The body is obviously a perception (sense object) but it also exists independent of perception. For example, the automatic functions of the body (such as breathing, heart function, liver function, digestion function, growth, cell division, etc) exist and operate independent of perception.
Therefore, scriptures, such as MN 43, say the living body continues to exist when (living) perception ceases.
The question about MN 121 appears irrelevant. MN 121 ultimately says in the supreme realization/experience of Emptiness, the body continues to exist. It says:

‘This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality, empty of the effluent of [ego] becoming, empty of the effluent of ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that
connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body
with life as its condition.’

In your attempt to practise Satipatthana, there is greater mental/emotional turmoil like an archaic or ancient frustration/restlessness because of your past kamma (actions). Restlessness is one of the Five Hindrances to meditation and the scriptures (AN 10.61) say the food (nutriment) of the Five Hindrances is the Three Unskillful Actions.
Instead of focusing on higher teachings, such as perception & Emptiness, you should focus on teachings for rank beginners, such as the Five and Eight Precepts, which include not watching pornography, not engaging in casual sex and, on a higher level, not masturbating.
Satipatthana is the 7th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which includes abstinence from all sexual activity in its 5th Factor. If a person actually is practising Satipatthana "around the clock" (as you claim) then they will be free from all sexual activity because Satipatthana means giving up all lust and distress towards the world.
Your experience of restlessness is like a detoxification. When a person enters into detox via abstinence, they will experience withdrawal symptoms for a time, until they fully detox. A person cannot detoxify if they keep taking toxins.


Celibacy and contradiction with modern medical science

I  will quote/extract a few sentences from Wikipedia's article on that subject, below (you can read the whole article and its references for further details):

An article from Beliefnet and Brian Schell, a writer for DailyBuddhism.com, both suggest that masturbation is essentially harmless for a layperson, at least outside the realm of karma[3][4] The accomplished Theravadin monk Bhante Shravasti Dhammika cites the Vinaya Pitaka in his online Guide to Buddhism A to Z, stating the following

Some people during the Buddha’s time believed that masturbation could have a therapeutic effect on the mind and the body (Vin. III, 109), although the Buddha disagreed with this. According to the Vinaya, it is an offence of some seriousness for monks or nuns to masturbate (Vin. III, 111) although the Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people. However, Buddhism could agree with contemporary medical opinion that masturbation is a normal expression of the sexual drive and is physically and psychologically harmless, as long as it does not become a preoccupation or a substitute for ordinary sexual relations. Guilt and self-disgust about masturbating is certainly more harmful than masturbation itself.

The emphasis on chastity in Buddhism is much more so for bhikkus and bhikkunis (monks and nuns, respectively), who are expected to follow the Vinaya (traditional code of ethics for Buddhist monks and nuns). Not only are monastics celibate, but they also must strive to conquer their desires much more so than a layperson.
Thus, in Buddhism, masturbation and its permissiveness is most often viewed as situational, depending on one's level of precepts and monastic standing.

The "Buddhist stress on celibacy" which you refer to is (arguably) 'stressed' for monks and nuns; and it is not stressed in exactly the same way for laypeople.
Some of the other Vinaya rules too (e.g. not eating after noon), which are only applicable to monks and nuns, might or might not not be perfectly in line with every recommendation of "modern medical science", but apparently they are good enough for their purpose, which I think is to 'allow the holy life to be lived'.
Also, science and Buddhism don't contradict each other on this subject, they say different things about it:

Science suggests that masturbation might have some effect on the incidence of some types of physical illness.

Perhaps Buddhism doesn't say much on that subject (see "Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people" above), but if anything IMO it suggests that masturbation might have some other effects (e.g. on discipline, views about desire, profitable use of time, etc.).


Is it just something to notice, and let pass? Is it a symptom of something and/or, is there anything to do about it?

Treat the object according to your practice, i.e. for

Samatha meditation:

when mind wanders, bring it back to the breath.

Vipassana meditation:

every object is treated in the same way, there is no discrimination, i.e. no object is more or less important than the other. Note the object and return to the rising and falling of the abdomen.


The Pali suttas say the Dhamma is taught only to those who are interested, per AN 9.5:

  The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again
  to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.

  Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa
  punappunaṃ dhammaṃ deseti.

  https://suttacentral.net/an9.5/en/sujato

The Pali suttas say debate is not the purpose of Dhamma, per MN 22:

  They just memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and
  winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized
  them. Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their
  lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp
  of the teachings.

  https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato

The Pali suttas generally show the Buddha debated people who visited him to debate him, such as MN 35:

  Now at that time Saccaka, the son of Jain parents, was staying in
  Vesālī. He was a debater and clever speaker regarded as holy by many
  people. He was telling a crowd in Vesālī: “If I was to take them on in
  debate, I don’t see any ascetic or brahmin—leader of an order or a
  community, or the teacher of a community, even one who claims to be a
  perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha—who would not shake and rock
  and tremble, sweating from the armpits".

  Hopefully, some time or other I’ll get to meet Master Gotama, and we
  can have a discussion. And hopefully I can dissuade him from his
  harmful misconceptions.”

  https://suttacentral.net/mn35/en/sujato


Is optimism and positive attitude counterproductive?

Good householder, optimism and positive attitude is counterproductive (in regard of long lasting happiness) if the objects are in the world, object of sense. Joy, optimism, positive attitude toward awakening, skillful deeds... called "pasada" and arising after Saddha, which arises after Dukkha, are very needed tools to gain piti and the rest of releasing path till highest liberation, the Ariya-path. In short, all optimism and positive attitude toward that of what is actually subject of decay isn't smart, nurishes causes for suffering.
Useful talk on things less known here: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada
May good householder have enough optimism and positive attitude to investigate here deeper and trust that it will be for his long term happiness.
Getting a human existance, meeting the Tripple Gems, go after it, such is indeed a bright life and it's actually cause, if meeting Dukkha together with the path for release, for highest happiness, Unbound. So one needs to rejoice actually with such a life, such a gain, meeting such possibilities, hard ever to meet.
Therefore mudita has to start with oneself (=anussati)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, worldbinding trades but toward release from it.]


I think it's more a comment about other religions than about Buddhism, i.e. it's saying that:

Some people find other religions unsatisfactory
Part of that dissatisfaction is with religions' doctrines about God

As an aside I think that some of the same people may disparage, resist, or ignore elements of Buddhism which say seem supernatural or requiring faith, including e.g. rebirth, karma, psychic powers, other realms.

Some people find a lack of religion unsatisfactory too, e.g.  that might imply immorality or what people disparage as moral relativism, and various other missing doctrines.

Conversely I don't think it's especially Buddhism's being without God that is its genius -- I think it's its being beneficial, practical, perhaps humanistic, offering hope, and so on.

Actually maybe "hope" isn't a standard Buddhist doctrine (i.e. "faith, hope, and charity" are overtly Christian, rather, and part of Buddhism may be to lose unwarranted hope in the wrong sort of thing, to become disenchanted) -- instead Buddhism might say something more like this about its own doctrine, i.e. that it is "visible in this life", "timeless", "conducive (to the cessation of suffering)", and "for the wise to know for themselves".

Of course that's not the only thing that Buddhism (e.g the Buddha) says about the Dhamma, e.g. another formula (i.e. description of it) is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end" (see also e.g. this answer).


Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism?

There is common ground. But there is common ground between Christianity and Buddhism, too. So...

A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.

Your question is broad, and so it's hard to answer. There are just too many sects... some Chinese ones like Huayan were influenced by Taoist philosophy so there is more common grounds... and then there are Taoist sects that were significantly influenced by Buddhism, like the Quanzhen School...

In the Pure Land tradition, the great patriarch Tan-Luan, was initially a Taoist teacher. He wanted immortality but couldn't achieve it. Then he met the Indian Bodhiruci who gave him the Infinite Life Sutra, and Tan-Luan was so delighted by this sutra that he burned all his Taoist texts and followed Buddhism alone. If this story is true, then we can say at least one person didn't think the two were compatible. Tan-Luan sought immortality, but it occurred to him that when Taoism speaks of immortality, it does so from a point of view of attachment to existence, while Buddhism's ultimate point is nirvana which is neither-existence-nor-nonexistence (suchness). Something far removed from existence and non-existence.


