Is the continuous effect of karma also sustained by karma?

Karma is extremely difficult to understand because in every situation there are numerous karmas working at the same time and also numerous circumstances affecting the result.

In some way you can compare the complexity of karma with the complexity of gravity.  Every single atom in the universe is subject to the influence of gravity from every other atom in the universe. Of course the closer they are the more influence they will have.

In karma, the strongest karma will have the strongest effect in the outcome, but other karmas will also have an effect. Only an enlightened being can fully understand it.

For example you may have the karma to be born as an animal and also have the karma to have a live free of suffering, then you can be born as a pet of a very rich family that will take the best care of you.  Or you can have the karma to be born as a human being and also have the karma to have a live of suffering, and then you can be born in a violent and poor country and experience a lot of suffering.

Karma, understood as “cause”, can only have a limited “effect”. There is no such karma with unlimited effect.  Once the effect of a karma has mature, it won´t happen again.

Personally, I like the definition that good karma is everything that helps you get closer to enlighten while bad karma is everything that moves you away from enlighten. Winning the lottery or getting cancer are neither good nor bad karma per se. If winning the lottery distracts you from your spiritual practice, makes you forget about the beings suffering around you and males you pride, then it is bad karma.  While if getting cancer makes you think about the suffering of others, opens your heart and makes you a more patient and considered person with the people around you, it is good karma.

You can also say that good karma is what allows you to learn from every situation and makes you grow, regardless of what that situation is.  Bad karma is what makes you react is such a way that it will hurt your spiritual development, regardless of what the situation is.

The advice would be not to worry so much about what happens to you, worry about your response to those challenges.

I hope this helps you.


Impermanence is Buddha nature / Buddha nature is impermanence

I don't know, so the following is a complete guess, and I hope someone will give a better answer.

Apparently the aphorism come from Dōgen.

Dōgen has a perhaps-non-standard view of Buddha-nature, which he calls Busshō.

My guesses are:

If according to Dōgen everything (real) is Buddha-nature then (because everything real is impermanent), therefore everything (i.e. Buddha-nature) is impermanent.
So for example any description of Buddha-nature and anyone describing Buddha-nature and anything to which the term Buddha-nature could be applied is impermanent.
As for the converse (i.e. impermanence is Buddha-nature), is that related to the third noble truth, or to rise and fall?


Difference between Buddhism and Aristotelian "middle-way"?

However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue.

Yes the ancient Greeks did have "nothing in excess" as part of their cultural heritage.

Buddhists might agree with some of the other 'wise' sayings on the page linked above, especially for example, "You should not desire the impossible".

But the ethics are not the same. Greek ethics are typically about being a good citizen, for example:

A "middle way" between cowardice and recklessness, so, being prudent and brave as a soldier
Being a just (justice) member of the jury
Being a political hero; etc.

The Greeks are into aesthetics too: they talk about "the beautiful".

  Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches?

You would do yourself a disservice to assume that, having read Aristotle, you have a handle on Buddhist Dhamma too.

Some essential differences include that they don't have the same goal, nor the same method/mechanism, not at all the same logic, nor the same experimental proof, nor the same practitioners.

  Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?

Yes, I think there are many; so many that I cannot hope to pick "the best" example, so let me instead pick one example more-or-less at random.

The Itivuttaka starts with, "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.""

In several ways, this is an "extreme":

It's said by "the Blessed One"
It's "abandon" one quality, not "see if you can't try to live without it quite a lot  of the time"
It's "I guarantee you", not "I'm pretty sure"
It's "greed", not "thinking about it"
It's "non-return", not "not too much of a return"

I'm not sure of the definition of the "middle way" you quoted (not sure whether it's a good definition: maybe you're quoting out of context).

Some more canonical definitions of the Buddhist "middle way" are as follows:

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion:

  "There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

  "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Cutting Off the Causes of Suffering:

  The Buddha calls this path the middle way (majjhima patipada). It is the middle way because it steers clear of two extremes, two misguided attempts to gain release from suffering. One is the extreme of indulgence in sense pleasures, the attempt to extinguish dissatisfaction by gratifying desire. This approach gives pleasure, but the enjoyment won is gross, transitory, and devoid of deep contentment. The Buddha recognized that sensual desire can exercise a tight grip over the minds of human beings, and he was keenly aware of how ardently attached people become to the pleasures of the senses. But he also knew that this pleasure is far inferior to the happiness that arises from renunciation, and therefore he repeatedly taught that the way to the Ultimate eventually requires the relinquishment of sensual desire. Thus the Buddha describes the indulgence in sense pleasures as "low, common, worldly, ignoble, not leading to the goal."

  The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when the real source of trouble lies in the mind — the mind obsessed by greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for it is the impairment of a necessary instrument. Thus the Buddha describes this second extreme as "painful, ignoble, not leading to the goal."[2]

  Aloof from these two extreme approaches is the Noble Eightfold Path, called the middle way, not in the sense that it effects a compromise between the extremes, but in the sense that it transcends them both by avoiding the errors that each involves. The path avoids the extreme of sense indulgence by its recognition of the futility of desire and its stress on renunciation. Desire and sensuality, far from being means to happiness, are springs of suffering to be abandoned as the requisite of deliverance. But the practice of renunciation does not entail the tormenting of the body. It consists in mental training, and for this the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work. Thus the body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom. That is the middle way, the Noble Eightfold Path, which "gives rise to vision, gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana."

Glossary

  paṭipadā: Road, path, way; the means of reaching a goal or destination. The "Middle way" (majjhima-paṭipadā) taught by the Buddha; the path of practice described in the fourth noble truth (dukkhanirodhagāminī-paṭīpadā).

Wikipedia adds that "In Mahayana Buddhism, the Middle Way refers to the insight into emptiness that transcends opposite statements about existence." Wikipedia's footnote to this sentence references the Kaccayanagotta Sutta.


In what way do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened?

I'm drawing from Precepts of The Brahman Net Sutra, Upsasaka Precepts Sutra, and Avatamsaka (Flower Garland) Sutra.

The BNS recommends this worldly Bodhisattvas (monks and laity)

Teaching (many precepts address this directly or indirectly, many sutras discuss pedagogy and the duty to teach) Upasaka Sutras forbid teaching the Dharma by laity.
Building temples, and other religious "infrastructure"
Reading and chanting sutras, which was believed to magically help the nation
Caring for the sick. BNS & Upasaka Sutra's mention this. I don't know if it was for enabling enlightenment, or just a "right thing to do." Even early Mahayana Buddhism expected some sort of practice, like meditation & what not and that requires a certain amount of health.
Avatamsaksa promotes all sorts of ways of helping people reach enlightenment indirectly by working on this worldly jobs.

Hosting vegetarian feasts for monks, lay Bodhisattvas, get mention in the BNS and Ullambana Sutra.

As for celestial Bodhisattvas, we don't get a lot of clues. The 7th to 10th Bhumis (grounds) describes what celestial Bodhisattvas do-- I don't have a good summary for that though.

And finally, there are the vows. Amitabha helps people reach enlightenment by guaranteeing rebirth in a pure land, which depending on who you are reading, is describe as an especially good place for practicing Buddhism, as compared to our own universe, where the most recent Buddha has passed on and there isn't another one available to teach.

Samantabhadra's vows has some more clues, such as encouraging Buddhas to come & stay in our universe-- since it is easier to become enlightened when there is a Buddha available, and transferring merit


Do our habits prevent us from seeing things as they really are?

Habits and patterns are like the water streams carving paths on earth when it rains. So when it rains again, the water follows the same paths. There's no self in the rainwater that made the paths and the rainwater that followed the existing paths. It's a process of causes and effect.

If habits are self, why is it hard to get rid of them? ex: smoking, drinking etc.
And why do good habits need to be cultivated?


Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

There's an article in English titled Anicca Vata Sankhara in which Bhikkhu Bodhi describes the various meanings of the word. Here are very brief extracts from that article, a summary:

The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning "together," joined to the noun kara, "doing, making."

The suttas distinguish the sankharas active in dependent origination into three types: bodily, verbal, and mental.
A second major domain where the word sankharas applies is among the five aggregates. The fourth aggregate is the sankhara-khandha, the aggregate of volitional formations. The texts define the sankhara-khandha as the six classes of volition (cha cetanakaya): volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas.
The third major domain in which the word sankhara occurs is as a designation for all conditioned things. In this context the word has a passive derivation, denoting whatever is formed by a combination of conditions; whatever is conditioned, constructed, or compounded.

