Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?

The answer is present in the same sutta:

  “When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the
  view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. …
  Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when
  their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ When feeling …
  perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping
  consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises:
  ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’

In other words when self identification with forms,feelings,perception,consciousness and/or volitional formations occur such a view as highlighted by you also occurs.

I think the the wrong view of moral nihilism gets generated when we say that every self ceases to exist after death(i.e body and self are same) or that every self lives for eternity(i.e body and self are different). In both the case following holds true :

  ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no
  fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are
  no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously.
  And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced,
  and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own
  insight. This person is made up of the four primary elements. When
  they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the main
  mass of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the
  main mass of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with
  the main mass of air. The faculties are transferred to space. Four men
  with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to
  the cemetery. The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the
  gods end in ashes. Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms
  a positive teaching it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the
  foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and don’t exist after death’?”

The truth there is that there is no permanent , unchanging self.  What is happening is Clinging to forms,feelings,perceptions,consciousness and/or volitional formations. These Clingings are not unconditional. Craving gives rise to clinging. This is the midddle way. Depending upon conditions clinging ceases. Depending upon conditions clinging arises. This is the Dhamma. To those who believe in Self it would appear Self arises and ceases which is self contradictory as self is permanent and unchanging. Morality based upon the assumption that Self and body are the same results in moral nihilism. Morality based upon assumption that Self and body are different leads to moral nihilism.

EDIT: I have found another Sutta(saṃyuktāgama 297) to support my answer.
Following quote illustrates the point I have been trying to make:

  “What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this:
  Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.
  That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of
  activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this
  whole mass of suffering.

  “Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises,
  someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does
  aging-and-death belong?

  “And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death
  belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.

  “To say that soul is the same thing as body, or to say that soul is
  one thing and body another, these have the same meaning, though they
  are expressed differently. For one who has the view which says that
  soul is the same thing as body, there is no point in the noble life.
  And for one who has the other view which says that soul is one thing
  and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Following
  neither of these two extremes, the mind should move rightly toward the
  Middle Way.


Right livelihood - how many cutouts is enough?

As I understand the Buddhist approach to ethics we are all responsible for our own actions, and the Buddha defined significant actions as "intention" (AN 6.63 cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi). It is the impact of our intention that is under our influence (control would be too strong a word).

How well we understand something like the food chain will be dependent on how much effort we put in. Clearly meat always comes from dead animals. More subtly we know that animals are often mistreated in the production of food. So free range eggs most likely involve less cruelty than battery eggs. Diary products always involve killing off most of the male calves very early, and rennet for cheese often comes from the stomachs of those same calves. A little research can reveal much about such things.  But ignorance is also a karmically significant intention, especially if it is based on laziness or deliberate shying away from the truth. Intending to remain ignorant so as to continue to enjoy a sensory pleasure is an unskilful action.

On the whole we have little influence beyond our own actions. We may have some influence on our intimates, but even that is limited. The point of application of Buddhist ethics is our own mind. We certainly have little influence over billionaires. But then the theory of karma supposedly takes care of this. We take care of our karma and karma takes care of the problem of the actions of others. Everyone gets the fate they have worked towards. The multi-life perspective allows for localised unfairness to persist because the afterlife sorts out the discrepancy between action and reward/punishment.

Of course these ideas of morality were conceived in an environment with very short food chains - most people probably knew the source of their food. The rich directly exploited their serfs for wealth, but this was pretty much out in the open.

And of course bhikkhus (literally "beggars") made a decision to accept whatever food they were given, excepting only when they knew that an animal had been killed specifically for the. So the bhikkhu purposefully distances themselves from knowledge of the food chain and accepts whatever comes. The morality of this seems moot from a modern point of view. Accepting alms from someone who is am arms dealer for example, would seem to be unethical.

I'm not sure it's true that the Buddha did not criticise war. He did tend to stay out of politics. But for example in the opening pages of the Mahānibbāna Sutta he subtlety dissuades Ajātasattu from attacking the Vajjis. And keep in mind that the tradition says that Ajātasattu had already tried to assassinate the Buddha. in any case the Buddhist texts are unequivocal in denouncing violence. And war is only violence on a larger scale.


Excellent that you are interested in this! You are motivated to attain Arhatship! Permanent uprooting of the poisons is achievement of Theravedin Enlightenment/Arhatship.

I will summarize the pathway in a recursive way that you can not only use for any of the three poisons (anger, greed, delusion)... but you will find will be permanently valuable for the entire path!

1st training: restrain your action by following the Eightfold path. Force yourself to follow Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood no matter what!
2nd training: use anything you would use for the 2nd training, concentration. This can be a contemplation that fixates your attention away from the anger (breathing, brahmavihara, etc.)
3rd training: vipassana. Be clearly nakedly aware of the emotion as a sensation. It will dissolve.

The 3rd training is hard to do without proper advancement in 2nd training.
The 2nd training is hard to do without proper advancement in the 1st training.

The 1st training you must do or else you will sink into a lower form of existence in the next life.

Rmemember that the above method may seem like a lot in words but it's main success is in the lifestyle path you choose (animal-killers or prostitutes are not Right Livelihood and will experience more poisons than others always) and being mindful in the moment (#2 and #3), transforming the emotion. This can be a matter of a split second.

I have not referenced any lengthy suttas in this text but these are all true things said by the Buddha. I would recommend seeing the chapter on the Three Trainings within the free book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for more info and read the entire book.
Super big secrets.


Is Yiguandao teachings part of buddhism?

Based on the wikipedia page on Yiguandao, I would say that this is not Buddhism. It seems to be a Chinese folk religion.
Why do they use Maitreya Buddha in their teaching? Well, Chinese folk religion tends to integrate elements of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism.
That's not surprising. Even Hinduism has the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. So, it's no surprise if Chinese folk religion includes Maitreya Buddha.
But as a whole, it doesn't appear to be a Buddhist sub-school or tradition, unlike say Nichiren Buddhism.


That is a very good desire to have, @avatar Korra. Such desires are often helpful in the path. That kind of conceit can be a good thing. Setting expectations for one's own practice and desiring to do well, in thinking that “Other people can do this, why can’t I?” helps.  Those are actually useful tools in the path. But it is important to remember well to keep it to self, and let your actions speak. This is the most important advice that a noble friend can give you in this regard (Please do not ask me as to why it is so. It is up to you to take this advice or leave it. How this truism plays out in your life is a mystery. So you will have to be mindful of your actions, and its results, and learn from it.) Then you will one day get to see that only such people who heed this advice are likely to pursue this demanding path of practice all the way through to the end.


fundamental level of existence in Buddhism

Well, lets try to see how much suffering there's to get this mental view "molecules, atoms, sub particles then energy.", how much suffering it costs to keep it, how much far you can go with it, how you can prove it to yourself the usefulness of it, what's the life span is (i.e., when this view dies). The only reason for this answer is to reduce suffering. Every word I write has this goal in mind. For this it is important to pay attention and analyze the issue. A few useful concepts pop out, interestingly enough the same stuff what Buddha was telling us. Does it make him a sort of a God who knows, and us sort of ghosts injured and hurt wondering around without a goal? I’d say yes. But let’s the question is not about ghosts, so lets focus on the question.
Having molecules, atoms (sub particles to some extend) are useful. On a practical level this creates all kinds of machines from agriculture to iphones. Those machines increase efficiency substantially, one can gather and preprocess more food, transport and reach more people, allowed more and more people be less and less concerned how to fill their stomachs with food. Do we have less suffering in the world? Definitely. Our problems got a lot more complicated though. Now you’ve got at least 4 hours a day (typically we work 8 hours per day compared to 12 hours a century ago) for anything we want. What do we do with it? Take drugs, alcohol, do sports to shut up all the annoying voices in our heads and hide our misery.
Getting this (wrong) view is essential to keep improving our technology and make even better agricultural machines as well as iphones. The way our society does it is through suffering as well: if one learns it at school then this is through force, repetitive memorization, and addictive presentation of the content in discovery, natural geographic channels. How long did you celebrate your high school diploma? How long did you celebrate your college/university degree? Once you got your diploma did you have an inner happiness for a day or two, or did it involve drinking lots of alcohol to “forget” the stress of “fundamentals” you’ve received, that allegedly will help you repay your depts and give some financial stability?
Buddha talks about light in many sutras, e.g. sn56.11 (https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi). I have a feeling however that this is something different to your concept of “energy”. I have a feeling that what you mean by energy is the famous equation from Einstein E=mc2. If you’ll talk to scientists thought, they’ll tell you that they see this “theory” more like a material that evolves over time, with some ideas taking a birth, enjoying some sort of development (maturing, bringing us to additional knowledge) and eventually dying out. Those scientists will also tell that with every “fundamental knowledge” they introduce “fundamental problems” as well. Examples are indefinability of key mathematical objects like sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox) and what we can compute and we cannot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) We tried to patch those theories the way we tried to this all the time. This created even more complex theories and problems that require even more suffering to understand and learn.
Advances in other sciences are not helping much to reduce suffering as well. Looking at medical sciences, we have no clue why taking any bitter pill (placebo) is better than well designed drug. Even in covid-19 test studies we give 50% of test people a placebo pill, i.e., a pill that should have no effect whatsoever. Impressive enough, this has quite an impressive effect.
The fundamental level of existence is that there’s suffering, there’s an origin of suffering, there’s the cessation of suffering, and there’s a path leading towards cessation of suffering.


