What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?

I personally find it difficult to accept that Buddhism is compatible with violence:

The first precept is I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
On the eightfold path, the definition of right and wrong livelihood (career) prohibits Business in weapons (also, slavery and prostitution, meat, intoxicants, and poison)
When you consider whether you should be "fighting against an enemy who is hell-bent", remember the verses at the very beginning of the Dhammapada,

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

However, there are nominally Buddhist countries, which have soldiers. For example,
In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka includes innumerable quotes, from people who are arguing for and against violence, including quotes like,

  "Though some Sri Lankan Buddhist interpreters of Buddhism, including the
  Venerable Walpola Rahula, have claimed that “violence in any form, under any
  pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha,” and thus
  of Buddhism, some Buddhists that I interviewed in Sri Lanka during the summers
  of 1997 and 1998 suggested that war can be justified if certain criteria are met. In
  this chapter, I shall highlight the “just-war thinking” that a section of Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka argues shaped Dutugemunu’s conscience, and examine what
  foundation there is, if any, for such thinking in Theravada Buddhism, in general."

  "we have to peacefully fight our enemies"

  "killing to defend the
  country or the sasana, therefore, brings few negative karmic repercussions, because
  the intention is to save, rather than to harm"

  "As we determined in Chapter 2 of this study, due to monks’ perceptions of
  themselves as “sons of the soil,” or bhumiputras, the sangha perpetuates and
  reinforces the idea that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalas who are Buddhist. As
  Professor Aryarasinghe’s political party’s platform makes clear, however,
  bhumiputra ideology is not the monks’ alone; lay Buddhists, too, deem themselves
  to be sons of the soil. As we have also seen, the commitment to the soil might
  allow for justifications of violence, even war, if certain conditions are met. At the
  same time, there are a number of lay people and, in particular, monks, who are
  committed to their other “historic” mission, that is, to being exemplars of the
  Buddha’s message of peace, to being sons of the Buddha, or Buddhaputras."

    "Each of us should contribute to the cooling down
    process. If one individual is peaceful it means one less in the violent
    crowd."

  In my interview with Premaratne in 1998, he steadfastly argued that the civil
  war will not be solved in the battlefield; instead, according to Premaratne, we can
  find a resolution to Sri Lanka’s problems in the paradigm of the Buddha’s life and
  in Buddhist ideas about the self. In Premaratne’s view, Buddhism never justifies
  war, and the fact that the Buddha chose to be a universal teacher (world renouncer)
  rather than a cakkavati (world conqueror) demonstrates that peace is superior to
  war."

Specific, notable Buddhists including the Dalai Lama seem to say that it's sometimes "necessary".

So in summary it seems to be difficult to be completely clear about what "Buddhism says": because it's possible to find "mixed messages" on this subject.

I personally think that:

"Abstain from killing" as a number one precept is pretty clear. It reminds me of this article, published in a satirical newspaper (soon after September 11, 2001): God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.
Saying that "killing terrorists doesn't count as killing, they deserve it, they brought death upon themselves, they made me do it" seems to me very dubious logic. For example, quoting from the Mahavamsa as written in the "Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka",

  Dutugemunu asks them
  how he will ever find comfort, considering what he had done, that he had killed
  such a lot of people. The arahants respond with their own just-war thinking:

    Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord
    of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken
    unto himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the
    rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring
    glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast
    away care from the heart, O ruler of men.

Unfortunately this reminds me of the Nazi arguments/propaganda used to commit genocide in Nazi Germany: that people such as the Jews were "sub-human" and, also, were "a threat" (a threat to God's order; threat to German society; threat to German morality; threatening to enslave hard-working Germans; a deadly threat not only to the survival of the German people but to the survival of the world!)
I also don't see how Christians justify war: "Turning the other cheek" seems to me unambiguous. I know that people who are nominally Christian have tried to justify it with the theory of just war but that doesn't seem to me to be Christian: maybe it's life (and death), maybe it's the world, but it's not Christian, IMO.
Supposedly Buddhist doctrine such as,

  "The Buddha replied, 'He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.' These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbor hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, 'The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy."

... seems to me to come from a different tradition (a non-Buddhist Dharma), i.e. it's the central message of the Bhagavad Gita, that man-the-killer is an instrument of God ("Facing the duty to kill his relatives, Arjuna is counselled by Krishna to fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty as a warrior and kill.") ... or in the quote above, a mere instrument of karma.