The suttas
I don't know whether there is a good/long/detailed canonical description in the Suttas.
Suminda's answer references the Abhidhamma.
One of the places it's described is the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, very short:

And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

The aggregates
This page contain three essays by Ajaan Lee. The last essay on that page titled "Part III: The Buddhist Way" describes various types of Sankhara, which is "a brief outline of the Buddha's teachings based on the synopsis of the Ovada Patimokkha". It includes (again I'm heavily summarizing the article):

"Sankharas on the level of the world": status, fortune, praise
"Sankharas on the level of the Dhamma": Dhatu, Khandha, and Ayatana

I think that all khandhas are sankharas, i.e. each khandha is some-things-put-together; for example they include:

Putting things together so that they can be sensed (or more specifically, contact between the sense and sense-object)
Putting a "feeling" with the thing (e.g. "I feel that's good" or "I think that's bad")

The sense of self (identity view) is presumably a sankhara too (see the simile of the chariot).
The same article also mentions some important attributes of sankharas, e.g. impermanence:

The Buddha taught in line with the true nature of the world. He said, "Khaya-vaya-dhamma sankhara, appamadena sampadetha," which means, "All sankharas, once they have arisen, decay by their very nature. Don't be heedless or complacent. Be thoroughly mindful and completely alert, and you will attain peace and security."
What this means is this: All things that appear in the world arising from actions (kamma) are called sankharas — formations, fashionings, compounded things. Sankharas, by their nature, or of two sorts — sankharas on the level of the world and sankharas on the level of the Dhamma.

I may be wrong but I suspect that vipassana meditation might be supposed to help you understand that, at least at the sensory level. I think vipassana is supposed to make you aware of impermanence, but because sankharas are impermanent perhaps "becoming aware of impermanence" means "becoming aware of sankharas".
I also like the explanation, "All things that appear in the world arising from actions (kamma) are called sankharas": because I think that helps to explain why sankharas are sometimes translated as not just "formations" but "volitional formations": i.e. perhaps it's because kamma (action) is also associated with will (see "This volition and the resultant actions constitute kamma" in this commentary).

One of the five aggregates
The terminology turns out to be confusing because all five khandhas are sankharas, but also one of the khandhas in particular is called sankharas.
I think that means "all khandhas are fabricated or put together, but one of the khandhas is what people do when they put things together or fabricate things in their mind."
Wikipedia summarizes this meaning of sankhara as a specific one one of the five aggregates:

"mental formations", "impulses", "volition", "fabrications" or "compositional factors" (Skt. samskāra, Pāli saṅkhāra, Tib. 'du-byed): all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object

This too matches (is an even better match for) the "volitional formation" translation.
The footnote to that Wikipedia paragraph begins with, "The Theravada Abhidhamma divides saṅkhāra into fifty mental factors".

All conditioned things
There's an example of this usage in the Buddha's last words (in the The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta),

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: “Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!”58

This was the last word of the Tathāgata.

The footnote gives the Pali,

Handa dāni bhikkhave āmantayāmi vo: Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādetha.

Jayarava explores that phrase, and how difficult it is to translate, in this article, The last words of the Buddha.


Where did the Buddha speak of his difficulty in eating almsfood as a Bodhisatta?

I found it in the introduction to the Jatakas, which seems to be the original source:

Now the Great Being, after collecting a number of scraps, sufficient, as he judged, for his sustenance, left the city by the same gate he had entered, and sitting down with his face to the east, in the shade of Pandava rock, he attempted to eat his meal. But his stomach turned, and he felt as if his inwards were on the point of coming out by his mouth. Thereupon, in the midst of his distress at that repulsive food, --for in that existence he had never before so much as seen such fare,--he began to admonish himself, saying, "Siddhattha, although you were born into a family having plenty to eat and drink, into a station in life where you lived on fragrant third season's rice1 with various sauces of the finest flavors, yet when you saw a monk clad in garments taken from the rubbish heap, you exclaimed, 'Oh, when shall I be like him, and eat food which I have begged? Will that time ever come?' And then you retired from the world. And now that you have your wish, and have renounced all, what, pray, is this you are doing?" When he had thus admonished himself, his disgust subsided, and he ate his meal.
-- Jāt-A nidānakathā (from Buddhism In Translations, Henry Clarke Warren, trans.)

The relevant Pali is "antāni parivattitvā mukhena nikkhamanākārappattāni viya ahesuṃ" - It was like the intestines, having churned, attained the state of leaving through the mouth."
The Buddhavamsa doesn't mention this reflection, saying of his first alms round simply:

nisīditvā āhāraṃ paccavekkhitvā nibbikāro paribhuñji
Having sat down, having reflected on the food, unperturbed, he ate.
-- Bv-A, nidānakathā


According to Wikipedia, Indonesia has an official state policy policy/philosphy called Pancasila i.e. "Five Precepts" (which are not the same as the "Five (lay) precepts" of Buddhism).

  Belief in the One and Only God (in Indonesian "Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa"),
  A just and civilized humanity (in Indonesian "Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab"),
  A unified Indonesia (in Indonesian "Persatuan Indonesia"),
  Democracy, led by the wisdom of the representatives of the People (in Indonesian "Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan, Dalam Permusyawaratan Perwakilan")
  Social justice for all Indonesians (in Indonesian "Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia").

My guess (I don't know) is that the first precept is designed to prevent sectarian conflict (if there's one and only one God, then hopefully people shouldn't fight about whose God is which and so on).

My reading of Wikipedia is that, for Buddhism to exist with that (Indonesan) context, in must fit in with those precepts, and therefore:

  Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Buddhism in Indonesia. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.

I guess one way in which the Buddha might be like God is that the Buddha advises humans on what laws  to follow?

I don't know how else it's interpreted (I expect there are other interpretations).

I have no idea what Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism.

https://suttacentral.net/ might be like what youre looking for, i.e. it has translations in many languages of many suttas.

Here is

Wikipedia's article about the Udāna
Suttacentral's list of Udāna suttas
A link to Udana number 8.3 (or "VIII: 3" as it's written in the Indonesian Wikipedia)
A link to the English translation of that sutta

Note that that sutta is talking about "Nibbāna", not about the Buddha; but the suttas teach that Nibbāna is the state which the Buddha attained.

All this time I thought the essence of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent. And yet here, Buddha says that something is permanent.

Buddhism teaches that all sankharas (all "conditioned things") are impermanent.

Nibbāna is an exception to that rule (not included in that rule), becase Nibbāna is unconditioned (these these topics for further details about "unconditioned").

Also some schools of Buddhism de-emphasise the importance of Nibbāna. Wikipedia's Nirvana (Buddhism) -- Mahayana aticle says,

  The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) tradition envisions an attainment beyond nirvana, namely Buddhahood. [...] The Mahayana path aims at a further realization, namely Buddhahood or nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana. A Buddha does not dwell in nirvana, but engages actively in enlightened activity to liberate beings for as long as samsara remains.

It seems that this concept is only popular in Indonesian buddhism. Are other buddhist in other countries have monotheistic beliefs too?

Some schools of Buddhism seem to me to be a bit like theistic beliefs -- see Pure Land Buddhism for example.

Some schools seem polytheistic (with many Buddhas, or at least many manifestations of Buddha).

And some schools are polytheistic but may de-emphasise the importance of "gods", and explain for example that a god, too, even a god (or, a god's time/existence in a divine realm) is temporary.


Does practicing Brahmavihara to get insights leads to Nibbana?

It seems to be possible. Following elaborates on this.

  The “divine abodes” (brahma,vihāra) are so called because
  these are the qualities of the higher divine beings or brahmas. They are called “immeasurables”
  (appamāṇā, appamaññā) is another term for the divine abodes because the practice is only complete
  when we break down the barrier or duality of self and other.

  These qualities are lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity. When they are
  practised to dhyanic levels, they are known as “liberation of mind” (ceto,vimutti), or more fully, the
  liberation of mind by the immeasurable (or the immeasurable liberation of mind) (appamāṇā
  ceto,vimutti)

  ...

  The first three divine abodes—that is, the liberation of mind by lovingkindness, by compassion and
  by appreciative joy—can attain only up to the level of the third dhyana. Only the liberation of mind by
  equanimity can reach the fourth dhyana.

  From the Metta,sahagata Sutta (S 46.54), a few interesting details are worth nothing. The liberation
  of mind by lovingkindness (mettā ceto,vimutti) has “beauty” (subha) as it highest limit. “Beauty”
  here refers to any of the form dhyana (rūpa jhāna), while the term “beauty element, or beautiful element”
  (subha,dhātu), refers to both the dhyana and its object, namely, a dhyana arisen on the basis of lovingkindness
  (Pm 2:39).

