My first Buddhist teacher was extremely helpful with this. Basically, he explained that all these problems come from attachments. "Ego" is just a name for a tangle of attachments. Someone says something that goes against your attachment and you get triggered. You think "this is right, this is the way its supposed to be - and what they did is wrong". That "supposed to be" is the attachment. They are like mind worms, you should get rid of them. If you start now, in five years you will have none. Just don't get angry at people who still have attachments, because that's an attachment too. Makes sense?

It's called "attachment" because you think this is the only right way it should be - but in reality it's not the only way. Nothing in the world has to be one way. Letting go of attachments involves catching yourself getting triggered, identifying the attachment, and then expanding your perspective to include other possibilities. This process goes deep, very very deep - until you completely lose all shape, any ground under your feet - so it's is not for the faint of heart. Following this path is like a robot disassembling itself, piece by piece - until there is nothing left. That "nothing" is freedom.

Attachments are the real issue. Addictions are secondary, just a side effect.

What's kinda interesting and cool is that reality you find yourself in is always the reverse projection of your hidden attachments. It's really amazing. The circumstances and the overall mood of the situations that you get in, is a reflection of your attachments. So the more you hold on to them, the worse it gets - and as you let go, a different reality is assembled around you.


Does "Connected Causes" mean the same thing as Dependent Origination?

In discussing things with people it helps to use the terminology they use. So even if 'connected causes' is a better way to explain 'dependent origination' - the latter has become a common phrase in English Buddhism. The former is rare.

Without the precise quote it is impossible to determine whether the two are precisely the same thing. However, if the source is a biography, I would think that the meaning is likely close enough within that context.

      edited in response to elaborated question:

In this case I would understand the phrase 'Connected Causes' as very simply all the causes that  create good circumstances (aka 'worldly good'). The sentence merely states that while it is great to experience the result of good karma, that doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels.

In other words: 'Connected Causes' is simply karma here, I think. And while the spiritual boon may seem the same thing as those great circumstances, it's not. For one thing: good circumstances are rarely used to good spiritual effect.


Accprding to the records, within a kappa (world period), sometimes only one Buddha appears. It's hard to imagen that such as "India" is either linguistig nor geological, in it's location, even within a imagenable period very constant and "existing" in a sphere of common perception. It can be not valid said that such as India could be regarded as a certain place, and it's for sure not possible to imagen reasonable that such as India would appear for other Buddhas. Now think how the planet rushes even now through the worlds and minds of beings. Such as "India" was even at the time of our Buddha not "existentk in the sense it might be today common defined.

But let that question be a matter of stories, historical grasping and philosophy. How ever one feels common with, one might regard it who ever it might not cause one stress. To remind that form as well as perception are subject to change, would the wise remind not to grasp it otherwise, so that it will not unavoidable hurt.

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


Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist

I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end.

There is a sutta which suggests that that's a valid worry: it's the "Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor"

Getting the Message by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to me to soften that message, by suggesting (more specifically) that you should not inspire your audiences to greed, anger, and delusion:

  In this case, the Buddha's reticence and tact helped to make his teaching effective. A similar set of events happened when an actor asked the Buddha if there is a special heaven reserved for actors. The Buddha's reticence and tact in informing the actor of a hell for actors who incite their audiences to greed, anger, and delusion inspired the actor to respond in the same way as the soldier.

Some modern examples:

I can also find some examples of monks and nuns singing and playing music: for example here.
That is notwithstanding the fact that Music is apparently contra-indicted by the Vinaya.
Here is a Theravada monk (ordained at age 10) who composes music: including for film scores.

Music and entertainment and so on are against the Eight Precepts:

  The Eight Precepts are precepts for Buddhist lay men and women who
  wish to practice Buddhism more strictly than through adherence to the
  usual five precepts. The eight precepts focus both on avoiding morally
  bad behaviour, as do the five precepts, and on leading a more ascetic
  life.

  In Theravada Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka and Thailand,
  Buddhist laymen and laywomen will often[citation needed] spend one day
  a week (on the Uposatha days: the new moon, first-quarter moon, full
  moon and last-quarter moon days) living in the monastery, and
  practicing the eight precepts.

  The Buddha gave teachings on how the eight precepts are to be
  practiced,[21] and on the right and wrong ways of practicing the eight
  precepts.[22]

According to the Visakhuposatha Sutta, the reason for the Eight Precepts is that Arahants refrain from music etc.:

  "[He considers:] 'For all their lives the arahants refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics; so today I refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing ornaments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'

So I don't know; maybe it's a grey (not black and white) area, i.e. it's something to think about: neither always forbidden nor always recommended.


What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?

I am not sure about the origin of this quote but possibly as it used as a Zen message it may have come from Bodhidharma. I am sure about its meaning however. It relates both to Enlightenment and Mindfulness. The true practice of mindfulness which means watching the mind to find the Essence of the Mind will lead to Wisdom and Enlightenment. In simple terms we can say that before I developed the true nature of Wisdom I could chop wood and carry water but my mind was everywhere-it was heavily polluted with mental obstructions and worldly thoughts-it was not present. After I found the Essence of my Mind and found true Wisdom then I experience Enlightenment. To the external eye nothing is different-I still appear to chop wood and carry water but in fact within the internal eye everything is different. Everything has changed. It teaches us to be aware of the transience of visual forms. Nothing is what it appears to be and No thing is what it appears to be.

Thay


Take your finger off the trigger. Take your foot off the accelerator.

Just sit but with a quiet still silent mind.

Don't attempt to watch the breathing.

The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing.

The Buddha taught to abandon craving.

Every impulse to watch breathing is craving. When this impulse arises, abandon it, realise it, drop it, let it go.

When you stop trying or craving to watch breath and have a silent mind, Anapanasati (which means 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing') can naturally take its natural course. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember to keep the mind' free from craving.

When the mind stops trying to watch breathing, the mind will be free from the thought of 'trying'. Not trying actually makes the silent mind more clear, more sensitive.

Do we need to make an effort to hear a sound, to smell a smell or to see an object? if not, why does an effort need to be made to know/feel the breathing, when the mind is naturally silent?


They leave the laylife within 7 days, not 24 hours. This is why Pacceka Buddhas go to live in the forest since there is no Sangha community.


My understanding of this is as follows;

Illusion is impure, but a water wave is beyond purity and impurity;

May I be reborn in a hell to purify it and save the living beings there.


Is it important to be vegetarian when meditating "Metta meditation"?

Based on Theravada, which is what I'm most familiar with, vegetarianism is not essential for any meditation that I know of. Even so, I've chosen to be a vegetarian. As I understand it, the Mahayana tradition tends to strongly encourage vegetarianism, but even then I'm not certain if they do it specifically to aid meditation practice.

As to it being profitable, it depends on what effects adopting vegetarianism has on that person's state of mind. If being a vegetarian helps your compassion towards beings, then you might consider it profitable. For some people, choosing vegetarianism might result in no improved state of mind, in which case it doesn't matter.

This also answers your third question as to why a lot of people become vegetarian after they start their path. They might have noticed that becoming a vegetarian, for them, improves their personal state of mind. Of course this won't be the only reason, but for some it might be.

Try it, and see what works for you.


Is rebirth a conventional truth within the Buddha's message?

Rebirth is very central to the whole doctrine. As long as this Kammic force exists there is re-birth, for beings are merely the visible manifestation of this invisible Kammic force. Any attempt is like excluding Samsara is like excluding this from the whole equation.  Birth precedes death, and death, on the other hand, precedes birth. The constant succession of birth and death in connection with each individual life flux constitutes what is technically known as Samsara -- recurrent wandering. Buddha said that:

  "Without cognizable end is this Samsara. A first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived."

The cause of this Kamma, continues the Buddha, is avijja or ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Ignorance is, therefore, the cause of birth and death; and its transmutation into knowingness or vijja is consequently their cessation. The result of this analytical method is summed up in the Paticca Samuppada. Paticca Samuppada is the discourse on the process of birth and death.

