What is the learning sign "uggahanimitta"?

The Pali term nimitta,  means a “sign," i.e., the idea or image conceived,  or an object perceived. The keeping in mind of a nimitta, and maining it is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta (i.e., that of the breath), and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face. The ‘nimitta’ is your main object of focus. When the hindrances are being overpowered by the jhana factors inwardly, on the side of the nimitta too certain changes are taking place. The original object of concentration, i.e., in the mindfulness of breathing the touch sensation of the breath, with the strengthening of concentration the breath gives rise to another object called the "learning sign" (uggaha-nimitta).

For the breath it will be a reflex image arisen from the touch sensation of the air currents moving around the nostrils. When the uggaha-nimitta appears, the meditator leaves the breath nimitta and fixes his attention on this new object. In due time still another object will emerge out of the uggaha-nimitta. This is called the "counterpart sign" (patibhaga-nimitta).  It is a purified mental image many times brighter and clearer than the uggaha-nimitta.

These nimittas can be either beneficial or harmful, true or false, so we shouldn't place trust in them. That is why before getting into meditation, one should be very clear of the purpose for the meditation. It should be solely for the aim of attaining Nibbhana. Then you will not give into these distractions.  When meditating alpha brainwave is produced in you when your body calms down and your mind is completely relaxed. Your brain's thinking is slower, your mind is clear and you may even feel slightly drowsy. If you are not firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta you tend to cling in to these without contemplating the impermanency of these. If we're thoroughly mindful and alert, they can be beneficial, as you are firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. But if our powers of reference are weak or if we lack strength of mind, we're likely to follow the drift of whatever images appear, sometimes losing our bearings to the point where we latch on to the images as being real.

The uggaha-nimitta can be experienced in some peoples normal life too. The worldly knowledge is of two types – one that comes from studying books or ones that comes from thinking things through. This second kind of knowledge arises within the mind itself. People who are trained in the theoretical sciences work with their thinking. They think to the point where an idea appears as a picture in the mind, like an uggaha-nimitta (spontaneous image). When the picture appears in the mind, they may sketch it down on paper, and then experiment with physical objects to see if it works. If it doesn't work, they make adjustments, creating a new idea from their old idea — keeping at it until they find what works in line with their aims.


How should a disciple of the Buddha with great samadhi verify that rebirth occurs after physical death?

Yes. This question is on the wrong track because Dependent Origination is only about the 12 conditions that result in suffering, i.e., sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. To quote:

  And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabricators. From fabricators as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mentality-&-materiality. From mentality-&-materiality as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

In other words, the 12th nidana is not about physical death. The following quote states aging-&-death cease when 'the eye sees a form', i.e., while the physical body is still alive:

  On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing
  forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with
  body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He
  discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release &
  discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease
  without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he
  doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain
  fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it,
  & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the
  cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging.
  From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of
  becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
  From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

  MN 38

When someone or something you love & are attached to dies, you suffer. This is because the mind previously took 'birth' ('jati') via becoming ('bhava') as a 'self-identity' ('sakkhaya') attached ('upadana') to the sense object ('ayatana') that passes away ('marana').

For example, you identify yourself with a sense object that is a woman that you call 'my wife' & you call yourself 'her husband'. If your wife physically dies (by physical death) or the legal status (convention) of 'wife' socially dies (by divorcing you), your self-identity as a 'husband' also 'dies', which is suffering.

Or when you look into a mirror & see your skin wrinkling, your hair becoming grey, your teeth rotting, etc, you suffer due to the thought: "I am aging, I am going to die". These thoughts produce suffering because those five aggregates that appear in the mirror the mind regards to be "I", "me", "mine" & "myself".

For example, you may watch TV and see 10,000 Chinese people die in an earthquake but suffer more if you see your pet dog, pet cat or pet goldfish die. You may suffer more if your favourite pen is stolen. This is because the mind identifies with & is attached to the pet dog, pet cat, pet goldfish or pen but not attached to the 10,000 Chinese people. The death of 10,000 unknown Chinese people do not cause suffering but the death of a pet cat causes tremendous suffering.

Aging-&-death in Dependent Origination refers to the aging-&-death of 'beings' ('satta') and the various orders of 'beings'. 'Beings' ('satta') is defined in the suttas as states of attachment & identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a 'view'.

The relationship between the nidanas of birth (self-identifying) & aging-&-death (suffering due to loss) is explained simply below:

  He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  Nakulapita Sutta

You may ask yourself when suffering: "Why am I suffering?". The general answer is because of change & loss, i.e., aging-&-death. Then ask: "Why did aging-&-death cause me to suffering?" The answer is because I ignorantly regarded the lost or deceased object to be "I", "me" & "mine"; I took birth as the 'owner' of those objects.

Below is what famous Thai monk Ajahn Chah had to say about this:

  Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are
  our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax
  and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house
  ''dies'' along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set
  things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is
  the ''birth.'' The ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we
  cling to as our own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we
  consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a
  thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be
  like cutting the owner down.

  http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Flood_Sensuality1.php

This taking 'birth' as the 'owner' of sense objects is explained in the definition of 'birth', below:

  And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth, production of the the various beings in this or that group of beings via the manifestation (distorted perceptual appearance) of the five aggregates & acquisition (taking ownership) of sense media (objects), that is called birth.

  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

Again, the same Pali term for 'acquisition' is used below:

  yāyaṃ attabhāvapaṭilābho yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā
  kamati no parasañcetanā, attasañcetanāhetu tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhā kāyā
  cuti hoti

  ...in that acquisition (paṭilābho) of individuality (attabhāva;
  self-becoming) in which one's own volition (attasañcetanā) operates
  but not the volition of others (parasañcetanā), it is by reason of
  their own volition that beings (sattānaṃ) pass away (cuti; shift;
  vanish) from that group (kāyā)

  AN 4.171

The sutta below states whenever objects of consciousness are appropriated or 'stolen' to be "I", "me" & "mine", there will be inevitable punishment or suffering.

  "And how, O monks, should the nutriment consciousness be considered?
  Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
  him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
  Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
  tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
  spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
  noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
  alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
  a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
  again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
  evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.

  "What do you think, O monks? Will that man, struck with three hundred
  spears during a day, suffer pain and torment owing to that?"

  "Even if he were to be struck only by a single spear, he would suffer
  pain and torment owing to that. How much more if he is being struck by
  three hundred spears!"

  "In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment consciousness be
  considered. If the nutriment consciousness is comprehended,
  mind-and-matter are thereby comprehended. And if mind and body are
  comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the
  noble disciple."

  Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh


How does chanting work in Nichiren Buddhism?

Incidentally, Nipponzan-Myōhōji, a modern religious movement that emerged from Nichiren sect, was my first contact with real-life Buddhist practice. In Nichiren, chanting NA-MU-MYO! HO! REN! GE! KYO! is revered as a symbol of what they call "the true cause of Buddhahood". The idea being, if one never hears about Enlightenment one cannot get onto the path, so in each individual case of Enlightenment, the process must have started with someone dropping the word which planted the seed in the student's mind.

Nichiren (the founder) must have thought very low of his times -- chanting a title of a sutra(!) sounds like a suitable teaching for hell, the inhabitants of which would otherwise have no chance of asking "What does this mean, NA-MU-MYO-HO-REN-GE-KYO? Hm... glory to the Sutra of the Lotus of the True Dharma... So what is this True Dharma thing?" question.

A contemporary Buddhist teacher my friend Dennis Wallez explains:

  Indeed Japan was quite in disarray at the time, torn by wars and famine and persecutions... Nichiren thought this partly was the karmic consequences of the perversion of Buddhism by previous schools. The notion of "Latter days of the dharma" was in full swing too and many teachers saw the local situation as a confirmation...

So to summarize, in Nichiren chanting is both a symbol and practice of seeding the basic seeds, a seemingly primitive work that is never beneath a compassionate Bodhisattva.

This is why Terasawa Junsei, a prominent teacher of Nipponzan-Myōhōji, was (and still is) such a big advocate of chanting NA-MU-MYO-HO-REN-GE-KYO in public, especially in troubled areas such as zones of armed conflicts.


Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What are grievous crimes?

