Where did the hindrances originate from?

A new born child is born (refer to MN 64) with the underlying tendencies (refer to AN 7.11) to the five hindrances. The child is born that way.

  For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.

  MN 64

The hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, restlessness & remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt) are just more elements ('dhatu'). To quote MN 115:

  There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will
  element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he
  knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in
  the elements.”

The hindrances come from ignorance & are sustained by the three types of bad karma.

  "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."

  Avijja Sutta

~~~

  the five hindrances, too, have their nutriment ('food'), monks; they are not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of the five
  hindrances? 'The three ways of wrong conduct,' should be the answer.

  AN 10.61

In Pali Buddhism, ignorance is the 1st cause for the creation of the 'worlds' (of mental sufferings).

  And what is the origination of the world? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....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. This is the origination of the world.

  SN 12.44

What primitive religions such as Judaism call 'God', Buddhism calls 'ignorance'. For example, Genesis 6:5 describes how God regretted his creation, which shows how God has ignorance. Since 'regret/remorse' is one of the five hindrances, God also has hindrances. God also loves the smell of the the fatty parts of the meat (Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 3; etc), which shows God also has the hindrance of sensual desire.

More modern religions, such as Christianity, teach 'God is love' (1 John 4:8). In Christianity, God has no hindrances because it is said: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).

If the old Jewish God is the same as the new Christian God, maybe this God learned how to be free from the five hindrances from the Buddha, who is the "Teacher of Gods & men" (sattha devamanussanam).


Can knowledge of suchness or emptiness be achieved through cessation of conceptualization?

"Thought" is a rather vague concept. When two people say "cessation of conceptualization" they could mean two completely (or partially) different things.

When I wrote that comment and that answer, I did not mean that one has to stop all thinking. My teachers and my books all agree that complete suppression of thinking is not the target state nor the path to the target state. One Lama said: "we're not training to be a rock or a donkey".

Instead, cessation of reification is more like going from "discrete" thinking to "analogue" thinking. Meaning, you no longer have a notion of particulars, everything becomes fluid and somewhat ambiguous but also multidimensional and "quantum". As Dogen said: "Enlightenment is ambiguity".

Something like this (in different words) is described in e.g. "Mahamudra: The Moonlight" by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (Chapter 3).


Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism?

the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the
  other Mahayana traditions

Are we talking about style? Yes, the records of the Zen masters resemble the style of the Zhuangzi more than they resemble the style of the Avatamsaka Sutra. But we should be more interested in content when evaluating where a tradition belongs. - The Sutras are written in a highly intricate, metaphorical language. Like the Zen master Bassui said: "Before we can read the Sutras, we have to open the mind that can read them." The Sutras are addressing a reality that is sometimes not available to an unenlightened mind.

  it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

Every scholarly book written on the origin of Zen is a counter-argument.

Let's look at a few salient points - off the top of my head:

1) The Zen school was not called that at first. It was known as the "Buddha-Mind School" and the Zen masters were referred to as "the Lankavatara Masters":

  In its beginnings in China, Zen primarily referred to the Mahāyāna
  sūtras and especially to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. As a result, early
  masters of the Zen tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra
  masters". In other early texts, the school that would later become known as Zen is sometimes even referred to as simply the "Laṅkāvatāra school" (Ch. 楞伽宗, Léngqié Zōng). Accounts recording the history of this early period are to
  be found in Records of the Laṅkāvatāra Masters (Ch. 楞伽師資記, Léngqié
  Shīzī Jì).

(cf. Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005-A), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China, World Wisdom Books, ISBN 978-0-941532-89-1 )

The whole school was called after a specific sutra, named the  Laṅkāvatāra.

The First Patriarch of Zen is said to have handed this sutra to the Second Patriarch as containing the essentials of the school teachings.

If you study that Sutra closely, you will realize that it has all the essential teachings of Zen, and since it predates Zen, it is only reasonable to conclude it is the source. The main idea there is that "mind is buddha", that it all comes down to the mind of the sentient being; that everything is a projection of the One Mind (which is also what Huangbo says verbatim).

2) The Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Scripture says quite explicitly that to practice Zen, one has to study and recite the Diamond Sutra. Why does he single out that sutra and not the Zhuangzi or the Daodejing?

3) All the Zen masters used Mahayana Buddhist language and terminology: samsara, nirvana, bodhisattva, tathagata, etc. compare with how often they use terms such as qi, yin/yang, Heaven (in the Taoist sense), etc. It's not even up for debate. They overwhelmingly use Buddhist language.

4) They were all Buddhist monks, with Buddhist robes, shaved heads, etc. I mean, this is an obvious fact. Why stay in a Buddhist monastery if you're a Taoist?

5) All they say is traceable back to Mahayana Philosophy. Everything. The One Mind, transcending samsara, non-duality between samsara and nirvana, mind being buddha, truth being beyond language, silence as a teaching etc. Even the dismissal of Sutras is ultimately traceable back to the Sutras!

There's nothing original in the ideas of the Chan school:

  There is nothing unique about Ch'an doctrine; it is an eclectic form
  of Mahayana philosophy. So there is no contradiction involved in a
  tradition of meditation practice co-existing with the sectarian
  doctrines of the various sects of Chinese Buddhism. Masters whose
  names appear in the succession-lists of both Ch'an and another
  sectarian tradition would simply be both dharma- and dhyana-masters in
  their respective monasteries.

Charles W. Swain, The Emergence Of Ch'an Buddhism, Chung- Hwa Buddhist Journal vol.2/Oct, 1988 P.391-399

In fact, if there's anything original, it's the style. If there's anything that cannot be traced back to Indian Mahayana - is exactly the style, the form their upaya takes, and not their doctrines, not their insights.

But why call that style "Taoist" and not instead call it "Chinese"? Perhaps there's some common source both Chan and Taoism are drawing from, and that has more to do with the Chinese character, that manifests there as abrupt and direct? What makes more sense instead is that Buddhism is adaptable, and so it takes many forms depending on the country and the spirit of the country where it takes root.


Literature on ending Samsara on micro scale

First of all, let me confirm that your perspective is valid. Most of my teachers held similar views. For example, my Zen Master used to say that rebirth occurs every second. My Tibetan Buddhism teacher said that rebirth in the higher worlds occurs when we enter Jhanas, and that an entire realm is created right at that moment - just like you said. At least two other teachers said things that amounted to the same idea: the world is a hallucination being constructed by our mind and in order to exit samsara we must stop constructing it. I remember one teacher saying the biggest challenge with students was to achieve what he called "immediacy", getting them shift attention to their mind on the moment-by-moment scale.

(I used to think that this sort of explanation was an upaya, a clever trick designed to lead people to psychological realizations. However, the further I go, the more I see for myself that this "reality is a construct" explanation is not a metaphor but is true in the literal sense. In my recent encounters I was demonstrated some very advanced techniques that put some strain on my structure of reality, to put it mildly.

Whether this world is real and dharma is ethical and psychological, or this world is a dream we dream and dharma is literal, the moment-by-moment phenomenological perspective remains valid. This is what Buddha called "the safe bet" - his teaching remains an invariant that is correct regardless of the exact interpretation.)

There is not much literature on the topic however. The closest I've seen are the works by Buddhadāsa, a Thai Theravada reformist. He held that "dhamma is akaliko" (timeless) means it plays out on moment-by-moment scale. He insisted on phenomenological explanation of rebirth. Among his books there is a rather detailed analysis of Twelve Nidanas done from this phenomenological perspective.


How do we determine when to use logic and reason in Buddhism?