Nibbana is often conceived of as stopping this cycle. By removing the causes for craving, craving ceases. So with the ceasing of birth, death ceases. With the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases... and so on until with the ceasing of ignorance no karma is produced, and the whole process of death and rebirth ceases.


Attainment of enlightenment without desire

Desire is used to fabricate all the needed conditions to abandon desire once and for all.
Desire should be dropped at the right time, after all the conditions for attaining Nibbana are generated. But it is used until that point.
So desire is used to abandon desire.
Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."
"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."
"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life."


From SN 36.31:

"Now, O monks, what is worldly equanimity? There are these five cords of sensual desire: forms cognizable by the eye... tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense desire and alluring. It is the equanimity that arises with regard to these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly equanimity.'
"Now, what is unworldy equanimity? With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of gladness and sadness, a monk enters upon and abides in the fourth meditative absorption, which has neither pain-nor-pleasure and has purity of mindfulness due to equanimity. This is called 'unworldly equanimity.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly equanimity? When a taint-free monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred and freed of delusion, then there arises equanimity. This is called a 'still greater unworldly equanimity."


Dependent origination and the living arahat

three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada)

This is not found in the suttas. In MN 38, for example, the child is born, grows, becomes attached to sensual pleasures & then experiences Dependent Origination. Then the same child, now a man, becomes a monk, attains jhanas and eradicates dependent origination (while his sense organs are consciousness of sense objects). MN 38 also says D.O. is experienced in the here-&-now, independent of the Buddha. MN 38 shows there is no such thing as three-lives.

  birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?)

"Jati" means "self" or "social identity" in India. It has never ever meant anything different to that. "Jati" in the suttas is literally defined as the "production of beings from the appearance of aggregates". "A being" ("satta") is literally defined in the suttas (SN 5.10 & SN 23.2) as a "view of clinging". Buddhadasa is close to literally in accordance with the suttas. "Jati" is the production of the self-view of "a being" or "beings", both internally & externally. Please abandon self-views and realise this reality. There are five aggregates, such as the five aggregates that breast fed you. From these five aggregates, the mind creates the view of two "beings" called "my mother" and "me". In reality, there is only five aggregates. Dhammapada says: "Kill mother; kill father". Buddhism 101.

  and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana).

In SN 12.2, sankhara is not "impressions" and nama-rupa is not "naming-forming".

  However, for a living arahat, what happens to the nidānas of mental formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form
  (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa), feeling
  (vedanā), becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti)?

The sutta definition of Nibbana in MN 26 includes: "sabba saṅkhāra samatho", which means "calming of all sankhara". Therefore, in Nibbana, the three sankhara, namely, in & out breathing (kaya sankharo), vitakka & vicara (vaci sankharo) and perception & feeling (citta sankharo) are calmed. They are not destroyed. What is destroyed is craving & other defilements, namely, ignorance, attachment, becoming, birth & aging-&-death. Buddhism 101.

Suttas such as MN 38, Iti 44 and SN 22.53 say the arahant remains consciousness, with sense organs, sense contact & feelings. Since the arahant remains consciousness, obviously nama-rupa (mind-body) remain, per SN 12.67, SN 22.82, etc, which says consciousness is caused by nama-rupa.

As for "becoming" and "jati", these are defilements and they end per MN 38, which says "becoming" & "jati" cease when the "eye sees the form". "Becoming" is an "asava". Many suttas say the asava of becoming ends. "Jati" also ends. All arahants declare the ending of "jati". Except the Buddha. The Buddha declared: "This is my final birth" because the Buddha has the social identity of "The Buddha". Where as the arahant disciples have no special "jati" therefore they end "jati". MN 140 says because the arahant does not conceive "I am", the arahant is not "born"; does not age; does not die.

Buddhadasa taught Dependent Origination correctly, even though not completely. However, Dhammadhatu, exclusively on Buddhism Stack Exchange, explains D.O. fully and completely. Have faith & believe. When you realise Dependent Origination is not about reincarnation, you might realise Buddhism has nothing for you & decide to leave Buddhism and join Christianity or Hinduism; thus do good kamma by giving up creating obstacles for others by misrepresenting the Dhamma. In Buddhism, you are allowed to leave Buddhism. There is no crime of apostasy in Buddhism.


Is all lying considered to be 'unwholesome'?

Sutta. Ma. Ma. cūḷarāhulovādasuttaṃ:

"In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.'

The four noble truth is the opposite of lying.
It's a reason that I super trust in Pali Canons because the Noble Ones can't lie at all situations.
Although I am an ordinary, I can the witness that it is possible to speak the truth in all situations because I never lie through 12 years in Buddhism. It depends on personnal management. Actually, there has not only the lie method, so the practitioner should practice the other methods instead of the lie.
However, the noble one has at least three methods to manage the unsecured situation by the murder, etc.

Running away.
Asking the evaded question to let the listeners think of the answer by themselves. See Dha.A.4 sahassavaggavaṇṇanā Tambadathikacoraghatakavatthu.
Mute. or sacrifice his life to keep the truth. It's just mute until the murder tortures or kills the noble one. See Dha.A.5 pāpavaggavaṇṇanā Maṇikārakulupakatissattheravatthu.

The ordinary thinks lying is the only way, but the noble one thinks there are many ways instead of the lying to manage the unsecured situation.
Additional
In Khuddaka.A. (paramatthajo.) Sikkhāpadavaṇṇanā:
How is big of the fault from the lie?

In immoral animals, e.g. ant and chimpanzee,  lie the small body is lesser fault than bigger because of it's required more effort to lie if both animals can understand the lie.
In moral animals, e.g. human and god, lie the lower wholesome skill is lesser fault than higher.
In the animal which has the same body and wholesome skill, lie the higher passion is more fault than the lower.

All Ariyas Can't Lie
In Sutta. Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto Āpattibhayavaggo VoharaSutta:

250. Expressions (1st)
250. Paṭhamavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions (the noble one doesn't express).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, asute sutavāditā, amute mutavāditā, aviññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
251. Expressions (2nd)
251. Dutiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions. (the noble one expresses).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, asute asutavāditā, amute amutavāditā, aviññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.
252. Expressions (3rd)
252. Tatiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, sute asutavāditā, mute amutavāditā, viññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
253. Expressions (4th)
253. Catutthavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, sute sutavāditā, mute mutavāditā, viññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.


The way Buddha formulated it, anatta was a surprising solution to the impossible problem - change in your attitude, not just an intellectual understanding - just like you said.

His argument went like this: dukkha happens because we try to rely on things which are unreliable -- therefore to achieve permanent Nirvana we need to try and find something which is absolutely reliable. Anything that depends on conditions is impermanent - therefore it is unreliable -- therefore it is dukkha. So we should not lean on (=try to establish our base in) anything conditioned (impermanent, unreliable). Let's see what it leaves us with. All physical objects, configurations, and situations are impermanent. So we can't establish our base in any of them. Our sense-experiences depend on the external objects, which are impermanent/unreliable - therefore our sense-experiences are unreliable too. So we can't establish our base in them. Our mind state depends on our sense-experiences, which are impermanent/unreliable - therefore the mindstate is unreliable too. So we can't establish our base in the mind state. This is the meaning of anatta, we decide that it would be stupid to establish our base in external world, in body, in sense-experiences, or in the mind - because they are all impermanent and therefore unreliable. So this leaves us with... nothing. There is nothing we can establish our base in. This is complete anatta, complete no-self / no-base. And then Buddha made discovery: if you don't establish your base anywhere, you are invulnerable! So on one hand it is a complete loss, there is nothing reliable so there is no Nirvana. On the other hand, if you really let go of everything, if nothing is yours, nothing is you, nothing is your base, nothing is your prize - then impermanence no longer matters, and there is no basis for dukkha to occur. This is called Unbinding.

