dark energy, 72%. And they're dark not because they're "dark", but because we still have no clue of what they are. Another point worth noticing in MN 38 was that the Buddha didn't have issue with the "continuity" of consciousness, instead He had an issue with the "sameness" of consciousness. Hence the question He asked Ven. Sati: "Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”.


The common stock phrase the Buddha used to describe rebirth process in many suttas:

  "...because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, s/he reappears in a happy/unhappy destination..

A brain-dead person is not dead yet. When the body is officially dead, there'd be the full departure of 3 things: vitality, body heat, and consciousness (MN 43).
So, does this person gets reborn? No, since s/he's not dead yet. What if medicine brings him back to life? That'd be great. What if this person would be left in this condition forever by keeping that person alive with medical resources? S/he is still who s/he is, but just like taking a long deep sleep..


Everything is not-self including Nibbana. But Nibbana is much more than that. It is the end of suffering.


What is the meaning of 'awareness of the flow'?

When I read your question I actually think you gave a perfect answer, i.e. "...the continuous flow of arising and passing away of all conditioned things...".

I'm not too familiar with Stephen Levine or his book but it sounds like he is teaching about exactly this quality of conditioned phenomena. What is this quality?

Conditioned phenomena is also called compounded phenomena, meaning that they consists of other phenomena that again consists of other phenomena. In other words, we are here dealing with phenomena based on causality.

In Buddhism we have a Dhamma called the Three Characteristics of Existence, which are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability. These characterize conditioned phenomena. In regard to the question, especially impermanence and uncontrollability is important here.

Impermanence shows that phenomena arise and cease. They come and go according to their respective causes and conditions. Uncontrollability shows that there is no stability or control to be found anywhere. One cannot exercise control over this flow. Mahasi Sayadaw calls it therefore oppressive and terrible. Oppressive is the incessant arising and ceasing of conditioned phenomena.

It sounds very much as what Stephen Levine is teaching about and what you yourself are describing. Now, the Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but that one should not be fooled thereby. In this regard, it means that all these different words (concepts) really just mean the same thing. Its just different ways of teaching it.

If we really want to understand what flow is then the practice of insight meditation should be undertaken. Intellectual knowledge only goes so far. With wisdom gained from insight meditation one will be able to see conditioned reality with ones own eyes.

In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) the Buddha taught about 7 taints that should be overcome and with what method they should be overcome. The first taint should be overcome by seeing, i.e. The Four Noble Truths should be seen with ones own eyes. The truth about Samsara should be seen with ones own eyes, in here lies the incessant arising and ceasing of phenomena.

  By gently letting go of everything—not through force, not by slaying it, but simply seeing all the content as passing show, as process and flow—we become the whole of our experience and open to our natural understanding.

It might mean that when staying in the present moment and not letting the mind straying into past or future even for one moment, Wisdom (natural understanding) will arise.

  We can observe [with our practice] what anger feels like, what joy feels like, what separation from the flow feels like, what fear or worry feels like.

Separation from the flow, meaning that when the mind has wandered off into past or future one disconnects from ultimate reality and instead ventures into conceptual reality.

What joy, fear or anger feels like, means to know the quality of that object when it arises, as it exists and when it disintegrates. To thoroughly contemplate the objects qualities and distinctive marks.

  [Hindrances] distract us from an even-minded awareness of the flow.

When hindrances are present one cannot clearly see reality as it has been plastered over with many different colors of dye (example given by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi).


What happens when you observe the lying position (not focused but more in a relaxed way, as Lanka describes) instead of rising/falling?
Addition:
I thought about it a bit.
What came to mind is that due to vipassana your awareness increases. Which means that it's possible that you can become more aware of all sorts of conditions. For instance: temperature. What I find myself is that when I'm more aware of let's say temperature I can't sleep like when I'm not. My sleep is more disturbed too due to this (as an example).
But sleep is not always disturbed when practising vipassana before sleep. It depends also on the meditation object. You could try to switch to a different object.
Also, you could do metta instead of vipassana right before sleep.
It supposedly brings better sleep.

Eleven benefits to practicing Metta (loving kindness meditation:

You will sleep easily
You will wake easily
You will have pleasant dreams
People will love you
Devas (gods or angels) and animals will love you
Devas will protect you
External dangers, such as poisons, weapons, and fire, will not harm you
Your face will be radiant
Your mind will be serene
You will die unconfused
You will be re-born in happy realms

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=11_benefits_to_practicing_Metta
http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/facets_of_metta.php


Where does the Buddha mention a craving for non-existence?

The Buddha mentions the 'craving' in his first sermon, which is/was the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, in which he describes the 'four noble truths'.

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

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

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

See also Vibhava-tanha (craving not to be).
Note that this commentary equates that with what's called annihilation-ism, a.k.a. materialism (ucchedavaada):

99 Kāma-taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to pleasures of the senses. Bhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to continued existence, either the current sensual existence or a better and higher existence in the rūpa (fine material) or arūpa (non-material) brahmā realms, or becoming attached to the rūpa and arūpa jhānas. Vibhava- taṇhā is hankering after and becoming attached to the idea that there is no kamma for rebirth, and hence no future existence.

Wikipedia says,

Pali discourses that use this three-fold typology include DN 15, DN 22, MN 44, SN 22.22, SN 22.103, SN 22.104, SN 22.105, SN 38.10, SN 39.10, SN 45.170, SN 56.11, SN 56.13 and SN 56.14.

For example, DN 15 says e.g.,

[...] craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming [...]

... and the same in MN 44 and SN 22.22, etc.


Why is the Heart Sutra so important in Mahayana Buddhism?

Maybe because Clinging/Upadana is such a powerful destructive force even advanced practitioners still have a tough time dealing with. So the non-clinging theme reflected thru insight into Emptiness/Sunyata throughout the sutra would be a great way to remind us about it. That's why in many Mahayana temples, this sutra is usually recited at the end of any session, after other sutras have been recited, sort of a reminder to the practitioner of the Clinging elephant in the room. Anyway, don't worry too much about why it's the most popular or most important. It's a pretty common stock phrase in Mahayana to say this or that sutra is the most popular or most important. You'll see the same thing being said in the Lotus Sutra, the Amitabha Sutras series, etc. Afterall the spirit of the sutra doesn't seems to deviate from the Buddha's teaching about the 3 characteristics inherent in all conditioned dhammas: impermanence/anicca, unsatisfactory/dukkha, and non-self/anatta. And the sutra simply reminds us that it indeed holds true for all "conditioned dhammas", including the Five Aggregates, the Twelve Ayatanas, the Eighteen Dhatus, the Twelve Nidanas, and even the Four Noble Truths!


Were different parts of the Pali Canon intended for different audiences?

Each Sutta was intended for a specific audience to address a specific issue. This is one of the reasons why there was a need for an Abhidhamma that consolidated the messages from all of the Suttas into a overarching framework.

You are absolutely correct that each Nikāya has a different "character". The Dīgha Nikāya tends to include a lot of mythological material and complex arguments. The Majjhima Nikāya tends to include clear explanations of fundamental doctrines. Because of these differences, the different Nikāya appeal to different people for different reasons.

I think that it is important to view the Sutta Piṭaka as collections that evolved over hundreds of years. There was no "master compiler" who said, "Okay, let's put that here for this reason...".

Recent scholarship has compared the Pāḷi Suttas with the Sutras from other schools. Schools started to diverge about 100 years after the Buddha's parinibbāna. In general, the core messages contained in the Suttas and the core messages contained in the Sutras are almost the same, suggesting that the core messages predate the split. Some of the details contained in the Suttas and the details contained in the Sutras are different, suggesting that some of the details were added / deleted / changed after the split. In many cases, the organization of the Suttas is different from the organization of the Sutras, suggesting that the final compilation into Nikāya / Āgama was not determined until after the split.