Page 99 of this account of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code list 11 types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus,

  a pandaka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter—see Sanghadisesa
  2),
  a “non-human” being, (this includes nagas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
  a hermaphrodite,
  a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
  a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his
  status as a bhikkhu,
  a person who has murdered his father,
  a person who has murdered his mother,
  a person who has murdered an arahant,
  a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhuni,
  a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to
  bleed, and
  a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Sangha, knowing or
  suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

Pages 44 through 98 describe just four parajika rules, where if a bhikkhu breaks (or has broken) one of these rules then they are automatically no longer a bhikkhu and cannot ordain again in this life:

Sexual intercourse
Stealing
Killing
Falsely claiming a superior human state


Skillful ways to induce Rapture and Pleasure in meditation

If the meditator is trying to "induce" rapture & pleasure, as taught by some meditation teachers, the meditator is already caught up in them.

Buddhism is not the same as the consumer culture, where pleasure is easily obtained.

True rapture & pleasure are a reward for right morality & noble selflessness (non-attachment).

The quality of mind & mindfulness described in the Anapanasati Sutta is as follows:

  There is the
  case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening
  dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of
  qualities as a factor for awakening... persistence as a factor for
  awakening... rapture as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment... serenity as a factor
  for awakening... concentration as a factor for awakening... equanimity
  as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on
  dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment.


Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts

Ask yourself if the misconduct will bring about less suffering for any being.
Bring yourself to be honest with the person you wronged, take on their burdens.
Only once the suffering is forgiven will you see your true life potential Buddha nature.


Is there a separate word for pain (in Pali) which the Buddha used to differentiate pain from suffering?

The Buddha taught 3 types of dukkha:

Dukkha-dukkhata, the actual feeling of physical or mental unpleasantness.
Sankhara-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of the formations.
Viparinama-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of change.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html
Dukkha is principally defined as the aggregates:

Natthi khandhasamā dukkhā
no pain like the aggregates
https://nanda.online-dhamma.net/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en-chap15/

They are also called aggregates of clinging [upadana] because they are what is being clung to [upadana] as one focuses on the allure of the aggregates which are the 5 classes of past, present & future phenomena (form, feeling, perception, formation & consciousness).
Craving is a requisite for Upadana which is in turn a requisite condition for becoming.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.052.than.html
An Arahant does not cling but is not to be said to be without the aggregates. Even tho his mind is made straight, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain.
To differentiate between physical and mental pain one can use 'kayika dukkha vedana' and 'cetasika dukkha vedana' or more specifically ie domanassa which is sadness or grief and thus a type of cetasika [mental] dukkha.
The Sutta mentioned in the op uses kayika and cetasika to differentiate between mental and physical pain.

They experience two feelings:
So dve vedanā vedayati—
physical and mental.
kāyikañca, cetasikañca
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.6/en/sujato


Do you know of ways to financially support the Sangha?

The easiest approach would be to find a temple/monastery in the tradition you want to support and go to their website or visit them in real life if possible. Their website often contains details on how to to support them, e.g. via Paypal with a single or monthly donation. Some places also have a "wishlist" with items they need such as toiletpaper, gardening tools, food supplies etc. Other places have projects that they need help with such as a library project or physical buildings that need to be build. Manual labour can be a great way of helping out too.

Many monasteries have a social media page as well, e.g. Facebook where they allow people to make donations.


Losing in thought and autopilot kicked in

Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought?

When Satti is absent you create fabrications hence future misery. Therefore, it is a "mistake" to be lost in thought.

  Is my way of countering have bad effect?

You are doing Kayanupassana hence this is one of the solution is being mindful, i.e., mindfulness of the body. In addition be mindful of the bodily sensation when moving like the fabrics touching your body, the wind sweeping over your skin, etc. Also look at muscular pains and pain and pleasure in changing postures.

Ultimately what you have to work with is to realise 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination this you can realise through any experience you perceive as good, bad and neutral and this leads to sensation which are pleasant, unpleasant and neutral and even the pleasant and neutral are unsatisfactory due to 3 Characteristics while unpleasant is unsatisfactory on its own and neutral opens us for further existence and it can still give unpleasantness in the future.


Noting-Technique: How many notes per second/minute?

As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, noting/labeling is done at the time of recovering from distraction, not all the time!

You sit and breathe and let your mind expand in its natural state, while the fishes of psychosomatic shadows swim deep under the ice, and then sooner or later one of the them raises up getting progressively sharper, becomes a fully-formed thought, then suddenly swallows you and carries away. As soon as you can, you notice that you got carried away, mentally label this very fact (silently saying "thought" in your head, or just making a mental note), and come back to just sitting. Makes sense?

You don't rigidly fasten the mind to the here-and-now, nor do you mechanically attach discursive evaluation ("thought" or whatever) to each and every mental phenomena. You give your mind some room.

This is like watching the airplanes do the touch-and-goes, you don't shut down the sky, you don't forcefully control every airplane, you wide open the sky and let them fly -- but when one of them tries to land on your airport and grasp you, you allow it to just brush your airstrip with its wheels, and then slip away letting it dissolve back to the pregnant emptiness it came from.

But if it does land and capture you, then by definition you are no longer watching. You can setup a subconscious alarm though, that will ring soon after you're caught -- and this is when you wake up, say "thought!", let go of the thought, and come back to watching.


Right Livelihood for monks (in the Theravada tradition) would equate to following the dhamma-vinaya.

That is to work towards liberation for the benefit of all living beings and to act in accordance with this goal. The Buddha provided a set of 227 rules, which monks should abide by, for those who want to walk and live the path to its fullest extent.

Hopefully others can weigh in and quote exact passage from the cannon

Edit:

I was reading and stumbled upon a sutra, which may add to the discussion.

  “And what, monks, is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood. This, monks, is called right livelihood."

  An Analysis of the PathMagga-Vibhaṅga Sutta  (SN 45:8)


Should any monastic be considered a noble one?

Taken that a good friend would give you advices to abstain from things which could harm you or of bad results, what advices would you give, being in such a possition, knowing that cause and effect isn't a democratical thing, or a "liberal"? Would you send him in an easy fatal lost "war" to win his favor, give into possible defilements?

While it is a very seldom gift of being well-wished adviced, even if disliking, think on you as a child and your parents, it's not something you are obligated to and so worthy to think clear why wishing to do, honest.

Just a sample, not to present something, but to have a possibility to think maybe more from outside, as life actually runs different as thought, as just one to give: Assimilating of Bhante Samahita's death, decay of beloved

For on ordinaty person it's really hard to keep preoccupations, feeling... seperated, not to speek of understanding of what possible just known from far.

So it's really not an easy issue if serious wishing to build up Nissay with those headed toward liberation, not even if after good, firm, intellectual understanding.

May all take care and often remember their parents hardship to even letting have grown till here.

For all that reason, since the old, people are adviced to focus their dedications toward the Sangha and others then the most think, the Buddha gave also to householders advices of how to react on "troublesome" monks, since thinks aren't for sure! And the Buddha knew his Pappenheimer:

  ...Anāthapiṇḍika the householder heard that, “They say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī.”

  Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, they say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī. How am I to behave with regard to these monks?”...The Discussion of the Eighteen Grounds

Old lay people in tradition countries, wouldn't advice or support one, nearly generally, especially if having been monks, but of course they had no google and suttacentral-monks, which might be useful or will most eternal cut of the stream of those rest heading already outward. So again, right critic leads to heaven (even if just by ones thought) and wrong likewise to hell. So the proverbs of binding a knot into your tongue aren't out of reason, one can be sure, and for good deeds one does not need to become a "killer", not even one who stuggles outwardly long. In both directions, and the rest stays open for real compassion and seldom left paramis one could have.

And to add an importand issue, kamma, and that's what the most here is about, doesn't care whether you then tell wrong just your friend, spread it cicretly or anonymuosely... a larg bypass downstairs as well, by especially "smart".

There should be no issue better to simply direct the case direct, and if no "success", onecan deside to left another off for one self, not even just at least.

(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds, but for freedom from it.)


Do we have to believe that good people exists?

If we may agree that good requires the skillful, then:

AN3.69:9.1: There are these three skillful roots.
What three?
Contentment, love, and understanding.

Contentment, love, and understanding are worth cultivating for their own sake without needing to assess others. Indeed, the Buddha says quite clearly that:

MN8:12.12: ‘Others will have wrong view, but here we will have right view.’

Good people acting out of contentment, love and understanding are to be found in all faiths. Good people inspire us all.