So as you can see, anatta is not the kind of selflessness we get in physical sciences - they too tell us there is no soul, and lately the neuroscience tells us the feeling of single agent in our head making decisions and experiencing phenomena is an illusion. So everything is just a combination of matter/information fluctuating. But that's not enough.

What really matters is our personal attitude to things. As long as we establish our base anywhere, even in Buddhism - we get involved into conflicts, arguments, disappointments, and losses. Only if we have no base can we be free from conditions. But to be baseless requires tremendous courage and tremendous will power to let go (and to keep letting go, like jumping from the airplane). It really is very scary. And it kinda makes you very lonely, because you can't seriously relate with people who make their bases in all kinds of arbitrary things. On the other hand, since you don't dwell on any negative thoughts (you don't make them your base either) - you are never upset or frustrated.

It feels like you are superninja dancing between the raindrops. The raindrops represent various bases you could potentially attach to. Dancing between raindrops represents baselessness. When you get it, what are you going to do with this? What's next? At this point it becomes a funny question. Do I need a next base, is that's what I am asking about? What is my next base to go to?

What is my next address? What is Buddha's address? Buddha is not leaving - and Buddha is not arriving. Something like this. You asked how anatta feels to a sentient being.

But that's the very end of the path. Buddha said, there is no point in skipping stages - otherwise you will be like that cow - that has lost her previous grazing grounds before she has established her feet in the new grounds. First anatta should be practiced as baselessness in everyday life. Any time we feel frustration in daily life, that's our mind trying to establish a base. So we should learn to watch out for those and let go of the base, starting from the most coarse situations, that generate the most coarse emotions. And then you stalk yourself identifying more and more subtle bases, and let go of them, until you let go of the base of the Buddhist practice itself, and the base of "better", and the base of no base.


What are ways "common" and not so known to practice the first kind of proper giving?

A general run-down of all aspects of the practice of Dana - the first step in the Gradual Course, the instructions usually given by Ananda to lay disciples - the very first steps that should be taken by a very beginning Buddhist are described here:

http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/gradualdana.htm

In the list defining when to give, the first is to give to one arriving. That means when someone visits you or is new to an institution or neighborhood then it is a good time to make a gift to them. Welcome baskets, signing bonuses and so forth as well as the more basic: food, clothing, shelter and medicine that would be helpful to a visiting bhikkhu or for making good kamma giving what you would need in times of need.

But also of interest there: Who to give to, what to give, how to give, the best gift, repaying one's parents, etc. ... and then the rest of that Course.

The main problem with beginning Buddhists today: they want to start at the top, with jhana practice where what should be done first is the building of a strong foundation as described in this course. There is no attaining jhana without a platform based on giving, ethical behavior, self-control and organization of the mind as described in this course.


Crippling fear of hellfire &, damnation, please help?

I hope SN 42.6 quoted below will give you comfort. A person's actions while they were alive determines their outcome, and not rituals performed after death.

  Then Asibandhaka’s son the chief went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat
  down to one side, and said to him:

  “Sir, there are western brahmins draped with moss who carry pitchers,
  immerse themselves in water, and serve the sacred flame. When someone
  has passed away, they truly lift them up, raise them up, and guide
  them along to heaven. But what about the Blessed One, the perfected
  one, the fully awakened Buddha: is he able to ensure that the whole
  world will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm when their body
  breaks up, after death?”

  "Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return,
  and you can answer as you like.

  What do you think, chief? Take a person who doesn’t kill living
  creatures, steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech
  that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
  kind-hearted, and have right view. And a large crowd comes together to
  offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating them with joined palms
  and saying: ‘When this person’s body breaks up, after death, may they
  be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell!’ What
  do you think, chief? Would that person be reborn in hell because of
  their prayers?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Chief, suppose a person were to sink a pot of ghee or oil into a deep
  lake and break it open. Its shards and chips would sink down, while
  the ghee or oil in it would rise up. And a large crowd was to come
  together to offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating it with
  joined palms and saying: ‘Sink, good ghee or oil! Descend, good ghee
  or oil! Go down, good ghee or oil!” What do you think, chief? Would
  that ghee or oil sink and descend because of their prayers?”

  “No, sir.”

  “In the same way, take a person who doesn’t kill living creatures,
  steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech that’s
  false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
  kind-hearted, and have right view. Even though a large crowd comes
  together to offer up prayers and praise … when their body breaks up,
  after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”

  When he said this, Asibandhaka’s son the chief said to the Buddha,
  “Excellent, sir! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as
  a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”


Where is the story of the non-returner who "sold" pots on the side of the road?

Here is the story you refer to
http://www.yellowrobe.com/practice/general/247-money-rules-for-buddhist-monks-and-nuns-by-dhamminda-bhikkhu.html

  It is taught that even a layperson who is an anagami (non-returner)
  keeps the ten precepts naturally and does not accept or use money. For
  example the anagami Ghatikara was without gems, gold, silver, or
  money, and made his living by taking earth that had eroded from the
  river bank and making it into pots. These pots he left at the side of
  the road and anyone who wished could leave a suitable amount of rice
  or food and take the pots. In this way Ghatikara supported himself and
  his blind parents. (See Ghatikara Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya.)

  This demonstrates how money is an impediment to enlightenment and how
  the truly enlightened do not use money. The above quotes all prove
  that the acceptance of money by monks is not a small fault, and that
  it can render a monk incapable of attaining Nibbana .


Posture is extremely important however sitting cross-legged is not important. What is important is having a naturally erect spine so the mind is alert & the breathing can flow unrestricted.

When sitting in public transport, sit upright, close your eyes & meditate. Completely let go of any self-consciousness that other people are watching you & know what you are doing. Relax & enjoy.

As for walking meditation, this is something monks do a lot. You should try to learn how to do walking meditation (but not in a busy or dangerous place, such as when crossing a busy street in the city).


What exactly are the last two of the Arupa Jhanas? How can we transcend them and for what?

Nothingness is transcended by seeing the relative coarseness of perception even of nothingness. By observing the perception repeatedly, one sinks into a state of quasi-perception. As per the Vism:

  When, however, he wants to develop the base consisting of
  neitherperception nor non-perception, he must first achieve mastery in
  the five ways in the attainment of the base consisting of nothingness.
  Then he should see the danger in the base consisting of nothingness
  and the advantage in what is superior to it in this way: “This
  attainment has the base consisting of boundless consciousness as its
  near enemy, and it is not as peaceful as the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception,” or in this way: “Perception is
  a boil, perception is a dart … this is peaceful, this is sublime, that
  is to say, neither perception nor non-perception” (M II 231). So
  having ended his attachment to the base consisting of nothingness, he
  should give attention to the base consisting of neither perception non
  non-perception as peaceful. He should advert again and again to that
  attainment of the base consisting of nothingness that has occurred
  making non-existence its object, adverting to it as “peaceful,
  peaceful,” and he should give his attention to it, review it and
  strike at it with thought and applied thought.

  Path of Purification X.40

Transcending the sphere of neither perception nor non perception is not directly accomplished in the same way as the others; it is considered the height of tranquility meditation, there is no further one can go with that type of practice. To transcend it means to switch to insight meditation; since insight meditation is considered higher than tranquility, it can be seen as the "next step", even though it is in a new category of practice and attainment.


Does Zen have a concept similar to stream entry?

I'm not sure if it corresponds in every respect with stream entry but in Japanese Zen they generally distinguish Kenshō, the initial seeing of one's nature, from full Buddhahood so I think it is at least analogous to stream entry.

I'm not sure how this is talked about in forms of Zen outside of Japan (such as Chinese Chan, Vietnamese Zen, and Korean Seon) however, as I think the explicit distinction between Kenshō and Satori is a distinctively Japanese idea.


What happens in the state/non-state of Nibbāna?