There's a saying, in the west, that "war is hell".

There is, similarly, quite a famous Zen story on that subject.

As for whether you should "actively participate in a war against evil", or how to participate if you must, my knowledge of non-Buddhist history suggests there have been a (relatively very few) people in the west who, calling themselves "pacifists" and "conscientious objectors", served in non-aggressive, altruistic, personally dangerous roles: for example disposing of unexploded bombs, or acting as medics, and as front-line stretcher-bearers (rescuing the wounded).


Does Buddhism have a significant notion of justice

While I can relate to this somehow, it overlooks one striking and most basic fact of Buddhism: that justice is a law of nature.

In contrast to Greek thought, this means, that the Greeks, since their concept of "the world" or "the universe" was rather empiro-scientific and unrelated to moral (=human) values, had to look for "human" justice or even "define" justice.

In Buddhism (and India in general), the very law of nature is a moral law, the law of kamma/karman. Consider for example the Paṭiccasamuppāda/Pratītyasamutpāda, which can be viewed as a formulation of the Buddhist law of nature or the kosmos, the universe etc.: everything here is treated as subject to cause/condition and effect, without beginning and end. The important thing to notice is that causation is moral causation by good and bad deeds.

To conclude: since the kosmos is just and takes care of retribution, the religio-philosophical thinkers did not have to elaborate differing visions of justice. It is not the humans, that have to take care of it. Seen from this angle, justice is (implicitly maybe) at the very core of Buddhism.


Neither standing nor swimming, I crossed the flood

Following introduction to the Sutta by Piya Tan explains this. There are 7 interpretations from the commentaries. Essentially standing still and swimming here are extremes, and the middle ground is neither of them.

Ogha,taraṇa Sutta

The floods in this context are:

Ogha,taraṇa Sutta


Well, if you can't recognize the difference it is laziness.

Relaxation is samadhi: the collection of mind around an object of meditation.

When we speak of conventional relaxation, what we really mean is letting the defilements do whatever they want to the mind.


What is 'discriminating wisdom' in the early Buddhist texts?

From MN 137 below, we read about the six sense media, one of which is the intellect or mind medium which senses ideas and thoughts.
From MN 137 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'The six internal sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the
nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the
intellect-medium. 'The six internal sense-media should be known':
thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium,
the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile-sensation-medium,
the idea-medium. 'The six external sense-media should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to thus was it said.

It further talks about eighteen explorations of the intellect, basically examining the six sensations for basis of pleasure, pain and neutrality. This includes the idea or thought sensations sensed by the intellect.

"'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus
was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via
the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness,
one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one
explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. Hearing a
sound via the ear ... Smelling an aroma via the nose ... Tasting a
flavor via the tongue ... Feeling a tactile sensation via the body ...
Cognizing an idea via the intellect, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores an idea that can act as
the basis for unhappiness, one explores an idea that can act as the
basis for equanimity. Thus there are six happiness-explorations, six
distress-explorations, and six equanimity-explorations. The eighteen
explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And
in reference to this was it said.

Discussing "discrimination" specifically, there's AN 5.95 quoted below:
From AN 5.95 (translated by K. Nizamis):

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk
penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five?
Here, monks, a
monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who
has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained
discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of
the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the
mind as liberated.
When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a
monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.

The word "discrimination" here is paṭisambhidā. The translator's commentary states as follows. There are more commentaries on other terms in the link to the sutta.

Paṭisambhidā: formed from paṭi- + saṃ- + bhid, where paṭi + saṃ should probably be understood as 'back together', and the verbal root bhid means 'to break, split, sever'. Rhys Davids and Stede
propose that a literal rendering would be "resolving continuous
breaking up", and gloss this as 'analysis, analytic insight,
discriminating knowledge'; moreover, they associate it with the idea
of 'logical analysis' (Pali-English Dictionary, p. 400.2). Bhikkhu
Nyanatiloka similarly renders the term as 'analytical knowledge', but
also as 'discrimination' (Buddhist Dictionary, p. 137). Bhikkhu
Ñāṇamoli voices a divergent view in a note to his translation of in
Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, XIV.8, where he renders paṭisambhidā as
'discrimination':