It depends on what you want to abandon or negate. In general, there are two ways of negating (or abandoning) an object of negation.

We oppose an affliction by way of generating a mind that is its opposite. For instance, a mind of love opposes a mind of anger... the virtuous intention to give (generosity) opposes miserliness... the wisdom of emptiness opposes ignorance (that is the mistaken conception of inherent existence)
We negate a non-existent object of negation by way of logic. For instance, we refute inherent existence  by way of applying logic, such as the reasoning of the diamond sliver, that of dependent-arising, etc.

Things are "organic" however. You can very well analyze death and impermanence so as to generate a consciousness in the entity of non-attachment, or of non-desire, or of renunciation, etc. According to Pabongka Rinpoche, once the mind of non-attachment has arisen (for instance), because it has found its way there through reasoning (and through paying attentions to things we usually overlook), there is no more need to apply logic anymore. We apply logic to find our way there again, and that way becomes easier to find every time we take it. Reasoning is just a means.

The reason we become angry without planning, "In five minutes, I will get angry" is that we are accustomed to it. We got there so many times in the past that our mind "naturally" takes the same course and find its way there again and again. When we are angry, even when we try to think "It's ridiculous and I am just telling myself stories, I am projecting, etc." we tend to think "Yes, but still... I have my reasons to be angry!" And we find ourselves reasons to be unhappy, we just feed it. The way we look at things and what we look at when we are angry are determined by anger. So, there is a need to apply logic to oppose this story telling by telling ourselves a story that is concordant with reality.

We have to do that until, one day, there will be no more need because loving kindness, compassion, generosity, etc. will manifest as naturally and effortlessly as our breathing goes. We will no longer get in our own way by thinking in a manner that lead us towards non-virtue.


One will not get ride of suffering by simply trying to ignore or oppress. Attachment has craving as its cause and craving has ignorance as its cause. So one needs to gain insight, how things really are. To gain that, one does well to learn about the teachings of the Lord Buddha and then look for one self, if this is right, as well as to practice the way to clean the mind, so that it is able to concentrate it so that one is able to see.

What ever one sees, as it really is, inconstant, stressful, subject to change, one gets, disenchanted. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.

It's not possible to escape form suffering by developing such what is called "householder-equanimity" and suffering is actually a yogis friend, which does not mean that one tutors one self, but observer it and in this way one finds a way out without simply counteract in an unwholesome way, Mr Jason.

The practice start with things many estimate as child work, now most are not even able to make this there way of live, like practice generosity (giving, letting go material thing), Sila (virtue)... the whole palette of meritorious deeds. There one is confronted with all his/here raw defilement of greed, dislike, stinginess, conceit. One has to work against the defilements all the time, while observing them well.

So please do not fall in the current promoted misinterpretations of non-reacting and simply developing a bunch of ignorance, calling it equanimity.

Last but not least, Atma likes "How does one practice suffering?" how ever, although it most important to know it well in all its aspects, its good not to forget to develop the path out of it as well.

Each noble truth has its certain task.

A good place to begin, actually has been always the first step is to follow good basic talks:

Better to Give than to Consume
Sensitivity through Generosity

And put this things into practice. Joy and pleasure are granted, as well as much suffering at the beginning with it.

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


Kilesa has a residual impression which is called vāsanā which even arhats (other than the Buddha) have. Only a Buddha eliminates that. This is what drives habits. Many habits are reflexive and there no much thoughts of the intention behind it. If it is purely reflexive it does not have karmic consequences.

Initially, when you start doing something this is driven by craving. More you do it it becomes habitual. When it becomes habitual this might surface without craving.

If you think you are developing bad habits you should break them early. Deeply ingrained habits are difficult to break.


Two types of satipaṭṭhāna - which has jhana?

Which satipaṭṭhāna is this, and where can it be found?

This is the direct path for purifying of beings, for overcoming sorrow and distress, for vanquishing pain and distress, for attaining the right approach, for realizing Nirvana – namely, the four applications mindfulness’

Was this the satipaṭṭhāna which led to the Buddha's awakening?

My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'


This is the story of the lay potter Ghatikara from MN 81, who lived in the time of Buddha Kassapa.
From MN 81:

Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual
misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. He
has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones. He is free of
doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice
that leads to its cessation. He eats in one part of the day; he’s
celibate, ethical, and of good character. He has set aside gems and
gold, and rejected gold and money. He’s put down the shovel and
doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled
off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a
carrier. When he has made a pot, he says, “Anyone may leave bagged
sesame, mung beans, or chickpeas here and take what they wish.” He
looks after his blind old parents. And since he has ended the five
lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become
extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.


Is it a sin to vacuum cobwebs & ants while cleaning?

Buddhism doesn’t deal with sins, it deals with consequences of our actions (karma).

Your example seems like a trade off between feeling bad for the insects on one hand, and having a dirty home on the other. The former, being merciful towards other living beings (karuna) is considered a virtue in Buddhism as it can save us from feeling bad.

Sometimes life is about choosing the option giving us the least bad consequences for everyone involved, out of all the options. The effort to balance our actions (upekkha) is considered yet another virtue in Buddhism as it unifies others wellbeing with our own, saving us from destructive self-sacrifice on one hand and selfishness on the other.


What significance does the dragon hold within Buddhism?

Nagas are serpent like creatures that are also identified with dragons. I'm aware of a couple of places within Buddhism that these appear but there are undoubtedly a lot more.

The Buddhist philosopher and Mahayana pioneer Nagarjuna is reputed to have recovered the Perfection of Wisdom sutras from the Nagas. He then went on to distribute the sutras to the world at large.In addition Naga's would come to him while he was preaching and provide shade to him while he was teaching.

Again from with the Mahayana tradition, the Nagas appear many times in the Lotus Sutra. The Dragon (Naga) Kings daughter has a starring role within one of the chapters. Although she is young and female she nevertheless attains Buddhahood. This points to the fact that everyone (even if they are young or a woman) can attain the highest spiritual perfections.


What is actually Nirvana -- what are some Tripitaka sources?

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Ud 8.1

Nibbana is not a conceptually constructed, ideological, 'thing'. It is described as the unconditioned element. As all concepts are conditioned by a mind, it cannot be reached by mental fermentation. It can be approximately described by negation - not impermanent, not unsatisfactory, not self (etc). But even that is still conceptualisation. Better meditate, attain jhana, and find out for yourself.


RE: "I don't even know what I'm supposed to do during meditation" & "what's causing the bliss?" - Congrats, you are very clear about what it is that you're not clear about. That's an awesome first step.

The human mind  is an information machine. When you set a goal X and you attain X, we get "X = X" and that feels good. When you set a goal of X and you attain Y, we get "X not= Y" and that feels bad. When you don't set a clear goal (X) or you're confused about what you have (Y), there is no basis for comparison, so that feels like an ambiguous feeling, perhaps even anxiety.

In meditation, you are supposed to work on achieving perfect X=X. That's when you feel bliss. So, first of all you need to clearly define X. And then you need to work on attaining it.

In Buddhism, our X changes as we advance, from level to level. It starts pretty coarse, and then it gets more and more subtle. First we define X as "having no coarse cravings and no coarse negative emotions". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no worries". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no doubts". And so on. So on every level we achieve a state of mind that has less inner conflict and more inner harmony, and once we attain it, we congratulate ourselves on attaining it. And then we define X as "not worrying about our state of mind" - and we attain that too. So it's like a ladder.


Is there a conflict between dependent origination and right effort?