  The Attha,sālinī, the Commentary on the Dhamma,saṅgaṇī, however, takes “the beautiful” here as
  referring to dhyana attainment through a colour device (kasiṇa) that is fully purified (DhsA 191). As
  Analayo notes, this gloss goes against the teachings of the Paṭisambhidā,magga (2009: 146 f).

  The liberation of mind by compassion (karuṇā ceto,vimutti) has the base of boundless space (ākāsâ-
  nañc’āyatana) is its highest limit. That is to say, dhyana attained by the liberation of mind through the cultivation of compassion can be used to attain to the first formless base or formless attainment (arūpa
  samāpatti).

  The liberation of mind by appreciative joy (muditā ceto,vimutti) has the base of boundless
  consciousness (viññāṇ’añc’āyatana) as its highest point, that is, it can be the springboard to attain the
  second formless attainment

  The liberation of mind by equanimity (upekkhā ceto,vimutti) has the base of nothingness (akiñcaññâ-
  yatana) as it highest base, that is, it can be a basis for focus leading up to the third formless attainment

  With such an attainment at its best, the practitioner will be able to attain non-return, but not arhathood,
  because he has yet to abandon all his remaining defilements. An important aspect of this practice
  is to remind ourselves that all such states are mind-made, and as such are impermanent and liable to ceasing.

Source: Introduction to Mettā Bhāvanā Sutta by Piya Tan

  The practice of Loving-Kindness Meditation can lead you directly to the experience of Nibbāna if you follow all of the Brahma Viharas: that is the practice of Loving- Kindness, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity. This is mentioned many times in the suttas (the original discourses of the Buddha). Many times other teachers will say that this practice alone doesn't directly lead the meditator to the experience of Nibbāna. And this is true. But, when Loving-Kindness Meditation is practiced as part of the Brahma Viharas then it will take the meditator to the fourth Jhāna or meditation level. This is where the Lord Buddha tried to have all of the students who practiced meditation get to. The fourth meditation level is where the meditator experiences deep states of equanimity.

  According to the suttas, there are three different paths that can be taken once the meditator reaches this level. They can take one directly to the experience of Nibbāna. We will not go into more detail at this time, because it may cause some confusion. But if you are interested, in having more information please start reading suttas like sutta 62 The Maharchulovada Sutta in the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Or you can read sutta 27 The Culahatthipadopama Sutta in the same book. I sincerely hope that these meditation instructions are helpful to you and that by practicing in this way you will benefit greatly and lead a truly happy and healthy life.

Source: "A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi


"Guard the sense doors"- What does this mean, and what is it's application?

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu answers a question about "guarding the senses" in this video (at time 34:40).

Guarding the sense doors is a way of protecting ourselves from being overcome by passion for the sensed object (which leads to dukkha). In his video Yuttadhammo mentions three ways to do this.

Physically avoiding the object (in relation to your example, when on alms round monks may keep their eyes facing down to avoid lust from seeing a beautiful woman).
By developing samadhi the mind is disconnected from the sense doors (only the sixth sense "thought" is present)
By developing insight we know the inherent dukkha of sensed objects, therefore no passion arises for them when they are sensed.

The third approach is part of the goal, the first two are training practices to help us maintain a calm mind to achieve the goal.


What are the consequences of a monk eating meat?

As far as the theory of monastics eating meat is concerned, here are two enlightening videos/articles on the subject:

Ask A Monk: Mark Zuckerberg, Vegetarianism and Killing
The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople -- Meat Eating

In Buddhism, the problem with eating meat is in many ways as much about the craving that meat promotes as it is about the non-violence and killing aspect. For a monastic, the rules regarding eating and alms are very much about not giving in to either greed or hatred for a specific food; a monastic should be totally content with what little or lot he has. Thus, if a monastic were offered meat, to decline would represent preference and "pickiness", which is in many ways much worse than simply being grateful for what one has. This is true even if you may oppose how your food was made/grown/processed/ etc.

Anecdotally, I'll note that I've found food in particular to have a tremendous emotional resonance with people -- we've all seen people become literally angry when confronted with to little or too much or too different a food. Buddhism is all about overcoming this emotional attachment to something that should only matter insofar as it is absolutely necessary to survive.


Is there a proper English word to call Brahmas?

I always use "angel" to refer to devas, and "god" to refer to brahmas; though the terms have a different connotation in Judeo-Christian tradition, the relationship the terms have with each other is similar, since devas are really just angelic, whereas brahmas are in a sense godlike.


Does the Maha Parinirvana Sutra acknowledge the existence of eternal spirit/soul?

The second part in the posting below attempts to give an answer to your question stated in the title; the second question I can only comment with subjective view in the first part

1) I think there is no "restriction" or prerequisite (like for instance a system of permits) for mindfulness-meditation. Just try and see how far you come.

However, the Buddha said, (and it is quite reasonable for me) that for the full liberation from the attachments to emotions and mental figurations, and for the true emancipation from (and eradication of) tanha , the illusion of an inherent, eternal, unchangeable Self atma has necessarily to be dissolved.

2) I copy&paste some excerpt from the Mahayana-Mahaparinirvana-Sutra (taken from links found at Dr. Tony Page's site). The following are the last couple of paragraphs from the third chapter.
I find it a bit strange to say the least, for instance that a man like we know it as the Buddha from the palicanon comes to be a doctor to "subdue the tirthikas" ...

If I understand that excerpt correctly, then it is suggested, that the concept of no-self, of "an-atman" is only teached in the framework of concurrence of the "doctors" and "... because of this,(...)" and it is continued, that it had also been said, that there is a self, namely "... it is not that they [the dharma/the phenomena] are completely devoid of a self".

The text is suggesting, that the Buddha did not teach the non-existence of the self simply because of the non-existence (what would be the natural assumption) but because of didactical reasons (and actually means something else)!

Below now the excerpt, emphasis added by me: source

  Chapter 3
   (... final paragraphs)

  "Know, O you Bhiksus!

  The same is the case with the Tathagata, the Alms-deserving, the All-Enlightened-One, the Unsurpassed Best Trainer, the Teacher-of-Heaven-and-Earth, the Buddha-World-Honoured One. He comes as a great Doctor and subdues all tirthikas and bad doctors. In the presence of kings and all people, he says: "I shall become the King of doctors and subdue tirthikas."

  Thus we say: "There is no self, no man, no being, no life, no nurturing, no knowing, none that does, and none that receives."

  O Bhiksus! Know that what the tirthikas say is like the case of a worm that eats upon [a pie-ce of] wood, from which, by chance, there appears what looks like a letter.

  Because of this , the Tathagata teaches and says no-self.

  This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self.

  This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.'

  When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus.

  That is why he says:

  'All things have no Self.'

  Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self.

  What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [ni-tya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is un-changing [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman].

  This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine.

  The same is the case with the Tathagata.

  For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things"

  O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"


Ask your questions (about how to practice without a teacher) to the Sensei when you meet her.

Since you appear to be taking refuge in the Sensei, her advice would be the most appropriate (in the near term).


In this present time, can we go to Nirvana?

The mind can reach Nirvana. It is unrelated to time & place. It is related to dispassion towards the world. Craving, which is an inborn instinct of all life forms, is the major obstacle to Nirvana.


Tirokudda Kanda: Do the dead really benefit from the gift given by the living?

In the Milindapañha the benefit of dedicating the merit of a gift to one's deceased relatives is limited to those who have been reborn as just one of the four sub-species of peta. It's explicitly denied that there can be any benefit to those reborn in hell, heaven, as animals or in the other three peta sub-species. Curiously nothing is stated one way or the other about those reborn as humans.

Rhys Davids' translation:

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/mil6.3.4

I.B. Horner's:
Pubba-peta-panha.pdf

Above post appeared in Dhamma Wheel.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32595&hilit=Merit+transfer


Any manuals on the development of "sympathetic joy" and or "gladness" apart from Visuddhimagga?

There're quite a lot of essays on the Brahmavihara written by Vens. Thanissaro, Buddharakkhita, Siriwardhana, Nanamoli, etc. and of course in the Nikaya suttas themselves. See various links here and here


Are the four noble truths supposed to be applied to every type of anguish separately?

To answer your question, 'yes', dhamma practise is done in ways you described.

When it is comprehended our suffering arises from our self-centred desires & attachments towards things, we work to change those unhealthy desires, views & habitual reactions (which arise in many forms & are summarised as greed, hatred & delusion).