BTW, the Abhidhamma and the Abhidharma are quite different, suggesting that these were not "fully baked" at the time of the split.

So getting back to your main question... I do not believe that the different "character" of each Nikāya was by grand design, it was more "evolution" rather than "creationism" :-)

Actually, the Suttas (MN 22) mention nine ways of presenting the Dhamma:

  dialogues (sutta), narratives of mixed prose and verse (geyya), explanations (veyyakaraṇa), verses (gāthā), spontaneous exclamations (udāna), quotations (itivuttaka), birth stories (jātaka), amazing events (abbhutadhamma), question & answer sessions (vedalla)

Looking at this list, it appears to be grouped according to style of presentation rather than by intended audience. Some of these (udāna, itivuttaka and jātaka) ended up being separate texts in the Khuddaka Nikāya.


Self-Worth and Engaging in Detrimental Behaviour

The origin of detrimental behavior is the "self" itself. Because self is ultimately an illusion and doesn't exists, and people's belief and identification to self makes them trapped in the cycle of suffering. The "self" can never feel worthy, because it is an illusion and an illusion is always incomplete and insecure. That's why the people who have deep narcissistic personality disorder always need to cause trouble for themselves and others because their identity is always based on the "self", which means their identity is always based on an illusion. Also the identification of the self always makes people have lack of awareness and most of the people are acting their conditioning from their birth to death. So most people literally don't know what they are doing and they are completely under control of the thoughts, emotions and feelings.

The only way to become free from this never-ending cycle is to become free from the self itself. Trying to build a self esteem can temporarily work but it would collapse sooner or later because a sand castle can't live that long. A person who becomes free from the belief of the self and completely becomes free from the identification from it would have great peace and contentment and would not identified with the thoughts, emotions and feelings again so it would be impossible for him/her to act as an ordinary egotistical person again.

That being said, denying the identification with the self is not beneficial either because until a person completely becomes free from identification with the self-which happens in the once-returner stage-the identification with the self would continue for a person. So even that the self is ultimately an illusion, the nature of being a human is being identified to this illusion. That's why Buddhism gives the humanity the roadmap to become free from this illusion. And the core of this roadmap is mindfulness and staying away from the unwholesome actions.


Compassion to friends: stepping in vs. letting them learn on their own

The truth about the Buddha, as far as I can see, was that he was disinclined to do much of anything after his enlightenment:

  'With great pains have I acquired it. Enough! why should I now proclaim it?
  This doctrine will not be easy to understand to beings that are lost in lust and hatred.
  'Given to lust, surrounded with thick darkness, they will not see what is repugnant (to their minds),
  abstruse, profound, difficult to perceive, and subtle.'

  -- Mv. 1.5 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Of course, we see a complete reversal of intention after the Buddha was first asked to teach and he looked and saw "beings whose mental eyes were darkened by scarcely any dust, and beings whose eyes were covered by much dust, beings sharp of sense and blunt of sense, of good disposition and of bad disposition, easy to instruct and difficult to instruct, some of them seeing the dangers of future life and of sin." (Ibid)

  'Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear;
  let them send forth faith to meet it.
  The Dhamma sweet and good I spake not, Brahmâ,
  despairing of the weary task, to men.'

  -- Ibid

But the point remains that his whole life of teaching depended upon being asked to teach. The first question you have to ask yourself is, "why help someone else at all?"

Some of the things you have to keep in mind when answering are:

Will I actually be able to help this person, given I'm not a fully enlightened Buddha?
Will they accept my help or will they reject it?
Will helping this person distract me from my own practice or will it help make me a better person?

What you shouldn't do is let your partiality for this person lead you to spend more energy on them than is appropriate; if the same amount of energy could obtain greater results elsewhere, it stands to reason that you work for the greatest gain possible.

Compassion means an attitude of non-harming; it fails when it becomes a desire to free others from suffering, because that is a type of craving that leads to suffering when it is unable to obtain its desire. This means that true compassion requires the person to approach you in some way - approaching them to probe into their personal life or nagging them about seeking help is not compassion.

  Compassion  is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering.
  Its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by
  suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside and it fails when it produces
  sorrow.

  -- Vism IX.94 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Of course, simply crying in your presence or making a fool of themselves would be enough to elicit an appropriate response, since it would be cruelty to repress the intention to comfort others or warn them of their bad behaviour, etc.

In most cases, your friendship with the person will put you in a position to nudge them in the right direction as a simple matter of course. What you don't want to do is want to help them, since that will have negative consequences, most likely for the both of you. In the end, we are all responsible for our own fate; this is what sets Buddhism apart from theistic religions, that we have to save ourselves.

  Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great.
  Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

  -- Dhp. 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Still, you should not underestimate your influence on others, nor should you dismiss the power of small acts of goodness.

  Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

  -- Dhp. 122 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Simply being mindful and conscientious around other people can have a profound impact on them over the long term, if you are patient and truly compassionate with them.


What's the difference between a "primordial consciousness" and a soul?

"Luminous mind" in pali is pabhassara citta.

There will always be a problem when we start translating: citta, sometimes as consciousness, sometimes as mind; and there is another word in pali, vinnana, which is sometimes translated as mind, discriminating mind etc.

In my understanding of pali translation, translation of the use of a pali word is dependent on context, precedence and a whole host of other things.

There are opinions that to translate the cannon, understanding its context, the translator would have to have some experience of Buddhist meditation to get its flavour. If we say that is so, then how do we know that the translator is not incorporating his experience, basic or advance into his translation? If it is necessary and desirable then an advanced practitioner's translation would be much preferred, than to one who has no experience at all (if it is even possible to translate without any Buddhist meditative experience). We are after all talking about practice and experience.

Putting the problem of translation aside I'm going to decipher, IMHO, my understanding and translation of citta, vinnana and phabassara citta.

First I would quickly translate vinnana as mind or discriminating mind, and put that aside or away as not concerned with citta, which is translated as consciousness and phabassara citta, which would be luminous consciousness.

As we all know from our Abhidhamma there is only ONE consciousness (citta) and because of the many different mental contents (cetasikas) that arise with it we get different flavours of citta ( 89 flavours) etc...

Now what is this ONE citta?
And what is this arising and ceasing of the different flavours of citta, if it is not this one citta?
What does it mean for the citta to cease: does it mean to disappear into nothingness or disappear into something?

If it is nothingness, where does what makes up the citta and mental contents (call it energies, tendencies or whatever) goes and how does it arise again from its cessation? If its further arising is due to tendencies, where are these tendencies stored when the citta disappear?
If it is something, it must only be citta as there is nothing else that is other than citta.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that the citta disappears into nothingness and then arises again from nothingness almost intact with its kammic tendencies untouched.

What other traditions have explained (including the Thai forest Theravadin tradition, through the experiences of accomplished meditation masters like Ajahn mun) is that, that one citta that we have been talking about is the phabassara citta, "luminious consciousness/mind(loosely)" or primordial mind, clear light mind, buddha nature, bodhicitta, etc..

That the arising and ceasing of consciousness is "apparent". These flavours of consciousness arises and ceases within the "primodial consciousness" which is as yet, unseen, and seemed like nothingness. That is where avijja lies, where all the kammic tendencies are stored, the primordial consciousness.

How do we know it is there when it seemed like nothingness?

In a yet unenlightened being it is just "awareness". When the mind is empty it has this basic quality of "awareness and knowing" in an advanced practitioner and "awareness and knowing" has no shape or form?

In the end when we truly see it, it can be described as "consciousness without surface".

I've not found any description of soul that matches what I've said, so I'll pass it.

EDITS:  (I've added further explanations in my comments with @Sankha below)

  With a primordial consciousness, pabhassara citta ( which can be compared to an ocean with its waves), which is "stained" with kamma craving energies, creating the waves of these "apparent" arising and ceasing of the kusala/akusala/kiriya cittas, we continue to have the arising of the cuti (death) citta followed by the patisandhi (re-birth linking) cita.