Where we don't have a choice:

stop, maintain or prolong, create phenomena and influence, control arising and passing of phenomena. Even at a grosser level the influence is limited.

Where we have a choice:

not being reactive to sense stimulus but proactive to it
influence and regulate your mind towards skillful states and away from unwholesome states

Exercising the latter help you to fabricate better existence or stop fabrications altogether.

There are two places to work on breaking the cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).

To keep your mind free from delusion focus on arising and passing of phenomena.
Keep your mind equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging thus not reacting to sense stimulus with unwholesome mental states

Like any other processes DO needs it's fuel to continue. The fuel is an untamed mind influenced by craving. So you can extinguish this process by not feeding it with it's fuel, i.e. be equanimous without clinging and craving towards sensations and being mindful of arising and passing of phenomena of the aggregates. The existing fuel will burn out and DO will collapse. You can catalyse this process by actively calming the fabrications, i. e. do some fire fighting.


Which texts are the most important to read in the Khuddaka Nikaya and why?

The Khuddaka Nikaya ("minor collection") is the minor collection of texts within the Pali Canon.
It contains 15 - 18 texts within it.
In my opinion, the five most important texts within KN are:

Dhammapada ("path of the Dhamma / true teachings")
Itivuttaka ("as it was said")
Udana ("inspired utterances")
Theragata & Therigata
Sutta Nipata ("section of the discourses")

The Dhammapada is hardcore and to the point.
The Itivuttaka is easy to read, heartwood and contains some important explanatory teachings that appear not found elsewhere (eg. Iti 44, Iti 49, Iti 96); even though these teachings are related to the core teachings of the suttas.
The Udana is fun but appears to contain some probably belated, miraculous yet amusing texts (such as new born children talking dhamma). It also contains lots of hardcore illuminating wisdom teachings.
The Theragata & Therigata are mature.
I listed Sutta Nipata on the bottom because, due to its nature of often being in "verse" (vs "prose"), the language is often more archaic thus vague. Also, it contains what appear to be belated texts, such as Metta & Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The other texts are best avoided, appearing to be belated texts loaded with superstition & wrong views, such as Jataka, other past lives books & Milindapanha. These texts do show however how quickly the Buddha-Dhamma degenerated. The Paṭisambhidāmagga commentary was obviously not composed by Venerable Sariputta and is often inaccurate.


Also why this is not exist in Thervada Buddhism when statue is in Bihar state of India?

Probably because there's no concept of a female Buddha according to Early Buddhism (by Early Buddhism, I mean the earliest text strata translated into both the Theravada's Nikayas and Mahayana's Agamas).

“He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One—there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a woman could occupy the position of Sakka [66]…that a woman could occupy the position of Māra…that a woman could occupy the position of Brahmā—there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be a Wheel-turning Monarch…that a man might occupy the position of Sakka…that a man might occupy the position of Māra…that a man might occupy the position of Brahmā—there is such a possibility." ~~ MN 115 ~~

Now before some modern-day feminist about to start a massive protest, pay close attention to the next sentence too, basically it said that on the flip side, men's evil has no equal, so much that this gender is the only one capable of occupying the most evil office ever exists, Mara!


Why not becoming disillusioned toward mind?

From SN 12.61:

  "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to
  hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

The body appears to last for many years, and then becomes old, ill and drops off. If one associates his self with the body, at least, he will see that the body must drop off and will become disillusioned with the body.

But the mind (including intellect and consciousness) changes much more frequently than the body, but has a seamless appearance. It is therefore not unusual, that one considers his same consciousness wanders on from youth to old age in this body and then wanders on to another body in future. This is what the monk Sati mistakenly thought in MN 38.

So, if one cannot see that the mind or intellect or consciousness is not permanent, then he does not have a reason to become disillusioned with it.

No religion preaches the immortality of the physical body, because it obviously perishes. However, many religions preach the eternity of the soul and the continuity of consciousness through the eternal soul in other bodies, which are physical or celestial. They say you can meet and talk to your loved ones in heaven, after you have passed away. The reason for this is that they cannot see how consciousness is impermanent. That's because it's not obvious.

MN 38 has a discussion on the impermanence of consciousness (i.e. eye-consciousness, intellect-consciousness etc.).

Everyone tries to find something permanent to associate their self with, so that they can be permanent. You can find a discussion of this in the River Sutta.


If there was a practice like that in Buddhism, it doesn't come from the Buddha's teachings. One practices loving-kindness by making a wish(not a prayer) such as "May I be happy" or "May the world be at peace" or "May my enemy be well" and so on. The purpose of this practice is to help negate states of anger in the practitioner thus benefiting everyone. No God, Buddha or anyone grants the wish. It all happens in our own minds. If one doesn't understand this then one might mistake practice for ritual as well. For example, one doesn't pray but pays homage to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in mindful rememberance. This practice is for the benefit of the practitioner by way of building humble states of mind and when one is humble, that will benefit others as well.

All practices that come from the Buddha's teaching are like this: Benefiting both the practitioner and the beings the practitioner comes into contact with. We practice to build wholesome states for ourselves. The less we are unwholesome the less others will suffer because of us and the more they will be happy when they come into contact with us. We help others by helping ourselves. This is a good kind of selfishness :)


Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release?

There is a non-offence clause under the precept against theft for monks that seems to suggest the goodness of it:

tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu pāse bandhaṃ sūkaraṃ kāruññena muñci. tassa kukkuccaṃ ahosi … pe … “kiṃcitto tvaṃ, bhikkhū”ti? “kāruññādhippāyo ahaṃ, bhagavā”ti. “anāpatti, bhikkhu, kāruññādhippāyassā”ti.
And again there was that time when a certain bhikkhu freed a boar caught in a snare out of compassion. To him there was worry... "What did you have in mind, bhikkhu?" "I was led by compassion, Blessed One." "There is no offence, bhikkhu, for one who is led by compassion."
-- pārājikapāḷi, 1. pārājikakaṇḍaṃ, 2. dutiyapārājikaṃ, vinītavatthu

Certainly there appears to be no conflict with the Dhamma; it is ostensibly a wholesome act, falling under charity, I think.


What does 'Not percipient of form internally' in Salayatana Sutta mean?

Your quote from MN137 appears in several suttas. It is significant:

  ajjhattaṃ arūpasaññī bahiddhā rūpāni passati

The word ajjhattaṃ has a connontation of self, of identity view. In other words, there is a personal relationship to the seen, the heard, etc. In this way, it is very much like "My Precious" from the Lord of the Rings. There is a sense of possession in the internal form. There is the taint of identity.

The word rūpāni has a connotation of non-identity, of simple recognition of form, that which is seen, heard, etc., but without personal identification. One sees a stranger's wedding ring, one sees the wealth embodied in the ring, one sees the proclamation of wealth in a ring, one sees the promises bound into the ring, one sees the hope bound into the ring, one sees the suffering bound into the ring.

The liberations are an important progression of awareness. Suffering, one perceives the world in terms of craving. With each step of liberation, one sees beyond oneself. One sees more of the world as it is and relinquishes identity view.

Seeing things externally, just see them for what they are, not for what they are to you.


There's a World Buddhist Directory which may be helpful (I don't know any personally).

This URL -- http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/search.php?keyword=&search=Search&country_id=42&province_id=0&tradition%5B%5D=mahayana -- returns 35 "Mahayana" matches in India, and several of these are Zen (or probably Zen even if they don't say "Zen").


Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours?

Delay is not a viable strategy.
Instead you should use a wholesome mental reflection, in the spirit of the following sutta quote:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

There is a sutta quote about moderation in eating:

“When a man is always mindful,
knowing moderation in eating,
his discomfort diminishes,
and he ages slowly, taking care of his life.”