Are Aksobhya and Bhaisajyaguru the same buddha?

Apart from both being blue, the iconography of the two Buddha's is completely different - different mudras and implements for example. Their "function" is also different. One represents wisdom (Akṣobhya) and the other compassion (Bhaiṣajyaguru). if they are supposedly the same, then why are they so different?


If someone steals my goods/harms me then is it ok to take revenge on him/her?

I think that the opening verses of the Dhammapada, for example, make it clear that "revenge" is not a way to appease emnity; and that "the wise" would "cease their quarrels" instead.

  "He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.
  "He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.
  Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.
  People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

The problem seems to arise with the initial thought, "someone has done some big bad thing to me". I think that's the kind of problem which the doctrines of anatta and averena are meant to help solve.


Western scholars: Did the Buddha not speak the Digha Nikaya?

Is there evidence (such as contradictions with other suttas)
suggesting the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya?

The four primary Theravadin Nikayas, namely Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya contained no contradiction with each other.

You may also wish to scrutinize the Buddhist Councils "convention" and their outcomes to ascertain the level of "authenticity"/preservation of the Buddha's teachings.

In there any evidence in the suttas where the Buddha said he would
teach a different modified Dhamma ("propaganda") merely for the
purpose of converting Brahmins & other outsiders?

In the suttas, the Buddha pretty much taught the same thing to everyone. There was no "special" teachings for select groups of disciples or audiences.

Is there any evidence in the suttas showing the Buddha was "flexible"
in his teaching of Dhamma? Or do the suttas show the Buddha wished
his teachings to remain consistent & clearly representative of what
he taught?

The Buddha had over 40 years to teach. So, he did teach the same thing in many ways depending on the intellectual level of his listeners. And he had 40 years to admonish/correct disciples who developed wrong views of his teachings.


No more kamma and vipaka for Noble Ones?

The effort of Sekha is merely intuition of mind to remain empty. Only when mindfulness & wisdom of non-Arahant Sekha lapses is there thought of kamma-vipaka.

For Sekha with mindfulness, wisdom knows only the element of ignorance is the doer of kamma. For the mindful Sekha, "old kamma" is merely something "felt" (rather than identified with), per SN 12.37. In AN 3.61, it is said: "For those who feel, I teach the four noble truths" (of non-craving & non-identifying).


What does "safeguard cognitive process" mean?

The term seems to be defined in the referenced answer itself:

  It helps for you to know that your mind cannot understand something unless it makes sense to you and your mind cannot do something unless it makes sense to you. You have a very sophisticated intelligent function or mental process that constantly makes sure that what you think, do, or decide actually makes sense. This process can be viewed as a safeguard against errors in learning or against errors in the application of what you have learned.

It's also mentioned in one of the OP's books (How Mindfulness Meditation Works: A Modern Buddhist View):

Bodhicitta is, I think, mostly a Mahayana term.

Amazon's About the Author says,

  Ronald Cowen has practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years under the direction of the late Venerable Namgyal Rinpoche.

Namgyal Rinpoche is mentioned on Wikipedia (which may concur with Dhammadhatu's assessment: that the teaching may be expressed in terms related to Western psychology).


How can I practice mindfulness meditation with sound, not breathing?

Sound is a valid object of mindfulness, one of the six sense objects, part of the fourth foundation of mindfulness:

  "He understands the ear, he understands sounds and he understands the fetter that arises dependent on both; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of the unarisen fetter, and how there comes to be the abandoning of the arisen fetter, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of the abandoned fetter." (MN 10, Bodhi trans.)

The point here is to observe sounds as something that gives rise to potential fetters (liking, disliking, conceit, possessiveness, etc.). Through mindfulness, one understands sound as merely sound, as impermanent, unsatisfying, non-self, and one relinquishes craving in regards to sound.

In my tradition, we remind ourselves "hearing, hearing..." as a means of cultivating mindfulness.


How do Buddhists handle mental illness such as depression or bipolar disorder?

Bipolar and depression are both very serious mental illnesses and should be treated accordingly. Too often dharma teachers who are unprepared try to resolve what are true clinical issues. As I was once told "sometimes meditation is the answer sometimes medication is the answer." That of course does not mean that practice can not help with these problems but the appropriate tools should be used at the appropriate time and instance.


This city (body) is built of bones, plastered with flesh and blood;
  within are decay and death, pride and jealousy. - [Dhp. 150]

The Dhammapada is full of metaphors, similes and comparisons. It is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures. Here's a good article on that.


Is it too much focus on awareness in regular daily life a bad thing when beginning mindfulness?

When you are mindful you should be be mindful of the 4 Frame of Mindfulness. These are all tied with sensation. If you are looking at bodily posture or movement you sense this through your sense faculties. In once if comes in contact with the sense faculties you get a sensation as per dependent origination. Similarly for other frames of Mindfulness. You have to be mindful of the arising and passing away of sensations being equanimous. This has a very soothing effect.

Even a circus girl has to be mindful in order not to hurt or kill your self. This type of mindfulness does not reduce stress but creates more stress. So you should practice the right type of mindfulness which takes you out of misery than create more misery.


Is it necessary to be completely still during body scan?

I think there are things to learn by not moving but i doubt it is essential since it is nowhere mentioned in the Sutta afaik.


Should a Buddhist advocate the learning of a martial art?

Wholesome intent is important

The Buddha learned archery as a kshatriya, but he didn't lose his compassion - see this story of when his cousin shot down a bird.
Martial arts can connect one deeply with the body, but so can Yoga and Tai Chi.

Buddhism and violence have a long history, not always nice

Meditation was used to numb kamikaze pilots to commit suicide in WW2 Japan (source)
Buddhist kingdoms Burma and Thailand were often at war, with monks on either side sometimes disrobing to fight and even lead armies. (source)
Shaolin monks trained in martial arts to fight off bandits, but continued to train in those skills long after the threat of bandits was gone. This has destroyed their religion and holiness. (source)

Wholesome and wise company is important.

Not everyone is going to be perfectly enlightened about martial arts, and violent people or those on a power trip are generally attracted to violence. Choosing the right teacher and school is important.
Much less risk of this with Yoga, or with nature sports like mountaineering where solitude prompts the same body awakening.

Right recognition of your level of awakening is important

Jesus walked on water, and the Buddha breathed fire and water from his nostrils, but most of us can't do that.
Just because the Buddha remained untainted by training in martial arts is no guarantee that we will also remain so.
And, just because as a Bodhisattva he was ready to give up his life than raise a finger doesn't mean we can all be so.
We must rightly recognize our failings and abilities. Buddhism is not foolishness. Guilt tripping about our inability to be very non-violent is foolishness.

Creating fortunate circumstances for practicing the holy life is important

There's violence all around us, not just on the mat. Competitive sports where opponents yell at each other, or careers where colleagues fear each other are also violence.
Just as the Buddha didn't want his monks to eat more than was enough to hold the body together, or wear more clothes than was needed to cover the body, violence in all spheres of life must be restricted to the bare minimum.
For example, pursuing a selfishly competitive and stressful career in pursuit of vanity is violence and greed.
If there is no vegetarian food, then animals maybe killed, but only to the bare minimum. Gluttony of even the vegetarian sort is violence and greed.
Learning violent skills when one doesn't live in violent times is needless.

Buddhism and life are not different - when there is violence in human life, how can there not be some violence in the life of a Buddhist?
Not recommended, but Dharma can be realized even through extreme violence

King Ashoka had to feel and see the blood and gore of the Kalinga war first hand to change his views on violence - he was already a Buddhist or exposed to Buddhist views on violence, but the non-violent message didn't penetrate his being until he got a maximum dose of violence. (source)


From this transcript, it doesn't really have a meaning. Full quote:

Q: What does o laso mean?