Paṭisambhidā is usually rendered by 'analysis'... But the Tipiṭaka explanations of the four paṭisambhidā suggest no emphasis on analysis
rather than synthesis... 'Discrimination' has been chosen for
paṭisambhidā because, while it has the sense of 'division', it does
not imply an opposite process as 'analysis' does. Also it may be
questioned whether the four are well described as 'entirely logical':
'entirely epistemological' might perhaps be both less rigid and
nearer; for they seem to cover four interlocking fields, namely:
meanings of statements and effects of causes (etc.), statements of
meanings and causes of effects (etc.), language as restricted to
etymological rules of verbal expression, and clarity (or perspicuous
inspiration) in marshalling the other three. (The Path of
Purification, 5th ed., 1991, p. 804, n. 4)

In this translation, I have decided to follow Ñāṇamoli's rendering of
the term. Even so, 'discrimination' does not so clearly capture the
double sense of both 'taking apart' ('analysis') and 'combining
together' ('synthesis') that seems to be suggested by paṭisambhidā.
One kind of epistemological process which involves both of these
activities is 'classification', in which various things, even within a
given class or group (e.g., attha, 'meaning, result', dhamma,
'principle, cause', nirutti, 'language, means of expression'), are
divided and grouped according to their peculiar differences and
similarities with respect to one another. So, while each of the
paṭisambhidā is itself a classification of a kind of knowledge, it is
also possible that each one is also understood to be a kind of ability
to 'classify' correctly the elements belonging to the kind of
knowledge that falls into its scope.
In Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa (PTS Vism 438), presents a list of what
he considers to be twelve different kinds of paññā ('understanding',
'wisdom'); the set of catasso paṭisambhidā, 'four discriminations', is
the twelfth of these. He goes on to give an extensive discussion of
them (XIV.21-31, PTS Vism 440-443), which, although of interest, is
very much influenced by the Abhidhamma interpretation of the term:
Buddhaghosa begins by citing the definition of the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga
(Vibh 293), and then proceeds to follow the subsequent Vibhaṅga
discussion (XIV.24, Vism 441, citing Vibh 293-295). If Buddhaghosa was
indeed the author of the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (see note 8 below for
details), then his Abhidhamma-based account of the four paṭisambhidā
may well diverge from the original meaning of the term in the period
in which the Suttas evolved and were committed to memory. For the same
reasons, this is very probably also the case for many commentarial
interpretations of earlier Sutta concepts.

Just for comparison, Ven. Sujato's translation of AN 5.95 reads:

“Mendicants, a mendicant who has five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.
“Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhati.
What five?
Katamehi pañcahi?
It’s when a mendicant has attained the textual analysis of meaning,
text, terminology, and eloquence, and they review the extent of their
mind’s freedom.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu atthapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, dhammapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, niruttipaṭisambhidāpatto hoti,
paṭibhānapaṭisambhidāpatto hoti, yathāvimuttaṁ cittaṁ paccavekkhati. A
mendicant who has these five things will soon penetrate the
unshakable.” Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato
bhikkhu nacirasseva akuppaṁ paṭivijjhatī”ti.


Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras in the same way?

There are variations in the classification per school/monastery. All schools divide the canon in Kangyur and Tengyur (resp. original canon and treatises).

The number of Kangyur texts varies. Variations include the Derge, Lhasa, Narthang, Cone, Peking, Urga, Phudrak and Stog Palace versions, each named after the physical location of its compilation.


Does he want to be a Buddha?

I think it's usually expressed as a negative:

Life (or the experience of life) is unsatisfactory when you're not a Buddha; many examples of its being unsatisfactory include poverty, illness, death, separation from people and things you love, inability to have what you want, inability to keep what you have, failure to do what you want to, etc. (sorry for all that bad news! :-) That's the so-called "first noble truth".
This dissatisfaction is caused by desire: I want to live forever! I want all my friends and family, and everything I like, to live forever! I want no pain, no sickness, for anyone! Lots of money! Endless paradise! Never anything unpleasant! But I can't have any of these things and so life is unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "second noble truth".
This dissatisfaction (and desire) can end. If I stop wanting things that are unreal, stop wanting to keep things that are impermanent, then I'll stop finding life unsatisfactory. That's the so-called "third noble truth".

So I think that the Buddha knows (and teaches) that wanting (thirsting for) the wrong things (e.g. impermanent things) causes unhappiness. Dave no longer wants those things and is, consequently, no longer unhappy.