At the end when craving is ended there is only the kiriya cittas waves in an Arahant's mind. When the last wave of the cuti citta ceased into the primordial consciousness, this primordial consciousness purified is the only permanent pure awareness, the nibanna without remainder, unestablished.

There is nothing that I've said that is not in accord with the Abhidhamma with only the addition that other traditions have added, that the ceasing is not into nothingness but into a primordial consciousness. What is the primordial consciousness in different traditions? Is it permanent?


Are the thirty-one planes of existence real places or just metaphors?

Here's my personal interpretation.
A belief in hell, devas, and rebirth preceded (existed before) Buddhism and the Buddha. So when the Buddha was born, lived, and taught, people (non-Buddhists) already had a belief in hell, devas, rebirth, etc.
According to the page you referenced (see also Wikipedia's Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there isn't any one source e.g. a single sutta which identifies the 31 planes ... instead commentators have collected the 31 planes from several sources.
For example one of the suttas, which mentions the arupa-loka, is the Saleyyaka Sutta (MN 41). This starts as follows:

The brahman householders of Sala went to the Blessed One; etc.

When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"

In other words, the brahman householders open the discussion by asking, "Why are some people reborn in hell and some in heaven?"
Note that the question assumes/presumes the existence of heaven and hell.
In reply, the Buddha teaches them Dhamma: he defines or gives examples of good and bad bodily conduct, verbal conduct, mental conduct.
Incidentally, the sutta's message ends by saying that "deliverance here and now" is also possible (and is implicitly better than a heavenly rebirth):

"If a householder who observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct, should wish: 'Oh, that by realization myself with direct knowledge, I may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints!' it is possible that, by realization himself with direct knowledge, he may here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of the heart and the deliverance by wisdom that are taint-free with exhaustion of taints. Why is that? Because he observes conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, righteous conduct."

My personal opinion is that the purpose or intent of this sutta, is not to teach us about the various kinds of Gods (though it does list various kinds), rather it is to teach examples of good and bad conduct, and teach that each person's future (destination) depends on their conduct. Whether or not that's really the "sutta's intent", that's what I get out of it when I read it using my personal set of biases.
I see it as being similar to verse 393 of the Dhammapada, i.e. the Buddha uses the existing belief and vocubulary (e.g. the word "brahmin"), he redefines those words, and he reuses their language and belief-system to speak to people (who have pre-existing beliefs).
In other words I think that people of his day believed in rebirth, heaven, and hell, and he used that as a "hook" to tell them about good conduct, e.g. to say that their destination depended on their own behaviour.
I think you can see other examples where the Buddha selects his message to match the audience. When talking to a lay audience, for example, he talked about the six directions; when talking to monks, he talked about renunciation -- different messages to suit different audiences.

I think that a belief in or a doctrine of rebirth is tightly integrated into the Pali canon, for example a literal interpretation of the Four stages of enlightenment including "once-returner" and "non-returner" presume rebirth and rebirth in heaven.
IMO trying to remove a belief in "planes of existence" from Theravada might be like trying to remove a belief in "heaven" from Christianity i.e. it's not easy or a natural way to interpret the scripture.

One way to answer this is to say that, inline with the reasoning I gave in this answer, it might be useful to behave as if the realms exist, i.e. behave as if our conduct has future consequence.

Also, so far as I know, an orthodox answer from a Theravadin (i.e. a type of answer that I have seen from other users on this site) might be that you should practice to perfect yourself and your spiritual abilities until you can know/see the truth for yourself.


What "religions" did previous Buddhas practice?

According to tradition, as in the Nagara Sutta, Buddhas all discover the path to enlightenment and teach that same path to their followers:

  "It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to
  see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the
  king or the king's minister, saying, 'Sire, you should know that while
  traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path... I followed
  it... I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital... complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!'
  The king or king's minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later
  date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully
  grown & prosperous.

  "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by
  the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that
  ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened
  Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view,
  right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient
  path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of
  former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct
  knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of
  aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death,
  direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging &
  death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge
  of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact...
  the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge
  of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation
  of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the
  cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

  "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct
  knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the
  cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the
  cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it
  to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that
  this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated,
  wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."

So, all Buddhas essentially practice and preach the same religion.


Helping Others Who Still Need to Suffer due to karma

Karma is not meant as a punishment or retribution or debt to be paid which you are not to interfere with. It is complicated with many interactions. The environment has to fall into place for its results to be seen.

If the environment can influence the effects of Karma, it can be eradicated or changed in some cases. Since Karma is complex you you cannot say for sure.

By helping others your can help lighten the burden of their Karma and in some cases counteract the bad Karma altogether.

Also this is the good Karma for the person doing it.


I have done some research online and read articles about zen sickness.

There are a couple of problems when doing research, online, on an ailment which, can be "bearing" on enlightenment, because there are lots of  "me too is having this ailment", in other words "I too, am close to being enlightened"; And suddenly, zen sickness symptoms multiplied: psychological depersonalisation, etc.. are linked to zen sickness and the definition of zen sickness becomes vague and fuzzy.

Even when I confine my readings to only very few recorded accomplished zen/chan masters, who actually do intensive meditations, their descriptions of zen sickness differ, and that is perhaps due to incorrect attribution ( the "me too" phenomena) of an experience to zen sickness. (I decided, eventually, not to provide links because it would create more confusion/debate on it, so don't take my word on it).

The zen sickness of Master Han Shan, IMHO, seems to be a genuine description, but I don't agree to some of the discussion, especially the last but one paragraph which begins with:

  The situation of Zen sickness is not something you should desire, and certainly not something you want to force into occurring. Since it is a trouble or affliction, you want to avoid it if you can, but the important thing is that there is a remedy if it occurs. Think of it in terms of ....

It is not something you can force or get into easily unless you want to reprogram your own mind, but that's my view.

Theravada Tradition

From my reading and analysis it would correspond to an Anagami in the Theravada tradition working towards Arahatship, where at that stage the most prominent problem is restlessness.

IMHO, at the path stage of an Anagami it has seen emptiness clearly and enjoys the bliss of holding onto emptiness. To get to the fruit of Anagami it has to let go of that hold on emptiness. Once it has decided to let go of emptiness the bliss, vanished. The bliss makes the mind concentrated, I quote "the purpose of bliss is concentration"(.. in some sutta).

With the letting go of emptiness & bliss the mind will just grab at any thought,tune,occupations to concentrate the mind, because if it didn't, the restlessness of the mind is unbearable( we are here talking about a very sensitive fine mind; restlessness is one of the last five fetters ).

Why then can not an Anagami phala(phala sounds better than fruit, which reminds me of fruitcake) go back to holding onto emptiness again and get the bliss back? The answer is that it can't, but I won't go into that.

In Theravada we would call it restlessness rather than a (zen) sickness. In the articles on zen sickness I've read, the recommendation is lots of sleep, or get drowsy with alcohol, if permitted, and then get to sleep. But if restlessness is, like I say, unbearable sleep is not an option.

The answer is learning how to abide in emptiness after letting go of emptiness. How to do that is another topic.

The deep state of samadhi in which Master Han Shan was in for 5 days is, in the Theravada tradition equivalent to sanna-vedayita nirodha ( ceassation of perception and feeling) in which when one awakes, enlightenment is gain (but there are controversies, some say back to Anagami phala if it wasn't attained), I haven't a clue!

So it's a bit of way to go before you encounter it and when you encounter it just learn to abide in emptiness, then the restlessness will not go away but lessen. But if you practice jhannas the mind will lead you into sanna-vedayita nirodha for 7 days, like Master Han Shan. The you can tell us about it!