SN 3.13

Perhaps your mental reflection can be along the lines of reflecting on what long term suffering will be brought on by consumption of junk food. You will be the owner and heir to the consequences of this action.


U ba Khin / Goenka Vipassana putting stress only on vednanupassana

'Sensations' of the body are generally not 'vedana' (feelings). Instead, they are generally mental formations (sankhara) of stress stored in the physical body, as follows:

  The craving that makes for further becoming —
  accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that —
  grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow.
  His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses &
  mental distresses grow. He is sensitive to bodily stress & mental
  stress. MN 149

'Feelings' ('vedana') refer to the pleasantness & unpleasantness that is associated with sense contact via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind.

  There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. MN 74

  And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from
  nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from
  body-contact, feeling born from mind-contact. This is called
  feeling. SN 12.2

Observing only genuine vedana (feeling) can liberate a bhikkhu, per the Culatanhasankhaya Sutta.

  Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering
  to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he
  fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether
  pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides
  contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings,
  contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing)
  cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go).
  Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the
  world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally
  attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life
  has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
  Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated
  in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end,
  the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the
  ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans. MN 37


It is not a sin.

Lust is born out of desire. Desire is one of the root defilements (kilesas).
It can manifest itself in different ways, e.g. sexual preference, body type preferences etc.

Lust is still lust, no matter what object its involved with.


Is the Ocean Samadhi a metaphor or an actual meditation?

The waves and the ocean metaphor are found in several places in the Lankavatara Sutra where the storehouse consciousness is said to be like the ocean and the waves are like the other seven consciousnesses, so I think the term Ocean Samadhi most likely refers to the state in which the other seven consciousnesses cease.


It is our Perception of the Sensation / Feeling experienced when result bears fruit is what distinguished the Karma as bad and not. I.e., Bad Karma is what you Perceive the results as undesirable and Good Karma is what we would perceive the results as favourable when the doer experiences the result, as well as skill full when this is conducive to reach the Buddhist Goal of Nirvana and un skilful when it is un conducive in reaching the final goal.

Say you kill you will experience the same when your actions catcher upto you. Hence what is needed is to treat other like you would be treated, or treatments you would evaluate positively if you experience it.

Also there is skilfulness of your action towards the goal of liberation. In this light any action which creates fabrication which hamper concentration and insight or the opportunity to practice can be considered unwholesome. Killing has aversion and / or craving as base. This creates fabrication which give painful sensation when meditating which will hamper concentration, insight as well as the needed longevity and conducive human birth to practice Vipassana hence such actions are un skilful.

For a worldly person (or someone not very deep and intensive in Vipassana) it is helpful to build-up Perception (Sanna) what these are good action and bad action so he is steered away from un skilful / un wholesome action towards skilful / wholesome action. As Perception clouds your sense of reality such mental maps ultimately have to be dissolved away too.


Is the Mind (Citta) the Self? If not, what is it?

1. If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied?

The mind is only 'not-self' from the viewpoint of enlightenment & truth. But for the unenlightened mind, the mind is 'self' because of ignorance ('blindness').

The mind is ideally 'emptied' so it can see clearly, similar to cleaning a window or mirror. It is emptied of the pollutants that obscure clear seeing, similar to a window or mirror cleaned from dust.

The Pali scriptures describe this in the Sangaravo Sutta.

  Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not
  studied. Sangaravo Sutta

  2. If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness?

The mind has a wisdom faculty to discern emptiness. It is not possible to explain how or why this can occur. The Pali suttas simply say:

  Discernment (wisdom/panna) & consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
  Mahavedalla Sutta

Jesus Christ said:

  If the flesh came into being because of spirit (consciousness), that is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, that is the wonder of
  wonders. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in
  this poverty.

  Gospel of Thomas

  3. If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self?

The citta is not a self. It is impermanent. It is not-self. To quote:

  "All things are not-self". Dhammapada 279.

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness' (vinanna) by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Assutavā Sutta

  4. If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

Nothing owns or ultimately controls the five aggregates, as was explained at the start of the Buddha's 2nd sermon. However, the mind itself, via enlightenment, can control its mental formations (sankhara) while the mind is alive.

SN 12.12 states there is no "who" that is conscious. The idea of "who" arises later at clinging & "becoming":

  "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a
  condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling.'"

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One....the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What
  is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is:
  'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of
  clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.

As previously said, the mental faculties are named according to their functions:

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus,therefore it is called perception.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it formation/construct? ‘They construct the constructions,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called
  formations.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.

  SN 22.79


Following are some pointers:

Nagita Thera

An arahant. He belonged to a Sakiyan family in Kapilavatthu and entered the Order after hearing the preaching of the Madhupindika Sutta.
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha he was a Brahmin, named Narada, and uttered three stanzas in praise of the Buddha. He was once a king named Sumitta (Thag.vs.86; ThagA.i.183f). He is probably identical with Atthasandassaka of the Apadana (Ap.i.169).

Nagita Thera

For some time the personal attendant of the Buddha (D.i.151; DA.i.310; A.iii.31, 341; iv.341; J.iv.95, etc.). He was the maternal uncle of the novice Siha, who is said to have addressed him by the name of Kassapa, his gotta name. He was fat and, therefore, lazy; he got most of his work done by Siha.

Nagita Thera

A thera of Ceylon, author of the Saddasaratthajalini. Gv.p.74; Svd.vs.1249.

Nagita Sutta

Once, when the Buddha went to Icchanangala, the brahmin householders there came, in large numbers, to pay him their respects and made great uproar outside. When Nagita, the Buddhas personal attendant at the time, told him the cause of the clamour, the Buddha replied that he had nothing to do with homage; his concern was with renunciation. He went on to state five inevitable things: whosoever eats and drinks must answer the calls of nature; whosoever loves is destined to sorrow and despair; whosoever dwells on the asubha must feel disgust for the subha; whosoever sees impermanence in the six spheres of contact feels disgust for contact; whosoever sees the rise and fall in the five kinds of attachment, must feel disgust for attachment. A.iii.31ff.

Nagita Sutta

The circumstances are the same as those of No. 1. The Buddha tells Nagita that he is pleased with monks who do not live in the village, but who seek the forest and stave off gains and flattery, but to him the best is to walk on the highway unattached. A.iii.341ff.; cp. ibid., iv.341ff.

You can try to follow the references given above.
As for the story of Nagita Thera donating a Katina robe and the merits gained, I have heard this only appears in a later composition bellowing to the Kandyan period. Therefore this may not appear in the Tripitaka, Commentaries and Sub Commentaries. Therefore, this perticular story will not be there in the Apadāna.


Is forgiving someone an issue in Buddhism and what does it mean?

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

Source: Dhammapada Verse 5 Kalayakkhini Vatthu
In Buddhism forgiveness is between one another than by an external agency. Having said this no external agency is behind Karma. It is only your tainted or pure mind. And once done the results follow.

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

Source: Dhammapada Verse 1 Cakkhupalatthera Vatthu
... similarly for good deeds good results follow ...

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

Source: Dhammapada Verse 2 Matthakundali Vatthu
Following highlights no external agency can affect Karma than the mind itself:

This is explained in the Pathama Mahanama Sutta, by the simile of an earthern pot filled partly with gravels and stones and partly with fat and butter. By throwing this pot into water and smashing it with a stick, it will be seen that gravels and stones quickly sink to the bottom while fat and butter rise to the surface of the water. Likewise, when a person who has established himself in the five wholesome dhammas of faith, conduct, learning, charity and insight dies, his body remains to get decomposed but his extremely purified mental continuum continues in higher states of existence as birth-linking consciousness, patisandhi citta.