  Will he get what he wants - forever ?

Well, yes: for as long as he's alive. It's assumed that once he became fully enlightened then he will no longer (or not again) become unenlightened. Because being unenlightened means wanting the wrong thing, wanting the kind of impermanent thing that will cause unhappiness: and the Buddha knows better (is wiser and has more discipline) than to do that.

There is a bit in the literature where people asked what happens to a Buddha after he dies, and the Buddha says that's one of the questions that not worth asking.

  is nirvana - just whatever a Buddha wants?

I think it can be described as being liberated (freed) from the dissatisfaction which is caused by wanting or clinging to impermanent things.

So I started to answer: what the Buddha taught might be summarized as "the four noble truths" or as "causes of suffering, and his path or way to end suffering".

And I started this answer by saying it's expressed as a negative ("end of suffering").

But there's more to the teaching than that: joy; serenity; loving-kindness. Removing causes for suffering allows room for other, better experiences, more like the "getting what he wants" which you asked about. For example the Kimattha Sutta mentions words like 'reward', 'joy', 'serenity', etc.

I think that the Buddha also decided that a cause of dissatisfaction (which, he freed himself from) was views about 'self': views like "me" and "mine" etc.

According to the biography, once he became enlightened he felt compassion for other people who were still suffering, and decided to try to teach to them (in case, with the help of his teaching, some of them too could free themselves from suffering). And so he began to teach.

I guess we can say that that (i.e. helping to enlighten other people, other people becoming free and safe) was what he 'wanted'.


Does Buddhism have a concept of avatars?

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self" it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student).

Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.

Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.


I am addicted to Masturbation. What can I do?

Let me start by telling you that I've been in your situation too. So, you are not alone in this.

Denial, repression, justification and guilt: these are four responses/reactions/habits/behaviors that are useless and even harmful when trying to overcome some unwholesome pattern.
If you notice that something is unhealthy (whether for your mind or for your body), you can overcome your obstacle without the need of those four mentioned reaction.

The first step is to accept that something unskillful is being done. I chose the word 'unskillful' over 'bad', because the latter has some culturally loaded and might imply moral connotations. But in this specific situation, if I stick to your post, there's nothing inmoral being done. Understand that and learn to take away from you that innecesary moral shame. Apparently, you are not harming anyone else.

Secondly, you should understand that what you are experiencing are the fruits of some ingrained habit. Your mind has learn how to react under certain stimuli or conditions (those being both internal -from the mind- or external). That habit is NOT "you". That learnt pattern is the consequence of conditions that came together out of your control and will; for instance, you were in your teenage years, you were confused by your feelings, you wanted some information, and some information came to your hand, casually, the one telling you that masturbation was normal. And it is! It is a normal behavior, in the sense that statistically, most people do it a lot at some point in their lives. But to this particular matter, statistics have nothing to do with this, because you want to get rid of something you perceive as detrimental to your mental well-being.

Let me do a little digression about that last point: keep in mind that the buddhist teachings were directed to two main target audience: householders and monks/nuns. And most restrictions and rules were focused that second group. To householders, lay-people and normal citizens, there were some precepts recommended for a ethical and skillful living. For most of them, their goal life was to live a happy worldly life (not in a derogatory sense of the word "worldly", but as in contrast to life in monastic reclusion), with families, jobs, possession, houses, projects, hobbies, etc. Relinquishment of these worldly goals and ways of life is not a requisite for holseholders; for them, the precepts (5 or 8, depending on you level of commitment to the buddhist path) are more than enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/atthasila.html

Back to the second point: as I said, you are not the habit. There is nothing to be called "you" in that behavior (nor in anything you consider as part of "your" identity, but that goes beyond the point. For more info on that, I'll put some references below). And so, it is useless and a illusion to get involved with that sexual desire in a personal fashion. A wise and skillful way to respond to such desires is to observe them in an impersonal way, just like when a zoologist is trying to look for some animal in the forest to study its appearence and behavior. Try doing the same with that mental event: when desire arises, instead of thinking "Oh no! Here comes this desire again. I'm so weak" or something alike, notice the desire, and tell to yourself "desire", and so your mind will know what just happened and won't get involved in a personal way, getting carried away by the streams of negative emotions. If you let yourself be carried by guilt and anger because of your desire, then you will feel angry and guilty for feeling anger and guilt for the desire, and so on; and so, an endless cycle of anger and guilt goes on and on. After the desire (or any negative process) was identified and labelled, let it go, feeling the tension in your body as it becomes relaxation. For some (myself included), this process of "labelling" your unskillful and unwholesome reactions is a very effective way to alter the usual way your brain reacts to situations and stimuli.