That’s one of the great secret teachings I give out only to people who’ve achieved 8 weeks of retreat first. It’s very secret, have you received Tantric empowerment? O laso, you ready? Because once I have said it you won’t forget it, it’s one of those really, pointing out instructions - O Laso doesn’t mean anything at all. But it is Tibetan, so it is hard to find a phrase in a language that is definitely part of that language, because O Laso is definitely part of Tibetan, it’s not Hindi, or any other language that I know of, it’s definitely Tibetan, and it doesn’t mean anything at all. But it’s Tibetan and I don’t know quite how you translate it into English without losing its meaning, but it’s something like UM or how about this – WELL THEN , what does that exactly mean, “well then”? Well then, Ladies and Gentlemen. What exactly have I just said that imparted some information to you? (45:42) ‘Well then’ as opposed to ‘ill now’? O laso is kind of like that. It comes up a lot and it’s just become part of my speech pattern, and I haven’t seen any reason to break it, and also it sounds nice. O laso, o laso, and very often, because I have received many teachings from lamas, at the beginning they often say o laso, and that lets everybody know, hey, we’re about to begin, folks. O laso, so it’s a nice way to begin, it’s so smooth, almost like a mantra, o laso. And then when you finish, when you’ve finished something – o laso. Like that, okay? It’s a way to begin and a way to end.


Some reasons to be happy comes from Dhammapada 197-200:

  How very happily we live,
  free from hostility
  among those who are hostile.
  Among hostile people,
  free from hostility we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  free from misery
  among those who are miserable.
  Among miserable people,
  free from misery we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice)
  among those who are busy.
  Among busy (materialistic, avaricious) people,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice) we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  we who have nothing.
  We will feed on rapture
  like the Radiant gods.

Rapture (piti) comes from jhana (level achieved in concentration meditation)

The above words come from the perspective of monks who have renounced the worldly life.

But even for lay people, it just goes to show that we can be very happy and grateful for all the good things or situation that we have, the good environment that we're in, and the good deeds that we have done.


Which Buddhist schools give importance to cultivation of Jhanas?

This is not an exhaustive or scholarly answer, but:

Lineages or traditions don't necessarily predict how this is taught. I believe Ajahn Brahmavamso, who teaches that it's very important to master jhanas first, comes from the Thai Forest Tradition, but not all Thai Forest teachers emphasize that as strongly. Pa Auk Sayadaw in Burma is also a proponent of jhana mastery before vipassana.

On the other side of things, the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage in Burma emphasizes vipassana from the outset.

All traditions would agree (I think) that a certain degree of samatha is a prerequisite for attaining vipassana knowledges. The difference is in how one teaches the practice, and how strictly one defines 'jhana'. There is always a dynamic interplay between samatha and vipassana, so jhana factors can emerge in formal vipassana practices, and insight wisdom can develop during formal samatha practices.


Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

So, the root of the monkey's misery is craving, and not ignorance, as stated in SN 22.31:

  “And what, bhikkhus, is misery? Form is misery; feeling is misery;
  perception is misery; volitional formations are misery; consciousness
  is misery. This is called misery.

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the root of misery? It is this craving that
  leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking
  delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures,
  craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the
  root of misery.”

But to uproot craving, the monkey must first overcome his ignorance.

If the monkey had ignorance of the working of the trap, but if he had no craving, he would not get stuck in the trap. If the monkey had craving but did not have ignorance, he could still neglect his knowledge and get caught in the trap, due to greed and clinging. Hence, craving is the root of suffering, and not ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


Can a one-pointed mind and a unified mind alternate?

It's either one or the other.  One-pointedness means exactly that - the mind is fixed in one place.  Anything apart from that single point detracts from concentration.  What can happen is that as you develop one-pointedness, your attention can get somewhat "smeared".  You'll still have some hold of the single point, but your attention isn't fully fixed on it.  In this case, your vitakka or applied thought is [mostly] there, but your vicara (e.g. sustaining thought) is either slipping around or is intermittent.

If you find yourself moving away from single-pointedness on a fixed object, my best advice is to switch to something a little less subtle like the full inhalation and exhalation as it travels through your body.  It is much easier to maintain sustained attention on something that is moving.  In a sense, the motion keeps your interest more than would a single point.  As your concentration deepens, you can begin watching the where the breath makes contact again.

Bonus point - don't watch the breath, wait for the breath.  What I mean by that is that your attention should be passive as if you were waiting for a train to arrive, a gaggle of geese to cross the road, or your Hot Pocket to cook in the microwave.  Westerners especially can be overly aggressive when they actively try to watch the breath.  The pin the poor thing down with their efforts and don't give it any room to...well...breath.  As the Hsin Hsin Ming puts it, "when you try to achieve passivity, your very effort fills you with activity".  Strong arming your attention like that arouses needless agitation.  If you take a more patient approach, your concentration will be correspondingly deeper.


How can we conclude that something is unarisen and eternal?

Imagine, for example, that you're trying to travel to Paris (or to Rome, or Varanasi, or anywhere else).

So, you ask people, "How to get to Paris?" -- and you follow road signs, which say, "This way to Paris."

When you get to Paris, after you arrive, I don't think you ask yourself, "How do I know this is Paris?"

I think that descriptions of nirvana (like "unarisen") should be understood as instructions or directions like this.

I don't know, maybe another analogy is like, you go with someone to the sea-shore, and they say, "That ocean is always there." You look, and what you see are waves which appear and disappear, and so it's difficult to see what's constant, to see that there is anything that's constantly there.


What are the canonical definitions of vitarka-vicara in the Tripitaka or related literature

From Khuddaka Nikaya's The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vitakka*?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vitakka is "placing" (Appanā), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, like a carpenter takes well-finished boards of wood and places (appeti) them in position.’

  Mil 3.3.13

*ideation, reasoning, putting forward ideas, postulating a premise

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra*?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’

  Mil 3.3.14

*investigating a premise, considering an idea to weigh its implications


Sathipathanna mindfulness and Jhana how to do them correctly

The way to develop Satipattana and Jhana is described below:

When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:
“I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing [contemplating] < body | feeling | mind | dhamma > the in the < body | feeling | mind | dhamma >,
removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”
Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.
When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,
THE 1ST DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;
THE 2ND DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi with zest;
THE 3RD DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;
should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;
THE 4TH DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta (Desita) Dhamma Sutta
Jhana is not that difficult if you have the proper guidance.
For Mahaisi method see this answer.


Open yourself up to the world. Let the possibilities excite and draw you in. The greatest gift you can bring to the world is yourself, enlightened by your own spiritual practice. Whichever path you take, you will end up where you were meant to be. The lessons you need will find you, where ever you are. Allow yourself to look towards what inspires you, not only what is safe and has good financial prospects. Youth has magic to it (even if being young is not an accomplishment), you can breathe in possibility. Don't allow the disappointments of others to guide you to a lesser path with the idea that it is safer. There is nothing safe in unhappiness.

As you walk along your path, keep checking on whether your path has the aspects you need most.

Here is a list that I think is well worded, but you can craft your own. (I welcome edits if someone can make Right Livelihood clearer)

• Is what we are doing causing harm to others or suffering for ourselves?

• Is the way we live and the way we support ourselves causing harm or suffering?

• What are the purposes for which we work?

• What values do we express in our work?

• What consequence does our work have on the quality of our inner life?

• What consequences does it have on the world?

• Is the way we live our life satisfying and meaningful? If it isn’t, what can we change to create greater joy, satisfaction, and meaning?

(I copied it from here: https://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-buddhism-helped-me-find-a-better-career.html )


Bad behavior (and therefore bad kamma?) due to physical ailments

In abhidhamma.-

There are 4 type of minds:

wholesome-root functional mind, good kamma.
unwholesome-root functional mind, bad kamma.
root's effect functional mind, kamma's fruit.
rootless functional mind, neither kamma nor fruit.

In one's life process:

human born just by wholesome kamma, but some organ, i.e. cyst, can arise
by unwholesome kamma after born.
kamma has making body-sense for touching touch.

each mind's full process at body-sense:

contact of 3  dhātu: 1) touch arise & 2) body-sense arise & 3) 4th mind arise for to decide the kind of 3th mind, wholesome-effect/unwholesome-effect, that compatible with that touch (same time).
then 3rd mind knows that touch at body-sense, both are arose by
kamma-cause.
then another 3rd minds know that touch by kamma-cause 2 times.
then touch is reached by 4th mind again for to decide the kind of
1st, 2nd, or 4th minds should arise to do new kamma in body.
then 7 times arising of 1st or 2nd mind and do new kamma.
then 2 times arising of 3rd minds.
then body vanished.
Above mind process, at body sense, can loop moreover trillion times per second, uncountable. There are more types of mind process than I show in this answer, this is just the example.