This is called 'Right Effort', which is the effort to prevent & give up unhealthly & unwise states of mind and the effort to develop & maintain healthy & wise states of mind.

This 'Right Effort', particularly in the social situations you described, often is about changing the way we think about & view things and often requires the creative & thoughtful efforts shown in your post. In Buddhism, this creative thinking for developing solutions is called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara'). The purpose of it is to change to a kind of thinking that does not produce greed, hatred, anger, confusion & suffering.

The Buddhist scriptures provide an example of this in the discourse on Two Sorts of Thinking


This is not directly related to economics but Buddha's Ten Royal Qualities (Dasa Raja Dharma) is an excellent guidance to handle a country and thereby the economy as well.

Check this link to get an idea: THE CURRENT RELEVANCE OF
DASA RAJA DHARMA

Here's a very brief extract/summary from that article:

  The promise of dasa raja dharma (ten principles
  of Buddhist governance) has been a
  trademark emotional appeal that our rulers
  have used to win elections.

  Dana -- Liberality, generosity, charity.
  Sila -- a moral character.
  Pariccaga -- sacrificing everything for the good of the people.
  Ajjava -- honesty and integrity.
  Maddava -- kindness and gentleness.
  Tapa -- austerity of habits.
  Akkodha -- freedom from envy, ill-will, enmity.
  Khanti -- patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding.
  Avihimsa -- non-violence, which means not only that he should harm nobody, but that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
  Avirodha (non-opposition; nonconfrontation) as they are related though not the same.


Can good karma, bad karma or neither good and bad karma arise or not arise from not doing?

Rephrasing Buddha, there's action that leads to good experience, action that leads to bad experience, and action that leads to dispassion and liberation.

Of course the word "karma" itself means "doing" or "action". But my teacher said, the wise sees nondoing in doing and doing in nondoing. Meaning, if you choose to drink coffee, you implicitly choose to not drink tea on that occasion and vice versa. In Mahayana terms, an "act" is empty. It is something we isolate and put a label on but in actuality it is just a point we focus on in context of everything else. When we begin seeing it like this, we begin getting closer to the Buddha's perspective.

As my Zen Master said, whenever there's choice, there's confusion. From Buddha's omniscient perspective, there's no more confusion, no action, no choice - only from the perspective of a sentient being.

Another thing that needs to be said, not all karma is personal, which makes sense if you realize that "person" is another empty point of focus. There's also group karma and other even broader kinds of karmic tendencies that don't rely on an individual action per-se. So even if you don't personally act (don't choose) you are still subject to these extrinsic tendencies. It's only when you are free from any group identification as well, is when you begin to get free from the fruits of karma.

Sorry, upon rereading this I can see it comes out a bit unclear, but this is a summary of my understanding as of the moment, based on what I have learned.


Does Buddhism have an answer to disturbing sexual fantasies?

Ways of Denourishing of Sensual Desire.

Asubha reflextion, refextion on the ugly of the body behind skin, hair, nails, reflecting the backwards of sensuality.

Watching the dogs on the street...

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


Are practical solutions to everyday suffering that contradict Buddhism Upaya or avidya?

Unfortunately (because it doesn't answer your question), I'd guess it's better to find "practical solutions to everyday suffering" that don't contradict Buddhism.
When my father died, there's a couple of things people did for my mum which she appreciated (i.e. these are stories which she retold, of examples of how to help people who are grieving because she found them helpful).

People made and gave her cakes. This is useful because, she said, "you don't feel like cooking, people are coming to visit you every day, and it's nice to have some cake to offer your visitors."
Isn't this is a practical and a Buddhist gift: because it helps the recipient to be generous?

My parents moved to a new place when they retired. One of the people in the new village, who she hadn't met before (word of her loss had travelled), stopped to talk to her in the street of offer condolences. He said, "Neighbours are more important than family." Oh: really? "Yes because we're here (and your family is in another country)."
Isn't that sort of Buddhist too? It's not Dhamma exactly (not talking about dukkha for example) but it's bringing attention to what is (instead of attention to what has gone), to human contact.

Several people told her to keep on making contact with other people. One told her "you mustn't just go home and close the curtains" (and told me not to let her do that). Another phoned a neighbour and told the neighbour to visit every day.

I'm not sure why "going to a movie" might help a person to "forget their pain". Perhaps it's just the passing of time (impermanence of pain), or distraction (to stop clinging), or human contact (your company at the theatre, or compassion felt for the characters in the movie).
Without saying that a movie is unwise, perhaps using conversation to touch on these topics or evoke them is a skillful alternative.

By the way a friend once told me there are different axes along which a topic of conversation between two people is more or less intimate:

What's distant in time (past or future) is less intimate (less immediate) than the present (now)
What's distant in space (other places) is less intimate than the present (here)
Talking about other people is less intimate than talking about ourselves.

If you're trying to have a conversation with someone who is grieving, maybe that's good to remember. A person might get bored if the topic of conversation is too distant ("why is Buddho trying to tell me a story that happened to someone else a long time ago and far away?"), but uncomfortable if the topic is too intimate ("what do you mean, 'how do I feel?' I feel terrible, what do you expect?"), so adjusting that to find some topic in the middle might be skillful.
I guess my mum enjoyed a couple of things I did for her, over the next months, she said: one was practical help, like helping her use her computer, helping her count her money (her budget); and the other was my acting silly sometimes which made her laugh.

That said, I'm reading "Good Question Good Answer" by Bhante Dhammika at the moment. In the chapter about the five precepts, one of the question is whether you should lie to a killer to prevent them from killing. His answer was that,

"If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?"
"If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases."


Is it true that there are 5 principal types of meditations?

Yes and no: i.e., "Yes, there are 5"; and, "No, there are more than 5".

4 of the ones you listed are to bring into being what are known as the 4 "Brahma-viharas" (of which, metta-bhavana may be the most famous).

I'm not sure that types of meditation are detailed in the suttas (some are). Various types may be detailed in more detail in the 5th century Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). If I were looking for references to them in the suttas I think I'd start search by searching in accesstoinsight.org (searching for "Brahma-viharas" and/or "metta" and so on).

The fifth one, Asubha, is meant as an antidote to lust: and so, for example, it's contemplation of the foulness of the body (e.g. the Asubha Sutta, and one of the meditation types mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta).

Other principal types include meditation intended for insight, concentration, mindfulness, tranquility, detachment. They're named things like "Vipassana", and "Anapanasati" (Anapanasati Sutta)

Samana Johann linked to a reference which lists "40 types" (in reply to another question of yours).

The ones I've listed are from Theravada (Mahayana may have others).


Buddha's tooth, ashes, footprints and other marks

I found this information on Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piprahwa

In January 1898, W.C. Peppe led a team of men to unearth a large mound on his land. Having cleared away scrub and jungle they set to work building a deep trench through the mound. Eventually they came to a large stone coffer which, on opening, contained five small vases containing ashes and jewels .[6]
On one of the vases was an inscription which was translated at the time to mean "This relic deposit of the Lord Buddha is the share of this renowned Sakya brethren, his own sister’s children and his own son;" meaning that this reliquary contained the ashes of the Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama[note 1], a member of the Sakyas [4] (however, there is no mention in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha having a sister). And in the 1970s the original interment site of the Buddha's ashes at Piprahwa was claimed to have been discovered by the Indian archaeologist S.M. Srivastava several feet deeper than the coffer containing the relics that W.C. Peppe had excavated.[5] This find was dated by Srivastava to the period in which Buddha lived.


My short story with anxiety problems - could meditation be the cause?

Pleased to meet you Robert.

It is very difficult to answer your question precisely however it is certainly likely/probable that practicing the meditation & the accompanying mental solitude is digging/bringing up something (i.e., a disposition or mental tendency) buried deep inside your mind.

I doubt you are doing anything wrong. As said, the mental solitude & quietude of meditation will bring things up, including existential fear. This is generally related to the ego diminishing, which in the beginning will generally be somewhat traumatic.

Even when the mind becomes increasingly calm, such as from Anapanasati, a certain threshold of calmness may threaten the (conditioned) ego, resulting in fear arising.

Such fear may not be explicitly related to your personal childhood experiences because such existential fear is a normal event when "crossing-over". Some meditators use an old Christian mysticism phrase for this existential fear, namely, 'Dark Night of the Soul'.

However, that your mind projects this existential fear into ideas of being abandoned by people may possibly relate to your childhood experiences & underlying fear of aloneness.