Notice how, by doing the above mentioned, you are not denying nor repressing your feelings; you are recognizing them, and choosing wisely what to do with it. By doing this, you will start modifying your habitual reactions. Your main tool to doing so is your attention and awareness: pay attention to your mind and body, but stop assigning any personal feature to these mental and bodily processes: they are just habits and processes, nothing more, nothing else. Notice them as they arise and go away. If you give them more importance than due, you feed such negative behaviors; but if you take away their nourishment, they will starve and cease to exist.

In third place, it is useful to understand how preferences (likes and dislikes) are created. Some of them a formed by association between an already pleasent stimulus and some neutral stimulus. Others are formed from the development of ideas about what is good and what is bad. But independently of the process of origination of preferences, desire and aversion depend on our perception of the world and the stimuli we face in our daily lives. And perception is conditioned and influenced by our worldview and thoughts. What we think is 'good', we desire; what we consider 'bad', we want to escape from. But those categories and labels are subjectively created, and those labelling do not depend on the object/phenomena itself, but on how does your mind interpret and perceives such objects.

So, you could start by asking to yourself some questions like: when does sexual desire arise most frecuently? And why does it arise at such occasions? What do I perceive as desirable, and why? Is the object of desire satisfying by itself? If I obtain what I desire, will my search for it disappear permanently? Why do some objects in some context give rise to those desire, while in other contexts do not? Am I attached to the object itself or to whatever the object makes me feel? Did I always feel this way about the object of desire; if I haven't, then why?

Remember to use the same logic before explained when asking those questions to yourself: whatever feeling arises, notice it impersonally, try to identify it, and once you learn from it, let it go. And the next time that feeling arises, you will be acquainted to it, and the whole analysis won't be necessary. And maybe sometimes new conclusion may appear as your attention and understanding get sharper everyday.

Ajahn Chah, a wonderful Thai monk and teacher, explains it this way:

Someone recently asked me, "As
we meditate and various things arise in the mind, should we investigate them or just note them coming and going?" If you see someone passing by whom you do not know, you may wonder, "Who is that? Where is he going? What is he up to?" But if we know the person, it is enough just to notice him pass by.

You can find an anthology book with this quote in here:

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/No%2520Ajahn%2520Chah.pdf

And lastly: be kind to yourself. Patience, kindness, consistency and honesty are key. Let attention become your best friend, and don't turn that friend into a police officer waiting to give you a ticket everytime you feel anything unwanted.

If you think about masturbation as a big issue, it will be a big issue. If you see it simply for what it is (a habit caused by conditions and events that came together out of your control and will), changing your mind will become way less tedious and distressing.

EDIT: I added a few more details concerning perception and subjectivity.

EDIT 2: As someone suggested, the use of the words "unfortunate conditions" may be misleading. I rephrased it as "conditions that came together out of your control and will".

And the links about the wrong pespectives on identity and the "self":

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html

https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/anatta-and-the-four-noble-truths/

https://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/14/if-not-self-then-what/

And here are two videos by Ven. Yuttadhammo about how to use the "labelling" method in your daily life and in your meditation sessions, and about how to deal with masturbation and addictions in general:

https://youtu.be/hLvU7ppM4vE

https://youtu.be/W5Lg9P-VekA

May you have a wonderful and peaceful life!


In my opinion, "resort" is a bad translation for patisaranam (literally, something other things rest on) -- a better option in this particular context would be "apex". Compare with following simile from Milindapanha:

  Like in a building with a pointed roof: whatever rafters they are, they all rest on the apex, lean towards the apex, meet at the apex, and the apex is pointed to as their chief. So is the samadhi in its relation to the other wholesome dharmas.

It does make more sense this way, doesn't it:

  Brahman Unnabha: As the five faculties are of different scope and range, and do not share in each other's sphere of action, what is their apex, and who profits from their combined activity?

  Buddha: Mind is their apex, and it is mind that profits from their combined activity.

  B.U.: But, good Gotama, what is mind's apex?