Dependent origination arising of feeling

"From phassa as a condition, vedanā arises. With the absense of phassa, vedanā does not come to be" (paraphrasing).

The above is not quite a description of a detailed cognitive chronological process for the arising of a specific pleasant/unpleasant feeling. It declares on what basis something (eg. vedanā; any vedanā) comes to be, and on what basis something does not.

It's also strange to see it as "two people experiencing the same contact", which may also lead one to think that two people experienced the same experience (which they never do).

A summary of a not-quite chronological cognitive process is described in the suttas as originating in phassa (from external sense base, internal sense base and corresponding viññāṇa) going through sañña and vedanā. A detailed analysis is elaborated in abhidhamma (image from Abhidhammatha Sangaha):


What gets tired or feels hungry? Experiment

In the mind and body at the level of experiencing things moment by moment there is feeling and tiredness but nothing feels hungry or gets tired that can be experienced directly.


Arahants, Precepts, Monasticism, & Worldly Things

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants[-To-Be] can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?

The earliest scriptures depict a 'hearer' (such as Kondanna or Upatissa/Sariputta) attaining stream-entry and soon after attaining Arahantship.

The one or two suttas (such as AN 3.87) that more strongly infer a stream-enterer has at most seven more lifetimes appear to be illogical; given they infer a "same self", which is contrary to the stream-enterers destruction of "sakkaya ditthi" ("view of real self"). For me, these suttas appear to be later Abhidhamma, inputed into the suttas.

The most well-known sutta about stream-entry, namely, SN 13.1, is often falsely translated as including the phrase "seven more lifetimes at most" but the Pali actually does not include the words "lifetimes". SN 13.1 appears to say a stream-enterer has "seven more fetters at most to breakthrough".

Also, the phrase below about Non-Returners might also be questionable in its translations and interpretations. For example, two different translations and interpretations below:

  Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṃ bhikkhusaṃghe pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—

  In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.

  vs

  Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are spontaneously arisen,7 who will realize perfect coolness in that existence and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.

  7. Oppatika, born instantly and fully mature without going through the process of  conception, gestation, infancy, and childhood-that is, instantaneous mental birth (not necessarily "re-birth").

Also the suttas (eg. MN 123) about the Bodhisatta coming to earth from heaven seem mythological because in these suttas the Baby Bodhisatta walks and talks about 'himself' from childbirth, which is contrary to suttas such as MN 64, which say a new born child has no conceptions of self.

  Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?

If there is an explicit understanding in the family these items are to be used for the whole family then it does not break the precept. But, yes, if you take your brother's things without permission, it is a breach of the precept. The precept is for the purpose of developing respect for the property & feelings of others.

  How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?

Many of the Vinaya rules are about monks avoiding giving bad impressions to laypeople. Without knowing the specific rules exactly, in my opinion, there is a breach of the Vinaya because the videos looks like the monk & nun are together in a private place. Also, their posture & dress looks sloppy & undisciplined. Undisciplined looking monks & nuns will only attract similar undisciplined people to Buddhism, which is pointless when these converts cannot practise Buddhism due to their sexual obsessions and lack of sexual boundaries. Keep in mind sexual desire is the 1st hindrance to entering the Noble Path.

  How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Lay people offer them. If lay people don't understand, I imagine the monk explains. For example, if a monk is on alms round in a non-Buddhist country, people, out of curiosity, will ask the monk: "What are you? What are you doing?". I imagine the monk would reply: "I am a Buddhist monk. I have vows of not using money. I go on alms round to collect food to feed myself for my spiritual practise. I place my trust & faith in the goodness of people to offer me food. In return, I teach them Dhamma, if they ask".

This famously happened to Ajahn Sumedho in England, who was offered land for a monastery by a non-Buddhist stranger. Read below:

  In the spring of 1978, one of those small miracles happened that stop the mind's rational expectations. Keeping to the apparently pointless routine of going out for alms every day, as prescribed by Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho encountered a lone jogger on Hampstead Heath whose attention was arrested by the bhikkhus' appearance. This jogger had acquired an overgrown forest in West Sussex called Hammer Wood, out of the wish to restore it to its former glory – but he also understood that this was work for more than one man and one lifetime. Although not a Buddhist, he had the openness of mind to appreciate that an order of forest monks might be the perfect wardens for his woodland. Subsequently, he attended one of the ten-day meditation retreats that Ajahn Sumedho held at the Oaken Holt Buddhist Centre near Oxford, and later made an outright gift of the forest to the Sangha. This marvellous act of generosity...

  How The Buddha Came to Sussex


Visions of Hell Realm in Contemplation- What does it mean

Some relevant advice here (from Awareness Itself -- Visions & Signs) by Ajaan Fuang:

  § "Don't have anything to do with the past or the future. Just stay
  with the present — that's enough. And even though that's where you're
  supposed to stay, you're not supposed to latch onto it. So why do
  think you should latch on to things where you're not even supposed to
  stay?"

  § "You know that you shouldn't believe even your own visions, so why
  go believing the visions of others?"

  § "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."

  § One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"

  His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."

  § "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."


When is it love?
There's Buddhist doctrine about the brahmaviharas which are three different kinds of love ...

I hope you're well
I don't want to hurt you
I rejoice in your virtue/success

... plus equanimity as the fourth.
If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that
In the old days before "no-fault divorce" people (in Anglophone countries) used to sue each other for adultery: and the alleged "damage" used to include Alienation of affections.
I think the theory was that if your partner was adulterous then you'd be receiving less affection from them -- an affection which should have been, as their spouse, rightfully yours.
And I think that contradicts your premise, i.e.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return.

I think another Buddhist theme is that, you do things because they (actions/intentions) are morally right or virtuous. Conversely you don't do things just because you feel like it (e.g. presumably shouldn't hurt people if or because you feel angry).
Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only yours to have?
I guess that -- expecting behaviour -- might work if you can form a contract, have a meeting of minds, with a sane and reliable partner.
Conversely some people (sometimes children) don't like conforming to other people's expectations.
With such a one, unreliable, a possible winning strategy might be (I don't know if this is applicable to you, feasible, or Buddhist -- but based on experience) if they ask e.g., "What do you expect me to do here?", reply, "I don't expect you to do anything. You can do..."
Then provide a safe environment, where they can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.
I think that behaviour/misbehaviour is partly conditioned/dependent -- if somebody is seeking some liberation then perhaps it's wise to ensure their environment is moral, safe, sane, unoppressive and with opportunities for them to be or to become good friends themselves.
Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?
I think so if you're semi-enlightened.
You suggested already that you can have children without their causing your suffering.
If I know children, they'll transgress in various ways, large or small -- and you're probably supposed to interact with them and correct their behaviour -- maybe without stopping-loving them though.
There's some doctrine here about choosing a spouse or partner, for what that's worth -- preferably one who is equal.
I think that a or the key to "not suffering" is to behave ethically. There's a sutta Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) which begins ...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
"Joy has etc.

I equate that "freedom from remorse" with non-suffering -- "I do not regret it".
See for example Sīlānussati
In context I think that an example of sīlānussati might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) where the buddha seems to be happy.
In my experience that happiness might be in retrospect, i.e. good behaviour now leads to "joy" later.
See also What is the basis?


What is the concept of "Ego" or "self "?

The Buddhist concept is not no self but non self or not self. What this means is there nothing that can be taken as self. There is no permanent unchanging core or soul, there is nothing which you command and control absolutely, there is nothing that an external agency (e.g. God) commands and controls.

Identity view is considering your 5 Aggregates as self, i.e., you consider your body and / or mind as self. In which case if you consider after cutting your hair that this hair is me or a part of me on the floor. The toilet pit is full of me because it was in me at some point. Likewise you should not consider past memories, experiences, thoughts or even your own body as me or mine, because there is no me or mine in the constituting parts, there is no control in any of the parts, each constituent is governed by its own universal law and process which you cannot control.