It's introduced, briefly, on this page of the "Fake Buddha Quotes" web site.


How would a Buddhist advise on this subset of problems of motivation?

From the article "Two Exercises for Turning Intention into Motivation" by Thupten Jinpa on Buddhist site tricycle.org, we see some useful tips on how to motivate yourself to do a task that you set yourself to do.

He states that "parents who have struggled with their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything changed the moment the child began enjoying it." Basically you need to find a way to enjoy what you're doing - this is intrinsic motivation. When you enjoy it, the rest comes naturally.

You can try the two exercises on this page.

  The question of how we motivate ourselves to pursue our deeper
  aspirations has been a major interest in the long history of Buddhist
  psychology. In Buddhist thinking, motivation is a matter of desire,
  more specifically the desire to act accompanied with a sense of
  purpose. Say, in the case of being more compassionate, it’s by making
  emotional connection with compassion and its objectives that we arouse
  in ourselves the desire to act. And it’s through seeing the benefits
  that we acquire a sense of purpose in being more compassionate.

  Contemporary psychology has only relatively recently come to
  appreciate the role of emotions in motivating our behavior. For a long
  time, the Western theory of action was dominated by rational choice
  theory, and emotions were accused of clouding the process rather than
  being an integral part of the system. To articulate the dual dimension
  of our motivation—cognitive awareness of and emotional connection with
  our goals—Buddhist psychology uses a term that is almost impossible to
  capture in any single word in English. The Sanskrit term shraddha
  (depa in Tibetan) has a broad range of meaning, the important ones
  being “faith,” “trust,” “belief,” or “confidence,” connoting
  “appreciation” and “admiration” as well. Shraddha is a felt sense like
  trust, rather than a cognitive state like belief or knowledge.
  Experientially, shraddha feels something like attachment or attraction
  to our goal, like being inspired to play guitar when you see a rock
  star do it. It’s this quality, shraddha, that primes our heart and
  mind to roll up our sleeves and play.

  How do we tap our emotional reservoir? Cognitions play a critical
  role, which the early Buddhist texts characterize as seeing the value
  of doing something. Through cognitive engagement, such as seeing the
  benefits, we connect intention with motivation. So, within this causal
  nexus, the crucial link to watch for is the one between our awareness
  of the goal and why we would go for it, our feelings about the goal,
  and our desire or will to pursue it.

  Then, again, it’s the joy we take in our efforts—the courage to try,
  the dedication to stick with it—and their results that helps sustain
  our motivations over the long run. Or, in other words, makes us want
  to keep trying and keep doing it. Parents who have struggled with
  their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything
  changed the moment the child began enjoying it. This is called
  intrinsic motivation, as opposed to the extrinsic motivation of, for
  example, the parent rewarding the child with more screen time for
  practicing her instrument. From decades of motivation research, we
  know that intrinsic motivation is far more stable and enduring. The
  process of setting intentions and joyfully reflecting on them in
  dedication is how, over time, we transform extrinsic into intrinsic
  motivations, and thereby sustain the energy and purpose to live true
  to our best aspirations.


I wish i knew more about what sutras say about this. Also, some things on the top of my head:

You observe whether a persons teachings are congruent with how that person acts.
By direct experience. You try out the teachings for yourself to find out whether they work for you or not.
By asking for clarifications to see if initial claims can be substantiated further. (A wise person once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).


Why our mind always live in habits? Why we are always making new habits? What will happen if habits are not formed?

OP: QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?

The answer for this is given in MN 19:

  “Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon,
  that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently
  thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the
  thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation,
  and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he
  frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will…upon
  thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to
  cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to
  thoughts of non-cruelty.

The inclination of one's mind translates to habits in thoughts and actions.

  OP: Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in
  habits?

This is because we have the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) as found in AN 7.11 (or from here):

  "Monks, there are these seven obsessions. Which seven?

  "(1) The obsession of sensual passion (or sensual desire).
  "(2) The obsession of resistance (repulsion).
  "(3) The obsession of views.
  "(4) The obsession of uncertainty (doubt).
  "(5) The obsession of conceit.
  "(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.
  "(7) The obsession of ignorance.

  "These are the seven obsessions."

Forming habits of sensual enjoyment e.g. sex , coffee, desserts etc. is due to the obsession of sensual passion.

Forming habits of self-improvement e.g. reading, fitness etc. is due to the obsession of passion for becoming.

According to this answer, the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) are a type of defilement (kilesa) or mental impurity that is caused by ignorance (avijja) in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).


Being cheated on in return should be the last thing to worry about according to the SN suttas. In SN 3.9, Ven. Bodhi's note provided the background story to the huge animal sacrifice set up for king Pasenadi of Kosala:

  ..In brief: The king had become infatuated with a married woman and planned to have her husband killed so that he could take his wife. One night, unable to sleep, he heard eerie cries of inexplicable origin. The next day, when he anxiously asked his brahmin chaplain to explain the meaning, the priest told him that the voices portended his imminent death, which he could avert only by performing a great sacrifice. When the king later inquired from the Buddha about the voices, the Buddha told him these were the cries of adulterers boiling in a cauldron in the great hell.

In SN 19.11, Ven. Moggallana during his alms round in the city of Rajagaha reported seeing a man with head submerged in a pit of dung. The Buddha then explained the reason:

  ..That being, bhikkhus, used to be an adulterer in this same Rajagaha. Having been tormented in hell for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years as a result of that kamma, as a residual result of that same kamma he is experiencing such a form of individual existence.


Please read "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill" by Lily de Silva.
All teachings from the suttas related to this topic are summarized in this essay.
Here's a quote from it.

The Sotapattisamyutta contains a valuable discourse on the question of
counseling the terminally ill (S.v,408). Once Mahanama the Sakyan
inquired from the Buddha how a wise layman should advise another wise
layman who is terminally ill. Here it should be noted that both the
counselor and the patient are wise lay Buddhists. The Buddha delivered
a whole discourse on how this should be done.
First, a wise layman should comfort a wise layman who is terminally
ill with the four assurances: "Be comforted friend, you have
unshakable confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, that the
Buddha is fully enlightened, the Dhamma is well proclaimed, and the
Sangha is well disciplined. You also have cultivated unblemished
virtuous conduct which is conducive to concentration."
Having thus comforted the patient with the four assurances, he should
ask him whether he has any longing for his parents. If he says yes, it
should be pointed out that death will certainly come whether he has
longing for his parents or not. Therefore it is better to give up the
longing.
Then, if he says he gives up his longing for his parents, he should be
asked whether he has longing for his wife and children. With the same
reasoning he should be persuaded to give up that longing too.
Then he should be asked if he has any longing for the pleasures of the
senses. If he says yes, he should be convinced that divine pleasures
are superior to human pleasures, and should be encouraged to aspire
for divine pleasures.
Then he should be gradually led up the scale of divine pleasures and
when he comes to the highest heaven of the sense sphere, his attention
should be diverted to the Brahma-world. If he says he has resolved on
the attainment of the Brahma-world, he should be admonished that even
the Brahma-world is characterized by impermanence and the rebirth
personality.
Therefore it is better to aspire for the cessation of the rebirth
personality. If he can establish his mind on the cessation of the
rebirth personality, then, the Buddha says, there is no difference
between him and the monk who is liberated.


The Kalama Sutta says that you should "know for yourselves".

It also suggests that one should consider the opinion of "the wise". Elsewhere too it's said to be important to have admirable people as friends.

Something like the Sarakaani Sutta suggests that faith (faith in the "text", perhaps) is beneficial; but that it's also possible to "destroy three fetters". The commentary says,

  These are the first three of the five lower fetters, i.e., sakkaaya-ditthi "personality-view" or belief in a permanent, really existing self; vicikicchaa "doubt" (once the "personality-view" has been shattered, there can be no further fundamental doubt about the Dhamma); and siilabbata-paraamaasa "attachment to rites and rituals" (siila + vata).

If you reach the state of "lack of doubt" I think that implies you trust your own insight.

There's a long definition of Vicikiccha (perhaps several definitions).

Some of the things you shouldn't doubt include the Buddha, Sangha, and Dhamma (which might mean, "you shouldn't doubt the text", i.e. "insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching"). But then the last paragraph i.e. ...

  Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners...

... implies that a stream-winner is defined by the ability to "distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken".