In the concluding suttas are expositions on the Middle Path, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Path of Eight Constituents.

Source: Guide to Tipitaka - 6. Samyutta Nikaya by Professor Ko Lay


Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally?

Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga Khandhavibhaṅga:

Therein what is internal consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called internal consciousness.
Therein what is external consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that other being, for other persons is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called external consciousness.


Is it wrong-view to think there might be more than 5 aggregates?

There are only two realities: saṅkhāra (dependent origination such as aggregate) and asaṅkhāra (no dependent origination such as nibbāna). All others are paññatti (concept;imagine;not reality) because saṅgkhāra must have tree sub-characteristics and asaṅkhāra must have not tree sub-characteristics. But paññatti has nothing, it can't arise like saṅkhāra and can't cease saṅkhāra like nibbāna.
By VN Parivāra of upāli-etadagga:

Aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā, dukkhānattā ca saṅkhatā; Nibbānañceva paññatti,
anattā iti nicchayā.
Saṅkhāra, which means saṅkhata(effect-saṅkhāra)*, is
anicca&dukkha&anattā; But only nibbāna&paññatti which are explained
as only anattā.
(*Saṅkhāra, which means cause-saṅkhāra, use in more fixed meaning word, such as saṅkhāra-khandha, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda. You can notice it
in each context, because it is already appear clearly.)

And by KN Paṭisambhidāmagga of sāriputta-mahāsāvaka:

sabbe  saṅkhārā  aniccā  sabbe  saṅkhārā  dukkhā sabbe     dhammā     anattāti
All saṅkhāra are anicca, all saṅkhāra are dukkha, and all dhammā are anattā.

There is no saṅkhāra which is not aggregates (Khandhavinimuttako hi saṅkhāro nāma natthi.)
Below, the second group is the conclusion of the first group, Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

"Aggivessana, 2 the Blessed One disciplines his disciples in this way; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples: ('Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant.)
Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. (All fabrications are inconstant.) All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which the Blessed One disciplines his disciples; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples."

However, "All phenomena are not-self" in above context include more than "Form is inconstant", because it include more two, nibbāna and paññatti, as I have described above.
Abhidhamma and atthakathā have this same explanation as well.


Suffering caused by uncertainty of whether actions will cause more or less physical pain to dying family member?

I think part of the Buddhist doctrine is that you should try to do what's ethical -- decide what's ethical, the "right" thing to do, and do that.
And then even if the outcome is sad, at least you don't regret (or feel remorse about) your action -- because your intention was correct, you did the best you could or knew at the time.
What's considered "ethical" is spelled out in some detail for monks. I believe it includes looking after each other in times of sickness ...

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Buddhism is less detailed on the subject of lay ethics, but I believe it does include supporting one's parents as may be possible (SN 2.4 and DN 31).
It may be that the right thing to do -- or the best you can do in the circumstances -- varies from person to person, time to time, place to place.
I'm sorry to hear you feel responsible for managing physical pain, even though you're not a doctor.

When I've been in a situation like yours I understand it's my responsibility to ask the patient, "Would you like me to take you to see a doctor?", and make another appointment or perhaps go to a hospital's Emergency department with them.
I feel it's also my responsibility to understand the doctors' diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, and care plan -- especially to whatever extent the patient can't -- to help the communication between the patient and the doctors and nurses.
I also want to not cause the patient unnecessary worry or grief, when I'm with them and able to talk with them.

I don't want to tell you what a doctor should, but my understanding is that one should expect pain to increase as cancer progresses, and doctors should expect to adjust the prescription as time goes by. I'd generally expect from my experience that a doctor will change the prescription only when they see the patient (i.e. not without seeing the patient), so when you think it's time for a new prescription then it's time to arrange another doctor's visit. I also expect that nurses (or sometimes other care-givers like family, if they're told how) might administer a prescription -- count pills, keep an eye on the time of day -- but only a doctor decides what the prescription is.
You might find this helpful too -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying.
I think I read somewhere that on average fewer opiates are used/prescribed in palliative care in Buddhist countries. I can't tell you whether that's good or bad, I suppose it's a topic for doctors and patients (and families) to negotiate in specific circumstances. There's a little mention about the trade-off in that article for nurses -- see the paragraph which begins "Taking into consideration overall well-being" ...

However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opiods for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices. In concordance with good practice and recognizing that the individual needs of each patient will differ,nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain relief, and should clearly document the preferences of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly during initial patient assessment regardless of the setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

... though I imagine that's an "FYI" for nurses and the actual decision is to be made and agreed between the doctor and the patient (or the family who acts as the patient's "guardian" or "parent" if the patient isn't conscious enough to decide).
Also I'd add that so far as I know, doctors are quite careful not to kill their patients -- not to give an overdose, too much too soon. Part of what happens is that the patient's tolerance for the medicine might increase -- which is sometimes part of the reason why the doctor can (safely) and/or must (for it to be effective) increase the dose -- but it's the doctor's job to know how, what, when, and how much to prescribe, so that it continues to be effective (beneficial) without being unduly harmful.
Lastly it may be worth mentioning or remembering the brahmaviharas. According to this author

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I think that the four include, "I don't want to harm you", "I admire your goodness" (as well as, "equanimity").


Who actually is the 'Devil King Of the Sixth Heaven'?

Mara is the leader of a faction in the 6th heaven:

(11) Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.

He's neither the king there nor the king of all demons. Demons mostly belong to the first heaven. That faction is just opposed to anyone trying to attain enlightenment or lead others to enlightenment.
People who commit suicide usually have an unskillful state of mind in their final moments. So it is most likely that they end up in a lower realm. But there can be rare exceptions.


Is there any point in learning meditation from an unenlightened person?

If there are arahants living, it would make more sense to learn from them. But that being the case, it's quite hard to identify them, and they vow not to openly declare such accomplishment.

In these circumstances, consider the negative answer: after deciding there is no point in learning from an unenlightened person we still have to face the fact that we are left as unenlightened being subject to suffering.

The same question applies to the suttas: are they the actual words of the Buddha? If we allow the "maybe not" answer, does this mean it render the texts useless?

In the end, the burden is on the learner, to be autonomous, critical, and to learn to evaluate his/her own steps, directions and options, even if he is, often times, not in the best position to perform these evaluations. And as @Crab suggested, learning is "incremental", and we naturally can learn from people who know "a little more". For example, we don't need to demand isaac newton to teach us physics, nor it makes much sense to only regard nobel laureates able to teach their fields. A school teacher might do "just fine". Of course, there are limits to "just fine", as an unenlightened teacher is subject to mistakes -- and that's were the tension lies.

The fact is that, in our generation, that's our circumstance and that's what we have at our disposal. And we have to work with it.


If anatta is a reality, then how do you explain Volition or Will?

Anatta means that there is no permanent self, not that there is no self at all. That would be just silly and contradict observation. Imagine the self as a car. Every day one part of the car is replaced with another. One day the right headlight, the other day the windscreen, the third day the rear left wheel. And so on. At some point, all the pieces of the car have changed, but can you say exactly when the first car changed into the second? You can't, but at the same time you can't claim that the car you end with is the same as the car you began with. Similarly, just think about yourself when you were five years old. Was it you, was it another version of you, or was it another person, with different tastes, making different choices?