You can see that we receive fruit of old kamma and make new kamma in the same process and the same body.

His bad behavior is 1st, 2nd, and 4th mind. Just 3rd mind and a cyst organ are kamma's fruit.

So, the cyst organ is not a main cause of bad behavior. But previous bad behavior is the main cause of present bad behavior.

The cyst organ is just a fruit of the past bad behavior. It maybe one of side cause, but it is not the main cause. A human maybe feel very hurt and hard to decide to make arising of wholesome mind or unwholesome mind because of hurt at body-sense at 4th step but the decision is the 6th step. So, the 7th step is done by his decision in 6th step, not by kamma.

In the other hand: many example in tipitaka and commentary shown that there were many arahanta who were suffered at body-sense, but no one of arahanta have unwholesome-kamma, bad behavior.


How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine?

It is citta (mind), which have cetasika (citta+nika;mind factors), such as feeling, emotions, etc. See more information in cittanupassanasatipatthana in mahasatipatthanasutta.

But if you mention to the ghost (citta+cetasikas+rupas), it is bhuta or sambhavesi in KN. Khuddakapatha ratanasutta & it's atthakatha.

Abhidhamma describe this topic as tons.


Meditation, sleep paralysis, spinal vibration

Dont be too much stuck with spiritual experiences.

What you explained accounts for nothing except that now you know what all things are there beyond normal experiences.

Since you have asked this question on a buddhist stack exchange I will suggest you explore more on meditation and start meditating.

There is lit more to experience.


All 3:

Sila
Samadhi
Panna

helps towards better decision making.

Sila bring moral angle into decisions. Samadhi may help avoid spontaneous decisions as it is mastery over the mind. Panna helps to ensure decisions are not tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.

Right view is part of Panna not Sila.


What is the meaning round beads around the neck of Sha Wujing?

Today the beads are generally used for counting the breaths, however there is also a use for divination. In the latter each bead is assigned a meaning according to the breakdown of sense experience (vedana) as follows:

The six senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) X pleasant, unpleasant, neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant
Bound up in the worldly = 18 +
Not bound to the worldly = 18 = 36
X Past, Future, Present = 108.

So bead #1 = past pleasant sensation down-bound to the world related to the eye

When asked a question the diviner finds the bead most appropriate to the question and visualizes (from his associations with that sense-experience) and interprets to attain an answer.


Is intention the result of rational or logical thinking or some other?

Lets take 2 examples where the action are the same:

A surgeon takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach to save his life
A robber takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach kill him and take his belongings

In both cases the action is the same but what differs is the intentions. Hence it is the intention that counts.

Now lets take another example.

A baby squirrel falls into the sea and is washed away. The mother squirrel dips her tail into the sea and runs to the shaking off water with the intention of drying water of the whole sea.

The intention is good but irrational. Regardless of rationality the Karmic effects would nevertheless good as the intention is good.


Pure Land Schools' version of the Three (or Four) Marks of Existence

Here is something on Shin, with a bit of discussion on the individual topics -- http://www.nembutsu.info/primshin.htm -- plus this at the very end (emphasis added):

  Conclusion

  We urge readers to examine the following essentials because, when
  viewed in isolation from them, a skewed view of Shin Buddhism will
  result: the Four Noble Truths; the Three Signata, namely, anatman or
  'non-self', anitya or 'impermanence' and dukkha or 'suffering'; and,
  finally, Nirvana, which - as we have seen earlier - in Shin Buddhism
  is synonymous with Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. These are the
  teachings upon which Buddhism is grounded.

Also, from the book:
Pure Land Buddhism
Dialogs with Ancient Masters
by Patriach Chih I and Master T'ien Ju
translated by Master Thich Thien Tam
at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf

  Merely achieving rebirth in the Pure Land is attaining the stage  of
  non-retrogression. As stated in the sutras:

  “Those who achieve rebirth all dwell in correct samadhi.”

  It is also stated in the Amitabha Sutra:

  “Sentient beings who are reborn in the Western Pure Land are  all at
  the stage of non-retrogession.”

  The Treatise on the Ten Doubts [Question 6] states that there are five
  reasons why those who are  reborn achieve non-retrogression:

  ...

  c) In the Western Pure Land, the birds, water, forests, trees, wind
  and music all preach the Dharma of ‘suffering, emptiness,
  impermanence and no-self.’ Upon hearing this, practitioners  begin to
  focus on the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha;

  ...

Does anyone know the significance of The Treatise on the Ten Doubts in Pure Land? I cannot find much online.

In -- The Sutra of Visualization of the Buddha of Infinite Life -- at http://www.fodian.net/world/365_sutra_1.htm III, VI, XVI -- here it is in III:

  Pure breezes of the eight pleasing qualities are produced by these
  rays of light, causing the musical instruments to play in voices which
  proclaim the truths of ‘suffering, emptiness, impermanence and
  non-self.’

Interesting that in these last two, emptiness is added to make 4 marks.


Do you have to follow a monastic lifestyle to attain enlightenment? At first approximation, the answer is: yes in Theravada, no in Mahayana.

Since probably as early as Milindapanha (~100 BCE) and most certainly by the time of Vissudhimagga (~430CE), the orthodox (~Theravada) position was, you must be a monk to attain Nirvana.

But since you asked about Enlightenment, I should point out that Enlightenment is the goal of Mahayana, while in Theravada, the final goal is usually called Nirvana (Nibbana in Pali), not Enlightenment (Bodhi in Pali). In Mahayana, Enlightenment can be attained by a layperson.

These are "official" positions (as much as we can talk about official positions in such a heterogeneous conglomerate of teachings as Buddhism). Informally, in my own understanding, what some Mahayana schools call "Enlightenment" is what Theravada schools call mere "stream-entry". Other Mahayana schools however have this notion of multiple levels (bhumi), in which what Theravada calls "stream-entry" is level 1 of 10, with Final Enlightenment counted as 11th. It kinda gets complicated from "stream-entry" onward, because the boundaries of "self" no longer apply, so it is difficult to talk about Enlightenment with no subject to tie it to.

Anyway, from practical perspective, the point is, it is extremely difficult to make any meaningful progress towards Enlightenment/Nirvana if most of your focus is on pursuing material ends (success, wealth, entertainment, helping your relatives achieve the same). In order to get pretty close to X while leading a semi-normal life, one's top priority must be spiritual practice, followed by family and everything else. This basically means, squeezing study of Buddhist philosophy here and there, making meditation part of your daily routine, and, most importantly, deliberately utilizing your family & work situations as shootingrange for Dharma practice.


is buddhism outside the idealism and materialism?

Buddhism points out that both are concepts, reality is free of concepts (unless we impose them).

In my experience concepts like idealism etc. are deeply ingrained, unlike "my nose is itchy", so it's useful to remember they're just in my head.


Wikipedia is referencing this article:

Scanning electron microscope observations of heat-treated human bone.
This report describes the heat-induced alterations in human bone tissue observed using scanning electron microscopy and microradiography. Femoral bone samples were taken from persons varying in age from 1 year to 97 years at the time of their death. The bone was heated at selected temperatures in the range 200-1600 degrees C for periods of 2, 12, 18 and 24 h. Macroscopically, changes in colour occurred, together with some shrinkage, fracturing and distortion. However, dramatic changes occurred at the ultrastructural level. These changes included the progressive combustion of the organic portion of the bone tissue up to 400 degrees C and recrystallisation of the bone mineral beginning at 600 degrees C. Recrystallisation produced a range of crystal morphologies: spherical, hexagonal, platelets, rosettes and irregular. Crystal growth occurred at temperatures > 600 degrees C. Sintering led to fusion of crystals at 1000 degrees C. This process continued up to temperatures > 1400 degrees C. At 1600 degrees C the bone mineral melted. On heating, the morphology of crystals formed, and the ultrastructural changes which occurred, were found to be related to the age of the deceased, the temperature to which the bone had been heated and the duration of heating. These results are of importance to forensic scientists, arson investigators and paleoarcheologists in their investigation of cremated human bones, particularly when only fragments of bone are available, in order to determine something of the life history of the deceased and the circumstances surrounding the death.