Emotional Release: Images Versus Dry Body Awareness

Lack of sensitivity can occur due to using meditation techniques. Whenever a technique is used, such as watching breathing at abdomen or nose-tip, body scanning or the two methods proposed in the question, there will be a deliberate, fixed & gross intention operating in the mind to exert the mind. This 'intention'  & 'exertion' is a thought and it is this thought intention that hinders sensitivity.

To feel the body, breathing & associated feelings & emotions sensitively, the ideal practise is to simply 'let go' of all wanting & all intention. The mind must be quiet however the effort used must be a little as possible. Just sit, but very quietly.


Swapnil,

Love does never conquere anger and hatred but is actually the reason of it.

Look how angry you are, aren't you? And why?

Love is simply greed and it's not proper to blame another trader of not taking your deal, or?

Of course it's not a crime perse, but actally the reason for all crimes in this world.
To deal unfair, in cases where others do not like to trade with this dangerous item, lead also often to direct "love-crimes"

That is why the Buddha and wise people taught and teach, "Suffering comes from what is dear" and to make best nothing neither dear nor put anger into it.

And since no being loves any thing more as him/herself, on should not harm others and derive them from their beloved.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)


Just a "non-scholar" and principle answer.

Kapala, used here (Cambodia, spelled 'kpal' in Khmer) as word for head.

If one cuts of oneself the a/the master - in regard of the Buddha here, or what ever transports his way - is therefore more worse than to throw away a life by breaking the kapala because another live is secure, a good or better seldom and to meet the Buddha and/or his guidiance(s) very, very seldom.

When we remember even the Buddha, not even he break up or had been unloyal to his previous teachers.

That is also why the wise say:

  "Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."

  Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

While the parents are called the "first Gods", followed by those who give skills (normal teacher), those giving guardians toward heaven or beyond are the highest gods one should wisely honor and venerate.

Where would one headless run around if not have been supported by them?

The lesser such values and the lesser such as right view and gratitude the more near it runs in direction of communism and there most worse breaking of heads.

So ungreatfullnes and lack of gratitude for what serves such leads itself to ones breaking of the kapala, anyhow personally and sometimes at large as genocide, killing then the current gods, parents, masters away.

But it is not just physical to understand. Most having done a very bad deed in regard of gratitude suffer sooner or later as if the head is broken or spitted.

To Kesi the Horsetrainer

One does good to "kill" the Demon Kesi, the childhood disease, in one self, when ever he arises.

It's good to take as much as possible care never show signs of ingratitude in regard of what possible needs regards generally.

At least hete a very useful talk on gratitude and going beyong: Karma & Gratitude.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpoes or other gains in the world]


Protection from tree-stumps

Santa100 already gave an answer from a historic perspective.
Here is an answer from a modern perspective. The dangers and solution seem to still be the same.

  What dangers would tree-stumps pose?

According to "Dangers of Tree Stumps – Land Owners’ Responsibilities", the dangers are: constant tripping hazard, the stump harbouring insects, equipment damage.

  What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

The solution would be to remove the stump by oneself or hire a professional stump remover.


What's the meaning of "Pāli" and its relevance in regard of the Buddha's Dhamma?

According to British philologist and Professor Emeritus of Indian Studies at Cambridge University, Kenneth Roy Norman, Pali was mistakenly made to be the name of the language of the Canon. He explains how, below. He also links it to the Canon.

From "The Pāḷi Language and the Theravādin Tradition" (1983) by Kenneth Roy Norman:

  The dialect  of Middle Indo-Aryan which is found in the texts of the
  Theravadin  Buddhists and usually called "Pali" by European scholars
  is nowhere so called in the Theravadin canon. The word pāli is found
  in the chronicles and the  commentaries upon the canon, but there it
  has the meaning "canon" and is used in the sense of a canonical text
  or phrase as opposed to the commentary (aṭṭhakathā)  upon it. This
  usage is made  clear by the  fact that  the  word pāli sometimes
  alternates with tanti.

  It would seem that the name "Pali" is based upon a misunderstanding of
  the compound pāli-bhāsā "language of the canon", where the word
  pāli was taken to stand for the name of a particular bhāsā,
  as a result of which the word was applied to the language of both canon and
  commentaries. There is evidence that this misunderstanding occurred
  several centuries ago.

According to Bhikkhu Bodhi (from here - taken from "In the Buddha's Words" (2005), Wisdom Publications, page 10):

  Scholars regard this language (Pali) as a hybrid showing features of
  several Prakrit dialects used around the third century BCE, subjected
  to a partial process of Sanskritization. While the language is not
  identical to what Buddha himself would have spoken, it belongs to the
  same broad language family as those he might have used and originates
  from the same conceptual matrix. This language thus reflects the
  thought-world that the Buddha inherited from the wider Indian culture
  into which he was born, so that its words capture the subtle nuances
  of that thought-world.


Why don’t you instead use this as an opportunity to explore what they do get right?  Catholicism specifically can have tremendous similarities to Buddhism.  The writings of St. John of the Cross especially come to mind.  Rather than meeting them with aversion, why not curiosity and openness instead?


In terms of how they affect the path, obviously, these are holdbacks. The goal is to get free from them.

Here is the instruction I received from my teacher about this:

In meditation, when memory comes up, do not replay the event that caused the pain. Do not think about it, thoughts don't help. Instead, stay with the pain itself. Feel it in your body. Stay focused on it and get a full taste of the feeling, thoroughly. Then go inside the feeling. Accept it and feel its texture, thoroughly. Despite the pain, go all the way inside until you get out on the other side. Accept. Go through.


Mankind should be introduced to the Dhamma and taught the Dhamma. But it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she wants to become free of suffering, or not. Not everyone wants to be liberated from suffering.

From MN75:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

From MN26:

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'


How can this be explained?

That's aversion towards the meditation practice. Just note it as "disliking" and be mindful about it until it passes away. Be very vigilant in observing this aversion when it arises as it can sabotage ones practice if left by itself.
Eventually, as one gains more and more clarity of mind, this aversion will subside due to the mind understanding the benefits and freedom that comes from consistent meditation practice.


How do you tell the difference between review of a path and the next path?

Some useful teachings by Ajaan Fuang on this topic below.

Ajaan Fuang teaches not to plan how the meditation would go, or deliberately look out for signs to determine what stage you're at, or to be obsessed about what the next steps should be. Instead, he teaches to go on practising by oneself to find out how things will turn out.

From my understanding, one should not just reach one stage and then rush over to the next. One should instead master one stage, then go on to master the next.

In my opinion, it is also useful to have such a teacher to guide the student when he finds that the student has reached an impasse or is going on the wrong path. Otherwise, if the teacher finds that the student is progressing on the right path, he should allow the student to discover the next steps on his own.

Quote:

  § When Ajaan Fuang taught meditation, he didn't like to map things out
  in advance. As soon as he had explained the beginning steps, he'd have
  the student start sitting right in his presence, and then take the
  steps back home to work on there. If anything came up in the course of
  the practice, he'd explain how to deal with it and then go on to the
  next step.

  Once a layman who had known more than his share of meditation teachers
  came to discuss the Dhamma with Ajaan Fuang, asking him many questions
  of an advanced nature as a way of testing his level of attainment.
  Ajaan Fuang asked him in return, "Have you had these experiences in
  your own meditation yet?"

  "No, not yet."

  "Then in that case I'd rather not discuss them, because if we discuss
  them when they're not yet a reality for you, they'll just be theories,
  and not the real Dhamma."

  § One meditator noticed that his practice under Ajaan Fuang was making
  quick progress, and so he asked what the next step would be. "I'm not
  going to tell you," Ajaan Fuang said. "Otherwise you'll become the
  sort of amazing marvel who knows everything before he meets with it,
  and masters everything before he's tried his hand. Just keep
  practicing and you'll find out on your own."

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

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


How to work for liberating ALL living beings?

As per the "Heart Sutra in 8000 Lines", you liberate all sentient beings by attaining direct realization that in fact there are no any such "sentient beings" to talk about. "Sentient being" is only a nominal designation. Two keywords to study are anatta (sanskt., anatman) and shunyata.

Now, as a practice of paramitas (of generosity, forbearance, renunciation, loving-kindness, and equanimity), the commitment to staying in samsara and deferring one's own liberation until all sentient beings attain nirvana, requires complete surrendering of one's antipathy to samsara and craving for peace, complete surrendering of one's ego - which (the surrendering) paradoxically becomes the gate to Realization.