The key point is that self and will are conditioned phenomena subject to change, to birth, to death. So the decision-maker and the will-maker are conditioned, constructed phenomena subject to change, birth, death. There is some uncanny science going on that shows that sometimes we make decisions before we are aware of having made them. Who is the will-maker now? The real illusion is not that there is a conditional self or not, but that we are in power.


Did Lord Buddha preach not to believe our own minds?

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html


How important is motivation in determining the virtue/non-virtue of a karmic action?

Intention is indeed the most important element of karma.

From Dhammapada 1:

  On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have
  no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked
  why Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told
  the following story:

  Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 1: All mental
  phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
  chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
  'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
  that draws the cart.

Also showing the importance of intention is Dhammapada 124:

  At Rajagaha there was once a rich man's daughter who had attained
  Sotapatti Fruition as a young girl. One day, Kukkutamitta, a hunter,
  came into town in a cart to sell venison. Seeing Kukkutamitta the
  hunter, the rich young lady fell in love with him immediately; she
  followed him, married him and lived with him in a small village. As a
  result of that marriage, seven sons were born to them and in course of
  time, all the sons got married. One day, the Buddha surveyed the world
  early in the morning with his supernormal power and found that the
  hunter, his seven sons and their wives were due for attainment of
  Sotapatti Fruition. So, the Buddha went to the place where the hunter
  had set his trap in the forest. He put his footprint close to the trap
  and seated himself under the shade of a bush, not far from the trap.

  When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the
  footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let
  cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the
  bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap
  and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the
  Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained
  fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found
  their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he
  must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and
  arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and
  remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his
  sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the
  forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all
  her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her
  hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."

  When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my
  father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather";
  and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to
  them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father".
  The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and
  his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to
  move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their
  bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha
  expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons
  and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti
  Fruition.

  Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and told Thera Ananda and
  other bhikkhus about the hunter Kukkutamitta and his family attaining
  Sotapatti Fruition in the early part of the morning. The bhikkhus then
  asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a
  sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting
  things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out
  hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the
  sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
  wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
  him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
  also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
  evil."

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 124: If there is no
  wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one
  who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
  intention.


Significance of hand placement in forming mudra

Short Answer: It doesn't matter.

Long Answer

Some postures are said to be more conducive to concentration, and perhaps this is true to a certain extent.  Perhaps there is something with certain hand placements which may help keep people a bit more focused (maybe the bare attention required to keep fingers barely touching, for instance). However, don't make too much of this.  Ultimately, how you sit is a means to help facilitate your concentration and mindfulness, unless you believe that your suffering in life can be solved by how you hold your hands.


Materiality not materiality but mentality

The Pali scriptures refer to materiality (rupa). While materiality can only be known/experienced with mentality; this does not make materiality something mental.

  Whatever, Rāhula, is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the
  head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones,
  marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is
  hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived
  therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal element of extension.
  Whatever is an internal element of extension and whatever is an
  external element of extension, just these are the element of
  extension (earth).

  And what, Rāhula, is the liquid element? The liquid element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal liquid
  element? Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus,
  blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine
  or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  liquid element. Whatever is an internal liquid element and whatever is
  an external liquid element, just these are the liquid element.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of heat? The heat element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal heat
  element? Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is
  vitalised, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up,
  and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is
  properly transformed (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat,
  warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom,
  this, Rāhula, is called the internal heat element. Whatever is an
  internal element of heat and whatever is an external element of heat,
  just these are the element of heat.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of motion? The element of motion may
  be internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal
  element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to
  an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards,
  winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds
  that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or
  whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  element of motion. Whatever is an internal element of motion and
  whatever is an external element of motion, just these are the element
  of motion.

  Mahārāhulovāda Sutta

Suttas AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 say Dhamma Law exists outside of experience of it. Therefore, Buddhism does not say the only things that exist are those things that are experienced.

If only things in mental experience existed then, based on the experience of the puthujjana (unenlightened person), Nibbana/Nirvana would not exist.

Udana 1.1 says:

  When things [previously unexperienced] become manifest to the ardent meditating brahman; all his
  doubts then vanish since he understands each thing along with its
  cause.

Since enlightenment is knowing/experiencing things that were previously unknown/unexperienced, it is illogical to say Buddhism only says what is experienced is what exists. If Buddhism actually said this then Buddhism would be giving priority to the existence of unenlightened experiences, which is obviously not the case. Since Buddhism gives priority to teaching about things, such as jhana & Nirvana, which are not experienced by most people, then Buddhism is obviously teaching mostly about things that do not exist in the experience of most people.


Can binaural recordings enhance my meditative experiences?

I think this comes from a a common misapprehension of what meditation is and what it's supposed to do.  Simply sitting down on the cushion in search of a "bliss out" experience or for the purposes of changing one's consciousness is a dead end that even the Buddha wandered down early in his spiritual career (e.g. his time with Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama).

Just changing brain waves literally disembodies your practice.  It bypasses the our physical form which is perhaps our greatest ally and teacher on the path. The path meditation is a gestalt that incorporates not just changes in brain patterns, but everything from how you cope with the pain in your legs and back, the effort and resolve it takes to sit day in and day out with no immediately perceivable results, the psychological snags we have to work through etc. etc. etc. [x1,000!]

What you described may causes changes in consciousness, but these changes will ultimately prove to be superficial.  They are mere vacations from our suffering and not a complete termination of their causes.


What's the difference between Samma Sambuddho and Buddho

According to the Visuddhimagga in its description of the contemplation of the attributes of the Buddha:

  Vism. XII

  He  is  fully  enlightened  (sammásambuddha)  because  he  has  discovered (buddha) all things rightly (sammá) and by himself (sámaí).

  ...

  He is enlightened (buddha) with the knowledge that belongs to the fruit of liberation, since everything that can be known has been
  discovered (buddha) by him.

So the tittle Samasambuddho refers specifically to the Buddha's attainment as the result of self effort, and the title Buddho refers to the attainment itself.

Also, the term Buddho refers to any being that has seen the truth, so a Paccekabuddha is one who attains enlightenment on their own but doesn't teach, and if I'm not too mistaken an Arahat can technically be called an Anubuddha, meaning one who attains enlightnenment through following the teaching of a Sammasambuddha.


Would Buddhists object if Gautama Buddha were seen as a Prophet by Islam

You see friend, it's a sad state of affairs. Even the Buddhists of this site reject your respect of our teacher on the grounds that your faith is wrong in their eyes. And if your faith is "wrong", your respect must be misplaced, is that what we are saying? What a shame!
You are not asking for much - not asking to accept your faith, not asking for their respect, just asking to accept yours and even that you are denied! What a sad sad sad world.
You know what? You actually are free to respect whoever is worthy of respect, it's up to you to measure your respect and give him a title of Prophet, or a Wise One, or an Awakened One, or whatever title you see fit.
Did Buddha teach unity or division? Buddha taught unity. Did Buddha teach "only this is right, anything else is wrong"? The Buddha taught the danger of attachment to one-sided views, and the escape from attachment to one-sided views. Whoever speaks on behalf of the Buddha in the voice of division - misrepresents the Buddha.
The message of enlightenment is the message of non-hatred, message of non-division, message of non-attachment. It is the message of peace, the message of love. The flavor is unmistakable and you can see it in any religion, whether it goes in the same depths of psychology as Buddhism or not, any true teaching is a teaching of consolidation, not quarrel of "us" vs "them".
So thank you for making this step and stretching your hand across the divide, brother. I'm confident this step is right and the history will confirm it.


How closely related are the concepts of Karma and Pavlovian conditioning?