Does everything that happens to me happens because of me?

Surrounded by deceit and scams, probably the most important thing to consider first is our own conduct:

  MN8:12.32: ‘Others will be deceitful, but here we will not be deceitful.’

With right view about our conduct we can then seek out others with equal views about conduct. In this way our choices lead us upwards, away from deceit, away from scams, away from people who would tempt us with scams.

  SN45.3:1.3: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.”

To lead a life without regret and remorse, embrace ethics and become a good friend who rejoices in other good friends. With Right View, step onto the Noble Eightfold Path practicing ethics, wisdom and immersion.


Theravada Buddhist answer.

  Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?

It is not.

Consciousness (Citta) exists only as a taker of objects. If one has to characterize it as anything, it is rather a "knowing, cognizing or processing" of an object and not a real thing.

Here is a quote (my highlights) on the nature of Consciousness from the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  "Consciousness: The first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha
  is devoted to an examination of citta, consciousness or mind, the first of the four ultimate realities. Consciousness is taken up for study first because the focus of the Buddhist analysis of reality is experience, and consciousness is the principal element in experience, that which constitutes the knowing or awareness of an object.

  The Pali word citta is derived from the verbal root citi, to cognize, to know. The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam).

  The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition".

  -- Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 1: Compendium of Consciousness, Guide to §3, p. 27.


Firstly, what are the 10 directions:

  "Specifically, the ten directions are the eight directions of the
  compass—north, south, east, west, northwest, northeast, southeast, and
  southwest—plus up and down."

ref: http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=2245

Second, sutras that attempt to list and describe the 10 buddhas.
http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/buddha/10directions.htm

The traditional cosmology imagined that there could only be one Buddha in the world at a time. By imagining more universes, there could be more than one Buddha.

I think the particular phrase is one of the rhetorical flourishes you see a lot of in Mahayana-- it's a nice way to say all the Buddha's, everywhere.  The various names of the realms and 10 Buddhas mentioned in the Dasabhumika (realms like "Without Distress" or "Skillfulness") and Buddha's name "Virtue of Goodness" and "Practicing the 3 vehicles" are reminders of what the goals of Buddhism are and what is worth emulating.


Meditation and 'not trying to change anything'

'Not trying to change anything' is a modern idea and is not what is taught in the original Buddhist teachings.
In the original teachings, there are four right efforts, namely: (i) effort to prevent unwholesome states of mind; (ii) effort to dispel unwholesome states of mind; (iii) effort to cultivate wholesome states of mind; and (iv) effort to maintain & increase wholesome states of mind.
'Refreshing' calmness/tranquility ('samatha') is considered a wholesome state of mind that is preferably developed. To cultivate calmness requires a keen/observant yet very gentle effort to keep the mind clear & equanimous.

For him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path...the
four right efforts... go to the culmination of their development.
[And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity
(samatha) & insight (vipassana).
MN 149


Do flying monks described in Buddhist texts contradict with physics?

One of the main pieces of advice in the Buddha Dhamma is verification by trying it yourself (Ehipassiko) and to be open to scientific scrutiny (Sandiṭṭhiko). Hence you can develop the Jhanas and see for your self if this is possible or not. Self-verification and experience is more convincing than people arguing in-favor or against something like this.
Having said this, there is much research in these areas under Parapsychology though this might be view as pseudoscience.


Piya Tan says, though I'm not sure this is clear,

“Old karma”
here refers to the six senses. The theme of “old karma” (purana,kamma) is applied to the body (synonymous with the six senses) in the (Kaya) Na Tumha Sutta (S 12.37/2:64 f), where the Anguttara Commentary explains that the body is not “old karma” but because it arises from old karma, it is referred to in
terms of its conditions. It is seen as “put together” (abhisankhata) since it is created by conditions. It is
“thought out” (abhisañcetayita) because it is based on volition (the will), rooted in volition. It is “to be
felt” (vedaniya) because it is basis for what is to be felt [ie the basis and object for feeling] (SA 2:70,
402).

Perhaps the idea is that people are born of (heir to) their kamma.
The summary on this page (I'm not sure who's the author, perhaps Ven Sujato) summarises this sutta as,

The six interior sense fields are not yours, but are old kamma, generated by choices in past lives. This is explained in terms of the four noble truths.


How is this action damaging, what harm have you done?

Actions are 3-fold. They are done by body, speech and mind. All actions originate in the mind (Dhp. verse 1-2).
Unwholesome actions are based in the 3 root defilements, i.e. Greed, Hatred and Delusion. All other defilements are variations of these roots.
When one commits an unwholesome (akusala) action, e.g. tells a lie, then one is stiring up/giving rise to defilements and reacting to them. Defilements are one of the foundations for unwholesome actions.
When commiting unwholesome actions by body, speech and mind, oneself is always the first one to be harmed. That is because one must give rise to defilements and react to them, i.e. act on basis of them, thereby harming oneself and setting oneself back on the path.
One is moving further away from Nibbana, when one commits volitional unwholesome actions.
The Buddha was very clear on the destructive nature of lying, even if a lie is merely told in jest.
This can be seen in the "Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta". In this sutta the Buddha is giving an exhortation to his son Rahula, on how to distinguish between wholesome (kusala) and unwholesome actions.
The following quote is the Buddha's words on the topic of lying:

Thus I have heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary .

Now on that occasion the venerable Rahula was living at Ambalatthika. Then, when it was evening, the Blessed One rose from meditation and went to the venerable Rahula at Ambalatthika. The venerable Rahula saw the Blessed One com- ing in the distance and made a seat ready and set out water for washing the feet. The Blessed One sat down on the seat made ready and washed his feet. The venerable Rahula paid homage to him and sat down at one side.

Then the Blessed One left a little water in the water vessel and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this little water left in the water vessel?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so little, Rahula, is the recluseship of those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie."

Then the Blessed One threw away the little water that was left and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see that little water that was thrown away?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so, Rahula, those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie have thrown away their recluseship."

Then the Blessed One turned the water vessel upside down and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this water vessel turned upside down?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so, Rahula, those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie have turned their recluseship upside down."

Then the Blessed One turned the water vessel right way up again and asked the venerable Rahula: "Rahula, do you see this hollow, empty water vessel?" - "Yes, venerable sir." - "Even so hollow and empty, Rahula, is the recluseship of those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie."

"Suppose, Rahula, there were a royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles, full-grown in stature, high-bred, and accustomed to battle. In battle he would perform his task with his forefeet and his hindfeet, with his forequarters and his hindquarters, with his head and his ears, with his tusks and his tail, yet he would keep back his trunk. Then his rider would think: 'This royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles.. .performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hind- feet... yet he keeps back his trunk. He has not yet given up his life.' But when the royal tusker elephant...performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hindfeet, with his forequarters and his hindquarters, with his head and his ears, with his tusks and his tail, and also with his trunk, then his rider would think: 'This royal tusker elephant with tusks as long as chariot poles... performs his task in battle with his forefeet and his hind- feet... and also with his trunk. He has given up his life. Now there is nothing this royal tusker elephant would not do.

So too, Rahula, when one is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I say, that one would not do. Therefore, Rahula, you should train thus: 'I will not utter a falsehood even as a joke.'

-- MN 61 Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta, p. 523, Bodhi Translation

For further information on this important sutta, there are 2 audio Dhamma talks available.

First one is by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and can be found here.
The other is by Ajahn Brahmali and can be found here.

If you have any questions to what I wrote, let me know.


Well, technically boredom is a form of tanha, craving. We crave for excitement, for fun, for an external source of energy. And according to principle of "this-that conditionality" craving is also a form of aversion -- meaning, when we are bored we have an inner conflict against "this". For some reason we think that "this", "here", "now" is not good enough.