Conventionally, we say that the Buddha was this person who lived in this place and this time, and this is the story of his life. Similarly for arahats. We see this below.
From the Bhara Sutta:

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be
said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is
called the carrier of the burden.

But if we look closer, who was the Buddha really? Who are the arahats?
Can you pin down an exact person? No.
It's more like a reified concept. It's not an absolute standalone identity. In this answer, this is explained as an emergent phenomena:

What is an emergent phenomena? If you arrange pebbles on a beach to
look like a human face, then from the sky you can see the emergent
phenomena, which is the form of a human face. But if you look closely,
it's just an arrangement of pebbles.

This is supported by the sutta quote below.
From the Yamaka Sutta:

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the
Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?...
Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In
perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?...
Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."


How bad is the karma of feeding meat to your children?

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".

According to most schools of Buddhism, it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.

Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's  ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.

As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.

To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.


Is eating fish eggs the same as killing?

the biggest problem is that the fish species for which there is a caviar market are becoming extinct because they cannot reproduce. Many countries are trying to ban the import of the eggs to protect the species.

there are many fish for which the eggs are sold, for this question there are two categories:

1) the eggs are harvested from inside the mother fish. She is pulled out of the water, then to retrieve the eggs her body is sliced from tail to mouth to access the eggs, usually on the boat, often while she is still alive. The eggs may have been fertilized inside her (depending on species).

2) the fish lays the eggs, which are fertilized (either inside her or in the water), and then they are harvested.

either way there is death.


If I understand correctly what you are talking about... You are talking about the process of grasping a sign(mark) at one of the sense doors, and then automatically interpreting it into an desirable/undesirable object ==> harboring corresponding desire/aversion attitude ==> engaging in purposeful action towards that object ==> feeding craving, confusion, and illusion of self.
When we are able to catch ourselves at the moment when the sign(mark) is interpreted into an object of desire (or aversion), and stop that automatic reaction, we begin to get free from impulsive behavior -- and that eventually leads to freedom from confusion and the illusion of self.
Having learned to catch ourselves at that moment when automatic interpretation of sign happens on one sensory modality (=door), we can then more easily (NOT) do the same on all the other sensory modalities.
From this perspective, the Middle Way can be explained as not taking a stand on any single sign - and being sort of "in between" (or "balanced") with regard to all signs (as well as the signless).
Is this what you are asking about or not?


Is "ghost month" really a Buddhist concept?

It appears this practice originated from Taoism, not from Buddhism. However, there is an account of hungry ghosts stories in Buddhism. (Petavattu)
In Sri Lanka, we pass merits to departed relatives but there is no specific date for it.


Am I condemned for an extramarital affair?

It is classified as sexual misconduct. According to the Cunda Kammaraputa Sutta:

  And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is
  the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter,
  bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to
  living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of
  a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
  have not been given by them. He engages in sensual misconduct. He
  gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers,
  their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or
  their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments,
  or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is
  made impure in three ways by bodily action.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

However, that doesn't mean that you are "condemned." You did something that wasn't right, but if you recognize that you did something wrong and strive to do better in the future, that's all you should do. In the Samaññaphala Sutta King Ajatasattu confessed to the Buddha that he had murdered his own father, which in Buddhism is one of 5 Garu Kammas, the 5 most heinous acts a person could possibly commit:

  "...King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned,
  to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to
  carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in
  the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning —
  made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the
  Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me
  as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day
  forward, for life.

  "A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill my father — a righteous
  man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership. May the
  Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such,
  so that I may restrain myself in the future."

  "Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
  righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
  But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
  cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
  seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
  the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
       http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The Buddha did not condemn King Ajatasattu for his evil act, but encouraged him to have a change of heart and live an ammended life. He did the same for Angulimala the Serial Killer (Angulimala, his nickname, means garland of fingers because he kept his victim's fingers on a string as a garland) having him become a Monk and when Angulimala saw a woman in childbirth and wanted to help, the Buddha said this to ease Angulimala's feelings of guilt over killing so many people:

  "In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her,
  'Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a
  living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you,
  wellbeing for your fetus.'"

  "But, lord, wouldn't that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally
  killed many living beings."

  "Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to
  her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall
  intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be
  wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'"

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

The Buddha taught people guilty of the most heinous things to change their ways but to move on and not dwell on their previous errors. If the Buddha encouraged a man guilty of killing his father and a serial killer not to dwell on guilt, how much more would he encourage someone who committed adultery to simply have a change of heart and not dwell on guilt.


Repeating the words many times over might help you remember to do Metta when it is needed in a difficult situation. As a form of Metta it is very shallow, but nevertheless maybe beneficial. If you develop aversion when doing this best not do it at such times. When you get fed up just stop. Also the repetition may serve the basis for a change in attitude.

The most deeped way to do it is do Vipassana or Samatha Meditation. At some point you might get a pleasant feeling. When this happens bring ups the wish that others also experience this peace. This is more deeper form of Metta.

Objective of Metta is to:

develop and increase qualities Metta
break barriers thereby you consider some people of class of people more favorably than the others


When I took the course Buddhism and Modern Psychology, the lecture delved into the neurobiology behind meditation. Material was presented that breaks up the conscious mind into 8 centers competing to be at the forefront of awareness. When meditating, the Default Mode Network(DMN) in the mind shows less activity in fMRI scans in studies led by Judson Brewer who himself used meditation as a coping mechanism during medical school.

The DMN is the center of the mind thought to be responsible for daydreaming. The exact mechanism between meditation and pleasure in the mind is not known, but I speculate that a sort of rhythm develops between these competing centers and other parts of the brain that leads to decreased levels of cortisol and increase in pleasure neurotransmitters such as dopamine.

A point to note: Suzuki Roshi mentions in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, that the purpose of meditation is not too feel good or become a better person rather the purpose of meditation is to meditate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network

https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/05/the-healing-art-of-meditation/


Invalid logic pertaining to karma in sutta AN 5.129?

The way my first teacher explained karma, it works like a matching machine, it just puts the "victim" in the situation when the odds of encountering a certain kind of people are increased. It's like, the victim's bad karma makes them more vulnerable to corresponding problems.

But the actions of the "aggressor" are their own choice plus their own past karma. They are not caused by the "victim's" karma.

It's just like opening the windows in the night can make you a victim of mosquitoes. It's not that your act of opening the windows literally makes mosquitoes come and bite you. It just makes it possible for them to find you, but their actions are their own - they act driven by their hunger, survival instinct and so on.

Just so you understand, because it's easy to get this wrong. Karma is not some magical force unknown to science, it's just a hidden (latent) effect of the previous actions. It seems magical because its complexity (the number of connections in the spanning graphs of effects) exceeds our capacity. But if you look at any specific example, it will always have very objective, very rational forces at play.


Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism?

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It's certainly a great step forward on the path, but it is not the whole teaching.

This is the whole teaching.

That was a joke! But seriously, there is no truly objective answer to your question. Anattā is just one slice of one of the many pies of Buddhism. As a "mark of existence" it holds equal importance alongside the other two, dukkhā and aniccā.

  If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

What about saṃsāra, kamma, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Middle Way, the Four Immeasurables, dependent origination, emptiness, and The Three Jewels? And a bunch of other stuff?

I too crave simplicity in Buddhism, but the more you look around, the deeper and broader the teachings become. There are 43 volumes in the Pāli Canon. The teachings are vast.

  If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It could be your whole teaching. Buddhism is a highly individualized practice. Our paths may run parallel, or at times criss-cross, or at other times go in entirely different directions: but in the end, we can all reach our own way to the end of suffering, and each way may be truly unique.


Is it a bad heavy karma to criticize or give up your guru?

Heavy bad kamma is always a matter of strong wrong view, and ingratitude is such especially if it's toward real and lasting help: Toward one's Gods, Parents, people of goodness.

Much done.