While habits are part of the workings of karma, it is not reasonable to say that what you described (habit to fight leads to beating) is Buddhist notion of karma. It may be correct other way around, though—some unwholesome karma is ripening while you exercise habit to fight.

Karma is similar to idiom "you reap what you sow" but with some added complexity. What you will reap is not need to be the same or feel the same as what you sow. In Buddhist concept of karma, unwholesome actions, when sown, will certainly reap into unwholesome fruits. What will be reaped is not mirror of what is sown, but it is consequence of what was sown. So when you sow action that should result in suffering, you will reap suffering for sure.


How can we make compatible the 'ehipassiko' aspect of the Dhamma with the faith aspects of it?

In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html), it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either. However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma.

I don't see any contradiction in the suttas. Sorta like a college math professor telling 5th graders not to conjecture about the working of calculus, differential equations, etc. But once the students have made it thru high school and into college, taking more advanced math and they'll be able to "come and see" and find out for themselves. Similarly, there're many things in the Dhamma that can be verified, some can be verified in the here and now, some would require thorough training with much dedication and effort down the line.


Distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana

The Dharmaguptaka school was one of the old 18 to 20 early schools of Buddhism that arose before the arrival of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism is really just a blanket term we use to refer to groups that started following various new sutras that were written after this period which have an emphasis on Bodhisattva practice and various other new doctrines.

When this Mahayana movement started out, it wasn't yet a defined school and didn't have any organization, and its followers were just members of the other early sects who chose to follow these texts. For example, it was common for a period of time for a Saravastivadin monastery to have Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks living and practicing together. Because they followed the same Vinaya, it didn't really matter. Eventually in India however, Mahayana Buddhism developed into distinct schools such as Madhyamika, Yogacara, etc... and all that remained of most of these schools were their canonical texts (which were still upheld as canonical by the Mahayana schools) and their ordination lineages.

In brief, for a time, some Dharmaguptakas were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Dharmaguptaka. Some Sarvastivada were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Sarvastivada, and the same pattern repeats for almost all of the sects. Eventually though, the only non-Mahayana school to live on as a body of teachings rather than just an ordination lineage and a textual transmission was the Theravada school, and all the non-Theravada lineages were simply absorbed into Mahayana Buddhism.


How about the eponymous Sappurisa Sutta (AN 4.73):

  "Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a
  person of integrity.' Which four?

  "There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, does not
  reveal another person's bad points, to say nothing of when unasked.
  Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who
  speaks of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with
  omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable
  one is a person of integrity.'

  "Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another
  person's good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when
  asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another
  person's good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without
  holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a
  person of integrity.'

  "Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad
  points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when
  pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in
  full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this
  person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'

  "Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his
  own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when
  asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own
  good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back.
  Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of
  integrity.'

  "Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a
  person of integrity.'"

And also the eponymous Sappurisa Sutta (MN 113):

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through having a
  high-ranking family that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's
  not through having a high-ranking family that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  has not gone forth from a high-ranking family, if — practicing the
  Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who
  follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.'
  So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself
  for having a high-ranking family nor disparages others. This is the
  quality of a person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through having a family
  of extensive wealth that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's
  not through having a family of extensive wealth that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  has not gone forth from a family of extensive wealth, if — practicing
  the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one
  who follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for
  that.' So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts
  himself for having a family of extensive wealth nor disparages others.
  This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being well-known
  & highly regarded that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being well-known & highly regarded that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  is not well-known & highly regarded, if — practicing the Dhamma in
  line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows
  the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So,
  giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself for
  being well-known nor disparages others. This is the quality of a
  person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through gains that the
  quality of greed goes to its end; it's not through gains that the
  quality of aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even
  though one is not one who gains robe-cloth, alms-food, lodgings, &
  medicinal requisites for the sick, if — practicing the Dhamma in line
  with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the
  Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving
  priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself for his gains
  nor disparages others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being a
  Dhamma-speaker that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being a Dhamma-speaker that the quality of aversion... the
  quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one is not a
  Dhamma-speaker, if — practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma,
  practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the Dhamma, he is to be
  honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving priority just to the
  practice, he neither exalts himself for being a Dhamma-speaker nor
  disparages others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being a
  wilderness dweller that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being a wilderness dweller that the quality of aversion... the
  quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one is not a
  wilderness dweller, if — practicing the Dhamma in line with the
  Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the Dhamma, he
  is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving priority just
  to the practice, he neither exalts himself for being a wilderness
  dweller nor disparages others. This is the quality of a person of
  integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being one who
  eats only one meal a day that the quality of greed goes to its end;
  it's not through being one who eats only one meal a day that the
  quality of aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even
  though one is not one who eats only one meal a day, if — practicing
  the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one
  who follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for
  that.' So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts
  himself for being one who eats only one meal a day nor disparages
  others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "But a person of integrity notices, 'The Blessed One has spoken of
  non-fashioning even with regard to the attainment of the first jhāna,
  for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from
  that.'  So, giving priority to non-fashioning, he neither exalts
  himself for the attainment of the first jhāna nor disparages others.
  This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "A person of integrity notices, 'The Blessed One has spoken of
  non-fashioning even with regard to the attainment of the dimension of
  neither perception nor non-perception, for by whatever means they
  construe it, it becomes otherwise from that.' So, giving priority to
  non-fashioning, he neither exalts himself for the attainment of the
  dimension of neither perception nor non-perception nor disparages
  others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.

  "A person of integrity, completely transcending the dimension of
  neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the
  cessation of feeling & perception. When he sees with discernment, his
  effluents are ended. This is a monk who does not construe anything,
  does not construe anywhere, does not construe in any way."


How does this piece of Vasitha's yoga fit with Buddhist thought?

Yes, in regard of Upasaka Thiago Silva answer.

Seems like the approach of what the Buddha called "the Uposatha of the Niganthas (Jains)"

See: Muluposatha Sutta: The Roots of the Uposatha


The New Age concept of God or Universal Consciousness

By the way the question is framed it implies that buddhism accepts a creator God or Universal Consciousness. Buddhism do not accept any of them. The Buddha refuted both the eternalist and annihilationist view as being 2 extremes that cannot take place. A creator God and the Universal Consciousness belongs to the eternalist view.

By saying that there is a creator God one is saying that there exists a first cause.

That can never be true since it will break causality by asking "what preceeded this first cause?".

And further "what cause preceeded that cause which preceeded the first cause?". One can do that endlessly and will thereby stumble into infinite regress.

In short your question is not related to buddhism.

Lanka


Are there Material Differences of Current Theravada Teachings with Pre Sectarian Buddhism?

AFAIK, nothing can be definitively sourced back to the Buddha.

With that said you have...

The Ghandaran Buddhist Texts which are the oldest Buddhist writings yet discovered.  This doesn't mean they're the words of the Buddha, but if you go by the assumption that older is more likely to reflect the founder's intent (not necessarily true!), then this is one path.
Various historical studies on Early Buddhism, including this page. These studies can get technical and may not be satisfying to a practitioner. They may also spend a fair amount of time studying the context of Buddhism.  Another source (I don't know if it's early enough) is this book, freely available online.


Are impressions or vasanas found in the Pali Canon?