This is most likely a Tibetan Thanka which depicts 3 "levels". Based on the depictions, it's probably Vajrayana, specifically Gelug-pa, lit. "yellow hats" - this is the Tibetan Buddhist branch to which the Dalai Lama belongs.

The top level depicts the Buddha surrounded by females, most likely Dakini.

The central level depicts 3 people with a very recognizable yellow hat, so probably they are  Tulku, possibly the Dalai Lama in the center, the Panchen Lama and the Samding Dorje Pagmo or Karmapa. They are depicted as slightly above the world since they are considered reincarnations of Bodhisattva

The building in the bottom section could be a depiction of the Potala.

The two figures depicted in the bottom section are most likely high monks, but I can't think of any specific persons or roles for these.

The many occurences of Green, Red, Blue, Yellow and White refer to Pancha-Varna

As for the age of the painting, it's very difficult to tell, as iconography in Tibetan Buddhist art has changed very little in the last few hundred years.

You might enjoy this video on decoding symbolism in Thanka


I think this needs qualification.

Metta towards oneself helps reduce self hate. So this is not completely useless. Also this is the basis of developing Metta to others. If you do not love yourself you cannot love others. [page 83 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw]

You cannot attain Jhana if the person is oneself, hence as a means to achieve Jhana this is useless. [page 82 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw]

Other objectives is as an antidote to hateful temperament towards others. On this perspective this is useless if you contemplate about only oneself and not of others, but useful if you contemplate about oneself and others. As you cannot love others if you do not love yourself hence oneself should be included.

Also this is used to break barriers [page 85 Knowing and Seeing - 4th Edition by Ven Pa-Auk Sayadaw] as perceiving someone dear, neutral and foe. In this perspective it is useful to asses the level of love to oneself vs loved one vs neutral people vs foes, but not useful if you contemplate only about oneself and not others, and only others and not oneself, and useful when you contemplate on oneself and others.


Is it unethical in the Buddhist view to attend work ill?

It doesn't square well against the notion of Right Action (or Right Conduct) on the Noble Eightfold Path.

  The practitioner should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others. (source) (emphasis added)

If going to work while ill could cause others to become ill, that would be bringing harm to others. So it's probably not a good idea.


Does MN9 imply a cyclic causation? How does it work?

Yup, it's a vicious circle. On one side we have Ignorance/Confusion/Delusion and on the other Stress, Negative Emotions, and Bad Karma.

It is like being born in a poor uneducated family: because you are poor, you can't get education, and because you can't get education you are poor.

When you are stressed, you don't have time to stop and seek solution, you keep rolling day after day, never acting as per your plan, but only reacting to your issues. Because you keep rolling uncontrollably, very stressed, your head is not clear, your will is damaged, your perspective is skewed, so you keep sowing seeds for future trouble.

This is called "bewilderment", or as my teacher said:

  One misstep begets another, begets another, and on, and on.

Imagine someone walking on a trail of rocks in the middle of a swamp, carrying a heavy backpack. Once you lose your balance and misstep off a rock, you're at a danger of falling in the swamp, so you have to compensate by making another sharp step sideways, but it does not end there - the inertia of the heavy backpack keeps carrying you on, so you have to keep making these sharp steps. You are lucky if you can stabilize yourself, but very often you end up running out of rocks and falling in the swamp.

The opposite of this, as often portrayed in suttas, is the good cycle of Sila/Samatha/Vipashyana. The more you fix your karma, the calmer you get, the more clearly you see, which allows you to further optimize your physical and mental action, which leads to even more peace, and even more clarity of vision and so on.


Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth?

What makes you think that they will even be born at least as animals again? It's very difficult to get into higher realms once you go down. An animal can very rarely have a thought devoid of craving/lust, aversion and ignorance. So whether you kill an animal or let it die naturally, there's very little chance for it to get a better birth. There's a reason why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara. Once a being sinks below the human realm, it usually keeps sinking further down as it'll be mostly creating bad karma. Unless some good deed from a past life comes forward at the time of death, there's very little chance for it to escape hells. There are also rare instances of some animals listening to the Dhamma and being able to be born in higher realms. So if you are really interested in helping them, make them listen to the Dhamma and hope at least 1 in a million would be able to make use of it.

Breaking the 1st precept with such a false belief would probably make you join them instead of saving them :)


How does one know the difference between aversion and danger?

Very interesting question. I'd say, as long as you can keep learning from it, it's OK to stay in an abusive relationship, may even be useful. But only if you know what you're getting out of it, what is it that it helps you practice.

May be patience, may be metta, may be egolessness etc.

But once you have exhausted learning possibilities, I would say it's time to move on. In my mind this pertains to all types of difficult situations: abusive relationships, difficult job conditions etc.

If the pressure is so strong that it flips you into a victim mode all the times, and you completely forget that you are there to practice (as you would in a master mode) - that's probably a good indicator that the issue is more on the danger side than on the aversion side, I think it's a question of strength. There's no reason in subjecting oneself to what one just cannot handle, that stops being practice and becomes self-harm at that point.

So to summarize: 1) can you keep learning from this? 2) Are you not overwhelmed to the point of not being in control of your learning anymore?


"You should not try to find the point where the moving air strokes
  the nostrils, but keep your focus at the nose breath".

This means to not try to feel, track or be aware of the breath sensations. Instead, it means to only keep the mind exclusively focused towards the nose. It means to never concern yourself with watching the breath, even if the breath comes into the mind as an object of awareness. Just keep the mind still & anchored in one place.


I don't know what "pop Buddhism" means exactly but I guess yes -- I suppose I could assign  one or more of the following definitions to the phrase.

"Pop Buddhism" is:

Any reference to Buddhism that I might encounter in a not-explicitly-Buddhist context -- for example:

This CBC article is "pop" Buddhism because the CBC isn't explicitly Buddhist -- but it is popular i.e. it is a national broadcaster though of a not-explicitly-Buddhist country
The word "zen" is now used colloquially in France -- in phrases like rester zen and être zen (i.e. "to remain zen" and "to be zen") -- as an adjective meaning something resembling calm or detached or serene or even engaged (or whatever you imagine the word "zen" might mean as an adjective) in everyday life
Anything like "Fake Buddha Quotes" e.g. if you see someone reposting them on Facebook, would probably have to count as "pop"

Any popular (though explicitly Buddhist) book, which appears to be aimed at a general non-Buddhist audience, and (especially) written by a modern author. I'd include e.g. books by the Dalai Lama (e.g. the Art of Happiness) or by Thich Nhat Hanh -- maybe also books by Alan Watts or Philip Kapleau or Daniel Ingram (not saying that all these authors are the same, nor their books).
I'm inclined to privilege a book like In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as being a slightly different category -- perhaps it's aimed at a naive but interested audience (and therefore popular), but it's based on (or is nothing but, little more than) a translation of and anthology from the canon of a Buddhist school and therefore it's not exactly a "modern author". Other translations of or introductions to any canonical works might belong in this same category.
A comparative term ("pop" versus "non-pop"), therefore e.g. a term or form of conceit (e.g. "They practice pop Buddhism, I practice the real Buddhism")
There are professional (or whatever the opposite of "pop" is) psychologists -- e.g. licensed therapists (e.g. psychotherapists, or people advising schools and parents about difficult children/students), and academics (e.g. professors, researchers), not to mention any commercial and other applications. So analogously "non-pop" Buddhism might be whatever is studied and practised by some monks, perhaps studied by academics, and "pop" Buddhism is anything/everything else e.g. what is known to lay people.

I think that (some) Buddhist doctrine states that there is such a thing as properly understanding Dhamma (or the Dhamma) -- that's called the "Dhamma eye", or the arising of the Dhamma eye or something like that, and associated with "stream entry".

The Kalama sutta includes a phrase (some other suttas do too),

  explained the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end

An interpretation of that phrase is that "pop" or "beginner" Buddhism is good and not bad (see also this answer for example).

Topics like the following might be relevant too:

How to explain what Buddhism is?
Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?

The above two topic are based on Buddhism as it's described in the Pali suttas. Perhaps there's another form or school of Buddhism, called Mahayana (which may or may not include Vajrayana, depending on your taxonomy) -- and perhaps Mahayana deserves to be called (though not as a term of disrespect) "pop" Buddhism.