Also the Kaccayanagotta Sutta says that right view is a knowledge that is independent of others

  By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.


Is mindfulness for quick enlightenment being exaggerated in the Sutta MN10?

Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or
  it's true?

The translation is fine, but the reader must know the environment and situation of that sutta, before read it. If the reader read it without the pre-required knowledge, it is the reader's fail.

The explanation

In atthakathā of MN 10 wrote:

  Why Buddha taught mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta to Kuru-people? Because they had enough ability to study the advance teaching. It's told that Kuru-people, such as bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, lay men, and lay women,  always had the potential body and the potential mind because Kuru-country had the richness of temperature, etc. Their potential body and potential mind supported their wisdom power, so they can studied  the advance teaching.

So, most Kuru-people were diṭṭhi-cārita, who have little dust in their eyes, according to netti desanāhāravibhaṅga.

The diṭṭhi-cārita people can attain jhāna easily. So they don't have to meditate jhāna because of their pure mind. They can enlighten at the listening moment. That's why in the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta's atthakathā wrote:

  30,000 people enlightened as arahanta at the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta was taught.

therefore, the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta wrote:

  Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month … a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

But for taṇhā-carita people,who have much dust in their eyes, they have to meditate jhāna, first. After they attained jhāna, they can count down for enlightenment like what buddha taught in the end of  mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. Because jhāna can pause their five hindrances, then their "dust in eyes" state will be same little  dust as diṭṭhi-carita and they are able to count down for enlightenment.


Human are emotional beings and they usually change if you forcefully and again repeatedly tell them a new way of behaving.

People can also be (or learn to be) bullies -- and unless you are able and willing to be the biggest bully on the block, I suggest that trying to persuade people using "force" is the wrong way to go about it.

To be honest, i.e. to avoid concealing a fact that appears to contradict my thesis, the suttas describe the Buddha has having a "lion's roar" ... and being like a bull among men ...  but,

Perhaps (I'm not sure) that's not relevant to use of force -- for example:

  The Pali Commentaries explain that there are two kinds of lion's roar: that of the Buddha himself and that of his disciples. The former is sounded when the Buddha extols his own attainments or proclaims the potency of the doctrine he has realized; the latter, when accomplished disciples testify to their own achievement of the final goal, the fruit of arahantship.

See also Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?
The Buddha can be trusted to know when what and how is appropriate -- for example:

  In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

What about scolding?

I don't know (exactly what "scolding" is), according to the dictionary it's "an angry rebuke or reprimand".

So that seems to get into the question of whether and when anger is appropriate.

There was a topic What is a wrathful Buddha? from Vajrayana where an answer describes that as being like a parent pretending to be angry with their children in order to protect them -- and/or transmuting the energy of anger in a skillful way.

I'm not convinced that everyone is able to be so skillful, though; I think of anger as associated with a loss of skill (like a regression to one's infancy), and generally something to steer clear of. The Dhammapada:

  Na hi verena verani
  sammantidha kudacanam
  averena ca sammanti
  esa dhammo sanantano.

  Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Another possibility might be that "scolding" implies telling someone something repeatedly or endlessly. I'm not sure that's effective though -- if it were effective, ought you need to repeat it?

Or let us take life threatening situations

I think you might go to the police, or the courts, or use physical force yourself (though this may not have been true everywhere, my personal experience of police leaves me admiring their ability to arrest a person "with overwhelming force" and yet still "without violence" -- like you might restrain a young child near something dangerous).

Or consider a drug addict, for example, asking you to help them to continue their habit.
I think you'd be within your rights to reply, "No, I won't. It's not good for you." (though I'm sympathetic to the fact that people do help addicts).

And I think that when you say "No" like that it doesn't have to be forceful (though it may need to be repeated), nor unkind -- the kinder the better, in my opinion. The kindness may be an even more important part of the message than the "no" (the "no" closing a door but the kindness opening one).

There's also an expression that I thought might be relevant -- i.e., "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" -- that might help to explain how larger people can be bullied by smaller.

My experience of dogs tells me that's superficially true, e.g. that to deter a cowardly dog attacking a smaller dog, I may to need to be loud and explosive i.e. bark and not remain silent myself: to show it that I have a bigger bark than it does -- that there is (contrary to first appearances) a 'big dog' in me (or "in the fight"), i.e. that I'm the bigger dog.

Among humans, though, it may be more a matter of perseverance than intensity -- unless you can (and are willing to) sustain anger for hours, days, years, you may lose an anger-based competition -- anger is unreliable as a motive (but may fuel your opponent's opposition).

And so, I don't recommend it, I think it's the wrong avenue to pursue or to set off on.


I now have a more general question. I am wondering: which is more important between tolerating negative emotions and aspiring to healthier positive emotions and activities?
Any suggestions as how to tolerate negative emotions, to let them arise, are welcome. Similarly, any suggestions about ideal ways to generate joyfulness and positive emotions would be useful as well.

It really depends on the tradition/method that works for you.
When negative feelings or thoughts of ill-will arise, they can be substituted with wholesome thoughts/feelings, e.g. by practicing Loving-kindness meditation.
In Vipassana traditions, one tries to observe unwholesome phenomena passively and objectively, in order to prevent the mind from falling into liking or disliking, thereby slowly changing the habits of the clinging mind.
The general approach is explained in the noble path factor of Right Effort (Samma Vayama). In SN 45.8 - Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path, the Buddha teaches:

“... And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort ...".

To sum it up, one needs to:

abandon or dispel already arisen unwholesome states of mind.

to guard against or prevent unarisen unwholesome states of mind from arising.

to cultivate unarisen wholesome states of mind.

to main already arisen wholesome states of mind.

Wholesome states of mind are e.g.; Serenity and insight, the four foundations of mindfulness, the eight path factors and especially the seven factors of enlightenment.


Can Jiddu Krishnamurthy's teachings be considered Buddhist in nature?

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?

This is a quote from the page you referenced ...

  Krishnamurti said: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."

... so, according to him, accoding to that, maybe not (not in name).

From the same page ...

  Krishnamurti was raised within the Theosophical Society to become an incarnation of Maitreya, the messianic Buddha.

... so he was presumably (I don't know) exposed to some kind[s] of Buddhist doctrine.

Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?

Well I don't know about him in particular.

This answer says that the Theosophists (I think these were an early 20th-century European group) were trying to consolidate all religions into one -- to say that all religions were essentially the same or One in some way.

I think I've seen some people (who would call themselves themselves Buddhist) disagree with that doctrine, and disparage the Theosophists, so ...

See also e.g. this answer -- someone leaving the "Theosophical" society to found a "Buddhist" society


The single best stretch you can do is the straddle stretch.  The linked video is pretty fantastic in that it not only shows you the ideal, but also the progression leading up to it.  Honorable mention goes to the frog pose.  I also really like this sequence from Kelly Starrett.  Ultimately, what you are going to want to pay attention to is hip mobility.  Most meditators experience pain in the knees and back and tend to focus on stretches and exercises that target those two areas.  Unbeknownst to them, what's really at issue is hip and psosas tightness.  The pain they experience is a symptom of a problem farther up along the movement chain; it's being caused by the body trying to adapt to a less than ideal condition imposed by poor mobility elsewhere.  Loosen up those other areas and the discomfort will lessen significantly.

And for the record, meditating for long periods of time should make you tired.  That's kind of the point.  ;-)


How we can go to the pari-nirvana if not by being a bodhisattva?

What appears as a contradiction is the difference between Theravada and Mahayana paths. I cannot speak for the Theravada path since my study is Mahayana, but in our tradition, bodhicitta is necessary for enlightenment, eg: from the Diamond Sutra:

One who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and
awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: I must help
to lead all beings to the shore of awakening.

I have been taught that this is not a contradiction, but, rather, that Buddha gave many teachings, all tailored to the student. And that yes, it is possible to achieve nirvana, and become permanently liberated from samsara, the cycle of suffering, without bodhicitta. But that is not the path I am on. And whether or not it is possible to 'lead all lead all beings to the shore of awakening' is not the point. The point is having the intention to do so, and also, of including those you do not like.


When do I realize that I am free from rebirth?

From Milindapanha:

  The king said, “Is there anyone who is not reborn
  after death?”
   “Yes there is. The one who has no defilements is not
  reborn after death; the one who has defilements is reborn.”
   “Will you be reborn?”
   “If I die with attachment in my mind, yes; but if not,
  no.”