I offer the following suggestions:

Quit meditating.
Do the therapy, which is hopefully a kind of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) where you learn to rationally reflect/think that there is nothing to fear. This is similar to the Buddhist technique called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara').
If you decide to meditate again, meditate at a good competent Dharma centre with a group of people. I always recommend meditating with others is the best way to start meditation. The group vibe is helpful to reduce or remove anxiety. Also, hopefully meeting trustworthy reliable friends provides a necessary social support.
Do not use recorded guided meditations when alone because these can take the mind deeper than the mind is prepared for. In general, avoid all guided meditations (including in Dharma centres) that go beyond the mere basics of letting go of thoughts & observing the breathing. Any guided meditation that seeks to diminish the ego or observe emptiness, space or clear light should be avoided.


No, householder Somanna, the Buddha and all wise approve that one thing should be killed, and only that:

Having killed what
    do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
    do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
    does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
    you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
    you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
    — with its honeyed crest
    & poison root —
for having killed it
    you do not grieve.

Ghatva Sutta

Without need to have any doubt, if hearing or seeing that someone approves harming, encourages to such by signs and words or even performing such, that such person is not even near related to the Buddha, wise and their following, but harmful thieves in this world.

Those who have doubts, regard them as not having found refuge in the tripple Gems jet, how much ever they use the Gems, even tell that they are Buddhist, knowing, and follower.

May one be careful and blessed to never assosiate with fools and bad friend.

As already quoted, not all are capable in getting the message.

The Simile of the Saw, is possible the most famous collection on it.

Not for any purpose:

  "What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father...for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, ...There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body,..., does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

  "No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."...

Harmlessness is one of the three factors of right effort,following right view.

What ever might appear as harmfull, like rebuking fools, there by the words, right speech,  of compassion ends what ever conductive support can be given for one who acts (by thought, words and speech) for his longtime disadvantage.

(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but only as means to escape this binding wheel)


Initially food was not offered but only offered after the person was impressed by the teaching. Therefore this offering is like remuneration, i.e., what an actor might get for an act. The Buddha's intention in preaching is not for worldly gains, so in this case it is not suitable for the Buddha to accept it.

Also when there is a living Buddha, it is said what is offered to the Buddha is not suitable for consumption by other beings. The Buddha with his power of determination destroyed the food so that another being may not consume it as it would have been detrimental to the consumer.

Generally when you put milk rise into a stream it does not fizzle and destroy itself, so anyone seeing such phenomena would be in awe.


What is the difference between samadhi and samatha?

Samatha is tranquility meditation, meditating on a stable object with the objective of reaching calm states/jhanas.

Samadhi is concentration. The Buddha's teachings of the eightfold noble path are divided into three categories; sila (morality), samadhi (concentration), and panna (wisdom/understanding).

Samadhi is the meditation portion of the Buddha's teachings (Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration) and would include Samatha plus other types of meditation.


There is no place for anger in Buddhism for any reason.
Right effort is what is required.


What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?

I think the right way to think about this, according to Mahayana Buddhism, is that it is our mind that delineates the spatiotemporal continuum and identifies a cause.
In other words, things are not discrete, not discontinuous - so there are no separate "events" to begin with. In the general case, an event does not and cannot have a precise spatial and temporal boundary. Some events may have more or less well-defined boundaries but that's just a happy accident that we can't expect of most events. Usually when we examine an event very carefully we will see that it is "leaking" outside its boundaries, the boundaries are not accurate.
In summary, any "event" that we call "an effect" is a product of our own delineation. In Mahayana we say "event is empty", meaning it's an empty construct, not something concrete that exists ontologically but an abstraction we project onto our observation of the world.
Next, let's talk about the causes. Every "event" that we have thus delineated always exists in some context. The context is the environment that gave rise to the event. This environment is also contiguous and nondiscrete. As we analyze it with our mind we can identify some specific conditions that supported arising of our event. This is to say that an event does not usually (ever?) have a single cause. Instead, our mind delineates the background or the environment and identifies primary and secondary causes and conditions that were necessary for the arising of the event.
Now, what would happen if some of the secondary conditions did not exist or existed in a different way? Most likely the event they were to produce would be slightly (or very) different. Would we consider it the same event then? This is a very important question because it taps into the concept of "sameness" or identity. What makes an event itself? How different does it need to be before we start considering it an entirely different event? If we analyze this question deeply we will understand that sameness or identity is also empty, is also an abstraction, projection, convention, imputation.
From this last point we can conclude that so-called primary and secondary causes and conditions are also entirely our own designation. We pick some aspects of the environment from which an event arisen and designate them as important for this event, designate them as causes or even The Cause.
Finally, let's get to your actual question, what happens to the cause once the effect has arisen. Now we can understand that both the cause and the effect were our designations or our delineations to begin with. It's the entire environment that continuously and contiguously transforms.
The effect grows out of the environment like a sprout grows out of the seed (with other necessary conditions being the moisture, the warmth, the nutrients in the soil etc). What happens to the seed after the sprout has grown? Parts of the seed transform into the sprout while other parts dry or rot away. What happens to the molecules of water, nutrients etc.? They are used as the building blocks for the sprout. What happens to the warmth? The warmth or the vibration of the atoms is passed on to some chemical reactions that serve the growth of the sprout. Entire environment in the neighborhood of the sprout transforms.
Individual things only exist as analytical designations. Because everything keeps on changing (whether growing or falling apart or mixing with something else or gradually changing to something else) - in some sense exact things only exist for an infinitely short moment, and in the next moment they are no more, having passed their energy and information on to some successors (either slightly different from themselves or very different). In another sense things don't disappear at all, they just keep transforming and mixing with parts of other things. Neither of these descriptions is 100% accurate, but they point at Truth which is the living reality underneath our concepts.
This is the right way to think about this, as far as I know. If you want to do a formal study of this analysis, in Buddhism it's called "Madhyamaka".


Is detachment all about not giving damn to peoples/things?

The real purpose of life is to end suffering. Love is merely one method for preventing & ending certain types of suffering. Non-attachment is another method for preventing & ending other types of suffering.

For example, when a child is born, it is hungry & alone. This suffering of hunger & aloneness is to be ended by parents feeding & comforting the child.

When the child gets older, it suffers from boredom & restlessness, so it plays with toys & games to end the suffering of boredom & restlessness.

When the child becomes a teenager, it has the suffering of sexual urges & engages in sexual activity or gets married to end the suffering of sexual urges.

As an adult, this person has children & suffers when it sees the suffering of its children so the adult practises love & care towards its children to end its suffering & the children's suffering.

Later, the adult experiences the suffering of loss; such as loss of wealth, loss of status, loss of friends, loss of children, loss of spouse, loss of health, loss of life, etc.

To end the suffering of loss, the adult can seek more wealth, more children, more status, another spouse, have plastic surgery or believe in reincarnation or going to heaven with Jesus or God.

Otherwise, to end the suffering of loss or change, like the Buddha, the person can practise non-attachment & not-self, understanding all of the things that change & are lost never actually ever belonged to oneself or were 'oneself' in the 1st place.


"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe.", true?

Two suttas come to mind.
Assu Sutta (SN 15.3)

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1):

"But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

"Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

Canonically the Buddha is credited with [re]discovering the Dhamma, and (I presume) with creating the Sangha and the Vinaya.
But I think the statement "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe" was meant to be viewed in context, where the content was, "Difference From Other Religions":

There are, other religions which teach e.g. that "God created heaven and earth" or perhaps that "God created human's souls".
Conversely I think that Buddhism doctrine is that the origin of samsara is "an unanswered question", and even that people inherit their own karma. The Buddha acted as a teacher, a leader, a worthy example.


How to accept things as-is and live according to as-is?

As I answered in the other question, meaning and purpose are artificial assignations from external sources. It is impossible for anything to have more meaning than is intrinsic in its nature; therefore, the meaning of something is its nature, and the purpose is subjective and relative.
As to how this makes one feel, it almost sounds as though you are blaming Buddhism for what is really just the nature of reality. That would be akin to blaming climate change researchers for exposing the dismal truth of climate change. Which is better - to live in denial of reality or to be forewarned and actually able to act logically and rationally in accordance with that reality?
It is true that some truth often seems to cause depression in people, even leading them to suicide. In reality, though, it is not the truth that leads to depression or suicide, it is delusion and ignorance in the face of what is feared and abhorred. Just like any other unwelcome phenomenon, the truth of suffering is met with horror by those who do not understand it. This is the case whether it is explicitly related to them in advance or whether they find out by themselves when they get old, sick, die, etc.
Truth itself leads to freedom; truly realizing that the meaning of life is nothing more than life, that there is no set purpose in life, and that the only logical path for one seeking happiness is to become free from suffering, leads only to peace and contentment. Depression and suicide, on the other hand, are caused by a desire for meaning and purpose fuelled by delusion.
As to acceptance, this is not exactly what I understand to be the prescribed "goal" in Buddhism; rather than acceptance, the goal is understanding (specifically of the four noble truths) and subsequent rejection* of rebirth (and thus life).