Generally you should not do Metta to:

Lingavisabhāga (opposite sex - generally directed at a specific person)
Kālakatapuggala (a dead person)

See page 81 Seeing and Knowing revised edition by Pa Auk Sayadaw (Pa Auk Lineage)

  To develop the sublime abiding of loving-kindness (mettà), you need first of all be aware that it should not be developed towards a person of the opposite sex , or a dead person.

Also page 66 Loving Kindness Meditation Ven. Sujiva (Mahaisi Lineage) and page 16 Matta: The Practice of Loving-Kindness As the Foundation for Insight Meditation Practice by Sayadaw U Indaka (Mahasi Sayadaw) also makes the same observation.

In addition Metta: The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love by Acharya Buddharakkhita (general Theravada) makes the following observation:

  Note that only a living person is to be visualized, not a dead one. The reason for this is that the dead person, having changed form, will be out of the focus of metta-projection. The object of metta always is a living being, and the thought-force will become ineffective if the object is not alive.

Otherwise the what you mention is fine to practice Metta.

Buddhism has the concept of transferring merit to the departed (if they are in a conducive birth to receive it.) This might be something, quite similar, which you can do instead. See: Tiro,kutta Sutta. Also offering to the liberation of ancestors especially your father is highly recommended (one of the "the five uses of wealth" / pañca bhogānam ādiyā) in Patta Kamma Sutta, Ādiya Sutta, Sigāl’ovāda Sutta.

Having said this, this using a deceased person as the subject diminishes the result reaped through Metta meditation. If you find any other physiological benefits by remembering your father, then all means do it, though you will not be getting the benefits expected out of Metta meditation. To get the benefits of Metta meditation focus on all living beings.


There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation

It's really simple. (Long-term) benefit and (immediate) pleasure don't always go hand in hand, and more often than not they are in the opposition to each other.
Life can be lived with pleasure as one's guide, always choosing what's pleasant now regardless of its long term harm or benefit.
Or life can be lived with long term wellness, health, and happiness as one's guide - regardless of whether it is immediately pleasant or unpleasant.
Guess which method actually leads to more pleasure down the road?
This is the basic idea, that pleasure is a bad advisor. Children and naive people pursue pleasure over benefit. Wise people pursue benefit over pleasure.
Now, not all pleasure is misleading. There's a category of pleasure that accords with Dharma. A pleasure of peace, a pleasure of simplicity, a pleasure of laying down a burden of attachment, a pleasure of understanding the Teaching, a pleasure of recognizing one's attainments.
But if you are looking for a simple rule of thumb as a beginner, then the easiest way to practice is by separating all your thoughts, impulses, and motives in two classes: ones that lead towards peace, harmony, enlightenment, Nirvana - and ones that lead away. Pursuing long-term benefit you'll attain both benefit and pleasure. Pursuing just pleasure you'll attain none.

That's the main idea, and the second, more subtle idea, is that the pleasure in and of itself is an illusion. Sweets that seem tasty to young children are awfully primitive  to most adults - but try to explain that to a kid. Experiences seem pleasant when the observer is naive enough to evaluate them in a superficial way.
It is with other experiences like it is with the tastes - they are only pleasant in contrast with each other and only in certain combinations and only when you're hungry. Sexual act is only pleasant when you are "hungry" but quickly becomes a burden when you are satisfied and your partner begs for more. Not to mention the sexual disgust of having to share a bed with a person you don't find attractive.
If you carefully examine a pleasant sensation such as taste, smell, touch,  or even a more subtle pleasure of looking at a beautiful picture - you will notice your brain hard at work making the experience pleasant, comparing and contrasting it with other experiences and memories of experiences - all to convince itself that this sensation is in fact pleasant.
To a lucid observer pleasure is insubstantial like a lens flare and so is pain. However bright it's just a reflection.


How should I spend my day, according to Lord Buddha teachings?

How much time should one meditate? (annapanna or vipassana) ?

2 session of 1 hour each sitting meditation generally works well for many, but this is not the true meditative practice.

  According to Lord Buddha teachings, How should a normal employee spend his/her day ?

Real meditation is from awakening to sleep. Be aware of sensation arising and passing either due to posture, bodily sensations, mental activity and thoughts, sensory experiences, etc.

As an employee you should earn your living in the right way and ethically. Meditating or other activity in office which might interfere with your duties might not be ethical.

  While sitting in office, how should i sit (sometimes i try to sit as straight as possible, but after 10 minutes i am back to ordinary state)

What every posture that works for you is fine. Over rigid postures may give undue attention of colleagues which might not help.

If you are referring to "crookedness of body" in (Pacetana) Ratha,kara Sutta, this is a figure of speech referring to lax morality.

  I want to know how to spend all my 24 hours in order to remain all time conscious (what exactly means conscious, suppose i am walking, should i remain aware about my hand and legs moving or my breath) ?

In short the breath and arising and passing of sensations. Generally when you are waking moving parts have more sensations, but as you progress it is good to look throughout the body.

If the sensations are pleasant you get attached if not averse. This is one thing you have to understand and be aware of. Staying in a particular posure may be present for a little while but becomes painful and the urge to more arises. When you move the new posture becomes pleasant and cycle continues. Similarly for thoughts, memories, and other sensory experiences. Regarding sensory experiences and perceive it as positive or negative or neutral, if positive you experience a pleasant sensation and you get attached to the pleasant sensation triggered by the evaluation and similarly when the experience is negative.


What are all the bhawana (meditation) methods in Buddhism?

As answered here, the forty samatha meditation objects are:

1-10: The Kasinas

These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practised by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space

11-20: Foulness

These lead to the first jhāna; they are practised by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay

11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton

21-30: Recollections

Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"

21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace

31-34: The Divine Abidings

The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"

31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity

35-38: The Immaterial States

These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object

35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception

39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.

40. Defining of The Elements

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.

All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.


Does the fifth precept refer exclusively to chemical stimulants?

A modern teacher who takes a very broad approach is Thich Nhat Hanh. I became familiar with his "Five Wonderful Precepts" at a Seon temple where his translation of the precepts is used regularly. This is his translation of the Fifth Precept:

  Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I vow to cultivate good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family and my society, by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming.  I vow to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society.  I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant, or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations.  I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations.  I will work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practicing a diet for myself and for society.   I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.

These are from his book "For a Future to Be Possible: Commentaries on the Five Mindfulness Trainings"

From "The Mindfulness Bell" newsletter, dated Spring/Summer 1990, Thich Nhat Hanh gives an in depth interview about his translations of the 5 precepts (which were in a slightly less detailed version back then).

  Someone who practices the Fifth Precept could not say "This is my body, I can do anything to it. I have the right to." They cannot say that because they know that their body belongs to all their ancestors, themselves, and the future generations.

He talks about the interconnectedness of all things; how the grain used in the production of whiskey and meat can lead to starvation in the world when people don't have enough grains to eat. That particular idea may be arguable to some. But I think his statement below (also from The Mindfulness Bell) is really a key point for those who aren't quite ready to accept the Fifth Precept:

  So mindfulness is the base of all precepts. Drinking a glass of whiskey with mindfulness is already practicing the precepts, because if you drink with deep mindfulness, you will live with the reality of the world and you will stop drinking very soon.


As a Buddhist with a Muslim family, community, and background... how do you integrate/cope?

I'm 26 and I considered myself becoming Buddhist when I was 14. I come from a very loyal Islamic family and I totally think that Islam is a beneficial religion... containing within it the simplest and easiest spiritual practices of all Abrahamic religions because it has a meditation+yoga-like prayer system, calling all practitioners to Practice with single-mindedness towards a singular God every day five times a day (namaj).

I made a lot of mistakes over the years in expressing these ideas with simultaneous conviction and non-defensiveness that is my power now.

Islam is a very strict religion on the the level of the 1st two trainings:

morality: unconditionally forbids all intoxication and has many other moral codes
concentration: routine concentration practice of prayer, using mantra method combined with yoga

Thus, even though I am Buddhist I don't run away from Islam. I fully embrace it and espouse the half-muslims to actually practice it because it has many health benefits.
I go to mosque when I can and when I am required to with my family and community and I integrate Buddhist science of spiritual practice to practice with single-minded mindfulness and not the ignorant desire-filled prayer most people probably do.

Buddhism is a religion that is fully integrated within my Islamic community and if I speak about Buddhism I speak about it without ever mentioning the word Buddhism or Buddha. I merely reference the practices such as yoga and meditation and pranayama which are nondenominational and conducive to the actual reason for namaj (improve concentration and oneness with Allah--a concentration object).