...

  He who is reborn, Nàgasena, is he the
  same person or another?”
  “Neither the same nor another.

...

  “Is the man who will not be reborn aware of the fact?”
  “Yes, O king.”
  “How does he know it?”
  “By the cessation of all that is cause or condition of
  rebirth. As a farmer who does not plough or sow or reap
  would know that his granary is not getting filled up.”

...

  What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
  “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
  “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
  “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are
  done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
  is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
  from the results of its previous deeds.

...

  “Does he who will not be reborn feel any painful
  feeling?”
  “He may feel physical pain, O king, but not mental
  pain.”
  “If he feels painful feelings then why doesn’t he just
  die and attain the extinction of grasping, and put an end to
  suffering?”
  “The arahant has no fondness for or aversion to life...

...

  “Will you, Nàgasena, be reborn?”
  “What is the use of asking that question again? Have
  I not already told you that if I die with attachment in my
  mind I shall be reborn, if not I shall not.”

...

  “Would he who is about to be reborn know it?”
  “Yes he would, just as a farmer who puts seed into the
  ground, seeing it rain well, would know that a crop will be
  produced.”

So, do you feel that you still have attachments, mental or emotional? That's how you know.


If you cannot can save others then why is your practice more worthy than anything else?

Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful in Buddhism, however small. Every Buddhist and non-Buddhist should practise it. See the next 3 quotes from the suttas.

From Vaccha Sutta:

  "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Itivuttaka 75:

  "And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.

  A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

The next quote from Iti 100 however shows something different. It says that the gift of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings) is superior to all other types of gifts.

From Itivuttaka 100:

  "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

Why is this the case? Other types of gifts relieve one's sufferings temporarily. But with the Dhamma, even if one would not become free from samsara in this lifetime, it would still guide them (and us) to cleanse our mind, and at least bring us to happy destinations both in this lifetime and the next.

For according to Dhammapada 1:

  "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
  their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
  mind, suffering follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of
  the ox that draws the cart."

So, even if learning the Dhamma does not free one from samsara in this lifetime, at least it will guide them to be more skillful mentally. Since the mind is the forerunner to all types of sufferings (see MN 135), becoming skillful in mind, will reduce all sufferings in future.

And according to AN 3.99:

  'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

This shows how one could reduce his or her suffering by becoming developed in body, virtue and mind.


How Can One Tell The Difference Between The Spiritual Mind And The Physical Mind?

There are other sources that support the notion that there is only one mind or consciousness in all that is. Here is one such source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_body

  In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not
  regard the body and the mind or spirit as being two entirely separate
  entities- there is no sense in Buddhism that the body is a "vessel"
  that is guided or inhabited by the mind or spirit.[1] Rather, the body
  and mind combine and interact in a complex way to constitute an
  individual. Buddhist attitudes towards the body itself are complex,
  combining the distaste for sensual pleasure that characterizes the
  general Buddhist view towards desire with a recognition of both the
  individuals dependence on the body, and the utility of the body as an
  aide in the development of insight.

Roshi Suzuki has given lectures to American students teaching what is beginner's mind. It might be of interest.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf

When thoughts stop, there is nothing but sweet nothingness.


Are Teachings developed "after the fact"?

... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.

If you as about a long path, then the land marks different people describe about the path would be different. Thus there are many description of the same road but different land marks. E.g. The middle path is described within these two Suttas abide the different landmarks. Samma,ditthi Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta. Also by nature of the practitioner certain landmarks on the road would be of more significance than others. This will result in different descriptions. Also Buddha having the ability to discern what would register in the mind of the practitioner, gave most appropriate "directions and land marks".
Another this there are multiple variations and techniques which give certain spiritual or "out of the world" experiences which the practitioner may mistake to have achived the final goal or mistakenly believe is the path when in fact it does not take you to the final goal. (Somewhat related is Brahma,jala Sutta also as introduction on it which highlights how wrong view arise.) Since you have some uncommon experience you hold that the method and techniques you practised has got you or will get you to the final goal. This give arise to different descriptions and variation and debates about the technique.
Some times these variation can be from people who have gone to the final goal. Some people have had only some imperfections or uncommon imperfections and would have done a practice to remedy that. Having achived the final goal he would teach from his experience which would result in an uncommon description of the method, which might not always work for everyone.

If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

The Buddha as well as many disciples had to do countless lifetimes of experimentation before crossing. So the part descried with what worked out the countless techniques that have been tried and tested.
Even with imperfect techniques which that you to an intermediate station, you need some experience which you describe and when the students practice it and gain some experience they believe. So some experience which can be replicated by a practice is the for runner of teaching a successful meditation technique.


How many monks required to ordain or create new Sangha?

Quorum of 10 of 10 years standing, 5 in border areas. 5 is the quorum generally outside India. [page 108, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]

The quorum to perform a patimokkha ceremony is 4 [page 110, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]


If witnessing is you, why do you witness both pleasant and unpleasant experiences? Why can't you limit witnessing to only pleasant experiences? Why does the experience of witnessing arise and cease without your consent? Why is witnessing limited by your senses? Can you witness sights if your eyes go blind or if there is no light? Why do you have to sharpen the mind through studying and practice to understand complex truths? Why can others trick you, fool you? Why can't the mind be aware of the truth at will?
 Witnessing or awareness is not worthy of being considered as a self as it is conditioned and not under one's control.

  Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss.
  So if even consciousness is not to be there. And its just literally
  nothing. Doesnt it just seem pointless.

Consciousness and bliss are conditioned. If something is conditioned, it is impermanent. If it is impermanent it comes under the first noble truth of suffering. Whatever bliss you experience in Samsara is impermanent and incapable of fulfillment. Attaining Nibbana in Buddhism is not attaining nothing. It's the attainment of the unconditioned element. It is permanent, peaceful and fulfilling.


Both happiness and sadness are feelings. Both of them fall under the first noble truth or the noble truth of suffering. Sad feelings come under suffering for obvious reasons and happy feelings come under suffering for being impermanent, deficient, incompetent, unreliable etc.

There is something better than happy feelings. Something permanent and peaceful. That is what the Buddha experienced first hand while he lived. Guiding us to find that while we live is what Buddhism is all about. It's not about trying to experience happy feelings or going to a heaven after death and experiencing some more happy feelings for a while.

Feeling lonely is a form of suffering. That suffering cannot be eliminated by looking for company. Being with friends is just a temporary consolation. That does not mean you will not get bored in the future. Buddhism doesn't tell you not to make friends or not to experience the comforts of life, especially if you
 are a layman. Buddhism offers a permanent solution to your problems. Instead of simply relying on friends every time you feel lonely, what if you are able to uproot the cause of being lonely? Then you will never feel lonely in the first place.


How often do monks get nocturnal emissions?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having nocturnal emissions. It's a completely natural physiological function.

I even dare to say that nocturnal emissions should happen in young and healthy males. If you'd have no emissions, it would mean that you have too low testosterone, testicular disease or other problems.

You say you have no "impure" thoughts, therefore there is no reason for you to feel regret or remorse. Quite the opposite, be grateful that your body is healthy and working well.

Please, don't worry about it. Many ascetics are too harsh on themselves and are trying to stop their desires or bodily functions by practising extreme fasting or some even emasculate themselves. These things are extreme and quite opposite to the Middle Path which Buddha taught. Don't damage yourself, be compassionate to yourself.

On the other hand, there is another extremity, which is the commitment to sensual pleasures, but I think it's not your case.

Peace


Does "empirical evidence" challenge "scriptural authority"?

I think the Dalai Lama is making a tactical retreat on issues he doesn't care about. He isn't claiming he's a modern secular Buddhist. I'm looking for a Donald Lopez quote but can't find one. Anyhow, Lopez often writes about how west projects more progressive & (western) Age of Englightenment ideas on the Buddhism than really are there.

When I was in uni doing economics, one of the professor's there was keenly interested in epistemology and theories of truth. There are a great many theories of truth and they vary from community from community-- what passes as true among economists, doesn't for Christians and so on.

So for Buddhists, some theories of truth I can see:

Personal experience. This is the theory of truth that is recounted in the traditional life story of the Buddha. He sat under a tree, saw things as they really are (and you can too).

Personal experiences don't settle arguments & disagreements among people and early Buddhist knew this as well.