  B: Mind's apex, Brahman, is mindfulness.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of mindfulness?

  B: The apex of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of liberation?

  B: The apex of liberation is Nirvana.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of Nirvana?

  B: That question goes too far, Brahman.


How much should one eat when following the not-eating-after-noon precept?

It will depend on the amount of physical work one does, but since you've said you work in an office, I would say one meal a day is enough for maintaining the body healthy if you have no digestive problems. I started having one normal-sized meal per day 2 years ago and I've had no problems. I'd recommend seeing what fits for you by making gradual adjustments.

Bear in mind that the following quotes are directed at monks but, depending on one's health & working conditions, laymen are also capable of following the advice:

  “And how does a bhikkhu observe moderation in eating? Here, reflecting
  carefully, a bhikkhu consumes food neither for amusement nor for
  intoxication nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness,
  but only for the support and maintenance of this body, for avoiding
  harm, and for assisting the spiritual life, considering: ‘Thus I shall
  terminate the old feeling and not arouse a new feeling, and I shall be
  healthy and blameless and dwell at ease.’ It is in this way that a
  bhikkhu observes moderation in eating.
  -AN 4.37, Non-decline (Aparihāniya-suttaṃ)

  “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from
  illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a
  comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so
  doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will
  enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”
  -MN 65, To Bhaddāli (Bhaddāli-suttaṃ)

  And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment edible food be seen? Suppose a
  couple, husband and wife, had taken limited provisions and were
  traveling through a desert. They have with them their only son, dear
  and beloved. Then, in the middle of the desert, their limited
  provisions would be used up and exhausted, while the rest of the
  desert remains to be crossed. The husband and wife would think: ‘Our
  limited provisions have been used up and exhausted, while the rest of
  this desert remains to be crossed. Let us kill our only son, dear and
  beloved, and prepare dried and spiced meat. By eating our son’s flesh
  we can cross the rest of this desert. Let not all three of us perish!’

  “Then, bhikkhus, the husband and wife would kill their only son, dear
  and beloved, prepare dried and spiced meat, and by eating their son’s
  flesh they would cross the rest of the desert. While they are eating
  their son’s flesh, they would beat their breasts and cry: ‘Where are
  you, our only son? Where are you, our only son?’

  “What do you think, bhikkhus? Would they eat that food for amusement
  or for enjoyment or for the sake of physical beauty and
  attractiveness?”

  “No, venerable sir.”

  “Wouldn’t they eat that food only for the sake of crossing the
  desert?”

  “Yes, venerable sir.”

  “It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment edible food
  should be seen. When the nutriment edible food is fully understood,
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood. When
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood, there
  is no fetter bound by which a noble disciple might come back again to
  this world.
  -SN 12.64, Son's Flesh (Puttamaṃsūpama-suttaṃ)


What is the goal of Meditation- is it increasing the gap?

Source: Anapanasati

If you see step 4 above it says "Tranquilise the bodily activities". In this stage you do calm the breath, i.e., increase the gap, but you do not manipulate the breath directly.

For further reference on claiming the breath see: LECTURE THREE: CALMING THE KAYA from ANAPANASATI - MINDFULNESS WITH BREATHING Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners by BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed. by Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw p35.

Also in meditation you have to be in the present moment and see arising and passing or sensation at the present moment as you have realise.


I think that Theravada Buddhism teaches that there isn't a good answer to this question, that it's not a good question to ask.

See this description of Right View especially where it talks about "a thicket of views".

Also that things you might consider "self" (e.g. body, feelings, etc.) are impermanent -- and also (impermanent) is every put-together thing -- and so it's better not to view those as "self" ("self-views" are unsatisfactory or lead to suffering).

See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?


'Antarabhava' existence between rebirth and the death

Most who are born in the human world will wait in a mind-made body waiting for a suitable place to be born. However it is not a birth or an existence.
You can learn more from this Noble Eight-Fold Path Meditation: https://youtu.be/vu0UZDb3gKk?list=PLk22Pmbx-cNPA_vMHe4G9LOZaPm8GGpM_&t=5790
However the goal here is to understand the suffering nature of bodily pain (i.e. the 'dukka' part in dukka, domanassa, soka, parideva)


How to learn to trust one's fundamental goodness?