Thus, when I speak about Islamic practices, I find myself always integrating the nondenominational, spiritual principles of Buddhism within the structure of Islam.

Islam is a great religion and can be fully subsumed into the spiritual science of Buddhism. Practice the Buddhist virtue of modesty and let no one know of your attainments and your vigorous concentration practice.

Mentally discard silly Islamic/religious that you know by Buddhadharma are only created to help people stay doubt-free and cultivating practice concept and enjoy spiritual practice with your community!

Use the phrases and phrases you learned from within Islam. Display complete devotion to Islam and spiritual science in general. Islam isn't that complicated at all... it is easy to blend in and be spiritual, continue to use the Buddhadharma but always appear Muslim by practicing Right Speech within your community.


Why the nature of things is such as it is?

When you say the nature of things i am assuming you mean things being:

1.Impermanent (anicca)

2.Suffering/Dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease (dukkha)

3.Non Self (annatta)

1.Why is the nature of things impermanent?

Because conditioned phenomenon is constantly in a state of flux.Why?Because something causes this to happen than this causes that to happen then that causes that to happen then...and so forth.

2.Why is the nature of things suffering/dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease?

Because the conditioned phenomenon keeps changing.(impermanence).And we keep grasping at it.What happens when you try to hold on to something that keeps moving and your adamant about staying put.You hurt yourself.You stress yourself.Let go.

3.Why is the nature of thing Annatta?

I can not answer this.It just IS.

Both Samsara and Nibbanna are devoid of an Ego.Both conditioned and the unconditioned have no permanent self/Ego.


Anapanasati practice: what’s the correct way to focus on breath?

There is no need to focus on the breath.

The practise of the Buddha is to keep the mind without craving, without attachment, without past, without future. Silent still mind.

When the mind is quiet, it will connect with the breath, itself, automatically.

Experiencing the breath is merely the "sign" the mind is without craving.

  And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

  Indriya-vibhanga Sutta


How To Follow Buddhism Without Offending

As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged

That's as may be.

Nevertheless I think that "cultural appropriation" is a relatively modern obsession: that it has become fashionable for "holier-than-thou" people in college to fuss about it; but sfaik other people are less likely to think that way (to see or preconceive it as a concern).

I suppose if you've heard of Buddhism, maybe "Buddhism" has begun to be present "your culture" too.

Also your being born into a place and time where you're able to be interested in Buddhism (not only human, but able to hear and understand Buddhist teaching) might be seen as a good thing, a fruit of good kamma. I suspect that Buddhists might feel Mudita towards your good fortune, such as it is.

I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist

Yes. Well there are other ways to phrase a declaration if the situation arises; for example:

I'm interested in Buddhism
As you said, "I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it"
I find Buddhism helpful for X or Y reason
I study or practice with this or that group, or with such and such a teacher

Some people on this site (see these topics) don't like the -ism (Buddhism) word. Buddhist as an adjective is a bit more precise, maybe paired with a noun like (Buddhist) Dharma or (Buddhist) practice etc.

I too have "felt uneasy", by the way:

If said to someone, "I am Buddhist" or "I am a Buddhist", then would that misrepresent Buddhism ... am I a bad examplar, might I put other people off Buddhism?
Is it even true (is that a true statement about myself)?
Is it an view of self, a conceit, a misguided thing to say?
Would it make other people inclined to see me (and Buddhism) as alien?

Such unease could be egocentric nonsense, but anyway, with that kind of thing in mind I have preferred to make declarations that are more concrete, kind of objectively true, sensible (tangible), justifiable: for example "I have been interested in" etc. ("I verb a noun" rather than "I am an adjective").

In a slightly analogous way I'm content to be vegetarian (i.e. to eat vegetarian food) but I'm usually less comfortable with saying so to other people ... in case people think I'm weird (I've been doing it for so long that I think it's normal, it's normal for me) or that I'm judgmental i.e. that I think that they too ought to be vegetarian (it's common but not normal in my culture, some 10% of the total population).

I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture"

I suppose we don't have total control over how other people see us. If someone sees you as a white guy, that's their privilege burden. :-)

Maybe how you see yourself (or attach to a view-of-self) that's more to the immediate point.

If having "an obsession with asian culture" is said to be wrong, my guess would be that's because "culture" is ephemeral and distant, and "obsession" might be harmful. Whereas instead, Dharma (as opposed to culture) is meant to be akalika (timeless or immediate) ... practical. And being harmless (causing no injury) is one of the Buddhist virtues.

I also don't want to offend those whose cultures were shaped by it

I don't see why you'd offend. To be inoffensive, don't claim to know more or to be better, "don't criticize what you can't understand", be a friend. Beware of the elements of Right Speech.

I don't remember anyone telling me I shouldn't be interested in Buddhism.

Normally if you share someone's interest they see that as a good thing.

Look at the "Dhamma gifts" available (i.e. people trying to share Dhamma), I think they're there because the donors want the gifts to be available to us.

how can I start myself on the path respectfully

One answer (or non-answer) is that there are many "dharma gates": i.e. it's up to you and your environment.

Some people choose to "Take the Triple Refuge".

You can practice with (and/or live with) a group of Buddhists, study with a teacher, study texts, find or make a good friend, do good, be generous.

I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it

Ah yes. I don't know if that's true. :-)

If you look at, the 'fetters' which are abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, the question is maybe tangled up in two of these fetters: i.e. maybe "identity view" includes "I can never truly embrace it" and "declaring myself Buddhist"; and "making a declaration" might be mistaken for a "right and ritual".

And what you said about needing "courage" also isn't necessarily quite canonical: maybe what you want instead of "courage" is a "confidence" or a lack of doubt.
Or maybe it's called faith and energy.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong about courage, but if you can't seem to summon enough of it maybe it's something else (e.g. confidence and so on, right view, etc.) you could develop instead.

Or I suspect that courage and so on might be part of a Buddhist training, but maybe a Mahayana training of a sort that requires a teacher or at least a group to practice with?


I guess you mean identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) - please see this question for examples.

Eradicating identity view is different from eradicating all traces of self - please see this question.

A view is a kind of belief. For example, a person may have the view that the Earth is flat. However, this person may change his view, based on the opinion of trusted credible scientists, without making a direct scientific validation of his view.

Views may affect one's behavior and in turn result in particular outcomes. For example, if you have the view that you don't have to clean yourself when you get dirty and before you eat, this may cause you to contract diseases due to lack of hygiene. By changing your view from the wrong view to the right view, you can reduce your suffering.

But you don't have to change your views on hygiene after experiencing disease. You can adopt the right view on hygiene, after listening to trusted credible sources.

Similarly, the Buddha is the trusted credible source who taught us that all phenomena is not self. He also taught us that eradicating self view will reduce suffering. For example, when someone insults you as being fat, you may become angry and experience agony due to the fetter of conceit, but you can snap out of it quickly and not dwell on it, due to your not having the view that your body is your self. By snapping out of anger quickly, your suffering will be reduced. And that's how not having identity view will result in the reduction of suffering.

You don't lose your identity view after stream entry. Rather, you have to overcome identity view in order to reach stream entry. You don't lose the wrong hygiene view after becoming hygienic. You have to lose the wrong hygiene view and gain the right hygiene view, in order to achieve a good state of hygiene.

A stream winner could become angry due to clinging and conceit (tanha-mana), when someone insults him as being fat or stupid. But he would snap out of it quickly, due to not having identity view. Conceit is a deep-seated tendency that is hard to uproot. But a view can be changed through learning, reflection and understanding. A fully enlightened arahant has uprooted all the deep-seated fetters. Please also see this answer.

Gaining the Right View is always the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path.


In Transcendent Wisdom, H.H the Dalai Lama says:

  it is a fallacy to equate the Buddhist view of causality with either
  the mechanistic determinism of classical physics, or the probabilistic
  determinism of quantum physics.

In Robert Thurman speaks of

  [...]six well-known opponents of the Buddha [who were] teachers of
  nihilism, sophism, determinism, asceticism, etc.