It's how ever not bad if based on right view and if the relation is a more or lesser good trade with the world, it would be even good to seek for leaving, correct of course and not just for another similar way.

[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever relations not dedicated toward real liberation]


Are people who say “not my problem” delusional?

Householder Dweezahr, interested,

first helping oneself to increase and gain, renew refuge and gratitude toward real helpers who owe all credits here:

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

yes, helping oneself in wrong ways or refuse to help someone else if able is grave delusion, yet total common in this world of people heading downwardly in high speed.

"help your self first" is what everybody would hear since child very often in Buddhist countries, yet not so many understand what it means to help oneself first.

What ever conductive for happiness in this world, the next and beyond, has/had giving as it's cause. Starting from material, to time, skills, not harming... virtue and all ones bad desires.

So it's very importand to focus on ones own happiness in right way and a person open to give what ever he/she can is a person headed toward prosperty, longlife, honour, happiness and power.

Knowing this the wise seeks after what ever good possibility to make merits.

  So when the world is on fire
  with aging and death,
  one should salvage [one's wealth] by giving:
      what's given is well salvaged.

  What's given bears fruit as pleasure.
  What isn't given does not:
      thieves take it away, or kings;
      it gets burnt by fire or lost.

  — SN 1.41

Understanding that right, that the usual investments in what is regarded as own, is just food for the flames, one understands this warning rightly, since just kammas effects will stay yours till the point of liberation, awakening, is reached:

  "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."

Fools, when seeing a burden, or asked to give, say off good cause: "not my problem" (and not seldom argue such with misinterpretation of the teachers advices)

Having followed from the raw giving material things, to giving happiness and freedom of fear by ones keeping of precepts, one will sooner or later surely arrive at the point where the most refined, of which needs to be given any, comes as ones last burden, having fallen to one: the five clinging aggregates, which are the root reason hindrence from liberation and becoming one who is really able to give and help: another Bhagavato, real liberal.

So it is good if you, being touched by it and able to understand, don't waist even more time in invest of what is already lost and focus on helping your self first.

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


It really depends which definition of religion you go for. For instance

Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and particularly of
a personal God [..]
Oxford English Dictionary.

Buddhism is not a religion based on this definition

Any specific system belief or worship, often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy
Websters New World Dictionary

Buddhism is a religion based on this definition
(Both quotes are taken from Jared Diamond's the world until yesterday pp 327)
Buddhism certainly is in a grey area with definitions. But then so are other philosophies/religions. Confucianism was considered a religion a few decades ago whereas now it is definitely seen as a philosophy (Jared Diamond again). Shintoism is simliar in the grey area. Going further back then Epicurianism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism all have something about the religious to them but are always (in my reading) spoken about as philosophies.
I would contend that the philosophy/religion divide is a continuum and owes something to the prevailing cultural climate. Nobody would say Marxism is a religion but there is certainly a religious attitude (controversial final point!)
Footnote
Well not quite the final point. Again Jared Diamond - he has 16 definitions for religion on pp 327 of World until Yesterday. It's an interesting exercise to go through them all and see if Buddhism fit's into each definition. It varies quite a bit. For instance just to give one more
Émile_Durkheim

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and
practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church,
all those who adhere to them.

Well maybe, maybe not.


Why Lord Buddha didn't stay alive till the end of this "Kalpa"

The Buddha did not ask venerable Ananda to invite him to extend his life. He only hinted that it is possible for him to do so.

Mara's Appeal

And when the Venerable Ananda had gone away, Mara, the Evil One, approached the Blessed One. And standing at one side he spoke to the
Blessed One, saying: "Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his
final passing away; let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has
come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and
bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples —
wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma,
living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct,
and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach
it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and
make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able
to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and
liberating Dhamma.' [23]

"And now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have become the Blessed One's disciples in just this way. So, O Lord,
let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! The time has come
for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught
by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and
widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this
too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One
come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away!
The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."
......................................................
-Maha Parinibbana Sutta

Buddhas do as they proclaim, so once the Sasana is well established, the lord would not extend life without an invitation as Buddhas do not have the desire to live on. Besides, venerable Ananda was the one attending to the Buddha. So it is only proper that the Buddha hinted it to him. Also, it was always going to be someone who has not yet attained Arahanthship that should invite the Buddha to stay on as Arahanths have already achieved what needs to be achieved and do not require the Buddha to stay.
Buddhists do not believe in determinism. The future is not fixed in all situations. Only some things can be predicted to happen for sure. The Mara stopping venerable Ananda from inviting the Buddha was not destined to happen. He would have invited if he was able to overcome Mara at that time.
In any case, the word Kalpa here means an Ayu-Kalpa. Which means the Buddha would have lived 120 years at most, even if ven. Ananda had invited.


How can fiction writing be best used for achieving enlightenment?

I may not know much about Buddhism, but as I understand it mindfulness is probably the best way to achieve enlightenment.

Essentially, enlightenment is understanding everything, having all the walls torn down in your mind and being open to the oneness of the universe. Thus, in order to understand everything, you have to begin to understand something. You may be in luck, because it looks like you've already found the thing you want to understand.

So, in terms of fiction writing, it's a very artistic pursuit, and something I and many other artists understand is that our work is never complete, never perfect. There's always a way to improve, no matter how good we get. This process of improving one's skills, honing one's talents, reaching ever closer to perfection, is very close to the process of achieving enlightenment. The only difference is that it is very limited in its scope, but I believe even this is only a temporary hurdle.

In my own pursuit of fiction-writing perfection, I've discovered many great and interesting things. In order to make my worlds feel real, I've had to better understand our own world (I'd really recommend looking at Worldbuilding SE). To write better characters, I have to understand the human condition. In general, I've realized that in order to be a perfect writer, I would have to achieve enlightenment; otherwise, anything I write would be lacking in some aspect due to my own inadequacy.

For the most part, I believe this process is natural; people who like doing a thing naturally want to get better at it, and getting better at pretty much anything will naturally lead to getting better at other things. But I would also say that being aware of this process from the start is much easier than figuring it out on your own.

So my suggestion to you is to just be aware of your art, and what it is, and how it is linked to everything else. Never stop trying to improve, and never limit yourself; always be open to new concepts, new ideas, and new ways to get better.


Sunyata and Void. How can be the void without a super consciousness?

The Void is sometimes implied differently than other times
in English. Existential descriptioning isn't English's long suit.
Maybe Zen/ Chan discussions of the concept are generally more prominent
overall.
Confusion etc isn't The Void.
In The True Void 'is' Reality. There isn't confusion.
There isn't dukkha. There isn't cloudiness.
There isn't any illusion. There isn't delusion.
In The Void there is nonmisinterpretation.
Attempts to define The Void tend to be circular or inaccurate.
The description of going into it or something isn't vague enough.
The question does a quite good job of nonpigeonholing of it.
Maybe lost something in translation: maybe more at
based on reasonableness, logic is very limited by concrete
things available for its processes & sometimes either cannot conclude
because of insufficient information etc, or comes up with
rather nonsensible conclusions because of the data available.
Buddhism provides guidelines for addressing things which
haven't necessarily become data yet, and how previously
unencountered data can be reasonably addressed. Reasonable
consideration may be more effective than logic only.
The Void mightn't be so like a temporary journey to
someplace or other, real or existential, etc, as cited in the
question. Maybe very nice spots, but they aren't descriptions of
The True Void. Those sound more like heavens or something.
And may be Impermanent.
Consciousnesses arent really so much part of The Void,
consciousnesses are more at heavens etc.
Logical typical word description doesnt do so well with
trying to describe The Void. Despite many people writing books
about it, giving things names etc, The Void is different from
names or groups of words and most reference points. So
fundamental description of The Void which uses words would tend
to be circular/ misleading.
Some things can 'be' without being grounded in ordinary descriptioning.
That's sort of the answer to the question, in language. Which is a very
Good & nicely asked question.