600 degrees C is the temperature at which material begins to glow red (i.e. an achievable temperature when a body is cremated), and 1000 degrees is when it's orange.


Does Vinaya allow monks to do priestly rituals for the laity?

Nothing should be given as a matter of exchange, gain, honor... that is clear.

Refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha ceremony

Who else should give refuge? There is nothing wrong with it, but the opposit.

Five precepts initiation

Who else should give one precepts? There is nothing wrong with it, but the opposit.

Worship of the Buddha image and stupa

Veneration is part of practice, encourged by the Buddha

Veneration of the Bodhi tree

Veneration is part of practice, encourged by the Buddha

Blessing by chanting

Giving blessings and Anumodana is not only practicing metta and mudita, but also allowed by the Buddha

Weddings

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Funerals

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing of newborns

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing of the sick (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing using holy water (a Thai tradition)

That's of cause a ritual, but follows an occation where the Buddha send out Ven. Ananda to do such.

Protection by tying blessed strings on hand (a Thai tradition)

That is not right, to give people material things aside of Dhamma, since people would think that good come from others and material.

Blessing of objects like car keys (a Thai tradition)

Terrible... again, no problem to receive food on what ever event.

Protection blessing (Pirit in Sri Lanka)

Nothing wrong with that.

Housewarming (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Offerings to the deceased and blessing the deceased

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing. Also encouragement to do offering toward the death is the Buddhas way.

Worship of the Devas or Brahmas

Nothing wrong with paying respect to the Devas and Gods, the Buddha encouraged as well.

Worship of Bodhisattvas

seldom & unusual

Worship of the planets (Bali in Sri Lanka)

seldom & unusual

Exorcism (Tovil and Atanatiya in Sri Lanka)

depends on the way. In giving a talk, there is no problem. Harming a ghost, or doing healing others then by giving Dhamma might be failing.

It's not good the generalize althought sadly sure 95% of monk make a livelihood from sharing Dhamma or make other services. Look at Sutta Central... even asking directly for exchange is "normal", but people buy Dhamma and you do, or not? Hmm? So why does one crow like to pick out the eye of another. Crow is crow, and usually don't do that.

People, monks who are not trading, who really live on alms are very very rare, and be sure, with general being biased, one would not meet them even standig in front.

How ever, usually kammaṭṭhāna-monks seldom to never, join such folk fests. If really listening to Dhamma would be expected, they would follow an invitation to a meal which might look similar.

May you come out of certain bias and selfdestructing views soon (and yes that's a blessing, sometimes it helps). Better look of what you can give then to demand.

Some advices: (Q&A) Details on what may be given as alms (Tips for alms-giving)

Don't forget that there are also reasons why monks would turn over the bowl. One might not fear such thinking "I can buy or trade for it and what I desire" Sure... but here "we" (you, they) go...

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


What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?

This meta-topic mentioned the Pañha Sutta, which includes,

There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.

Many of the suttas show the Buddha asking "leading questions", e.g. (the first one which comes to mind is) the Kalama Sutta

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."

I think I found this line of questioning persuasive when I read it for the first time (though I wasn't always convinced by Socrates' for what that's worth).
I'm not sure why the technique can be helpful, perhaps it lets the student experience working something out for themself.
As an aside, I wonder if the technique helps to bypass a student's resistance to dogma. If you made a claim like, "Greed is harmful!", then I might question that, "Oh yeah? Isn't that what makes people work for a living? Don't people say that's the best way to organise society?" Or saying "Greed is harmful!" would be saying that greed is always harmful (and I wonder whether that's true), whereas when the student answers they're admitting that it's generally harmful -- also the question supplies a little more context, e.g. that it's about what's "arising".

The example you quoted, from Wikipedia, isn't quite like that: that seems to be an example of questioning the student's thesis (or thinking), which assumes that the student has a thesis -- whereas the line of questioning in the Kalama sutta (for example, though iirc the "Socratic" dialog was similar) follows the Buddha's agenda and doctrine (unless the Kalamas' "They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?" is counted as a thesis).

The protagonist-who-asks-questions, and especially the story-which-ends-with-a-question, does seem of a feature of Zen stories -- of Nothing Exists for example ...

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

I think that one is (again) a question about doctrine, but this one is a bit practical too: i.e. "So there's some doctrine, more- or less-well learned ... can you practice it?"
When I learned Maths, for what it's worth, the lessons were half theory and half practice: the teacher would explain some theory or a new technique, and the second half of the class was student exercises in applying that technique to some problem.
I think that not all of the Zen stories are so obviously connected to a specific piece of of Dhamma (at least, that I recognise as such), e.g. there is some obvious "moral" to the story (or several orals) of Is That So? but the protagonist isn't so obviously asking a Dhamma question.


Not addressing a thought when meditating

Obsessive-compulsive tendency means attachment to thoughts, giving them too much importance. Instead of addressing thoughts, we can observe our mind. It's like reflections and mirror. If you are captivated by reflections, or struggle against reflections, you manipulate with reflections - and they remain in power. Instead, you can shift your attention to space where reflections happen. Mirror is not touched by reflections.

So if you just observe the thoughts, not trailing them with more thoughts, not being captured by thoughts, then you can remain in stable mind, untouched by thoughts. Your mind will gradually realize their illusory nature. Thoughts have causes and effects, so they have no power by themselves. All their power is brought by causes and conditions.

Meditating, you can gradually develop awareness of thoughts and their causes, and develop non-attachment to them.

For example, you could realize that "I am a bad person" is just a stupid idea, an illusory construction that has nothing to do in your life.

PS. In case of "constant thinking", the thought repeats again and again. Why does it repeat? Because there is some intention beyond repeating thoughts. Then we can use several methods:

(1) Keep the observation and try to let go of thoughts. Eventually the mind may get bored with that thought and stop repeat it.

See also: Letting go (Ch'an Newsletter - No. 24, September 1982)

(2) Investigate the intention. "Why does this thought return, again and again? What for?" Investigating intentions, you could change your mental processes and get rid of obsessions.

For example, the thought "I'm a bad person" can come due to the intention to understand that marking people as "good" and "bad" is not an efficient way to deal with problems.


Any reconstructions of earliest mentioned classification of canon?

Is this a dodgy quote (despite coming from the exalted MN 22) because birth stories appear to be later additions?

This said, I did try to compile 'birth stories' and only found around a dozen in the Buddhavaca suttas, such as AN 3.15; MN 50; MN 81; MN 123; MN 143; etc; which seem to be in the style of later works, such as the Jataka Tales, Buddhavamsa & Apadana.

The lokuttara dhamma in SN 22.79 says all memories of the past are mere aggregates & not-self.


What do Buddhists religious texts say about the environment?

You could start by reading Buddhism and environmental issues (which I found, just by doing a Google search for Buddhism environment and which is intended as an educational resource).

I have read it and I mostly agree with it as a good beginning.

It mentions the "first precept" (i.e. avoid killing) and the "second precept" (i.e. avoid taking what's not given) -- those are from the five precepts, i.e. the more basic ethical rules for laypeople.

To that, I'd add that another place to look for ethical rules is in the Noble Eightfold Path, of which three (i.e. speech, action, and livelihood) are to do with ethics again.

There aren't many right livelihood rules but among them is "Business in poison: producing or trading in any kind of poison or a toxic product designed to kill". I guess that a narrow view of that 'rule' might be that everything is alright except producing chemical warfare agents and pesticides. A much, much broader view might be to minimize 'pollution' of all kinds.

I think there's some justification or precedent for 'interpreting' Buddhism's ethical rules. For example, one of the precepts is literally against "fermented drink that causes heedlessness" but Buddhists today usually understand that as including all "recreational drugs and intoxicating beverages". The earliest Buddhist literature is from 2,500 years ago, which is before various problems of the modern world existed.

Note the second paragraph of "Buddhism and environmental issues": it says, "So, it should certainly not come as a shock to practising Buddhists to discover what environmentalists are now telling us." That's saying that environmentalists know more about the environment, these days, than is taught in Buddhist literature.

So perhaps you can look to Buddhist literature for generalities, or for hints on what attitude to have. I think that's what the Dalai Lama is doing when he gives a speech like this one which includes,

  Since I deeply believe that basically human beings are of a gentle nature so I think the human attitude towards our environment should be gentle. Therefore I believe that not only should we keep our relationship with our other fellow human beings very gentle and non-violent, but it is also very important to extend that kind of attitude to the natural environment. I think morally speaking we can think like that and we should all be concerned for our environment.