Buddhavacana. This is truth via authority. The Buddha said it, it is true. This is moderated by the phrase "what ever is well said is Buddhavana" (And a blog post that says even that isn't as progressive as it sounds.)

Epistimology Depends on Which Buddhist Organization

The theory of truth is all wrapped up in organizational matters. An organization, especially one whose product is a set of teachings, needs to present a coherent face to its customers. We can't rationally expect an organization to be self sabotaging when it comes to projecting a message to the community-- the message has to be coherent to gain new followers, donations and so on. No one joins a group because all of their members have radically opposed views found as a result of idiosyncratic personal decisions about what is true. The join because they got the message and agree with most of it.

To appeal to scripture you first have to figure out what group you are in and what texts are authoritative. That is why answering these questions without a tag indicating what school makes it hard to answer. In the Dalai Lama's world, his gurus, the Dalai Lama's expriences are authoritative, probably followed by texts from the Gulugpa tradition. Texts in general are not authoritative. The texts themselves, again depending on the tradition, will have in them some sort of epistimilogical claims (a theory of truth and assertions on why this text meets that standard of truth). In Vajrayana and Zen, things are true because of lineage and something was said by a teacher in that lineage going back to the historical Buddha. In other schools of Buddhism, lineage isn't important, the internal qualities of the text are, e.g. Tien Tai/Nichirenism, which posit the text is authoritative-- period (i.e. doesn't matter who said it or how it came about).

Visionary Experience. Mahayana writers expanded truth to include visions seen in dreams and meditation.  In the Avatamsaka, we have what appears to be the name of the monk who had the experience that provides the basis for the sutra, Dharmamati. Ref Nattier. In otherwords, the sutra said it was legit because Dharmamati had a vision of Buddhas which preached this doctrine. Later authors just followed the style and form of earlier sutras and attributed it to the historical Buddha or a celestial Buddha.

Dealing with Conflicting Evidence
When things contradict evidence, we get the theory of two truths, where there is a conventional truth and an "absolute" truth.

In organizations, the precepts, usually a few of the 6th to 10th precepts and many of the minor precepts will talk about intragroup harmony. It is more important for the organization to endure than for an argument to be settled. People are encouraged to defer to others based on rank regardless of who is wrong (the rules about the nuns having to defer to male monks regardless to the male monk being wrong on a matter is an example). The point isn't that they don't care about what is true, the point is that a rational organization that doesn't want to self destruct has to do something to maintain harmony. It isn't rational to expect an organization  to allow and encourage a lot of heterodoxy.


Does Buddhism have a model of practical rationality?

the belief-desire-intention model of action

Are the "four noble truths" an example of that?

I "believe" the first three truths
I "desire" the end of suffering
Therefore I "intend" the fourth noble truth

Or "ethics":

I believe that immorality causes or doesn't alleviate suffering
I wish to avoid causing suffering
Therefore I intend to avoid immorality

Or "compassion":

I believe I am able to suffer (and want to avoid that)
I believe other people are like me (able to suffer and wanting to avoid that)
Therefore I intend other people to be free from suffering

  the idea is pretty much all over western philosophy and goes back - hold fast! - to Plato

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? I liked it. I'd rather not spoiler it but I was remembering it earlier today: towards the climax (which isn't at the end of the book), he goes back to Homer and the Sophists. He quite loses his cool over Aristotle, which is funny at the time, sadder later.


My understanding is the 3rd frame of reference (cittanupassana) does not involve observing thoughts (vitakka). It involves knowing whether the mind-heart (citta) is defiled or not. Defilements (kilesa) are not thoughts. Although there can be 'defiled thoughts', 'defilements' (kilesa) are the energy/drive/mood of greed, hatred & delusion, which are not thoughts.
For example, when there is sexual lust, anger or fear, the energy or vibrations that runs through & simulates the physical body with lust, anger or fear, giving rise to all kinds of physical reactions & tensions, is not 'thought'.
The teaching about the 3rd frame of reference does not mention thoughts. It states:

And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has lust, discerns that the
mind has lust. When the mind is without lust, he discerns that
the mind is without lust. When the mind has hatred, he discerns
that the mind has hatred. When the mind is without hatred, he
discerns that the mind is without hatred. When the mind has
delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is
without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is
scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is
surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is
unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind
is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that
the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns
that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns
that the mind is not released.
Satipatthana Sutta

To be able to observe clearly or meticulously the arising, existing & passing of thoughts requires a high degree of concentration (mental collectedness/clarity/stability). The teachings state:

And what is the (mental) development using concentration (samādhi) that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness (sati) &
clear-comprehension (sampajaññā)? There is the case where feelings
(vedanā) are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist,
known as they subside. Perceptions (saññā) are known to him as they
arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts
(vitakkā) are known to him as they arise, known as they persist,
known as they subside. This is the (mental) development using
concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness &
clear-comprehension.
Samadhi Sutta

A tip I can provide is to develop concentration (samadhi), such as by using Mindfulness With Breathing (Anapanasati).
An analogy is as follows. If you wish to scientifically examine water, ideally, you take a drop of water & place it under a microscope. You do not walk into a raging surf (in the ocean) with a microscope. Similarly, to observe thoughts in a meticulous manner generally requires a large amount of concentration and a small amount of thoughts.


Anapanasati vs Vipassana, what to follow?

Practice unfolds according to view. When a practitioner declares, "this works!" or "this does not work!" there is always context to be considered. What was the original individual view?
The Buddha himself pointed this out regarding the practice of serenity and discernment:

AN4.94:2.1: As for the person who has serenity but not discernment: they should approach someone who has discernment and ask: ‘Reverend, how should conditions be seen? How should they be comprehended? How should they be discerned?’ That person would answer from their own experience: ‘This is how conditions should be seen, comprehended, and discerned.’ After some time they have both serenity and discernment.
AN4.94:3.1: As for the person who has discernment but not serenity: they should approach someone who has serenity and ask: ‘Reverend, how should the mind be stilled? How should it be settled? How should it be unified? How should it be immersed in samādhi?’ That person would answer from their own experience: ‘Reverend, this is how the mind should be stilled, settled, unified, and immersed in samādhi.’ After some time they have both discernment and serenity.
AN4.94:4.1: As for the person who has neither serenity nor discernment: they should approach someone who has serenity and discernment and ask: ‘Reverend, how should the mind be stilled? How should it be settled? How should it be unified? How should it be immersed in samādhi?’ How should conditions be seen? How should they be comprehended? How should they be discerned?’ That person would answer as they’ve seen and known: ‘Reverend, this is how the mind should be stilled, settled, unified, and immersed in samādhi. And this is how conditions should be seen, comprehended, and discerned.’ After some time they have both serenity and discernment.

Serenity and discernment work together. We need them both. It doesn't help to neglect a weakness to practice a strength. We need to understand what is lacking and work to strengthen what is lacking. Different people have different views of what is needed. Your friend and you are different people with individual views. What works for your friend may or not work for you. The end goal is the same, but the practice will differ according to view. Approach the teacher with the right view.

AN3.53:1.1: Then a brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. Seated to one side he said to the Buddha: “Master Gotama, they speak of ‘a teaching visible in this very life’. In what way is the teaching visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves?”


1-I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?

You can try to experience fully all emotions and states as you apply an antidote. You wouldn't have to stop being mindful in order to do this other "antedote" practice, you can be mindful of the other practice too. When we "experience fully all emotions and states" moment by moment, that is mindfulness.

2-I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.

You can be compassionate towards yourself as you are mindful of your reactions to attempting to be compassionate to yourself. If you see you are suffering, tell yourself "it's okay". Be nurturing to yourself and be mindful of your reactions to your own compassion being aimed at you. Maybe you  dont feel your worthy of compassion grom yourself. Then tell yourself "Its Okay".

3-Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Always go back to the breath. This is what grounds the practice and facilitates peace. The breath gives the practice a home.

You will grow more and more weary of everything arising, if you are practicing correctly.


Is it possible to set goals for the future and be present at the same time?

Consider following texts:

Majjhima Nikaya (3.272)

  ‘The past should not be followed after, and the future not desired;
  what is past is dead and gone, and the future is yet to come.’

Wei Wu Wei ('Why Lazarus Laughed'):

  ‘Past and Future are a duality of which Present is the reality. The
  now-moment alone is eternal and real.’