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth.
-- DN 16 (Vajira, trans)

This rejection does indeed lead to a sort of apathy towards what is therefore seen as meaningless; such apathy is a necessary bi-product of the understanding of meaninglessness. Depression and suicidal ideation are, as stated, not - they come, rather, from the inability to accept the truth, which is in turn born of desire and craving, which is in turn born of the ignorant belief in purpose / meaning.

* On the use of the word "rejection" in regards to rebirth and life:

But if this [knowledge] sees Nibbāna, the state of peace, as peaceful, it rejects the occurrence of all formations and enters only into Nibbāna.
-- Vism. XXI.64 (Nyanamoli, Trans)

and

“Bhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of feces is foul smelling, so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence, even for a mere finger snap.”
-- AN 1.328 (Bodhi, Trans)


Usefulness of attending a Thai temple in the United States

Sorry not Thai.

I'm a westerner (black American) who attends a Thai Forest temple, and they were welcoming to me since the beginning. Honestly as someone who has been attending for a while, the "Sunday service" question would have been strange to me too. We have chanting and meditation open to laypeople once in the morning and evening. Of course, visitors are welcome all day, and there are regulars who also make lunch for the monks, and offer other food, medicine, and other donations.

It is not good to make decisions based on your imagination. For example, your assessment would be incorrect if applied to our temple. Offering robes formerly is mostly only done once a year for Vesaka. Also, donations, chanting, and meditation go hand-in-hand. Offering food, taking refuge, praising the Three Jewels, practicing gratitude for things we do not normally think about (food, shelter, clothing), and spreading loving-kindness is the basis for a healthy meditative life. At my temple, they speak both Thai and English, and if you can find an English version of the Pali chanting book they use (technically their books are already in "English" as far as using transliterated Roman script), it is easy to pick up on the keywords that let you know what you are chanting at any given moment.

Also, the Buddhists in our temple are comfortable with going to Mahayana-based temples as well, and "doing as the Romans do", which includes more incense offering and devotional aspects like that.

Saying that, the Dhammakyut orders formed from a movement that basically Protestantized Buddhism in that region, so you have to take in account how Thai Buddhism is practiced in modern times when considering practicing Thai Buddhism.

It is really like any other new place. You just go in and check it out, without expectations, meet it on its own terms, then decide whether the temple is for you or not.


Is there any proof of Karma theory & rebirth?

Buddhism differs from others in that rebirth is not a transmigration of a Soul, nor of any specific entity. It is more of a statement that perceived experience being subject to conditions - finding itself empty of any and all self referential properties - cannot logically be seen to either have a concrete beginning nor a concrete ending, whilst the conditions for the arising of said experience are present.

When the notion of an Essential, Independent and Unchanging Atman/Soul is taken at its word, then at birth and death, that Soul must either appear from somewhere, or disappear somewhere, respectively, as Essentialist religions infer.

The Buddha's aim was to show that what is directly perceived - impermanence and non-self - does not allow for termination of the conditioned (as that would be a process with a permanent conclusion), nor does it allow for some unconditioned and unexperiancable entity flirting off to invade somewhere else, as that is not directly perceivable by entities that depend on conditions for their perception..

The point is that there is no duality of 'cessation of the conditional'+'non-cessation of the non-conditional'. There is simply the continuation of conditionality. Ending the process of rebirth is the act of removing whatever conditions make up the necessary support for some conditionally-defined object: there is no 'rebirth' for my desire to drink, because I have removed the necessary conditions for this conditioned entity called 'me' to lunge for booze - the condition removed is craving for beer. This craving is removed volitionaly - volition being the arbiter of Kamma and its fruit: empty of volition? Empty of Kamma and hence empty of rebirth.

(I will be the first to say that this logic works a lot easier for 'beer' than for the entity labeled 'me'. But there is no concrete dividing line between the two concepts - as for any two concepts - given that true Independence is not possible within conditionality, so the beer example should be a decent starting point!)


If a Buddha exists then can a private buddha arise or exist somewhere in the same world system without having learned from the current Buddha?

I don't remember where the story is mentioned, but if I remember right, there was a Pacceka Buddha in the world when the Bodhisatta was born as prince Siddhartha. He attained Parnibbana after hearing the news from the Devas that the Buddha to be has appeared in the world. So it would seem that a Pacceka Buddha wouldn't stay if a SammaSambuddha appears in the world.  Also, those who are capable of attaining enlightenment will be drawn towards the Buddha or the Buddha will see them when he scans the world system every morning.


Can Stoicism be seen as something close to Buddhism in some aspects?

Stoicism can be seen as very similar to Buddhism in that it appeals to an ultimately indefinable reality which, through the denial of ego, awareness of which brings harmony to life.  Also, the stoic acceptance of whatever happens being in accord with nature is like non-attachment.  A Buddhist writer I read recently said that they are in many ways the same other than the Buddhist has greater joy to the extent to which their ego has dissolved.

Stoics permit suicide in a wider range of cases than Buddhists, although the principle that suicide is an option when spiritual practice is no longer possible is the same.


Meaning of "Body is emptiness, emptiness is body"

In my understanding, this basically speaks to the following Buddha's expression (SN 22.90):

  By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination ... as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" ... does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation ... as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" ... does not occur to one. ... "Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

The way an untrained run-off-the-mill person sees things and talks about things, is that anything, any object or phenomena - be that physical or social or economical etc. - either exists or it does not exist. Everything is very cut and dry. But in a wise one's perspective, things are not so simple, not so flat. The wise one sees infinite nuances. This is why the wise one avoids taking extreme simplistic positions about things being or not being a certain way.

Any form - meaning any object of our attention and discussion - is necessarily an abstraction, a subset, a vast simplification of reality. To assume that it actually "exists" would be to commit (succumb to?) the reification fallacy. Instead, a form is a phantom, a fiction, a conceptual overlay. Therefore a form is empty of existence in-and-off-itself. Form is empty. That includes any and all dharmas (phenomena, objects of mind) that some of the late Abhidharmists mistakenly reified. Like the five skandhas (the form/body, feelings etc). Or the Five Great Elements. Or the dharmas. Or even Nirvana itself. From Madhyamaka perspective, these are all abstractions, simplifications, generalizations.

At the same time, to say that things don't really exist - would be to fall into another extreme. Even though form is empty, we appreciate it for its explanatory value. The way we delineate the world into forms, into discrete phenomena, is not entirely arbitrary. It came from our real experience dealing with real things. So the forms we experience, however subjective, conventional, faulty, and incomplete, are rooted in the real nature. The forms do exist, at least in our subjective experience. They only exist as conceptual overlays, but these overlays themselves are not non-existent as overlays. Just like rainbow - there is no actual arch-shaped object in the sky, but you can't say that rainbow does not exist. It exists as a phenomenon. And that phenomenon - however illusory - has its basis in reality, in how things work. This is the "Emptiness is Form" part.

Some of the practical implications of "form is emptiness", is that we no longer get hung up on any one truth, any one method, any philosophical position. We see that they are all ultimately false. On the other hand, because "emptiness is form", we do realize that our choices have effects, and these effects often fruit as experience, and this experience will be rather very real for someone experiencing it! This realization of form-is-emptiness as the ultimate truth is known as the root of prajna or (special) wisdom. And this realization of emptiness-is-form as undeniable reality of experience or the conventional truth, is known as the root of maha-karuna or great (enlightened) compassion.

So at the end of the day we get very practical. Given that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, we do the best thing possible using the best tool for the job. If we need to cut through we cut through, if we need to skip over, we skip over. We don't get stuck beating our head on the wall.


How to deal with bad past karma that makes my current life miserable?

An understanding of what causes have contributed to the way we are right now is out of the realm of ordinary people; practically speaking, you are more likely to project a false impression of why you are the way you are that is wholly disproportionate in terms of cause and actual effect.

Much of what we are today has already been predetermined from the moment of our conception, including the nature of our body and our brain, our social status and community, and even our life choices and experiences to a certain extent.

That being said, karma performed in this life will certainly have an affect on our minds and influence our choices as well as our mental and physical well-being. Much of this is also out of our control, at least in terms of direct intervention.