One of the central doctrines of Buddhism is that things are impermanent. I think it would be wrong, though, to interpret that as "nothing matters" ... to say for example, "Oh let's go ahead and kill on the elephants, what does it matter, everything is impermanent anyway" ... wrong because, as well as breaking the first precept (to avoid killing), there are other important Buddhist values including loving-kindness and compassion.

There are a few more things I think that maybe you could want to know.

The quantity of Buddhist literature is vast. So your question, "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?" is a little bit like asking, "What do English-language scientific texts say about the environment?", i.e. it's difficult to summarize
Most of Buddhist literature focuses on topics other than 'the environment'.
There are several schools of Buddhism (like there are many schools of Christianity). If you want to ask another question, one way to narrow it down would be to say whether you interested in the literature from a specific school, or from a specific time period: e.g. modern literature; medieval literature; or the earliest literature, the Pāli Canon which is from about 2000 years ago.
There are separate (and stricter or more numerous) rules of behaviour for Buddhist monks: which are called the Vinaya. There's a bit of a symbiotic relationship between Buddhist monks and laypeople, for example monks shouldn't work for a living (shouldn't handle money) and laypeople should support them with gifts of food and other essentials (basically just food, a robe to wear, medicine when needed, and maybe a place to live). Someone who is living a monk's life (and a lot of Buddhist literature is by and perhaps for monks) might be unlikely to have a huge, negative environmental impact. This explanation of the Vinaya rules on Harmlessness says,

  Throughout its history Buddhism has been renowned for its tolerance and compassion towards all living beings and this is reflected in the Buddhist monks' Vinaya. Their rules cover situations of causing harm ranging from murder — which is universally accepted as a crime — to such things as destroying plant life.

Rules against destroying vegetation include even digging the ground...
When the historical Buddha lived and taught (2400 years ago) there were other religions ... which the Buddha probably learned before his enlightenment. One of these is called Jainism. I mention Jainism because it's practice of Amhisa (non-violence) is similar to or stricter than Buddhism's, even for laypeople; and because Jainism and Buddhism may have influenced each other, to some extent, historically.
You can also look for guidance from specific Buddhists, Buddhist teachers, modern-day Buddhist teachers, if not from Buddhism-in-general or "Buddhist religious texts". For example in this comment, Andrei said, "17th Karmapa is very vocal about ecological concerns, perhaps more than any other major Buddhist figurehead so far". And indeed a Google search for 17th Karmapa environment returns many results, including for example Buddhism and the Environment: Living in Harmony with the Planet from his own web site.

I hope that what I've written here is true, I hope it's not misleading. Two ways in which this isn't a good answer include,

It references vocabulary but don't quote texts
It talks about ethics in general rather than environmentalism specifically
Asking about the Buddhism and the environment might be a bit like asking, "What does your sister write about football?" ... when, she doesn't actually write about football very much at all.

In fact it seems to me that Buddhism writes more about people or 'the person' than it does about 'the environment'.

Some of the topics that are more central to Buddhism include the following -- perhaps you can see for yourself how these may be related to environmentalism:

The 'four noble truths', of which:

The first is that "Things are not satisfactory: you cannot get everything you might want, and you cannot keep everything you have."
The second is that "The dissatisfaction is caused by greed."

There's a 'middle way' which says that eternalism and annihilationism are, both, extremes
Being 'selfish' is problematic and unenlightened.


Can I wear pendant that's symbol of peace?

That is in harmony with nonviolent Buddhism however on a vipassana retreat there is noble silence, and anything worn that said anything would be as distracting as spoken words.


"Dhamma" is a complicated word, or a simple word that's used in many different contexts.

Here is a definition.

I'd summarise it to myself as "described thing" or "anything you can identify".

In the phrase "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta", I think it's used in contrast to the other two of the three characteristics, i.e.:

  The three marks are:

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
  sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Explanation:

saṅkhārās are aniccā and dukkhā
saṅkhārās are anattā too
nibanna isn't a saṅkhārā but it too is anattā

So instead of saying "saṅkhārās and nibanna are anattā", summarize that as "all dhammās are anattā" (where "all dhammās" is meant to include all saṅkhārās and nibanna too).

(In reply to the two comments below)

So:

Dhamma -- a teaching or a reality
Sankhara -- a compound thing or a conditioned thing
Anicca -- impermanent
Dukkha -- unsatisfactory
Anatta -- non-self or not-soul or without I/me/my
Sabbe -- all

And:

All sankharas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta
Nibanna is not annica and not dukkha but is anatta
Nibanna is not a sankhara but is a dhamma
So all dhammas (including sankharas and nibanna) are anatta

Here (for example) is a reference to Nibanna being a Dhamma:

  The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.


Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives?

Dr. Ian Stevenson did research on rebirth, and most of his subjects were children. As I remember he said during the first 5-6 years of a child's life some of them would remember how they died. Most of them who remembered their previous life have had some sudden tragic death. Hence, these incidents seem to be deeply carved in their minds, but this memory would slowly fade away as they grew old.

Most of these incidents were reported from families having Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds because their parents believed in rebirth and believed their child was saying the truth. In some cases, when the researchers traced the child's past routes based on their stories, they had actually found that the person had existed.  Also in some cases it turned out that the parents have been lying to gain some popularity from local media. :)

But I think this research is not so popular among other scientists, claiming it has no clear evidence that backs his theories. Upon his death I think his student continues this work.

Here's link to their work.
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page
(Edited the previous reference according to Ven. Yuttadhammo's comment)


Navayana is a proposed fourth major branch of Buddhism after Hinayana (sorry not a great term), Mahayana and Vajrayana. I believe it is a term claimed by the Dalit Buddhist movement which I am most familiar with in the context of Dr Ambedkar - in fact I recently have heard the movement is called Ambedkerism.

The Buddhist Centre that I practice with is a Triratna Buddhist Centre. Like Ambedkerism it sees itself as a reforming movement tailored to the concerns of modern society. The definition of the movements aims is very similar to our own (quoting from here)

  [Ambedkerism] espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism, primarily based
  on Theravada, but with additional influences from Mahayana and
  Vajrayana. On many subjects, they give Buddhism a distinctive
  interpretation

Moreover the Indian branches of the Triratna movement see themselves as continuing the work of  Dr Ambedkar. One of the major Triratna charities, the Karuna Trust, was set up to support this work.

The point is this - I practice in a context explicitly linked to Ambedkerism and therefore according to Wikipedia in a Navayana context. However I haven't heard of this term used but I do believe the concept has meaning and merit so I'm basing my answer on that.

The key point to Triratna/Ambedkerism and therefore Navayana is a return to the roots of Buddhism and a distillation of the previous yanas to potentially create a new form of Buddhism. Though radical, I don't think this should come as surprising or shocking because ...

When Buddhism comes into contact with a new culture it changes.

a. Buddhism + Tao = Ch'an.

b. Buddhism + Bon = Tibetan.

c. Buddhist + (Western?) liberal humanism = ????
This is the first time in history when all the scriptures, commentaries etc.. are easily available. The work isn't finished but new stuff is coming into the Western domain all the time. That's new - so is something new going to happen?

I think it's work in progress so what it looks like in the end is still up in the air. There are a lot of people doing new things and revisiting Buddhism generally - some of them hang around on this site. Secular Buddhism, Daniel Ingram's taboo busting, Engaged Buddhism's social activism, Triratna synthesis of Theravada with Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Insight Meditation Society - lots of things are happening.

I don't know if this answers the questions but I feel it's changing, will continue to change and let's see what happens next.


Why not force awareness of things during vipassana?

The mental exercise the be able to note everything is developing Concentration and Wisdom. These are tenets covered in the Anapanasati Sutta and (Maha) Satipatthana Sutta according to the Theravada Tradition.


How is one supposed to be compassionate and 100% free of suffering while others are suffering?

How is this possible besides if one simply doesn't mind if others are suffering?

Its not a matter of not caring. It is a matter of each person must end their own suffering.

  Even if there is nothing that one can do to help the other being

Correct. Well-spoken!!!

  I don't see how it is possible for a being to be compassionate and free of suffering while still knowing that others are suffering.

The above is a contradiction. When it is realised there is nothing one can do to help the other being; the mind let's go; and ends its suffering. However, the mind, free from suffering, is always willing to compassionately help another person help themself.

  Is it supernatural? Does it transcend reason?

Sorry. Please don't feel criticized but, in my opinion, your post does not accord with reason. When it is realised there is nothing one can do to help the other being, this giving up of desire or absence of hope is Nibbana.