Matthew Flickstein (* The Meditator’s Atlas. A Roadmap of the Inner World p. 157*:

  ‘The greatest enemy to the conditioned mind is the reality of the
  present moment. The mind is always trying to oppose this experience,
  since the mind only lives through thoughts of the past and the
  future.’

and Thich Nhat Hanh' ('Thich Nhat Hanh on the Practice of Mindfulness'):

  ‘Most people are forgetful; they are not really there [in the present
  moment] a lot of the time. Their mind is caught in their worries,
  their fears, their anger, and their regrets, and they are not mindful
  of being there. That state of being is called forgetfulness -you are
  there but you are not there. You are caught in the past or in the
  future. You are not there in the present moment, living your life
  deeply. That is forgetfulness.

  The opposite of forgetfulness is mindfulness. Mindfulness is when you
  are truly there, mind and body together. You breathe in and out
  mindfully, you bring your mind back to your body, and you are there.
  When your mind is there with your body, you are established in the
  present moment. Then you can recognize the many conditions of
  happiness that are in you and around you, and happiness just comes
  naturally.

  (...) Mindfulness is the energy that helps us recognize the conditions
  of happiness that are already present in our lives. You don’t have to
  wait ten years to experience this happiness. It is present in every
  moment of your daily life. There are those of us who are alive but
  don’t know it. But when you breathe in, and you are aware of your
  in-breath, you touch the miracle of being alive. That is why
  mindfulness is a source of happiness and joy.’


What does Buddhism say about the existence of a self?

The 'self' is a temporary & changing 'idea' or 'assumption' the ignorant mind makes in relation to different experiences. Each separate idea of 'self' is formed by the process of becoming.

For example, a young child first develops ideas of self, such as "my mother; my father" & "I like this food". As the child gets older, it develops ideas of self such as: "I am American"; "I am Buddhist"; "I do not understand anatta"; " I disgree with anatta", etc. Before any experience of Buddhist teachings occurred, there was never the self-view of: "I do not understand anatta". The idea "I don't understand anatta" only occurred after having a sense experience of Buddhist literature.

All things are not a 'self' because any idea of 'self' is an 'assumption' and is 'suffering'. Thus, the scriptures have the saying: 'there is no self to be found; all there is is suffering arising & suffering ceasing'. This is because the arising of self-view is considered to be, in reality, the arising of suffering.

This is why there is no real self or even a temporary self because what unenlightened people call a 'self', the enlightened mind views as 'suffering'.

When enlightened minds use the words "I" and "mine", they regard such words as mere worldly social conventions rather than a temporary self.

People will refer to the Ananda Sutta about Vacchagotta to answer your question but this is invalid since here the Buddha refused to comment on the matter of self because Vacchagotta was confused & bewildered and incapable of understanding.

Some quotes below:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.

  Parileyyaka Sutta

~~~

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.

  Vajira Sutta

~~~~

  Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are
  cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk
  still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They
  call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak
  conforming to such use.