My teacher explained, that every time we feel bored - that's really a signal from our inner mind that we have alienated. It's a reminder that we lost connection or integration. Because we lost connection, we feel something's missing.

From this perspective, every time we feel bored we should stop all activities, pause and look inside. Basically, meditation.

When we get more advanced on this path, we can learn to maintain this connection at all times, and then we don't feel boredom, we never have the sense of dissatisfaction, we learn to live in suchness more or less at all times.


Presumably the "8 requisites" of a monk, i.e. the 8 items that a monk is allowed and needs: 3 robes, an alms bowl, a waistband, a razor, a sewing kit and a water strainer.


What is the word in Pali that is translated as being by some and as becoming by others?

The word is "bhava" and in my understanding it refers to a particular state of individualized existence: "being a living being", "being a human", "being a person". So it's not about just the mathematical fact of existence, it is about your subjective position of identifying with this particular organism and its personal story, its narrative.

So when Buddha says "devas and humans enjoy being", and "Dhamma is taught for the cessation of being" - it does not mean, Dhamma advocates death or annihilation, it advocates transcending identification with an individual living being.

Does not mean Dharma advocates identitying with Universe  either, that's another wrong view. Instead, the right view is to see the unhealthy outcomes of any and all identification and to abandon identification altogether.

P.S.

As @ChrisW noted, bhava is also notably mentioned in the Second Noble truth as classification of tanha (craving) into bhava-taṇhā and vibhava-taṇhā. In that context, again, bhava refers to a particular sate of existence - in this case a state of existence that we crave for: "I want to live in a certain way, I want to be X, I want to be surrounded by Y, I want my life to look like Z". Vibhava then refers to not being in a particular state: "I want to stop being poor, I want to stop being sick, I want to stop being lonely" etc.

In all cases bhava seems to always be connected with an idea of self in a broad sense - self not as subject of experience or agent of actions, but rather as one's state of existence.


Would Siddhartha Gautama have agreed with modern forms of Buddhism?

There is a related statement in SN16.13, where the Buddha warns about the decline of his teachings, the true Dhamma, and the rise of counterfeit Dhamma. But at the end, he also gives some hints as to the way to preserve the true Dhamma:

  "... When beings are in decline, and the true
  Dhamma is waning, then there are more precepts and fewer monks attain
  enlightenment. But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma,
  Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a
  counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true
  Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no
  counterfeit gold has arisen in the world... The earth-element does not
  make the true Dhamma disappear, the water-element... the
  fire-element... the air-element..., But right here men of straw
  appear, and it is they who bring about the disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. A ship, Kassapa, may sink all at once, but it is not thus that
  the true Dhamma disappears. There are five contributory factors,
  Kassapa, which lead to the adulteration and disappearance of the true
  Dhamma. Which five? It is when monks and nuns, male and female
  lay-followers behave disrespectfully and rebelliously towards the
  Teacher,... towards the Dhamma,... towards the Sangha,... towards the
  training,... towards meditation.

  "But when monks and nuns, male and female lay followers behave
  respectfully and deferentially towards the Dhamma,... towards the
  Sangha,... towards the training,... towards meditation, then these
  five things conduce to the maintenance, the purity and the
  preservation of the true Dhamma."

In DN16, the Buddha also commented on the various conditions, if observed, would lead to the growth of the congregation of monks and not its decline. But these are too long to be quoted here. I'll quote only the first set here:

  "The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline,
  bhikkhus, so long as they assemble frequently and in large numbers;
  meet and disperse peacefully and attend to the affairs of the Sangha
  in concord; so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish
  the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training
  (Vinaya) laid down; so long as they show respect, honor, esteem, and
  veneration towards the elder bhikkhus, those of long standing, long
  gone forth, the fathers and leaders of the Sangha, and think it
  worthwhile to listen to them; so long as they do not come under the
  power of the craving that leads to fresh becoming; so long as they
  cherish the forest depths for their dwellings; so long as they
  establish themselves in mindfulness, so that virtuous brethren of the
  Order who have not come yet might do so, and those already come might
  live in peace; so long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to
  welfare endure among the bhikkhus and the bhikkhus are known for it,
  their growth is to be expected, not their decline.

Hence, it is not the size of the modern Sangha or congregation of Buddhists that is the problem, but rather it is whether they really follow the teachings or not.

The book "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. Shravasti Dhammika provides good information on how parts of the Sangha and the Buddhist World today may not be reflecting the original ideals put forward by the Buddha.


How do monks live with medical conditions that require regular meals?

How do they cope with this condition?

By following a doctor's recommendation, presumably.

For arguments sake, we could apply a relativistic approach to the meaning of "coping". Buddhist practice can be and is a valid coping strategy in certain medical conditions, provided that a medical paradigm has ran out of answers (A strictly hypothetical example: certain conditions of chronic pain).

  Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

One way to look at this is that buddhism is about making people function/feel better for the sake of themselves and their surrounding. If a dogmatic adherence to religious principles worsen a persons health, then it can't be considered kusala.

The exempt is likely permanent for as long as health conditions remains permanent. So, if conditions changes, perhaps a new take on buddhist practice could be relevant.


OP: I know that the Buddha didn't answer metaphysical questions since it made no sense to him. He wanted to afaik limit/remove
  suffering as much as possible.

No. The Buddha did not answer metaphysical questions because it confuses and bewilders the questioner.

You are confused now, and it makes you scared and gives you suffering.

The Buddha already predicted that in AN 4.77:

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

This is what you're experiencing now. Confusion caused by thoughts about the metaphysical nature of the world.

  OP: I don't know why but especially these last days I'm drawn to think
  about it even though I know it doesn't help me in any way and even if
  I happen to know everything it won't change anything.

The Buddha did not discuss metaphysics also because it is not useful. That is exactly what you have written here. It won't help you in any way and it won't change anything. It is completely useless.

The Buddha taught in MN 63:

  "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
  poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
  him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
  removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
  warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
  have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
  man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
  short... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
  common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
  arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
  to him.

It is more useful to remove the poisoned arrow i.e. end suffering, rather than think about where the arrow came from, who shot it, what kind of arrow it is etc.

Also, why does metaphysical speculation lead to madness?

It's because it's outside our range of senses (including thought and mind). So, you can never completely understand it.

This too, the Buddha taught in SN 35.23:

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Physics - this is possible to theorize and prove. For e.g. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity can be proven by the perihelion precession of Mercury, deflection of light by stars, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing etc. It is also useful - for e.g. Theory of General Relativity has been used in the application of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, to compensate for time dilation.

But metaphysics? It's impossible.

Then you may ask, why do some other religions or philosophers discuss and debate about metaphysics extensively? The answer for this comes in Udana 6.4 (parable of the blind men and the elephant).

  OP: I somehow get scared of thinking how there
  was (according to science) a big bang and then I wonder what was
  before the big bang or where the space comes from that the universe
  takes up etc.

If you fear something where there is nothing to fear, it means you are holding a false view about something. You need to let it go. As the Buddha has taught in Dhammapada 22:

  Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.

There's nothing to fear about the universe.

  OP: Also another thing I think of is heat death. ...
  if in the ultimate end everything
  will be gone and does that maybe imply that all beings will reach
  paranirvana?

Parinirvana is not the same as non-existence. It is also not the same as existence.

This is discussed in many suttas like SN 44.6, SN 44.8, SN 44.11, SN 22.86, AN 10.95 etc.

The Buddha has never declared whether the Tathagata (Buddha) exists or does not exist after death.

  OP: And just like these questions seem metaphysical and paranormal I feel
  like the idea of rebirth and paranirvana is also somewhat scary to
  think about and is as well somewhat metaphysical.

All the confusion about rebirth and parinirvana and what happens to beings can be answered by SN 22.86:

  "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

  "No, lord."