In Buddhist Phenomenology, Dan Lusthaus says:

  The instantaneous moment is key, since it is precisely here that
  Buddhism, for all its elaboration of causal determinants, escapes
  becoming a form of hard determinism. At the moment one recognizes the
  conditioning process for what it is-a pain/pleasure calculus shaped by
  previous experiences that sets the basis for subsequent attitudes,
  predilection, proclivities, experiences--one is free, detached from
  that chain's ineluctability. If such a moment of insight is fleeting
  or shallow, the old habitual patterns will reemerge. But ifthe insight
  is sufficiently radical, one can at that moment, detach from the
  chain, ceasing to be its locus. The chain thereupon expires, ceases,
  is eliminated.

To put it another way, the so-called 'doctrine of karma' means that whatever arises has causes and conditions. Whatever arises in our continuum is caused, partly, by actions we ourselves engaged in. For instance, if anger arises in my mind, it is because I created the causes of it, but it is also because other conditions gathered.

Now, we can affect the conditions that we created. For instance, we can purify negativities so as for them not to give the results they would have lead to. Conditioned phenomena are determined, but not predetermined in the sense one might imagine.

H.H. the Dalai Lama speaks of the issue because he is acquainted with westerners. However, a teacher of mine once said that he found the question (about predetermination) odd. In all his years of traditional studies, he never once thought of it or came upon the topic.


You can practice the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness:

  These, bhikshus, are the four focusses of mindfulness that are to be cultivated for the abandoning
  of these five mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Also,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, one’s own benefit,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, others’ benefit,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, the benefit of both

(Nīvaraṇa) Saṅgārava Sutta

One also can try developing the 7 Enlightenment Factors to overcome it. See: Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Wise attention can be used to overcome dought:

  Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen doubt does not arise,
  and arisen doubt is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, wise attention.

  Bhikshus, through wise attention, unarisen doubt does not arise, and arisen doubt is abandoned.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga

Also, do not feed dought. See: (Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta

Also see: Nivarana and Vicikiccha by Piya Tan


what is the last orginal quote of buddha and what is the meaning of that quote?

From the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now,
bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.

The footnote states:

Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena
sampadetha. Earnestness (appamada) is explained as "presence of
mindfulness." Comy.: "'You should accomplish all your duties without
allowing mindfulness to lapse!' Thus did the Blessed One, while on the
bed of his Parinibbana, summarize in that one word on earnestness the
advice he had given through forty-five years."

And from another translation:

Then the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Come now, monks,
for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on
with heedfulness!” These were the last words of the Realised One.

Regarding the alleged poisoning, you can read it here from the same sutta.


Is it true or I am wrongly understanding Bodhidharma?
I don't know about Bodhidharma or Zen, specifically, but I think that is inline with what you can read in or about some other "Mahayana" doctrines  e.g. Wikipedia -- Arhat:

Arhat is defined in Theravada Buddhism as one who has gained insight into the true nature of existence and has achieved nirvana. Other Buddhist traditions have used the term for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.
The understanding of the concept has changed over the centuries, and varies between different schools of Buddhism and different regions. A range of views on the attainment of arhats existed in the early Buddhist schools. The Sarvāstivāda, Kāśyapīya, Mahāsāṃghika, Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, Bahuśrutīya, Prajñaptivāda, and Caitika schools all regarded arhats as imperfect in their attainments compared to buddhas.
Mahayana Buddhist teachings urge followers to take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. The arhats, or at least the senior arhats, came to be widely regarded[by whom?] as "moving beyond the state of personal freedom to join the Bodhisattva enterprise in their own way".

See also e.g. Śrāvaka -- Mahāyāna view:

In Mahayana Buddhism, śrāvakas or arhats are sometimes contrasted negatively with bodhisattvas.
In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvakayāna. These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation. Those in the Pratyekabuddhayāna are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment. Finally, those in the Mahāyāna "Great Vehicle" are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.


Have you meditated on the reasons why you feel depressed being away from your hometown?

Is it friends and your social life in your hometown? Or is it some other reason?

If it is the friends and social life that's the problem, then you can try to make new friends. For e.g. why not join your local Buddhist community? For example, you can explore the Buddhistische Gesellschaft Hamburg e.V.. They seem to have a lot of interesting activities like group meditation, sutta studies and dhamma talks.

This way you can solve two problems in one go. It is not always the case that you have to choose either A or B. Sometimes, you can find a third way, C.

Drawing upon the example of the Buddha's life, he found that it did not work if he chose either over-indulgence or over-asceticism. Instead, he paved the middle way to enlightenment. The same theme can also be found in the Sona Sutta with the analogy of the strings of a lute playing music only when it's not too taut or too loose.

So, I suggest that you don't have to choose either your sanity or your mother's extraordinary dependence on you. Instead, you can pave the middle way, by solving multiple problems simultaneously.


In brief, the Mahayana has a specific Bodhisattva vow not to wait:

To abandon: Believing and saying that followers of the Mahayana should
remain in cyclic existence and not try to attain liberation from
afflictions.

Those authoritative texts in the Mahayana which seem to contradict this are only for purposes of training the mind. This is not a subject of controversy in the Mahayana as every tradition acknowledges the above.
Again, with emphasis so this is absolutely clear: All Bodhisattva's in the Mahayana path make a vow to reach full and complete enlightenment as fast as they possibly can. That means if a Buddha was alive right now on this earth and they could possibly reach full and complete enlightenment in the next millisecond, they would do so without question forthwith.
See here for the long answer.


Strong tingling sensation in face that persists +- hour after meditation

As you progress in meditation you will start feeling sensations in different parts of your body. At some point, you will feel sensations thought out the body.

There is nothing to get alarmed. Also, do not get attached to it. Simply continue your meditation.

Do not avoid any areas and also do not stay long in any area than others.


How to reveal truth about a liar or a person who is trying to deceive others?

Show sympathy for the liar, he is in more trouble than his victims.Sacrifice yourself to him with all the help you can but show no anger show him something he has never seen before hospitality and forgiveness.


This is a great source for identifying Buddhist statues by what they are holding.

The Buddha on the right is a representation of the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni). You can tell by the head-pattern, which represent 108 snails that crawled on the Buddha's head. In Japanese Buddhism, a red lotus held in the left hand is called Benikairen (紅開蓮) and symbolizes compassion.

The statue on the left is more difficult to identify. It is crowned and the historical Buddha was generally not depicted with any jewelry (being worldly attachment), which leads me to believe this is a depiction of a Bodhisattva. He is holding a five-storied pagoda (Jap. gojū-no-tō 五重塔) which is identified with the "Medicine Buddha" (who is actually a Bodhisattva):

  In Chinese depictions, he is sometimes holding a pagoda, symbolising the ten thousand Buddhas of the three periods of time.


If someone purposefully obsessed over a certain animal how much might it impact their chances of rebirth as that animal?

I think Buddha has answered this question perfectly. You can find the full answer here. Two people went and asked the same question from Buddha. One of them was practicing like a dog and the other one was practicing like an ox. Here's the answer to the one who was practicing the dog duty by the blessed one.

  .. someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell.

So I think it's not difficult to deduce what happens to the person who tries to act like a bird.


why i have to resist itching/tingling sensations

The point is not to resist the urge. The meditation is in observing the effect the itch has on the mind. Satipatthana meditation is defined with three qualities: Ardency, Alertness, and Mindfulness. Let us focus on the first quality here. Though note that all three apply.

"Ardency means being intent on what you're doing, trying your best to do it skillfully. This doesn't mean that you have to keep straining and sweating all the time, just that you're continuous in developing skillful habits and abandoning unskillful ones." - Thanissaro Bhikku

So in this context, we would want to itch in a skillfull way.
How does "Simply itching and moving on" effect us? How does giving into our urges when they come about serve us?
Does giving into the minds urges immediately lead you towards the goal or away from it? Each moment you are conditioning your mind (your kamma). Conditioning your mind to reactivity can lead to unskillful qualities if not done with headfulness.
I encourage you to scratch the itch and observe how your mind reacts. Then don't scratch it and observe it. Does there need to be discomfort because of the itch.
Recall the Five Subjects of Frequent Recollection:

Kammassakomhi kamma-dāyādo kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu kamma-paṭisaraṇo.

I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and live dependent on my actions.

Yaṁ kammaṁ karissāmi kalyāṇaṁ vā pāpakaṁ vā tassa dāyādo bhavissāmi.

Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.

Evaṁ amhehi abhiṇhaṁ paccavekkhitabbaṁ.

We should often reflect on this.


What would be some Japanese Buddhist/Shinto routines or rituals that households will do?

This article about Buddhism in Japan mentions visiting temples, having an altar, saying grace, and greetings.