  Araha.m Sutta

~~~

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

  Ananda Sutta SN 44

So why is 'self' viewed as 'suffering' or as a 'disease' rather than viewed as a 'self', even as a 'temporary self'?

This is because each arising & creation of 'self' is based in craving and craving is suffering.

For example, once a child's mind is developed enough to manufacturer ideas of 'self', it manufacturers ideas of 'self' based on what it craves. These cravings are suffering or frustrations.

For example, the five aggregates of the child crave for food due to hunger, so the child manufacturers the thought: "I want food" which leads to habitual thoughts: "I like this food".

Or the child feels the fear & terror of loneliness and manufacturers the thought: "I want my mother", which leads to habitual thoughts: "I love my mother".

When the child grows older, it craves to succeed at school or sport, due to the fear of social failure. It manufactures the ideas: "I must succeed" or "I am good at sport". The child now views itself as "I am sportsman", "I am a student".

Then later the young adult has sexual craving, which is suffering & frustration. The young adult, pushed by the suffering of sexual craving, obtains a partner and develops the self-view: "I am a boyfriend"; "This is my girlfriend", "I am a husband", "This is my wife".

This is why each idea of self is considered to be, in reality, merely suffering. All ideas of 'self' are produced by some form of craving, however gross or subtle.


What could a lay follower do to increase his zeal to become a monk?

I could easily have written your query. At this time however there are a few differences which may be helpful if shared.

Am in my mid 40’s. Never thought that it was actually possible. Met a Venerable at the local Vihara who stated otherwise and has taken me under his wing so to speak with ordination to be the outcome. Yes, it’s a long road, lots to learn. But if it’s truly in your heart, it will be. Make yourself visible and learn as much as you can from as many as are willing to share. Have you decided upon a school of thought? So much to consider.

Please forgive for giving what equates to being advice, but the same is also my personal experience. Hope this is helpful in some small way.

All the best to you.


There is no way around it. Sexual coercion and abuses (minor or otherwise) are reprehensible and they should be addressed.

For you to have compassion is wholesome, but it should not prevent you from taking the necessary measures. Your compassion should open your eyes on the fact that (1) you might not be the only one victim (2) the person responsible of sexual coercion must be protected from himself, and others and yourself must be protected from this person as well.

You should report to the authorities of the place you stay; and to the actual authorities (i.e. police) and you might consider seeing a psychologist so that the issue will be addressed by someone who is utterly foreign to the Buddhist circle.

The fact that the center does not take it as an issue to begin with shows that they have a blind spot (or selective attention). But sweeping things under the rug is not an option. Healing never comes from escapism, but from shedding the light of understanding and awareness on issues.

In addition, however acquainted with the working of the mind sangha can be, monks are not trained the way psychologists are. They can hardly address serious issues such as depression, suicidal ideations, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and so forth. It is difficult enough to help someone handle average afflictions - for instance if you are angry with your friend who cheated on you with your wife. Dealing with more serious issues is entirely different.

And definitely find yourself another sangha. Do not surrender your personal judgement when you entrust yourself to someone else (be it a sangha or a teacher). To entrust yourself healthily, you must not give up your own judgement and discrimination. Quiet the opposite, the teacher is not "the one who knows" and possesses a magic wand. He is the one true friend who accompanies.


What does 'loke' mean, in 'Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā' (not taking delight in 'worlds')?

This is a very good question because the word "world" ("loka") appears to have many meanings; such as the "world of suffering" (SN 12.44; AN 4.45); the mundane world of defilements & samsara (Lokavagga; AN 8.6; SN 35.82) the world or realms of mental states (MN 79) and the world of people (AN 2.9; AN 3.23). One of the definitions of Nibbana is: "not this world; not the other world".

Personally, I don't know Pali and I have a natural retardedness for grammar however my Dhamma intuition doubts the translation because of what I regard a mistranslation of "sabba" as "whole" instead of "all".

I can't imagine each of the Western translators is wrong here however I tried to examine the term "sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā" and think (possibly wrongly) the noun (loka) is in the "accusative case", which makes "loke" a plural and makes the translation: "dissatisfaction with all worlds".

The "worlds" are any type of conditioned & impermanent mental state, such as the jhana "world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa)" described in MN 79. Therefore, "dissatisfaction with all worlds" includes dissatisfaction with every "world", such as the "human world" (manussaloka), "deva world" (devaloka), "brahma world", "jhana world" (sukhassa lokassa), "hungry ghost world" (pettivisaya), world of change and distress (lokavipatti; AN 8.6) etc.

Note: I provided the above answer without reading the sutta. The answer appears to be in the sutta.

  Idhānanda, bhikkhu ye loke upādānā cetaso adhiṭṭhānābhinivesānusayā, te pajahanto viharati anupādiyanto. Ayaṃ  vuccatānanda, sabbaloke
  anabhiratasaññā.

  And what is the perception of distaste for every world? There is the case where a monk abandoning any attachments, clingings, fixations of
  awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to any world, refrains
  from them and does not get involved. This is called the perception of
  distaste for every world. (Thanissaro)

  It’s when a mendicant lives giving up and not grasping on to the attraction and grasping to the world, the mental resolve, insistence,
  and underlying tendencies. This is called the perception of
  dissatisfaction with the whole world. (Sujato)

  And what, Ānanda, is the perception of non-delight in the entire world? Here, a bhikkhu refrains from any engagement and clinging,
  mental standpoints, adherences and underlying tendencies in regard to
  the world, abandoning them without clinging to them. This is called
  the perception of non-delight in the entire world. (Bodhi)

Note: Thanissaro has translated similar to myself, using the translation "every world", which is similar to "all worlds".


By saying “attachment isn't necessarily all bad,” you are somewhat timidly suggesting that “beauty and love are not (necessarily) forms of suffering.” The truth, of course, is that both Enlightenment and the path to Enlightenment are valuable because they profoundly enhance the experiences of and capacities for love and beauty (and insight). The fact that you are placing this profound truth in question is the result of a popular misunderstanding of Buddhism.

This common misunderstanding concerns the notion of detachment (upekkha) in Buddhism. A person practices detachment only as a preparation for achieving upacara samadhi in mindfulness meditation. Upacara samadhi is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Hence, the only reason a monk may contemplate the stages of decomposition of a corpse is to temporarily suspend any attachment to the body in order to reach upacara samadhi more easily. To practice detachment as a way of life has no value, because it does not generate insight. People who practice detachment without practicing a lot of meditation are merely increasing their suffering and delaying insight for another lifetime!

QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: While the contemplation of beauty does not lead directly to insight, it is an indicator of progress for those people who value the experience of beauty.

QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: In the practice of the brahmavihara, the practices of loving-kindness (metta) and joy for others (mudita) can be sources of great joy and happiness. Of course, the contemplation of the suffering of others (which arouses compassion or karuna) is painful. The practice of upekkha (usually translated as equanimity, but better translated as objectivity) is, well, objective. There is no equivalent to “emotion” in the Pali language. In Pali, vedana merely means feeling, which is not always emotional.


Similarly, if we do virtuous acts and reflect on those acts regularly,
  the perception of a 'virtuous person' increases as well, doesn't it?
  This too, then, is Bhava Tanha?

Dana is the perfect case to illustrate that merit depends on ''good deeds'' and the intention behind them, as usually claimed by the buddha. Never forget that deeds (thought, speeches, actions) are always tied to intentions (or rather to cetayanas). This is the novelty claimed by the buddha, instead of normal people who think that virtue lies either all on the side of deeds, or all on the side of intentions, or some even say that virtue does not exist.

that's the relevant texts about giving:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html

The dana of something to a ''renunciant'' (bikkhu or lay person) is always good, but the fruit of this deed depends on how the giver view the deed.  there are 8 good intentions listed in the famous sutta about dana

there is the famous case, where the giver focuses on meritorious rebirth
there is a famous case, where the giver gives stuff to an ascetic by tradition
there is the famous case where the giver thinks that ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'' and rich people must give riches to poor people

Then there is the most important case where the giver focus on his citta, because, by right view and right intention, dana is part of right action. People who cling to the famous views above do not have access to this higher view.

So   there is Bhava Tanha when you do act meritoriously, but do not have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta), ie when you do not understand why dana is good (and not dana is bad). This is normal for puthujjanas since at best they memorize right view, instead of knowing right view.
Puthujjanas who cling to their view that nibanna means loving everybody and being selfless are stuck at the level of ''giving is good because it means  you care about other people'', and they think that caring about their citta is bad. In short, they worry to much on what the recipient feels and enjoys. They do not understand that the cultivation of right intention is about their citta and that metta alone is not right intention...
Right intention is metta+Nekkhamma. It is metta which gets you in meritorious states, but It is Nekkhamma which makes you avoid bhava Tanha.

The way to have sila, respect the precepts and all is precisely mindfulness. As long as you are mindful, you are assured to have right intention (= nekkhamma and metta). This is why mindfulness matters :

  Being heedful, he achieves consummation in virtue.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.015.than.html

or even with Nanda here

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/08_eights/an08.009.than.ati.htm

It is the same thing with kusala chanda. When there is a buddha and people are inspired by him,  there is kusala chanda. When there is no buddha, it gets harder to have kusala chanda, because puthujjanas love to idolize people and do like their idols, so when there is no buddha, they only idolize only other puthujjanas and they make their life worse.

So 3 taṇhā you talk about, are about the object, kama, bhava, vibhava. But the object of right intention is indeed the samadhi of the citta, nibanna, dispassion, seeing things as dukkha and so on.


First Buddhist text translated into a Western language

There are Greek versions of several of Askoka's inscriptions, erected during Ashoka's lifetime. He died in 232 BC.


1. How is abstention different from suppression?

It is not. Suppression means "preventing the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain" 1, so they are actually synonyms.

(In case you are referring to the psycho-analytical concept of repression, instead of suppression, then abstinence is indeed different from it since repression is applied in a different context and from a different point of view.)

2. Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal?

I'd say suppression (as defined above) is mostly useful in the initial phases of developing morality. As one progresses, there will be no more suppression since the act of abstaining will be implicit in the use of alternative skillful actions. (For example, instead of just abstaining from punching someone when one gets angry, one may foresee the upcoming situation and take appropriate measures like avoiding or seeking mutual understanding. Technically, one is still abstaining but this type of action is more refined and has no element of stopping a punch from happening when anger has already entered one's mind.)

So I'd say, no, it is not true.

3. Why should someone follow and practice the Buddhist precepts (5, 8, 10 or hundreds of precepts) if there is no suppression?

As I pointed above, suppression and practicing the precepts are the same in the beginning. After that initial stage the precepts are still being followed but there will be no suppression.

This leaves this specific question (3rd question) meaningless. If this was not the type of answer you were looking for in this specific question, I suggest clarifying it a bit since I had a bit of trouble understanding it.


Is Vajrayana the fastest and only way to enlightenment? Bön & Shaivism

Buddhism at its core is non-dogmatic. It has a number of precepts and principles, but does not ask its practitioners to believe anything in particular. Because of that, when Buddhism expands into a new region, it tends to absorb elements of whatever beliefs already existed in that region, because those beliefs become a bridge between old understandings and new ones. Thus, when Buddhism moved into China it absorbed elements of Daoism; when it moved into Japan it absorbed elements of Shinto; when it moved into Tibet if absorbed elements of Bön; and now that it is moving into the West it is absorbing elements of both Christianity and secular philosophy.

This doesn't mean that Buddhism is better or worse than any of these. It merely means that Buddhism uses the language and understandings of the region it enters in order to express itself more clearly. Most Buddhists will refer to this trend as the creation of a new 'wheel' of Buddhism, with the understanding that one wheel is much like another in the end.

Tibetan Buddhism styles itself as Vajryana (literally, the 'lightning path') on the claim that one can achieve rapid (e.g., in this lifetime) enlightenment. This boils down to a difference in style. Theravada schools focus on a slow, steady process of release through deep meditation, like watching and waiting for a pool of water to become still. Mahayana schools add in a component of service as bodhisattva, but still retain the essentially passive meditation model. But Tibetan Buddhism uses the structures and symbolism of the Bön mythology to actively confront and dispel attachments.

Whether this actually works as advertised is an open question. I have no evidence that Vajrayana teachings produce more enlightened beings per capita than Mahayana or Theravada, and I suspect the difference is more a matter of taste and inclination than anything else. Certainly other schools of Buddhism worry that the active model of Vajryana entails a risk that practitioners will form new attachments through that active desire for immediate enlightenment, but Vajrayanans will counter that the risk is justified by the potentials of the practice. In the end we all have to rely on our one capacity to (as the saying goes) separate the wheat from the chaff.


Can't separate like that. Mental-emotional-somatical is a continuum, not discrete. Or, more precisely, they are layers of the same, like different frequencies that can be isolated within the same signal function - not separate.

Sukha is that mental/emotional state/feeling when everything is just right. Everything is just the way it should be. It feels peaceful, subtle and sweeeeeeet. It also has somatic component. The breath becomes fluid, the body feels light, the movements are spontaneous. It's like that feeling when you just woke up after wonderful sleep and you feel refreshed and blissful, gentle and peaceful.

Piti is a much more coarse condition. It is like that feeling when you listen to a very inspiring lecture or a song and suddenly realize - and feel - profound significance and gratitude, and then you may get goosebumps or the tears may start rolling. Somatically at that moment, you may feel being aflame or tingling or orgasm-like waves going through your body. Unlike sukha, piti is kinda taxing, one can get tired of it.

So yeah, piti is coarser of the two and sukha is subtler - in this sense you could say, piti has a stronger somatic component and sukha is more focused on the mental/emotional end of the spectrum.