Vasana (Tendency Continues Life After Life)
Predisposition plays a role in a person's life, past or present. Tendency to proliferate bad habits in promoted by kelisa (mental defilement). Vasana based on morality
or good deeds is classified as samma chanda (wholesome wish). This vasana is inherent in the mind-continuum of all beings. Thus in your past kamma actions if you
have cultivated greed along with them, your vasana will now be greedy in nature. If
you do not reform this bad tendency in this existence, raga carita vasana will continue to dominate you in your future births as well. Dosa, moha, and vitakka characters
also, will continue to dominate likewise. If you are endowed with paññā carita now
and if you cultivate wisdom continually, this tendency will produce its own result here
and hereafter. You will be reborn a person with paññā in forthcoming existences.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Ashin Janakabhivamsa


If you read my answer to question about attention, you will see how I explain the process of attending, which is exactly what you're asking about.

From this explanation it becomes clear and almost obvious, that the cause of losing attention is that some other stimulus creates more active associations in you than the object you're trying to attend to. So those new associations crowd out perceptions and thoughts about the original object, and so you switch the focus.

The root of the problem is, you have more interest in other topics than in the object you're trying to focus on.

Maybe you have inner resistance/aversion to this object. Maybe you are lazy because you don't believe in success of your exercise. Maybe you are simply not familiar with the object of meditation and so you have nothing to think about it. Either way the object is not creating enough reaction in you to remain engaging.

One way to fix all this, instead of forcing your attention to stay there by force, is to do active investigation of the object you're attending to - to examine it, look at it from all sides, compare it, analyze it, research it, examine your attitude to the object, - and this way you will generate a lot of associations leading back to the same object, and so your attention will remain with it.


In my opinion and experience, a job of a manager or executive/director is pretty compatible with Buddhism. If you apply all teachings of Buddha to managing people, you can be both very successful and help people under you grow.


I'm afraid any answer to this is going to be speculative, so not a perfect SE question. Here is my theory:

Most of the early Mahayana texts were written either in Hybrid Sanskrit or in Gandhari Prakrit because their authors were the descendants of Aryans living in the Gandhara region. Historically, that area has always been much more "sanskritized" than the rest of India, see below for my explanation as to why.  So when Buddhism reached Gandhara, it was only natural for the educated locals to write their thoughts about Buddhism in a language that they both spoke and knew how to write - and that was Hybrid Gandhari Sanskrit.

Here is some background information in support of this thesis:

As you all know, Classical Sanskrit is an idealized written form of the language that the original Aryans actually spoke (some modern scientists call it "Prakrit" and other call it "Vedic Sanskrit"). Sort of like Classical Latin is an idealized written form of the language that the original Romans actually spoke.
Originally, Aryans came from Iran and settled in what today is south of Afghanistan, along what used to be Sarasvati river. Then, when the tectonic shifts in Himalayas made Sarasvati change its course and start falling into Ganges, the Aryan tribes started migrating further east, carrying their language and culture with them, and mixing with the indigenous population. This led to a range of dialects emerging along the Ganges, from the purest form of Vedic Sanskrit in the west to the most corrupted vernaculars in the east. This process was accompanied by social stratification, with "more civilized" Aryans on the top and "less civilized" locals at the bottom - this was how the infamous casts or varnas begun.

Sorry about the map labels being in Russian, I drew it a long time ago and don't have time at the moment to fix the labels. But from the overall shape and the colors, I hope you can see the state of Aryan assimilation by the time the Buddha comes on stage. The blue states on the left are more Aryan, speaking almost pure Sanskrit - and the orange states on the right are more the original people, speaking their own languages partially mixed with Sanskrit to form various dialects like e.g. Pali. The region of Gandhara is not highlighted on my map, but it is that area with multiple rivers  to the left of the leftmost Indian state.

There was a big university there in Gandhara, called Takshasila University - and thanks to the proximity of Persian and Greek Empires I suppose this region was a lot more educated and literate than the rest of India, back in the day.
Most of the Mahayana scripts written in Sanskrit (either Hybrid or Gandhari) were discovered at archaeological sites located in the Gandhara area.
Many of the great Mahayana lineages recognized in Tibetan Buddhism, trace their beginning to enlightened masters from Oddiyana which is basically the same area.
Sarvastivada school left their version of Canon written down in Sanskrit, and we know that Sarvastivada was essentially centered in that same very region of Gandhara/Oddiyana.
Milinda-Panha (Questions of King Milinda) - a late Canonical text whose story is set in Sagala, a city just to the east of Gandhara region, was probably originally written in the Gandhari language.
At least some of the Mahayana sutras only available in Chinese show linguistical evidence of having been translated from the Gandhari dialect of Sanskrit.

All this is to say that ancient people of Gandhara/Oddiyana who wrote Buddhist texts in Sanskrit did not violate Buddha's rule prescribing people to "learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect" - because Sanskrit was a written version of the language they actually spoke.

Then, from Gandhara, Buddhism has spread to other countries including China via the Silk Road, as well as Tibet.


What are proper expectations to have about a Sangha?

It depends on which Buddhist tradition that particular temple belongs to.

To avoid rampant anti-Japanese racism in America stemming from the 1940s, when Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps, Japanese Buddhist branches like Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu conformed themselves to a more western model of creating religious spaces when they settled in America. This is why the American branch of Jodo Shinshu is called "Buddhist Churches of America". They often have pews, a minister speaking from the pulpit, youth groups, etc.

Temples from other traditions usually don't model their space after western religious models. The sangha's "mode of operation" depends on the tradition, which school of thought that sangha follows within it's own tradition, and of course, the Buddhists themselves. So when visiting, these sanghas should be understood on their own terms as much as possible, leaving expectations at the door.


How could the Buddha know that he had attained enlightenment when he didn't know what it was?

In the third watch of the night He had the knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers, knowing that He had eradicated all defilements and made an end of ill.

The Three Supreme Knowledges of Lord Buddha

So the Buddha knew he had overcome defilements and was enlightened due to knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers.

Also with the arising of knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers the Buddha knew what enlightenment was.


What is the real meaning of the Pali-word adukkhamasukham in the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta?

I think it's literally close to 'not suffering but not pleasure'

“And what is the pleasure-faculty? Any physical pleasure, physical comfort born of body-contact to be experienced as pleasure & comfort. That is called the pleasure-faculty.
“And what is the pain-faculty? Any physical pain, physical discomfort
born of body-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That is
called the pain-faculty.
“And what is the happiness-faculty? Any mental pleasure, mental
comfort born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pleasure &
comfort. That is called the happiness -faculty.
“And what is the distress-faculty? Any mental pain, mental discomfort
born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That
is called the distress-faculty.
“And what is the equanimity-faculty? Anything, physical or mental, to
be experienced as neither comfort nor discomfort. That is called the
equanimity-faculty.
“With regard to this, the pleasure-faculty & happiness-faculty are to
be seen as a feeling of pleasure. The pain-faculty & distress-faculty
are to be seen as a feeling of pain. The equanimity-faculty is to be
seen as a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. Thus, by this
exposition, the five are three; and the three, five.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN48_38.html

"'The thirty-six states to which beings are attached should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Six kinds of
household joy & six kinds of renunciation joy; six kinds of household
distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of household
equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity.
"And what are the six kinds of household joy? The joy that arises when
one regards as an acquisition the acquisition of forms cognizable by
the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, connected with
worldly baits — or when one recalls the previous acquisition of such
forms after they have passed, ceased, & changed: That is called
household joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises
when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change,
fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually
is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject
to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household distress? The distress that
arises when one regards as a non-acquisition the non-acquisition of
forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming,
endearing, connected with worldly baits — or when one recalls the
previous non-acquisition of such forms after they have passed, ceased,
& changed: That is called household distress. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress
coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing
for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of
those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with
right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present,
are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with
this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the
noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation
distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations,
& ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
of action [2] & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html