Some traditional Japanese arts have Buddhist influences or applications: including flower arranging and gardens -- and calligraphy.

A zafu.


It is very clear that the english word 'rebirth' in Buddhist writing and practice causes a whole host of confusions and misunderstandings. This is evident in this forum with the myriad questions and debates that have erupted as a consequence. As an added complexity, not all of the confusions and misunderstandings are related or easily dispelled in the same way.
Now, with that said I don't quite know how to answer the question, "Is it right to use the term rebirth in the Buddhist context?"
Let's grant the supposition that the answer is yes and see what the consequences are:

The word 'rebirth' could be replaced with another english word or words
The word could be omitted entirely with a blank in its place

The problem with #1 is that this has already been tried. In fact, numerous other words have been suggested instead. You've mentioned two - metempsychosis and re-incarnation - but many more have been used in the past with transmigration being another heavily used synonym.
Some on this forum are heavily biased against the word 'rebirth' thinking it causes more confusion than not and have insisted that 'rebirth' was never uttered by the Buddha. Which is true insofar as the Buddha did not speak english.
For me, I see all of this arguing over the 'right' word to use as rather beside the point. I don't think it is true that there exists one or more 'right' words that would magically dispel all the confusion and misunderstanding that come along with the word 'rebirth' or the ideas that the word is used to convey.
My go to strategy to try and dispel the confusions and misunderstandings that the word 'rebirth' and the ideas behind it often inspire is to focus not on 'rebirth' from life-to-life, but rather 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment. Why? Because I've found that most Buddhists or people learning about Buddhism have an easier time thinking about and granting that 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment happens and can relate it back to their own daily moment-to-moment lives in an experiential way. And a lot of the same questions that pop-up in 'rebirth' from life-to-life also pop-up in a natural way in 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment.
Let's take your contention that, "the very notion of rebirth/re-incarnation/punarjanma carries within it the concept of a permanent entity moving from birth to birth?"... that is true of 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment as well isn't it? Don't we all have the sense and experience that there is some permanent entity moving from moment-to-moment? So if we can resolve how it can be that 'rebirth' from moment-to-moment happens all the while not having some permanent entity moving from moment-to-moment, - and it most undoubtedly does happen as we can all attest experientially, right? - then perhaps we can take that and extrapolate what it means for 'rebirth' to happen from life-to-life.


I have been meditating by myself since 2015 but nothing worked for me

I get only tingling sensation on my forehead & constant buzzing sound.

Do not give too much importance to this for the moment, i.e., do not consider it as good and crave for it or do not consider it bad and be averse towards it. Just keep your equanimity knowing they arise and pass.

Besides, I have not gotten any slight improvements in my behavior.

Behaviour doesn't change overnight. In the past, given 10 situations you react in an unwholesome way. If this changes to 9 out of 10 or 8 out of 10 situations, this is an improvement. So if there is a slight improvement also, this is immaterial, so just keep doing what you are doing.
Also there could be no improvement because you are practicing wrong or the techniques you are practicing might not be suitable to you.

How to meditate finally? That one method that can bring peace and calmness to me.

When you meditate calmness and insight grows. So do both:

Anapanasati, and
Satipatthana

When to do ?

Whenever possible. But this might help:

5 - 10 minutes after waking up (awake but just not yet out of bed)
until you fall asleep (in bed but not yet fallen asleep)
1 hour session in the morning
1 hour session in the evening / night

Prerequisites.

The main thing is morality hence contemplate on morality and make a determination to be moral. In addition the following may would be helpful:

Develop some faith in the practice so you would be earnest in the effort you put into it
Develop gratitude towards the Triple Gem, otherwise you will not have got the chance to practice
Develop a sense of urgency to practice, think this might be the last chance
Develop Metta

How much to do?

Generally do 2 session of about 1 hour or more formally. Use this as a booster to continue the practice during daily activities. Ultimately it is being mindful during daily activities that gives the real results.
In doing 2 sessions, if one session is not productive then the other might be more productive. At the start of the session, you might not be meditating much hence it should be long enough to settle down and put some solid practice.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka


Do modern-day Buddhists take "Mara The Evil One" literally?

Of course, I can't speak for all modern-day Buddhists, but for myself, those that I have learned from, and those that I have known, we believe that Mara is the metaphorical personification of the forces that oppose enlightenment. I've not met any Buddhist who believes that Mara is a literal personal being.


Beings with consciousness encompass all sentient beings, in addition to being self aware human being have a capacity to be compassionate, temperate, and just; generally humans have a capacity to be virtuous.

Quoted below is a stoic sage lamenting like you do (not Buddhist source i know, but i think its interesting to read. :)

  Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If
  the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his
  way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is every thing
  judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form
  in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But
  the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and
  the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here
  is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is
  refuted: he is an ass: in another man the sense of shame is become
  dead: he is good for nothing, he is any thing rather than a man. This
  man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a
  sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.


Sources on the Consequences of insulting

I think the most famous sutta is Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2).


Attachment to that which is impermanent will result in suffering. Attachment is clinging or holding onto something, resisting change, seeking to duplicate past experiences when that is simply unreliable or even impossible.

One can live a normal life without attaching - we can do this by ceasing to fall prey to our habitual judgements and reactions, cultivating a mindfulness that sees things as they are, without a faulty bias or colored glass to see with. When we are not mindful of our feeling, perceptions, or judgements, we get carried away with the proliferation resulting from that. One can enjoy music or a garden without becoming attached to it - you know these flowers will wither, and the music will fade to silence, yet they are still pleasant. As long as you are aware of their Impermanence and the fact you judge them as pleasant, you'll be fine.

Seeing clearly, without judgements, leads to Equanimity, which leads to non-attachment, which leads to peace, which is freedom from suffering. The more Equanimity, the less suffering. When we see clearly, we see all things as impermanent, not capable of satisfying our desire, and therefore not worth attaching to or identifying with. When one truly knows attachment as the precursor of suffering, it is easy to avoid, like you avoid putting your hand in open flame.

When attachment arises, become mindful of it. Ask, is it skillful, leading towards relinquishment and freedom? Ask, is this attachment permanent, satisfying, or truly mine? Then, simply observe as you let it go. How does it feel to release an attachment, to watch a desire fade away? When you resist the urge to eat that candy bar, how do you feel? Try it out. Come and see. ;)


Does the aim of enlightenment equal the aspiration of the end of all life?

It certainly seems that the cravings & aversions that result in suffering are also the instinctual or underlying tendencies ('anusaya') that exist in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution and physical life. This seems to be why the biological life of both animals & people involve the struggle for survival, the merciless devouring of the weak, wars & emotional heartbreaks, such as mothers mourning for their lost sons, children & family members killed in war.

It may seem like a contradiction but the Buddhist way of life has its foundation in harmlessness & thus the preservation of life. Where as the biological evolutionary life that includes cravings & aversions (but which also must include love & social co-operation), as already mentioned, often demonstrates a scant respect for life.

For example, in fables for children that later appeared in cultural Buddhism, there is the story of the Buddha in a past life deliberately & compassionately feeding his body to a starving tigress (female tiger) that had just given birth to offspring. The female tigress devoured the Buddha-To-Be without a thought. This shows how the craving tigress cared less for (another) life than the cravingless Buddha-To-Be.

Therefore, the idea of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life because the sole goal of Buddhist practise is to improve life by ending both mental suffering & animalistic cruelty. Buddhism is about spiritual/wisdom evolution rather than biological evolution.

What is called 'liberation' in Buddhism means 'liberation from suffering' (rather than liberation from life). To quote:

  This unshakeable deliverance (liberation) of mind is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood and its final end (culmination). Simile of the Heartwood

To quote again:

  I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who
  leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the
  extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’

  Monks, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

To quote again:

  How can a fool gain gain the human ('humane') state...when there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous
  conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity...where there
  prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak...when they have not seen the Four Noble Truths...leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

In fact, enlightenment is equal to a higher or better way of "life", which is why, as shown in the first quote above, it is called "this holy life". Dhammapada verse 21 clarifies this:

  21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.

This is why a synonym for enlightenment is 'The Deathless'.

  The destruction of lust, hatred and delusion: this is called the final goal of the holy life. SN 45.20

  The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the unconditioned. SN 42.1

  The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the deathless. SN 45.7

To quote again from MN 140 about the Deathless:

  By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die;
  he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in
  him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not
  ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being
  shaken, why should he yearn?