  "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in
  form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than
  feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In
  fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?...
  Elsewhere than consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
  form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
  feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
  consciousness?"

  "No, lord."

  "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth
  or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare,
  'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man,
  attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described
  otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after
  death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after
  death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

  "No, lord."

  "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only
  suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering."

Also SN 44.6 is useful.

  OP: I wish I could give up all these unnecessary thoughts which cause
  suffering to me.

Yes! You need to give up unnecessary thoughts, for the reasons already explained above.


Is appana samadhi the same as magga/phala?

I cannot answer the first part of the question so i will instead address the other part of the question, i.e.

"I had understood momentary, access, and absorption to be referring to jhana".

The following quote on the 3 different types of concentration is from the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder. They were both students of Pa Auk Sayadaw and undertook a Samatha Meditation Course under his guidance. They write in the book that they achieved the 4 material jhanas and the 4 immaterial jhanas. Here is their description of the different types of concentration and in what practices they appear:

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION
Momentary concentration is the most difficult to understand, because there are two types. The first develops in vipassanā practices in which the object changes frequently. In contrast to samantha practices in which the object is constant, in vipassanā the object is, in a way, changing or “moving.” As such, one could say that the ultimate object of vipassanā meditation is the present moment and what is being perceived in the present moment (hence, the relationship to “momentary” concentration).
Insight-oriented momentary concentration practices are widely used and can be found in meditation such as vipassanā (as it is commonly practiced in North America and Europe) as well as in the Tibetan dzogchen rigpa practice and the Zen shikantaza practice. The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw presents the four elements meditation, which is a momentary concentration practice, as the entry point into the vipassanā practices. We describe this practice in chapter 8. The second type of momentary concentration arises during samatha practice.
The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw sometimes refers to this type of momentary concentration as “preparatory” concentration, because it prepares the meditator for and precedes access concentration (the second type of concentration). In samatha practice, the meditation object is consistent rather than changing. Having a consistent object leads to serenity and purification of mind.
ACCESS CONCENTRATION
Meditators can eventually attain access concentration using either type of momentary concentration practice—samatha or vipassanā. However, samatha practices are more likely to lead to access concentration because of their more stable nature. Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of the jhāna factors. For most people, a period of intensive practice is required to reach access concentration. In access concentration, the meditative experience becomes smoother, easier, and more pleasant because of this lessening of hindrances and the arising of the powerful and blissful sensations of the jhāna factors. This allows meditators to meditate longer and progress more easily in the practice.
It becomes a positive, self-reinforcing loop.It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator’s continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and “bright.”Most of the practices outlined in this book are samatha practices specifically designed to settle the mind and develop laserlike awareness, leading eventually to full absorption into the jhānas. Examples of samatha practices designed to develop access and absorption concentration are ānāpānasati meditation (as presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw), the kasiṇas, thirty-two-body-parts meditation, skeleton meditation, and the bramavihāras (sublime abidings).
As access concentration develops, but prior to full absorption, it is also easy to confuse access with absorption concentration. In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna. (The differences between access and absorption are described below.)Even after a meditator has experienced full jhāna absorption and begins to move through the practice progression, access concentration continues to be used. With progression to each successive jhāna, the meditator first experiences access concentration as the awareness orients to the new experiences and increases in stability.
ABSORPTION CONCENTRATION
The words jhāna and absorption are synonymous. In absorption concentration, awareness is pulled into the jhāna with a “snap.” The beginning meditator cannot “will” the absorption to happen or “make” it happen. Full absorption arises only when the concentration is strong and ripe after many days, weeks, months, or even years of unwavering focus on a specific meditative object. Only later, as a meditator becomes more experienced with full jhāna absorption and more skilled with the progression of jhānas and the five “jhāna masteries,” is it possible to enter a jhāna at will.
The five jhāna masteries are specific attainments that meditators complete in each jhāna, as demonstrations of mastery, before they can progress to the next jhāna. They are described in chapter 5.In absorption, in addition to the strong presence of the appropriate jhāna factors, the awareness is extremely secluded and focused, and ongoing concentration is more easily maintained. Awareness fully penetrates and is suffused by the jhāna factors. The Visuddhimagga highlights the difference between access and absorption concentration using the analogy of walking. Access concentration is like a toddler learning to walk. The child can take a few steps but repeatedly falls down. In contrast, absorption concentration is like an adult who is able to stand and walk for an entire day without falling down.
A modern metaphor would be of a top spinning. In access concentration, the top needs constant attention, wobbles frequently, and falls down. In absorption, the top spins in a centered way on its own.There may be misconceptions about the experience of full absorption in jhāna. First, there is awareness while in jhāna. It is not a zombie state, trance, or period of unconsciousness. However, there is no sense of “me” while in jhāna. The only awareness while in full absorption is of the object. If meditators have awareness of data from the five senses, it is because they are temporarily out of absorption. The five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) do not arise while in absorption jhāna. In addition, there is no thought or decision making while fully absorbed in jhāna.
Beginning meditators who find that they are thinking or noticing input from the sense doors should view this as a slight imperfection of jhāna rather than full jhāna absorption. Meditators can also “pop out” of jhāna unintentionally because concentration wanes and the jhāna factors lessen. It is best not to worry about initial imperfections, which are bound to happen as beginners are developing mastery of the jhānas. As concentration increases, these imperfections wane and stability increases.Awareness in the jhānas is incredibly pristine, purifying, and indescribable. It is distinctly different from access concentration. Because access concentration can be so pleasant and nonordinary, however, people sometimes mistake access concentration for absorption, when it is not. This is one reason why it is important to receive guidance from a qualified teacher who knows the difference between access concentration and absorption concentration.
Absorption concentration is an incredibly powerful tool for purification, refinement of awareness, and access to realms far beyond normal, everyday comprehension. In addition, this intense focus can be an incredibly powerful tool to apply to the vipassanā practice. Meditation powered by the supercharged energy of the jhānas, or even a strong access concentration, can provide a vehicle to insight beyond normal perception that may not be possible with momentary concentration alone.We should note that, because awareness is so refined in full absorption, sensory input that would seem minimal in ordinary consciousness can feel extremely jarring when emerging from jhāna. This experience is intensified further when a meditator has completed weeks or months of deep absorption practice and reenters worldly life.


Can trying to control the mind also lead to attachment?

OP: Simillary, All we are like to gain a calm and pure mind. So we meditate. Isn't it a desire ?

This is the case if you react with attachment and pleasure when the mind calms down and react with aversion and displease when it does not.

In meditating on should not get attached to the outcome. So regardless of your mind gets calm or not one should be equanimous.

But to meditate one needs the "desire to act" which is not desire per se.


Diagnose: Samatha practice led to an urge to contract PC muscle, and pleasant vibrations resulted

DISCLAIMER: It isn't that such phenomenons don't occur during Buddhist meditation, but typically such bodily phenomenons are not emphasized in most Buddhist traditions, and thus Buddhists lack the vocabulary. Tibetan Tantra practice is an exception, but that's because it derives a lot of its vocabulary and practices from tantric yoga. The subtle body is viewed in Buddhism as personified impermanence.

From your description it appears to be a spontaneous Mula Bhandha. Like sneezing or coughing, spontaneous yogic postures are natural bodily occurrences, and are nothing to be wary of. They are triggered by conditions. For example, we sneeze in response to being in a room full of dust, similarly, when there are certain subtle energy manifestations in the body that are in need of correction, the body makes use of such locks or yoga mudras.

Image source: http://sequencewiz.org/2014/09/10/mula-bandha/

Without knowing more details about the quality and nature of vibration you felt, it would be hard to say for sure, but it sounds like Piti / Sukha. The clear mind you mention is likely the mind born of seclusion.