  The phrase 'absence of hope' may be used in regard to the attainment of arahantship, but it's not the resignation of the foolish and lazy,
  it's a different matter altogether. It is the absence of hope of one
  who with true wisdom sees that there is nothing in this or any world
  that one should wish to have or be. Truly nothing is worth having or
  being at any time or at any place.

  Heartwood from the Bo Tree


What are the Buddhist guidelines for choosing the true Dhamma?

With many traditions and teachers to choose from, how should one figure out what is the true Dhamma?

From AN 8.53

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"


Going off of what Dhammadhatu posted, the word used in the sutta, lokantarika, is not so much "life" but "this world and the other world". So black holes, quantum entanglement, every objectively measurable phenomenon (and many subjective phenomena as well) is included in that.
I'm not sure the term outlandish is appropriate, but I think I understand you to mean examples of metaphors involving vast numbers, powers, amount and the like. There are suttas where the Buddha says that all the salt-water in all the oceans is less than the tears we have cried throughout our wandering in Samsara as a way of illustrating the vast timescales. A similar sutta describes (I think) all the rivers in the world as holding less than the amount of blood spilled from our beheadings. And of course the turtle, living at the bottom of a great ocean, surfacing once a century, and a hoop floating on the top of that ocean being carried about by currents. It was said that the chances of encountering a Buddha and their dhamma was less than the chance of that turtle putting its head through the ring. So we are then fortunate to live in a time where we can hear that dhamma!
As for your last question, there were some questions that the Buddha strictly refused to answer based on their being irrelevant to the task of understanding and eliminating suffering. Those were: is the universe/world system eternal or not? Infinite or not? Does a Buddha exist after death? Not exist? Both? Neither? When asked these, the Buddha refused to answer as they were not relevant. Hope this helps!


Why is Buddha almost treated like a God in most Buddhist traditions?

Simply I can tell you this. When Buddhism was invented in certain countries, it mixed with their culture and believes. So if you want to filter what Buddha really said, you have to refer The Pali canon. Actually in "Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Maha vagga - Digha Nikaya)" before The Blessed one passed away, when gods and humans are worshiping him and paying their last respect, the Blessed One stated that:

  "This is not the real way (by offering flowers etc) that you can pay respect for me. I appreciate the disciple who pay his respect by following my teachings (Prathipaththi Pooja)."

However most people have forgotten these words of the Blessed One.


How to deal with pride and vanity from a Buddhist perspective?

If you are doing things the correct way in your practise in listening to Dhamma, in participating in Dhamma discussions, in doing Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding should develop within you. At times this happens. But if this is not the case - if dispassionateness with understanding does not take place, it is the vanity and pride that surfaces. That’s what happens when doing something which appears as correct thinking or correct action. If vanity and pride arises in you, then you will have to take a step back and go through a process of introspection.

If vanity and pride is what gets developed in placing oneself above others and looking down on others arise in a person, it is due to his not doing things the proper way. That would not happen if you follow this Path with a sense of humility. To deal with this defilement from a Buddhist Perspective, one has to practice five factors that is found in the scriptures. Then you will invariably develop the required antidote in dispassionateness.

In the Asavakkhaya Sutta, the Buddha explains,

  “Oh Bhikkhus. There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”.

These five activities are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death).


The path to nirvana does not depend on your gender but on what you follow as a human being.
Accessing nirvana is a complex thing and describing it may need pages.But,in conclusion the path to nirvana is giving up. Therefore you should understand that to "give up" things,it does not matter what your gender is.Only a person who understands the nature of human life(does not limit only to the human life, but for everything )and realize that the final result of desires and bonds only lead to the sorrow can enter into the path of nirvana.


Is Sampajañña and Dhamma vicaya related?

In the stock passage defining Sama-Sati, right mindfulness, sampajanna is mentioned:

  And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains
  focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself...
  mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is
  called right mindfulness.

  Katamā cāvuso sammāsati: idhāvuso bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati
  ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Vedanāsu
  vedanānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā
  domanassaṃ. Citte cittānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya
  loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhā domanassaṃ. Ayaṃ vuccatāvuso
  sammāsati.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html)

Thus a person who possesses right mindfulness also has Sampajanna. Dhamma Vicaya however, is not so closely related to mindfulness. Dhamma Vicaya is a result of mindfulness, not a part of it. Mindfulness is the first of the seven factors of enlightenment and Dhamma Vicaya is the second, and in the Anapanasati Sutta they are presented in sequence:

  "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
  itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
  with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is
  steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without
  lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He
  develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its
  development.

  "[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to
  a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains
  mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension
  of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a
  factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it
  goes to the culmination of its development.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html)


connection between fear and anger(dwesha)

Anger, Fear, Jealousy are all instances of the 2nd root of evil, 'Dosa', which translates to English as 'aversion'. They basically represent a disliking towards someone or something. Usually if it's someone more powerful than you, the disliking turns into fear. If not, it becomes anger.

Anger is mostly caused when you expect things to behave according to your liking. Fear is caused when you cling to things, taking them as I, me or mine. To overcome fear, you can recollect the virtues of the Triple gem and feel confident that you have taken refuge under them. But the permanent solution is to do Vipassana meditation and get rid of your clinging and the notion of self.

When one attains the state of Anagami, neither anger nor fear can ever enter one's mind again.


Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself and instigate others as well?

A Bodhisattva 'instigates' others because he wants what is best for others (full enlightenment together with its causes). From this viewpoint, 'abiding nirvana' is thus not what is best for others,  because it is not the one final result of the one final vehicle (i.e. the Mahayana path).

There are two obscurations:

Afflictive obscurations - all the afflictions - which prevent one from achieving abiding nirvana, and
Knowledge obscurations - the imprints left by previous moments of ignorance - which prevent one from achieving perfect enlightenment, omniscience.

If he completely abandoned afflictive obscurations (which an arya bodhisattva does anyway from the 8th  bhumi), the practitioner would be free from the conception of inherent existence, but he would not be free from the appearance of inherent existence because such a mistaken appearance is  caused by knowledge obscurations. A bodhisattva does not aim at merely abiding in 'abiding nirvana', but wants to be completely free from all mistakes and thus be able to enact the welfare of others.

The bodhisattva does not set out to merely get rid of afflictive obscurations and achieve abiding nirvana. He set out, from the entry into the Mahayana path, to get rid of knowledge obscurations and achieve what Mahayana call 'full buddhahood', 'perfect enlightenment', 'omniscience', 'the four kayas', 'non-abiding nirvana'.

The wisdom directly realizing emptiness is said to be 'the mother of all three types of enlightenment - that of the shravaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva' because it is a cause of enlightenment. However, it is a Mahayana belief that full enlightenment (that of the arhat-bodhisattva, an arya buddha) can not be achieved by cultivating the wisdom-side alone. One needs the method-side, namely bodhicitta, the six perfections, and so forth.

Knowledge obscurations can only be removed by way of developing the two wings that are method and wisdom. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta, that wisdom becomes what is called 'ultimate bodhicitta' and that puts an end to what prevents one from achieving omniscience, the omniscient mind of a buddha, buddhahood, perfect enlightenment. That is why a bodhisattva cultivates bohdicitta, which is 'the wish to achieve enlightenment for the benefits of all sentient beings'.

The classical analogy goes: the wisdom realizing emptiness is like an axe while bodhicitta is like the strong arm. You need both the axe and a strong arm to cut the tree (that is here knowledge obscurations).

We say that from the path of seeing, an [arya] bodhisattva comes back in samsara but is not wandering in samsara. So his aggregates are not contaminated anymore, and there is no 'true suffering' involved. It is not the case that he will suffer for eternity. This is because he does not come back under the power of karma and afflictions, but under the power of compassion and aspirational prayers.


Shouldn't I kill even mosquitoes that bite me by first precept?

The 1st precept is a training rule to refrain from killing 'breathing' things.
The Pali is: "Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", where the word "pana" means "life" or 'breath", such as in the term "ana-pana-sati".
The 1st precept does not apply to bacteria because they do not breathe.