To conclude,  the ideal of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life.

As for the ideal of all beings attaining liberation (which would probably end human life but not all life), this is only found in Mahayana Buddhism and did not exist in the original Pali Buddhism, as shown in the Uttiya Sutta. From the very beginning, the Buddha never believed all beings could reach enlightenment.

  Out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes
  and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull,
  those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and
  those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
  MN 26


At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, there are these five clinging-aggregates. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as an a clinging-aggregate.

  [...]

  "And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling."

  -- SN 22.56

  "There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings."

  -- SN 36.1

  "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate."

  -- SN 22.48


When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right?

Maybe, maybe not.

Negative dreams indicate evil or negative thoughts inside of you.

Interpreting dreams is mentioned as a Wrong means of livelihood for monks (DN 2 and elsewhere).

If you want to have no negative dreams practice cultivating, developing, and pursuing loving-kindness towards all beings (metta).

It is mentioned as one of the 11 advantages of developing loving-kindness (metta):

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  He sleeps in comfort.
  He awakes in comfort.
  He sees no evil dreams.
  He is dear to human beings.
  He is dear to non-human
  beings.
  Devas protect him.
  Fire, poison, and weapons cannot
  touch him.
  His mind can concentrate quickly.
  His countenance is
  serene.
  He dies without being confused in mind.
  If he fails to
  attain arahantship here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-realm.

  (AN 11.15)

Therefore try to concentrate and pervade your entire body and mind with loving-kindness on a daily basis to gain these 11 advantages.


How is walking meditation different than other forms of activity?

I've read that things like aikido, yoga, swimming, running are not
  meditation. How is walking meditation different?

Could you cite the source or teacher who says this?

In my experiential understanding, and in general, in Buddhist philosophy, any action done mindfully is meditation. The goal of Buddhism is to be mindful of our actions all the time.

The Buddha goes so far as to say that it is not merely by reciting verses in praise of awakening, that we pay homage to the Buddha, but every moment we are mindful, we pay homage to the Buddha within us.

One can certainly practice running meditation if one's mindfulness is very strong.

Walking meditation is safe for the beginner who can observe the action of raaaaiiiissssssing his feet, and loooowwwwwweeeeering his feet, in many dimensions - the tug of the muscles, the raising of the hem of his garment, the brush of wind under the foot, the weight of the sandal as it hangs loose and so on.

I imagine if one was learning to observe like this in detail with an activity like swimming where rapid strokes are required, it can lead to a dangerous situation. As it is, it is common to see people unused to walking meditation stumble on their first attempt because they are so lost in observation, they forget to balance.

In Akido, and other martial arts, Mushin is a prized quality of mind.


As per buddism, how is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs?

I would like to answer this not from the perspective of a knowledgeable Buddhist, but from the perspective of someone who has been clean and sober for over 9 years. Disclaimer: I am a recent Buddhist and know very little about the mechanics or the theory of it all. I simply practice daily meditation with the intent of awakening someday in this lifetime (or the next, or the next...). I also do not claim that what worked for me will work for you. That said, I know how to get and stay sober from a practical perspective and feel obligated to share that path when someone asks.

The only thing that worked for me was to get involved with a 12 step program. Built into all 12 step programs is the concept of "prayer and meditation." I had to turn over my life to a higher power who I didn't really think existed and in whom I had no confidence. And I had to take action by working through the steps. But I was amazed early on that by doing so, I was relieved of my compulsion to use. By taking small, simple daily steps every day and following good, orderly direction, I have managed to stay away from any mind altering substance for quite a while now, and I hardly ever think about it at all. I cannot even begin to describe to you how much better my life is since I made that small decision back in 2006.

A key detail about 12 step programs is that you don't have to believe in any one particular conception of God (or higher power, or whatever you think to call him/her/it). All you have to do is believe that there is a power greater than yourself and that you ain't it. This means that the programs welcome Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics...anything you like. And this is what made it acceptable to me. If it were strictly a Christian thing I would have been screwed.

I have thought a great deal about whether or not it is possible to recover from addiction through Buddhism...I assume by reaching a certain level of non-attachment. But for me, I know that 12 step programs work so I am not about to go screwing around with a proven formula. The stakes for me are just too high (haha).

OTOH I am VERY interested to see if my compulsion for foods like cookies, candy, ice cream, bread and meat will be abated through continued practice of meditation. I'm hopeful, but in this case it isn't likely to kill me nearly so fast as going back to active addiction is.

I don't know what your particular substance of choice is (or should I say, substance-of-non-choice...once I start to use, all choice is out of my hands and I am engulfed). But there is undoubtedly a group in your area that you can connect with. And even if you live out in the middle of nowhere, in today's world there are hundreds of meetings and support groups available online for just this purpose. Use Google to find that is appropriate to you.

I wish you the best. You are brave for coming on here and baring your sole. Keep reaching out and exploring and you will find the answer that is right for you.


Am I falling asleep or am I deepening my concentration?

Ah, the bliss plateau. Good that you caught this now.  Some practicioners never get past it, the quietitude is too enticing for them to push past.  In Zen, we call this "dead sitting" and it can completely ruin the practice of even experienced monks.
What you're experiencing now is step two on your way to absorption.  Step one was the monkey mind that you put to rest.  Here, correct me if I'm wrong, but I bet you can sit longer than you could in stage one.  Your body is probably moving less, and, like you mentioned, your thoughts aren't as intrusive.
In order to go beyond, you need an anchor point.  Unless if you have one to apply your mind to, you are going to drift off into that see of oceanic bliss and never find your way to the other shore.
You're working with a mantra.  That's similar to how we work with a koan in Rinzai.  One thing I've found effective is to hold the vowel sounds.  Keep them going so the mantra takes up the entirely of a single breath.  Wait for that exhalation to stop.  Don't force the breath out.  The technique I have been using more often these days is to simply find a spot and anchor your attention there.  Don't force the concentration point.  Sit on it.  Just like you don't have to force your butt down to stay seated, just plop your attention down on that point and let it sit there.  Dont let your mind shift off that spot.
If you're doing this right, a feeling of energy is going to start to emerge.  It may feel like tension or discomfort in the body.  It can also start as a feeling of pressure in the head.  Theres going to be a temptation to move your body or slide off your seat of concentration.  Resist that.  Stay with that energy.  Eventually it will crack - but please don't try to crack it.
When that happens, you'll have this meditation thing pretty well sorted!


Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
by Shunryu Suzuki is a very good way to start. Read as many books as you can on all the wonderful schools of meditation.
From my experince the sensation of pins and needles has to do with poor blood circulation resulting from blockages of different parts of your meridian system. Tai Chi or Yoga can help prepare you physically and mentally for sitting meditation. You may want to consider standing or walking meditation as an alternative. i commend your spirit your practice is well on it's way. i applaud your questions you show real insight. Our teachers first question after sitting was.. Please share with us what you felt? Your question was one of the most common physical sensations shared among beginners. May i suggest that you look for a teacher.... that in it's self can be a fun journey. OVER&OUT


What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice?

Bodhisattvahood, is not really a quality, at least not in the sense you are saying. A Bodhisattva is a being striving to reach enlightenment as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all beings.

They have a set of vows that they must take and keep. They are similar to monks, except their vows are of a different variety.

I think you are thinking of the term Ahrat, or someone who has obtained nirvana. Yet the two terms are related in a way.

The thing about a realization of Śūnyatā, at least in the teachings I have heard, is that you know, there is no doubt. This is of course a direct understanding I refer to, not an intellectual theoretical understanding. Those who experience it directly do not have to ask for a clarification.

As for your personal experience, don't get me wrong, it is your experience. What value it has is not for others to determine. You must decide what impact to let it have on you. I spent years chasing after answers after an experience I had in my teenage years, and though I learned a ton about myself, and many other things, ultimately I came to the conclusion that the experience was a dead end, and not to pursue it further.

One Rinpoche who I went to talk to about the experience advised me to just passively watch and observe if it were to happen again. He explained to me about how when he was a boy he had to reach out and touch objects to ensure that they were really there.

Now just because my experience was a dead end does not necessarily mean yours was. There are two possibilities, it was a genuine experience, or it was somehow related to your condition.
Either way, it is your mind, and you can analyze it as an aspect of yourself. Where you go from here, and what you decide to do with the experience and the memory of it though, is completely up to you.