You can read more about Jhana factors by searching the web, but here's a helpful summary. Also see a similar question on this site.

I'd recommend gaining reasonable perfection in either Hatha Yoga meditation, or in Buddhist meditation. Unless you have strong reasons for doing so, dabbling with both at the same time can be unproductive.


The breath patterns you are mentioning (2s-4l-2s breath sequence (s-short, l-long) followed by 2s-2l-2s) is generally found in Yoga / Pranayama than in Theravada Buddhism.

Nevertheless, Anapana Sutta does mention about the long and short breaths. The breath is considered a bodily fabrication and it is tied to the body. (If you stop breathing then you are dead.) In meditation you have to calm your fabrication, out off which the bodily fabrication generally cease before mental fabrications. As you get concentrated your bodily fabrications also slow down hence shorter breaths. When you come out of meditation your breaths become longer as you start creating fabrication. If you start thinking and pondering (verbal fabrications) again your breath becomes longer as these fabrications influence bodily fabrications.

Kamabhu Sutta, Culavedalla Sutta & Rahogata Sutta covers more on the 3 fabrications out of which bodily fabrication is tied with the breath and breathing process.


What is the difference between kilesas and asavas?

Good question.

My view is 'kilesa' is the general or broad term referring the mental impurities or toxins.

Therefore, anusaya (underlying tendencies) are kilesa; asava (outflows) are kilesa; hindrances (nirvarana) are kilesa; and the various forms of tanha (craving), attachment & becoming (bhava) are kilesa.

The most subtle level of kilesa is anusaya (underlying tendencies). When the anusaya flow-out of the substratum of the mind, this flowing-out, leakage or fermentation ('bubbling-up') is called 'asava'. The anusaya flow-out as the five hindrances (nirvarana). If the five hindrances take control of the mind and push the mind to engage in external sense objects - craving, attachment & becoming will arise in relation to those sense objects.

In MN 9, the asava are included within the condition of ignorance in the dependent origination.

  There are these three fermentations (asava): the fermentation of
  sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of
  ignorance. This is called fermentation. From the origination of
  ignorance comes the origination of fermentation. From the origination
  of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html


How is semchen (sentient being) defined?

It depends on the school. Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

  The Diamond Sutra teaches us that it is impossible to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient beings... In Buddhist monasteries, we chant, "Both sentient and non- sentient beings will realize full enlightenment." The First Precept is the practice of protecting all lives, including the lives of minerals.

(Source: http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts/precept-1.html)


Are there any teachings about how we should censure happiness which arises without right view?

The Buddhist tradition arose before the Socratic/stoic tradition and, since Greeks were very interested in Buddhism, it is likely the Socratic/stoic tradition was influenced by the Buddhist tradition. In other words, what is written in the question is essentially Buddhism. The following links are merely a small sample of similar Buddhist teachings:

  Kisa Gotami was the wife of a wealthy man of Savatthi. Her story is one of the more famous ones in Buddhism. After losing her only child,
  Kisa Gotami became desperate and asked if anyone can help her. Her
  sorrow was so great that many thought she had already lost her mind.
  An old man told her to meet Buddha. Buddha told her that before he
  could bring the child back to life, she should find white mustard
  seeds from a family where no one had died. She desperately went from
  house to house, but to her disappointment, she could not find a house
  that had not suffered the death of a family member. Finally the
  realization struck her that there is no house free from mortality. She
  returned to the Buddha, who comforted her and preached to her the
  truth. She was awakened and entered the first stage of Arhatship.
  Eventually, she became an Arhat.

  Kisa Gotami

  210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

  211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or
  unloved.

  Piyavagga

  Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no
  desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying
  out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone,
  my only little child?"

  Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to
  him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady
  in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."

  "Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear &
  beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I
  have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and
  crying out, 'Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you
  gone, my only little child?'

  "That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

  Now at that time a large number of gamblers were playing dice not far from the Blessed One. So the householder went to them and they said:
  "That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
  it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
  from one who is dear."

  So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."

  Piyajatika Sutta

  Then Sakka, ruler of gods, and the divine King Vessavana had the venerable Maha Moggallana walk all over and explore the Vejayanta
  Palace: "See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness of the Vejayanta
  Palace! See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness Vejayanta Palace!"

  Then the venerable Maha Moggallana considered thus: "This spirit is living much too negligently. What if I stirred up a sense of urgency
  in him?"

  Then the venerable Maha Moggallana performed such a feat of supernormal power that with the point of his toe he made the Vejayanta
  Palace shake and quake and tremble.

  When the venerable Maha Moggallana knew that Sakka, ruler of gods, was stirred to a sense of urgency with his hair standing on end, he
  asked him: "Kosiya, how did the Blessed One state to you in brief
  deliverance in the destruction of craving? It would be good if we
  might also get to hear that statement."

  Good sir Moggallana, I went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, I stood at one side and said: ‘Venerable sir, how in
  brief is a bhikkhu liberated in the destruction of craving, one who
  has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost
  among gods and humans?’ When this was said, good sir Moggallana, the
  Blessed One told me: ‘Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that
  nothing is worth adhering/attaching to".

  Cūḷataṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta

  (1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.

  Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

  Lokavipatti Sutta

  With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it and remains
  holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and
  laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the
  underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched
  by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand
  as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the
  gratification, the danger and the escape in regard to that feeling,
  then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus,
  that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without
  abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling,
  without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful
  feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in
  regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is impossible.

  With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and
  remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does
  not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and
  become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is possible.

  Chachakka Sutta


Sorav,

Interesed, serious and the Tripple Gems respecting readers,

listening to the teachings, if done right, straightens ones Right view. Doing it wrong increases wrong view and primaly respect. Althought even foolish and respectless monks merely even force to make Dhamma simply food for consuming and throw it on the worlds market for short and poor livelihood, one should not follow their way and use the medicine right.

Listen unattentive Dhamma while doing even unwholesome deeds manifest on and on latent disrespect an closes up the door to Dhamma.

Some good advices in this regard are found in "Abidhamma in daily live" (dhammadesana), by Ven. Ashin Janakabhivamsa.

It's not mindful and not conductive to just consume Dhamma, since it requires giving at fist place.

To answer short on "What is the Buddhist perspective on passively altering your subconcious?"

The "Buddhists" perspective here is trade for gain and the world, while this of the Buddha and his following discipeles is letting go and Nibbana. One way is that in the world, another to Nibbana. Knowing this clearly one is not a little after any gain.

(Since detail discussion is not so welcome here, and the enviroment not so proper for Dhamma Desana, feel free to raise question, even audio here.)

[Note: This is agift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


Between death and offence what is the choice?

What does different schools and traditions of Buddhism teach about reacting to an offensive or a war?

The going to war is in many cases beyond your control and even if it is it is governed by norms and even law. Say another country declares war then you might not be able to do nothing. This these case if you have exhausted the avenues to stay away you might have to participate. This is not justifiable by the Dhamma but you have to comply with the laws of the land. Also be mindful of the Karmic repercussions and try to do somethings to counteract this perhaps like Metta Bhavana, helping the wounded, etc. when you can.

If you look back at Buddha's time, even his devoted disciples hard to go on war. E.g. Ajatashatru. This is a worldly norm. You can not endorse them, as any for of offensive is not endorsed in Buddhism, but they cannot be avoided and eradicated.

  Is there a Buddhist offense?

Within the Dhamma offensives are not justified.

But there are instances like Dutugamunu who when to war to save Buddhism. This is not endorsed by the teaching of the Buddha as a King wars and punishments according to regulation and norms are inevitable. These are more of individual action and retext in most cases and cannot be called Dhamma offensive. If you are willing to suffer the Karmic consequences, then offensive in the pretext of Dhamma is the choice of the person making the decision, which can be individually or collectively endorsed, but this endorsement is not in the Dhamma but by the people.