Living in the moment without indulging in it

"Living in the moment" isn't a practice, but a result. It's another word for the mindfulness or wakefulness "muscle" that develops as you do your practice. So if you don't feel it, don't worry about it.

Follow the instructions for your particular practice, and you will feel your "muscle" for living in the present moment gradually strengthening in your daily life. For example, as time goes by, you'll notice that it is easier to be concentrated in everyday situations, or that you are more and more resilient in recovering from strong emotions.

It isn't really "you" living in the present moment, anyways. Your awareness is always living in the moment as it is. You don't need to correct your awareness. If you try to live in the present moment, then you'll merely be constantly trying to do two things at once

When you watch the sense doors, it's your non-present "self" that practices turning itself toward a true present phenomenon, and it does it over and over again. It's the only tool you have, so it's normal if you feel that doing this is not in harmony with the "true" present moment. But it is the right way to develop the skill of returning to your awareness more and more often, so that it becomes more and more automatic.


What kind of births are recognized in Buddhism?

In the Theravada Abhidhamma, four different kinds of birth are recognized1, namely:

egg-born beings (Aṇḍaja), such as birds, fish and reptiles.
womb-born beings (Jalābuja), such as mammals. Egg-born beings are also included in this category.
moisture-born beings (Saṃsedaja), includes certain lowly forms of animals, such as worms.
spontaneously-born beings (Opapatika), such as petas and devas. These beings are generally invisible to the physical eye.

1  Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Ch. 5: "Compendium of Matter", p. 256, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi


Does Anyone know quotes relating to Once-Returners / sakadagami

The Sakadagami is mentioned in SN 55:24 - Sarakaani Sutta:

  "Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. But he is not joyous in wisdom and has not gained release. Yet by destroying three fetters and weakening lust, hatred and delusion, he is a Once-returner, who will return once more to this world and put an end to suffering. That man is entirely freed from... states of woe."


Why is human population increasing? Better kamma?

Here is not an expert opinion: which is that I don't know why you expect that the total number of sentient beings is finite, countable, and constant.

The perspective in the OP seems to be that the total number is constant, and is asking, "If the number of humans is increasing, then where (which realms) are they (pre-existing beings) coming from and why?"

It has a view of, "this used to be (countably) one old sentient being, and that (same) being is now being reborn as (countably) one new sentient being" ... it has a view that, the type of being and/or realm might change (hell, animal, human, deva), but the total number of beings must be constant.

I don't see why you'd expect that view to be true, though: it seems to me an atman (self/soul) view, not an anatman view.

So far as I know a more anatman view might be look "there's no person now" (there are are just skandhas, an assemblage of parts, c.f. the parable of the Milinda's chariot), "the number of sentient beings isn't countable" (except perhaps to the Buddha), and fabricated things are inconstant.


How to practice mindfulness during job hours

It is not an easy task to stay mindful as a software developer. I am one myself, and I even wrote a book on that matter.

There are three things I consider important for myself.

First: I practice meditation when I am not working. This gives me the roots I need.

Second: I need to interrupt my daily workflow so I can remember my practice and what I learned from it.

Third: I need to focus on work when I am working and focus on the rest, when I am not working. Which means: no Facebook at work time. But when I become tired at work, I interrupt my workflow and practice.

For interruption, I use several tools which change from time to time. Influenced from Zen, I sometimes walk mindful: Kinhin. Or I cook the best cup of tea possible. Or I just meditate in my chair.

When you have interrupted work and you feel you are mindful, go back to work and hack. Give yourself "focus times". Don't waste your time with other things.

Working as a software developer means, your mind is occupied by a technology problem. Sometimes you cannot feel your body, because you are concentrated on the problem. I don't think this is bad. Just interrupt when your mind/body demands it, and go back to the analogue life. Sticking with the digital life is as bad as sticking with the analogue life alone (at least for us programmers).

You may also want to read another Zen programming related blog post of mine, in which I wrote about some of my thoughts on working.


This is the way the mind is, uncontrollable. Acknowledge their presence and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If this fails, acknowledge the failure and gently try to return to your usual object of meditation. If you get frustrated, acknowledge the frustration, et cetera.

Being gentle and acknowledging whatever comes are important. And if the thought is something you want to write down for creativity's sake, that's not a bad thing. It's also not a good thing. It just is what it is. Just leave it until meditation is finished. If you forget what the thought was, then you simply forget. It is what it is.

If you practice this way, you will become less and less invested with the content of these thoughts, causing two things to happen:

Creativity attacks will bother you less.
They will also become less common.

This is how I meditate on my own creative thoughts.

Source: My own experience meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, and my teacher Yuttadhammo's advice.


Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept?

No, it does not. In order to steal, something has to be misappropriated from the original owner.
Copying is not theft, even according to modern jurisprudence; copyright is an artificial "right" granted to the "owner" of a specific intellectual activity to prevent the "copying" of the product of said intellectual activity. "Intellectual property" is likewise an artificial construct.
The presumption that someone has a right to restrict the copying of their ideas is suspect at best, but it should not be confused with the right to restrict the use or appropriation of one's physical property, since the latter involves singular, rather than identical, entities. You don't call it stealing if someone breaks into your house, copies down the way you set your table and goes and does it the same in their own home.
It is important to understand as well that the question of whether copyright infringement is unethical hinges not on whether the owner doesn't want you to copy, but on whether they have a right to forbid you to copy. It is not unethical doing something just because you know someone else doesn't want you to do it; otherwise I shouldn't have become a Buddhist.
The misunderstanding comes from our acceptance of copyright as a tool for monetary gain. We have come to accept that because certain people want to be able to market their ideas, they therefore have a right to do so, whereas it was previously understood that only one's potential at coming up with good ideas (i.e. their value as a person) was marketable. It is not the case that just because someone wants to be able to make money through a certain means therefore they have a right to society's protection in so doing; otherwise, pushing rocks up a hill would have to be paid proportionately.
The main reason we tend to think that copyright is an actual right stems from the massive propaganda machine of the entertainment industry (and mara, I assume) that has managed to equate people who copy the ideas of others with bloodthirsty sea-faring mercenaries (a.k.a. pirates).
Furthermore, though it's now outside of the realm of your question, a person's insistence on controlling copyright may be arguably considered unethical from a Buddhist standpoint; it can be seen as selfish (since it costs nothing to allow others to copy one's ideas), invasive (since it is not really any of your business), and hypocritical (since everyone copies just about everything they come in contact with throughout their lives from the time that they're born). Again, just because we want to be able to make a living in a certain way, doesn't mean we should be protected in it. Theft, on the other hand, does cost the owner, is the owner's business, and expecting protection against it isn't necessarily hypocritical.
tl;dr: copying without permission and theft are two different concepts; whether copying without permission can be considered immoral is suspect at best, but at any rate is not directly related to the second precept.
Q&A
Doesn't the second precept deal with more than just misappropriation?
No, like all the precepts, it really only means what it says. Anyway, if it was interpreted more broadly, where would you draw the line? Copying someone's words without their permission is stealing, but distributing pictures of them without their permission isn't? Or distributing pictures of them is, but looking at them isn't? There is no clear definition available, except the clearly bogus one of "not doing what other people don't want you to do".
Isn't intellectual property the same as real property?
First, let's get one thing straight; copyright infringement isn't theft; the law doesn't look at it as theft, the RIAA doesn't look at it as theft, no one considers it to be theft except the public who have been misinformed as a part of ongoing propaganda that it is a kind of theft (or piracy, which is really silly). It is actually more like a kind of breach of contract. To explain: the law doesn't concern itself with the physical entity that houses the information; it concerns itself with the fact that something has been copied against the wishes of the copyright holder. The issue isn't that a new copy exists, it is that a copy has been made. It is the act of copying that is illegal.
But the question remains, whether the person who has put all the work into creating a piece of intellectual property doesn't have the same rights as a person who puts work into a physical creation. The thing is, intellectual property isn't like other property in that it can't be given, sold, bought, etc. It can only ever be copied. When you tell someone a secret, you have created a copy of the information. When you publish a book, you are not selling the book, you are selling the right to a copy of the information it contains. So when a person makes money off of intellectual property, what they are actually selling (and this is how the industry really understands it, afaics) is a license; you can't actually sell information. So when concerning ourselves with the poor victims of intellectual property theft, what we should ask is "what gives someone the right to license their ideas?"
The difference is driven home when you consider that a person who creates a physical item of value is able to sell it once. They are only able to sell it because someone else wants to own it; if there are cheaper versions elsewhere (patent and copyright laws notwithstanding), their customers are free to go elsewhere.
A person who holds a copyright over information, on the other hand, holds their creation hostage, pimping it out repeatedly and ever retaining sole ownership over it. They do no extra work for each payment obtained and can, in cases where demand for the information is high, expect to receive payment massively disproportionate to the original work performed to obtain the information (which, incidentally, most likely involved copying information from others).
In short, the real question should be, "what exactly do real property and intellectually property have in common?" The answer is: "not much."
Isn't copyright infringement breach of promise?
In cases where you promise a sentient being of something and then break that promise, yes. Clicking on an EULA isn't a promise because you are communicating with a machine. When you buy a book, if you clearly communicate that you promise to use it in a certain way, then yes, you would be breaking your word if you used it in a different way. If you download software from the Internet, you make no such promise at any point.
Isn't it a cause for mental defilement to go against the wishes of the copyright holder?
Potentially; the situation is that you are being requested not to do something that is otherwise within your rights to do by the owner of the copyrighted work.
You have to weigh whether that request holds merit or not. If your friend asks you not to performing some action, you have to ask yourself whether performing said action is important enough to upset your friend, keeping in mind there is nothing unethical about performing said action. There is nothing unethical about copying other people's work without their permission (assuming, of course, that you properly attribute the works to the correct author and don't try to take credit for other people's work); there is something potentially problematic about upsetting people, especially friends. By the Buddha's words, we can see that upsetting others should be done carefully, but is not necessarily outside of what is wholesome.
As to whether wanton downloading of entertainment is a cause for mental defilement, I don't really think that has anything to do with the argument at hand, since it has nothing to do intrinsically with the matter of permission to do so.
Doesn't copyright infringement hurt a valid industry/artist?
Anyone who thinks this should really brush up on their history of "intellectual property". Specifically, I recommend reading anything by Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig, or Richard Stallman. At the very least this would give a look at the other side of the propaganda war waged by the entertainment industry. Honestly, a lot of what these guys say sounds more Buddhist than some of the opinions of the card-carrying.
As I've said above more than once, though, those people dependent on copyright to make a living (really this is only the entertainment industry bigwigs; the majority of content creators could do better if they adopted a more crowd-friendly approach like Cory Doctorow) are suffering from the same problem scribes had when the printing press was created; they were expecting to be rewarded by a system that was no longer necessary to society. Thoreau put it best when he said:

Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house
of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. "Do you wish to buy any
baskets?" he asked. "No, we do not want any," was the reply. "What!"
exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, "do you mean to starve
us?" Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off- that the
lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and
standing followed- he had said to himself: I will go into business; I
will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when
he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would
be the white man's to buy them. He had not discovered that it was
necessary for him to make it worth the other's while to buy them, or
at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else
which it would be worth his while to buy. I too had woven a kind of
basket of a delicate texture, but I had not made it worth any one's
while to buy them. Yet not the less, in my case, did I think it worth
my while to weave them, and instead of studying how to make it worth
men's while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the
necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as
successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at
the expense of the others?
Walden, Ch. 1

It's okay to make baskets, but to force people to buy them when other means present themselves is silly. If your reason for doing something is to make money, then the onus is on you, first and foremost, to ensure that your product is valuable; copyright is just an artificial means of placing a monetary value on something (information) one cannot otherwise.
But the question remains, whether we would lose valuable content if there were no copyright laws. The answer depends on what you understand as "valuable". If, by valuable, you mean "marketable", then of course the answer is yes, we would lose a lot of marketable content. We would also lose a lot of addictive content, since the logical outcome of encouraging and protecting monetary gain through copyright ownership is content that is primarily designed to encourage demand (i.e. addictive). The entertainment industry would stop stooping to the lowest common denominators of sex, violence, and absurdity in bringing pleasure to others. I for one could live without that.
If information were free, as it really should be, there would be no powerful incentive to encourage addiction to intellectual property; there would be a reversion to the days when, at worst, one propagated information as a means of promoting one's own value as an individual. Maybe people would stop writing books and making movies on film, but really, haven't we shown already with YouTube and the Internet that these are outdated mediums? It doesn't really cost millions of dollars to create any more.


How do Buddhists talk about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, for extreme wrong doing?

one may be happy to let karma do its job
Recalling the brahmaviharas, I think that that -- i.e. "remembering that beings are heir to their own karma" -- is recommended as a recipe for "equanimity".
That's possibly not "good will" though -- i.e. if you're "happy" about someone's misbehaviour, that sounds like the opposite of mudita -- and good-will is important, see e.g. the parable of the saw (as an example of Buddhist doctrine that's relevant to what you're asking).
There's also the Dhammapada verses 3 through 6 -- which recommend against "he hurt me!" and "not stilling your hatred"...
There are other topics on this site though, about social justice -- e.g. if a person lies then you might not want to believe them in future; if they steal you might tell the police...
Or one of the Zen stories is The Thief Who Became a Disciple

I gave him the money and he thanked me for it.


This is a great question and the answers here (from Bakmoon and Suminda) are wonderful. I'll complement with something from my personal experience.

"how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not"

It may be that going forth ultimately is the single thing one can do to know the true nature of his disposition. But since disrobing may come with a lot of practical difficulties, taking precautions is very valuable: become used to a life without luxuries, familiarize with the monastery, monks and retreats, etc.

But giving the ear to advices may be troublesome, depending on who one seeks out to get advices. There is a common discourse that people looking to become a monk often hear in the west: "you are running away from [blank]".

It may be more articulate than that, when it focuses on debunking the romance of becoming a monk: the idea that things will be so beautiful, you will have 100% of the time to meditate (or do prostrations, or read suttas, or perform all rituals you fantasize about, and wisdom will come quickly, and your teacher will be so and so, etc).

Or it may focus on the idea that a monk's life is easy and therefore, not very fruitful for evolving one's practice: "the lotus grows in the mud, so you should do your practice in the real life, not in the top of a mountain", they say.

On one hand, these are very unhelpful advices, and very disconnected from what monastic life is, and from what buddhism is -- at the minimum, from this rhetoric, no one is suited for monastic life, or should become a monk ever (it is also a little disrespectful, drawing an image of monks as cowards).

On the other, there is a risk of fantasizing with a romantic idea of being a monk and there is a risk of using the going forth as an excuse. I think the best strategy for the first is what others have said here, try to become familiar with monastic life, in order to dispel any fantasies you may have. The antidote for the second is to try to identify if the intention of going forth is the going forth itself, and not just the relief of not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore (its ok to feel good about not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore, but I think this should not be the reason for going forth).


I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth"

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

  Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana.

Since the Buddha never taught the idea of self and denounced any view of self as leading to suffering (MN 22), this is highly unlikely to be correct.

  In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further arising.

To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a "being" who is "born".

  Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

No.


What should we accept? What should we let go?

What is it to let go in Buddhism?
Is that the Noble Truths?
So

recognise suffering
associate that with (recognise that as arising with) craving and attaching
let go

It's also a past-tense, is it, i.e. -- "suffering having been known in the past, it was dropped".
What is it to accept in Buddhism?
I'm not sure it is -- does acceptance imply a specific view of a specific "thing" accepted (which may be contrary to the doctine of things being empty), also of a "me" doing the accepting?
Realistically, though, maybe monks accept what "necessary" (i.e. the "requisites").
There's also conventional wisdom (to be accepted) -- like from here:

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view...