What we can do is two things:

We can, as the Buddha taught Angulimala, "bear with" the unpleasant experiences. This has the effect of both neutralizing the mental suffering that comes from unpleasant experiences as well as nullifying any further bad karma we might create in reaction to the experience (thus potentially ending the cycle that caused the experience in the first place).
We can perform wholesome deeds like giving charity or help to others, abstaining from unethical deeds and speech, and practising meditation to calm and clarify our minds. This has the effect of acting as a buffer to our unwholesome deeds, in effect (potentially) counteracting them. As the Buddha taught to Angulimala:

  He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done,
  illuminates this world like the moon freed
  from clouds.

  -- Dhp. 173 (Buddharakkhita,trans)


In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so how can any Buddha help anyone to attain enlightenment?

In Mahayana Buddhism, they assume that everyone is already a Buddha. Enlightenment (bodhi) is self-existing, it is our natural state. It is our true nature, our primordial face. The only problem is, we got alienated from it, lost connection with it - but only at the superficial level. Deep inside we are always enlightened, all we need is to connect the layers and remember.

So when someone attains enlightenment, they see everyone as enlightened already. They also see the confusion, or the illusion of confusion. And that's what they help the others to overcome.

It's like, you wanted to become free from slavery and you thought the only way to do that is to become a king. But then you realize that this sort of thinking is still a slavery thinking. You realize that in fact we're all already free, that slavery was a lie that we believed in only because of ignorance. But as you go around on your white horse helping others get this, some may mistake you for a king. And then it's up to you to either tell them the truth, or to play a king for their benefit, like an adult playing Santa for the sake of kids.


Is there any biological constraint to attain Nibbana?

As far as I know the youngest arahant in the sutta's was 7 years old. Unfortunately I don't remember which sutta this is.

So, I would say: no, there is no limitation to reaching arahanthood or nibbana.


Do any Buddhist traditions emphasize pilgrimage?

There are four main places that most Buddhists visit at least once in their lifetime. According to Buddha's words in Mahaparinibbana sutta those are
Lumbini, Buddhagaya, Sarnath and Kusinara in Nepal and India.

  "These, Ananda, are the four places that a pious person should visit and look upon with feelings of reverence. And truly there will
  come to these places, Ananda, pious bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen
  and laywomen, reflecting: 'Here the Tathagata was born! Here the
  Tathagata became fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme
  Enlightenment! Here the Tathagata set rolling the unexcelled Wheel of
  the Dhamma! Here the Tathagata passed away into the state of Nibbana
  in which no element of clinging remains!'
  "And whoever, Ananda, should die on such a pilgrimage with his heart established in faith, at the breaking up of the body, after
  death, will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."
  DN 16

Pilgrimages however are not a significant part of the practice, but these visits can inspire us to put more effort into our practice. Some groups of people observe eight precepts and practice meditation as a part of the pilgrimage as well.   By showing reverence at these places, the person is able to purify his thoughts, speech and action. So by visiting these places with the correct mental attitude can help us in our practice as well.


Can the dharmakaya buddha be manifest as human?

I am writing from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism. Your question actually has two aspects. The only thing that can set humans apart from other sentient beings is realization of "precious human life". This is the desire,ability,and opportunity to take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha,Dharma,and Sangha.
The second aspect is the understanding of the three kayas (bodies) of the enlightenment of a buddha.
Dharmakaya represents mind,and as such has no bodily form. It is always present,yet does not change or transform. It is not the conceptual daily mind that we are all familiar with, but rather primordial, pure and clear mind, hence unchanging. It is the basis for determining sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya.
Sambhogakaya represents speech. It is the speech that manifests wisdom in a verbal and nonverbal aspect. In other words, thinking and speaking with wisdom from the Buddhist point of view. It is the ability to communicate wisely on all levels.
Nirmanakaya represents the body. This is the physical aspect of one who is enlightened. It is the literal body that communicates and relates, changing constantly as it purifies karmic influence and residue. This continues until purification to the point of being one with extraordinary ability to work for the benefit of others.
As a sentient being with precious human life,the three kayas work together as one to produce an enlightened buddha.
These topics and many others are covered in Khenchen Konchog Gyaltshen Rinpoche's very easy to understand book,"A Complete Guide To The Buddhist Path".


How did Buddha Explain the Creation Of the World?

Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'? Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world...

No enlightened being lies for any purpose. Scientific knowledge is based on hypothesis. The Dhamma is what the Buddha understood through direct knowledge.

  It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that
  Dinosaurs lived on earth before humans.

In Buddhism, humans are not identified as animals. They devolved from self-luminous gods(brahmas). Not monkeys! Agganna sutta is about how human beings came to dwell on Earth. It doesn't mention about the origin of the animals.

In any case, dinosaur bones being older than human bones doesn't prove that humans came later.

  " they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long
  time." -Agganna Sutta

A being with such a form cannot be expected to leave any bones behind when they die. It's only much much later their bodies started to harden.

According to Science, dinosaurs lived between 230 and 65 million years ago. Land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago. According to Agganna sutta, the earth didn't even have trees when the first humans came.

We were here even before the first mushrooms(fungi) appeared on earth:

  Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced
  the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and
  they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body
  hardened more and details began to turn finer. -Agganna Sutta


Was Buddhism a rebellion against the Aryans?

When Gautama left his family to become an ascetic or śramaṇa, he joined many other ascetics or wanderers who were separate from the Vedic-Brahmanism religion.

However, when Gautama left his family to become an ascetic, his goal was not political. The Pali scriptures describe when Gautama lived the life of a prince in his palaces, he was very unhappy & disenchanted & also saw how his rich relatives & associates suffered about worldly things, such as money, status, sex & sensuality, which brought little happiness & much trouble & suffering.

Therefore, Gautama became an ascetic for the sole purpose of finding a solution to suffering for himself & for the world. Gautama's sole purpose was a Noble Search for Nibbana.

Later, after enlightenment, when the Buddha became famous, the scriptures report many Brahmans ('Aryans') came to visit the Buddha to ask him questions about 'caste' or 'birth' ('jati').

Because the Buddha was an honest & ethical man, he spoke the truth to the Brahmans (for example, here, here and here.

In Singala: https://suttacentral.net/si/mn93 ~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn95
~ https://suttacentral.net/si/mn98

Because the Buddha & many of his enlightened disciples were not from the Brahman caste, the Buddha understood with right wisdom that the highest, most peaceful, wise, virtuous & free state of mind was not related to birth caste (read Brahmanavagga).

I would speculate that hundreds of years later, under King Ashoka, many new scriptures were written that were very prejudiced against Brahmans (such as here & here).

I say this because in many scriptures, the Buddha is very civil to Brahmans and encouraged them to follow their own religion in a better way. The Buddha did not try to convert anyone to Buddhism unless he knew Buddhism was the most suitable path for that person.


Even if those offended are just ignorant about the word "Hinayana", why use it?

In my very first encounters with Buddhism I've always thought, that this is simply the distinguition between "maha" and "hina" in a sense of a larger fraction and a smaller fraction of the sangha in the first larger schism after the second(?) council. An example already known to me was the pair of nouns "Men-shewiki" (smaller fraction) and "Bol-shewiki" (larger fraction) of the communist movement at the early time of Lenin, when the two fractions separated due to different view of things and of how to proceed.
So also the basic term "maha-sanghika" came to me, as "the larger fraction" of the sangha, and I thought, "maha-yana" and "hina-yana" was simply derived from that (physical) comparision of size (the "vehicle of the larger/ smaller fraction").
But with irritating frequency I heard of disgust of buddhists connected with the term "hinayana" - and I'd seen one time in an online discussion someone telling, that "hina" does not simply mean "small(er)" but has a derogatory, diffamating tone.
It seems difficult to find an entry in an actual dictionary (online, don't have a Pali/Sanskrit dictionary at my own), but I found this in a yoga-wiki:

http://wiki.yoga-vidya.de/Hina

  Hina (Sanskrit: hina adj. u. n.) ist das PPP der Sanskrit Verbalwurzel
  (Dhatu) ha und bedeutet: verlassen, zurückgelassen; mangelhaft,
  fehlend, klein, gering, schwach; kleiner, weniger wertvoll; Mangel,
  das Fehlen.
  (I try to translate but may miss the tone of valuation: "... lost, left behind; buggy, missing, small, low, weak; smaller, less valuable; the lack, the missing")

... while I still do not know the opposite term of "maha" simply with the meaning "small" without a social/valuating tone.