Strictly speaking, bacteria do not “breathe” as humans and other animals do, but they must still engage in the act of cellular
respiration. Cellular respiration is the method by which cells convert
chemicals into energy that the cell needs to stay alive.
Bacteria

As for mosquitoes, the probability of contracting malaria or dengue fever is very low. I lived in Thailand for 9 years and had dengue fever only once. I can contract dengue fever where I have lived for the last 10 years & have never got it (although one friend did). When I lived in Thailand, there was a period of a few years when hundreds of mosquitoes would bite my feet when I was meditating at sunset. I never got dengue fever or malaria during this period. I felt very free when my mind became accustomed to not worrying about & fearing mosquitoes.
Not killing mosquitoes is beneficial for cultivating metta (loving-kindness), fearlessness & freedom. However, that said, killing mosquitoes is not particularly bad karma. When I first visited Thailand & learned meditation, I did not care about killing mosquitoes & killing a mosquito never affected my samatha (calmness; concentration) meditation. This is because killing a mosquito is kammically a natural act. The mosquito wants to steal our blood & can (possibly) kill us. This is why the kammic results (vipaka) of killing a mosquito are trifling (insignificant).
Most people have killed many mosquitoes & remain mentally normal. Their minds do not become deranged (crazy). Where as the majority of soldiers that kill in war are often mentally affected for life in a negative way. Some ex-soldiers become mentally deranged & even commit suicide. (Here, an ex-soldier must learn to forgive themselves!) This shows the difference between killing many mosquitoes & killing just one or even many human being/s. Kammic consequences (vipaka) follow the law of nature.
The Buddha taught "kamma is intention" (AN 6.63). A mosquito killed with the intention of avoiding malaria or dengue fever is not an unwholesome intention. However, it is still an intention rooted in fear, attachment & a lack of liberation.
For example, to kill a mosquito so it does not bite a small baby or child is probably good karma. If it was known you let mosquitoes bite your small baby, many people would criticize you. You would be blamed & censured for being a bad parent. The government may take your child away from you.
Personally, I would not worry too much about it since not killing mosquitoes is a higher level of dhamma practise. The Buddha did not make strict rules for monks about killing mosquitoes or even about killing animals (for food) for laypeople.

And which is intolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual doesn't tolerate cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of
flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words;
& bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. This is called
intolerant practice.
And which is tolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words; &
bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. This is called
tolerant practice.
Khama Sutta


What are the Tibetan sketches in the movie Samsara called?

The sketches you refer to are a combination of three influences: the core Buddhist teaching of impermanence, the Hindu imagery association of sex and death, and the Chinese drawing style for depictions of sexuality. The sketches are clearly from a non-Tantric school, because in Tantric Buddhism, sexual pleasure is seen as a beneficial act representative of the union of female and male Buddhas (when done correctly). The sketches seem to borrow from the 3 influences mentioned above to communicate the impermanent view on sexuality. This is not a common practice. In fact, strict guidelines existed on how to create the "correct" imagery. AFAIK there is no specific name for the sketches and their intent.

The strong association between sex and death stems from Indian culture. Buddhist cosmology is strongly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant religion at the time of the Buddha, and more generally Indian culture. Historically, Indian culture is almost diametrically opposed to the West in its liberal depiction and description of sexual pleasure and techniques (just think of the Kama Sutra). There is a very strong association between sex and death in Hinduism in the form of Kali, who is often depicted in coitus:

Another goddess depicted in the same way in Hinduism is Chhinnamasta in Kundalini Yoga, which uses techniques westerners refer to as Tantrism. There are Tantric forms of both Hinduism and Buddhism, with very similar imagery in the form of Dakinis.

Another factor to consider is a statement from Robert Thurman, a Tantric Buddhist scholar in his translation of the Pancakrama:

  Sexual union between coarse bodies is the only situation, other than
  death, in which all the neural wind-energies dissolve into the central
  channel.

The drawing style of the sketches however is definitely Chinese - the hair style is a "dead" giveaway. Like Indian culture, the Chinese were much more liberal in the depiction of sexuality. We find many images like this as early as the Yuan dynasty.


How to deal with fixation towards an old relationship?

Now I can't stop checking my messages on the phone to see if she has replied. I know this is fixation but just don't know how to deal with it. What could be a way out of this?

Not much else to do other than to be mindful of it. You see the mind works in the way of habits. The more time spent on something, e.g. thinking about the past or future, that will incline the mind more towards that direction.
When being mindful of the (compulsive) thinking process it will interrupt it. Instead of enforcing the feed-back loop, mindfulness will momentarily break it.
Since we are working with habits, the mind will soon fall into this way of thinking about past and future again when mindfulness is absent. That's when one must apply mindfulness again. When doing this over and over the mind will slowly begin to incline itself towards that direction - the direction of mindfulness, wakefulness and clarity of mind. When that happens compulsive thinking will stop. It cannot go on since it's not being fed anymore. There's no fuel to burn.
In short, just be mindful of these thoughts when they happen. Do that again and again until you can be free from them. That is the only way one can go about this.
Pinning them down with willpower will only suppress them and cause them to erupt violently later. Shifting attention away from them will only bring temporarily relief.
If you want to become free from them for good, you need to observe them with mindfulness until they change, become exhausted and pass away.
May you be well and happy.


Does the concept of Brahma muhurta (time of Brahma) exist in Buddhism?

I am unable to find a reference, but I have heard at a Dhamma sermon that the Buddhist monks are advised to get up at 4 in the morning, then clean the mouth and have a light soup which consists of salt, water and may be some other ingredients.(A light soup with salt in it) After that monks are advised to learn the Dhamma, may be memorizing, understanding etc. So yes it is advised to get up at 4 am and study but I am not sure whether the term Brahma Muhurtha is used in that scenario. Outside the Dhamma, many studies have been done on morning people and they have been found to be more successful, proactive and happier.

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/07/research-says-morning-people-are-more-proactive.html
http://www.prevention.com/health/sleep-energy/study-finds-morning-people-are-happier

Laymen also can follow these steps and can become happier and more successful in reaching their visions.


Who is ignorant and when does one realize that one is ignorant?

everyone who is subject to samsara or the round of rebirths is ignorant, because

  From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  Fromc ontact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging.
  From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

Paticcasamuppadavibhanga sutta ( SN 12.2)

i think ignorance covers nescience of the phenomenon of suffering and the way of escape from it

  When does one realize, one is ignorant ?

perhaps once one realizes that they suffer while having no clue how to avoid that

  Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

i find this an interesting  question, my guess is 'NO', but i'm not sure i can explain why i think so and can't remember suttas which explain this point.
that's as far as awakening is concerned

as for nibbana i'm a bit more certain, just as suffering is effected by a  chain of causes, quoted above, so is nibbana, for example

  What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What
  is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:
  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
  When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
  By being liberated, it is steady;
  by being steady, it is content;
  by being content, he is not agitated.
  Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.

Anicca sutta (SN 22.45)

an aspirant needs to go through a series of stages of mind development to arrive at that destination and those cannot be bypassed

the first step in curing an illness is its acknowledgement


Union with Brahma, or company of Brahma?

In DN 13 the term is originally used by Brahmins talking with each other, and so between them it meant whatever (non-Buddhist doctrine) they each understood it to mean.

At the end of the sutta the Buddha teaches them the four brahmaviharas and defines or explains that these are the path to "companionship with Brahma" -- i.e. I think he thus redefines brahmasahabyatāya (whatever it used to mean) in Buddhist terms, in a way that can be understood and agreed by the Brahmins.


What are the main warning signs in a Buddhist centre?

Best is to do some reading of the main Suttas, such as: Anapanasati Sutta, Maha Satipatthana Sutta and see if what the center in question teaches corresponds with the Suttas.

Also see if the operations / techniques adhere to this:

Should ideally be run by donations and not by charging a fee
Should not be cultish
Should allow free thought and inquiry
Should not have practices which harm oneself or make oneself agitated or do the same for others

The last point you can only know when you have practiced the techniques taught at the place and found out you are are at peace and also cordial with others. Now if you do find a lack of peace and cordiality, it may be there is something wrong with how or what you practice. However, you should then take care -- and it is easy to misjudge this -- that you are indeed following their instructions. If you do that, and rule out the possibility that you haven't followed their instructions (in which case, maybe you're just doing your own thing and that is the problem), then there is a good chance there is something wrong with what you have been taught at the particular center.

Sometimes certain traditions may not encourage practices outside the tradition (including reading). In that case you have to look at the motivation behind it. Is it trying to have a grip or hold over the person? Or is it concern that undesired results may be brought about by mixing different techniques? Or is it concern about not being able to handle dangerous results of an unfamiliar technique? Many traditions are geared towards preserving the techniques exactly as handed down through generations and due to this, variation may hamper the results/benefits. This is why you have to be very careful and try to look at it without prejudice.


Is there a free (libre or open) version of Visuddhimagga in a digital text or HTML format?

on archive.org you usually get several file types, for the text alone
https://archive.org/download/Visuddhimagga-ThePathOfPurification