So an excess of "nothing exists" is wrong too.
So I suppose that "accepting" in Buddhism is, at least, not rejecting being kind and so on.
What are the things we accept?
Should accept good advice, probably.
What are the things we let go?
Bad habits. And heedlessness.
Why?
How?
Liberation from suffering -- personal welfare and the welfare of others.


What does this quote from the Lotus Sutra mean?

I suggest caution when analyzing quotes like this before seeing nirvana for the first time. It is extremely easy to be misled and fall into a "trap" when you hear any quote that says something along the lines of "you already possess all that you seek." If you have not awakened yet, do not read my interpretation of the quote as a call for you to stop your practice or stop seeking the truth. That being said, this is my interpretation.

  You, the richest person in the world,

The first time "You" is being used in this sentence, it is referring to the illusory self. The human being we all believe we are when we first begin experiencing this world. This you is referring to a small part of your experience, the concept that you currently identify as what makes up your identity.

  have been laboring and struggling endlessly,

This is referring to the struggle of Samara. Laboring is referring to the endless cycle of wanting something putting in effort to try to obtain it. Struggling is referring to the difficulties we encounter, as well as the suffering we feel when we do not get the things we want.

  not understanding that you

Now this part of the sentence is where things get confusing, because the speaker is no longer using the word "you" to refer to the illusory self. The speaker has now (in a very confusing way in an attempt to be poetic) switched the meaning of the word "you" to refer to the inexplicable. Although it is incorrect for me to say, the clearest explanation I can give of the "you" that is being referred to in this context is the "you" that is "one with everything". Understanding that, things become a little more clear.

  already possess all that you seek.

To fully explain this, a small explanation of desire and the process of forgetting is needed. This all comes from my personal experience, so take what I say with the normal amount of skepticism. Don't believe what I say, for unverified statements are what keep us trapped in the cycle of Samsara. Verify what I say in your own experience. It is through observing my own experience without belief that I was able to be whole.

It is impossible for one not to be themselves. I have been my true self forever and always, but there was a time where I forgot who I was. When one believes they are a human being, they are blinded by that belief. What happens is, a being who is infinite and eternal, suddenly believes that it is small and mortal. This process of forgetting can be said to be a process of exclusion. At first you are everything. Then, we begin to say, "I am not this, I am not that," etc. until we have come to the conclusion that we are not most things, but are something very small and insignificant in comparison to the universe. We know, deep in the core of our being, that we are not meant to be small and mortal. This instinct, the feeling of lack that permeates our experience, is what gives rise to desire. We only desire what we lack. We think, "I am not this, in order to be whole, I must attain this. Once I get this I will be fulfilled." But because we are everything, and it is impossible for a human being to attain everything in their lifetime, we are stuck in the endless cycle of Samsara.

So to quickly summarize: We only desire because we feel like something is missing. We feel like something is missing because we believe we are a limited number of things. We feel like we are a limited number of things because we have forgotten what we truly are, which is "one with everything".

Now, to finally explain the last part of the sentence: It is not saying "you the human being already possess everything you need in your life." It is saying that "you", the ultimate you, are everything that you seek. The speaker is talking past the illusory self, the human, and saying "You, the real you that is there, you are everything in the universe. Everything this human desires, is simply a part of your identity. The human does not understand that it, and the object of its desire, are both you."

It is attempting to describe the amazing plight of being human. It is like a wave in the ocean, chasing another wave. The wave says, I need to reach the other wave! I want to merge with that wave and become an even bigger wave, and then I will be whole! When the irony of the situation is, the wave is already the entire ocean.

I hope my words have been helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.


How to cultivate sexual energy with Meditation?

Mr/ Mrs Jyo Soudagar - Ajay should not cultivate it, if he/she meditates, but should abandon it, when ever such comes along. Listen to or read, Mr/Mrs Jyo Soudagar - Ajay, what was said in the Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun, by Ven. Ananda.

Just considering the foulness of the body should help; or you may think on the drawbacks (disadvantages) of sensuality, to get disgusted.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Can a person with harmful thoughts still meditate?

If a person has enemy's and wants to take vengance, than can he do meditation?

Of course he can. Insight meditation is the only way to permanently uproot the causes for those thoughts, i.e. the root defilement of hatred and namely Ignorance (avijja).

  Will such thoughts never let the person do meditation even if he don't thinks such things while meditating?

All formations are impermanent so its not possible for something to "never let" anyone do something. That's an extreme view.

It might be more challenging to do meditation while the hindrances are present. But it is necessary. One can only purify the mind by dealing with the hindrances. It just means that there is work to be done.

Loving-kindness meditation is a great way of over coming thoughts of hatred, vengeance and the like. See my answer here for a detailed description on how to practice Metta meditation.


Historical writings on the importance and efficacy of burning joss paper?

It has, like most ritual with material sacrifies, not really a connection to the Buddha-Dhamma, aside of the possible devotion and sacrify, metta and compassion, to ones ancestors, deities or spirits, which are possible wholesome deeds and generally praised by the Buddha (sacrifies for deities and ancestors)

It's a very usual ritual, mostly performed by people with Chinese or Vietnamese ancestors all over SEAsia on Chinese fest days and has it's origin in certain Asian ancestor-cults and religions.

Earlier real money was used which of course is mostly not legal, so copies and fake prints are usually used to be burned in front of the houses.

As a one of a childs "duty" torward death relatives:

  from the Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala - The Layperson's Code of Discipline

  "In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:

  (i) Having supported me I shall support them,

  (ii) I shall do their duties,

  (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,

  (iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,

  (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.[9]

  Note by the translator: 9. This is a sacred custom of the Aryans who never forgot the dead. This tradition is still faithfully observed by the Buddhists of Sri Lanka who make ceremonial offerings of alms to the monks on the eighth day, in the third month, and on each anniversary of the demise of the parents. Merit of these good actions is offered to the departed after such ceremony. Moreover after every punna-kamma (good action), a Buddhist never fails to think of his parents and offer merit. Such is the loyalty and the gratitude shown to parents as advised by the Buddha.

  from: Tirokudda Kanda: Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

  ...Offerings should be given for the dead

  when one reflects thus

  on things done in the past.

  For no weeping,

  no sorrowing

  no other lamentation

  benefits the dead

  whose relatives persist in that way.

  But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha,

  it works for their long-term benefit

  and they profit immediately.

  In this way

  the proper duty to relatives has been shown,

  great honor has been done to the dead,

  and monks have been given strength:

  The merit you've acquire

  isn't small.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


What are the benefits of solitary practice?

If one has the maturity, will and energy, this can be very good. Unfortunately, most lack that kind of will until they have progressed a good distance already. Bodhidharma, the Zen patriarch practiced this way for nine years.

Isolated practice can only cut us off from humans, when concentration deepens, it can often lead to encounters with non-humans :-) It's never possible to cut us off from all sentient existence.

There are dangers and rewards with everything. Reintegration with society can be difficult, if we are not mature and stable enough, some experiences in solitary meditation can be very scary and disturbing, especially if we choose to practice in places with spirits, like graveyards.

It's like free climbing without a rope, not for beginners.

p.s. if you have not already, read the biography of Ajahn Mun Bhuridatto Thera


How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?

My father was a selfish alcoholic who physically abused me on several occasions, my mother was loving but would often be off putting because of anxieties. I see the error in their ways and have better insight to why they are who they are by practicing mindfulness and right view. I see them both as victims, my father trapped by drugs and selfishness, my mother by worry and fear.

This helps me have strong love and compassion for both, because I can see their suffering and know its part of the human condition. I don't take it personal, remember attributes are not permanent, there are roots to why people act like they do and it can change.

Recognizing someone suffers, is human, can be a great honor.