(In principle) I still cannot understand how such a connoted term as "hina-yana" could have at all been born in the sangha of the followers of the Buddha - possibly coined by members simply of "the larger fraction" ("maha-sanghika") even when they thought themselves (and maybe correctly) as practioners of a "wider concept" ...

The disgust of Theravadins seems to me understandable, if I imagine of calling one path/"vehicle" the "omnibus" (mahayana) and the other one the "Bobby car" ("hinayana") using english language - and even to insist on such an implicite valuation in face of the concern with this, which was expressed openly many times and also long times.

A funny/joking example of the tricky relation of ours to the terms "large" and "small" stems from the former socialistic german republic, when the ideal(!) of smallness (in the realms of electronical devices) could not be met as perfect as in "the west", and the people ironically trumpeted: "we have the largest microprocessors of the world!".

So in focusing more on the answering of your question - surely it should be advised to look at common examples, where the "smaller" is the "finer":

being more focused
having more concentration,
being free of a bunch of litter (and -for instance- of fetters)

and -just for the mental exercise of emanicpation from the connotations of "greater" and "less" - one can try to find then actual terms for the advantages-of-the-smaller to get rid of any feeling of being-pissed, of confrontation or even of revenge or of any unkind emotion which might come up when feeling bullied by the term "hina-yana"....


It is wrong view because of the "I" (bolded): "I have no self". This view still believes in self. It thinks: "myself has no self". This is the wrong view of the befuddled wanderer Vacchagotta in SN 44.10.

This wrong view is similar to the nihilistic view in MN 102, where it states:

  Just as a dog bound by a leash tied to a post or pillar keeps running and circling around that same post or pillar; so too those through
  fear of identity & disgust with identity keep running and circling
  around that same identity.

Right view is: "The five aggregates have no self".


How do you master (control) your mind with buddhism

One can master the Mind by gaining experiental knowledge about The Five Hindrances and when to apply the corresponding five remedies to them.
The five remedies, can be found in the The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 63-66, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, and are as follows:

Replacing the hindrance with its opposite, e.g. replacing hatred/ill-will with thoughts of loving-kindness.
Contemplating the arisen hindrance as vile and ignoble, since it has entered the mind without permission or any control.
Shifting attention away from the hindrance.
Shifting attention onto the hindrance and thoroughly contemplating it by investigating its causes and conditions for arising together with its characteristics.
Removing the hindrance with force, just as a strong man would pin a weaker man to the ground.

The Buddha says in the quoted sutta below, that if one learns how to use and apply these five remedies then one will no longer be the subject of the mind. One will become it's master;

"... This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think ...".

The Blessed One said this:
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is pursuing the higher mind, from time to time he should give attention to five signs. What are the five?
(i) "Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then arty evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the aban- doning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a skilled carpen- ter or his apprentice might knock out, remove, and extract a coarse peg by means of a fine one, so too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(ii) "If, while he is giving attention to some other sign con- nected with what is wholesome, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should examine the danger in those thoughts thus: 'These thoughts are unwholesome, they are rep- rehensible, they result in suffering. When he examines the danger in those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are aban- doned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a man or a woman, young, youthful, and fond of ornaments, would be horrified, humiliated, and dis- gusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung around his or her neck, so too...when a bhikkhu examines the danger in those thoughts.. .his mind becomes stead- ied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iii) "If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give atten- tion to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concen- trated. Just as a man with good eyes who did not want to see forms that had come within range of sight would either shut his eyes or look away, so too...when a bhikkhu tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iv) "If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to sin- gleness, and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might con- sider: 'Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?' and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: 'Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?' and he would stand; then he might consider: 'Why am I standing? What if I sit?' and he would sit; then he might consider: 'Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?' and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture one that was subtler. So too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(v) "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind. When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. }ust as a strong man might seize a weaker man by the head or shoulders and beat him down, constrain him, and crush him, so too...when, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, a bhikkhu beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind.. .his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwhole- some thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delu- sion, then when he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him and subside, and with the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. When he examines the danger in those thoughts...When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him...and his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think. He has severed craving, flung off the fetters, and with the complete penetration of con- ceit he has made an end of suffering.
-- The Middle Length Discourses in the Majjhima Nikaya, MN: 20, Bodhi Translation


Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism?

AFAIK there aren't any explicit references in the scriptures to ecological concerns and sustainability. I guess that in the days of the Buddha, there weren't many problems in that area. The ideas behind sustainability aren't new, but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century (the energy crises in the 70s) that they became more prominent and that the growth of the entire human population and increased resource consumption were seen as a potential major problem for mankind.

I think what makes environmentalism and sustainability so interesting for Buddhists (or the other way around?) is that several main ideas are rather similar, or at least in line with each other.
For example, the Buddha taught that everything, all life, is connected (dependent origination). Also there is no self, the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions (anatman). This means that if you damage the Earth then you indirectly are also damaging a part of yourself.

Buddhism also teaches us that we should take the middle way, lead a simple life, don't engage in addictive behavior or excessive consumption, be kind to others. These ideas are also prominent in sustainability. We shouldn't waste resources and should try to improve the living conditions for everyone, not just the rich people living in the Western world.

So to answer your question; I think Buddhism and environmentalism/sustainability just attract the same kind of people. People that really care for the well-being of others.

BTW, being a protem moderator of the Sustainable Living SE site, I can't resist making at least one reference to that site here. ;-)


What to do that wise would not disappear again?

There is a good book about community building; Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities – by Amy Jo Kim.

The most knowledgeable people are those who are able to answer almost any questions. They are extremely valuable but are also quite likely to retire from a community in part because they don't need the community to learn and their lack of peers is proportional to their expertise.

If one is looking to keep the knowledgeable people around one should protect them. They do need to be protected from harassment and it is the job of the moderators. The moderators have to work with them and this can be difficult.

Other than that they can also just lose interest in teaching or become otherwise disinterested.

Related Sutta stories;

There is a story about monks quarreling and the Tathagata leaving the community because the monks did not settle their quarrel.

There is another story about The Buddha not teaching in an "impure" assembly which results in a monk being removed by force from the assembly.

Another is when Ven. Sariputta stops teaching because a monk harasses him by openly disagreeing in front of other monks and nobody defends Ven. Sariputta. Later Buddha admonishes the monk for harassing Ven. Sariputta and admonishes the community of monks for not defending the Elder.


Is severing negative communication with an "incompatible" person a big no-no in the Buddhist pracice?

The Pali suttas say (Snp 1.10; SN 10.12) there are four qualities for the household life (which are also to be applied to any significant relationship), namely:

Sacca (truthfulness; honesty; straightforwardness; openness; no secrets)
Dama (training in self-improvement); and Dhamma (principles)
Khanti (patience; forbearance; tolerance)
Caga (sacrifice; generosity)

Therefore, in a significant relationship, a person should truthfully communicate to the other person any concerns they have about their behaviour and both should train in self-improvement to abolish that unwholesome behaviour.

If the other person does not respond and the relationship is toxic or harmful (intolerable) then cutting ties is OK. For example, one sutta says a wife (SN 37.30) without ethics is expelled from the household.


What Dōgen calls sennigedo is a view found in several schools of Buddhism, for example in the teachings of Tendai contemporary with Dōgen in Japan. But this is not what Matsuo Basho was expressing in "Mind itself is Buddha", the poem Dōgen used to argue the criticism you expressed in your quote. He quotes this poem in the story of Damei Fachang (Daibai Hojo) in both his Shobogenzo and Eiheikoroku. What he actually argues is:

  “The mind that has been authentically transmitted is ‘one mind is all
  dharmas; all dharmas are one mind.’….. We clearly understand that the
  mind refers to the mountains, rivers, and the great earth; the sun,
  the moon and the stars. …. Therefore, ‘mind itself is buddha’ refers
  to all the buddhas who carry out arousing bodhi-mind, practice,
  awakening, and nirvana. Those who have not yet been carrying out
  arousing bodhi-mind, practice, awakening and nirvana are not ‘mind
  itself is buddha.'”

Stated differently, Dōgen argues that until you realize (in both senses of the English word simultaneously, not just intellectually) that "Mind is Buddha", you risk to conceptualize Buddha-nature as eternal & transcendent of causation and death. He is therefore not criticizing Basho, but the concept underlying the interpretation that all factors of experience (hō in Japanese, Dharmas in Sanskrit) are somehow not subject to causation (which implies they are timeless).

The best elaboration on this argument I know is in Heine's Existential and Ontological Dimensions of Time in Heidegger and Dogen Chapter "The Question of Time"