If one interprets Buddha's teaching superficially, one may assume - and some indeed do - that the world is fundamentally broken. The world is samsara, its nature is dukkha, our journey begins with primordial ignorance, the senses inevitably tempt us to hell, and the best we can do is stay cold and constantly on guard against our own flawed nature.
The more mature understanding paints another picture. In this interpretation, the world works a certain way, and in that sense its not broken, in fact we can say everything has its reasons and works due to its causes, resulting in every thing and even every person taking their places accordingly. From this standpoint the world is Perfect and works perfectly well according to its natural laws.
In the same vein, before the conceptual mind develops while building its subjective world and its notion of self or ego, there's indeed that great nondifferentiation. Rather than painting it in dark colors as "ignorance" we can see it for what it is - a blank slate! Starting from that blank slate there's a process of learning, driven by the mind's innate instinctual attraction to Peace. Yes, the childish mind's methods for seeking peace are very naïve - it clings to its pleasant experiences, resists change, fights enemies - but fundamentally it's driven by its instinctual desire to make things good.
From this standpoint, the ego is a process of seeking peace, or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said, "our sense of self is an activity, a strategy for avoiding suffering, for maximizing happiness" -- it's just that its a childish and naïve phase of the larger Path ("Ultimately, though, self as a strategy can only go so far. This is where the not-self strategy comes in." - T.B.) The path into and through samsara is the beginning of the path to Nirvana, it is the path in the right direction - not away from it, even if it gets stuck in this childish phase for a few hundred billion lives - eventually it moves on and graduates.
Based on the above, we arrive at the Fundamental Goodness or Fundamental Sanity as a key Mahayana concept. To cultivate it in our lives means to be at peace with the larger picture, at peace with our past, our mistakes, our baby steps, our growing pains. It means to cultivate a deep confidence that at our core we want Peace, we want Goodness, and that our mind is fundamentally capable of figuring things out right, even though it takes time.
Ultimately, to cultivate one's fundamental goodness requires accepting the fact that the Buddha came from the same evolutionary background as we did, and therefore every one of us is a buddha in the making. Hence Buddha-Nature.
We are not wrong, we are not bad, we are just growing - that's the mantra.
"I may be confused or mistaken when it comes to particulars - and indeed I keep reviewing and adjusting my understanding all the time. I may have done some crazy things in the past, as part of my learning - but all of that was driven by my intent to do the best according to my state-of-the-art at the moment. I'm not an evil person I swear my intentions are pure - but I am not perfect, I'm only learning, and I will keep at it." - that's how.
And of course the physical practice of moving around gracefully, keeping good posture, sitting down slowly, mindfulness of the body.


Semi-consistent Long Sessions Versus Regular Short Sessions

Long sits everyday is the most optimal.  As I've written you time and time again, you have to do the work.  There are no shortcuts.  There is only the hard way.  Stop looking for excuses.


Can't I listen any kind of music by 7th percept?

nacca - plays/dances
gīta - song
vādita - music
visukadassanā - visiting shows

So yes, it includes all music. Even if you hear a song by chance and you indulge in it, you break the precept.


Fear is a primal instinct which has its function as it enables us to avoid dangerous situations, thus fearlessness is in itself dangerous and there is such a thing as pathological fearlessness.

Complete and permanent fearlessness came for the Buddha with Awakening, of a different type than pathological fearlessness: for us still shackled by the Hindrances there is only temporary release in the Jhanas and learning to accept fear as part of existence. Moreover, as Acharya Buddharacitta writes, the Buddha taught the Karanya Metta Sutta to his monks in order to help them develop mindfulness as some disgruntled devas were oppressing them with frightful visions:

  Monks, go back to the same spot! It is only by striving there that you will effect the destruction of inner taints. Fear not! If you want to be free from the harassment caused by the deities, learn this sutta. It will be a theme for meditation as well as a formula for protection (paritta).
  Then the Master recited the Karaniya Metta Sutta — the Hymn of Universal Love — which the monks learned by rote in the presence of the Lord. Then they went back to the same place

So that's also a way to deal with fear.

EDIT As others have noted, fear comes from aversion (and this is why the Karanya Metta Sutta dispels fear by replacing it with loving kindness). Thus, the Buddha vanquished fear when he  destroyed aversion. This happened before Awakening.


Can brain injured people progress in meditation?

Thank you for this question.
First of all - meditation is not depend on intelligence - actually there's a verse in the Dhammapada (sorry, I forgot which one, will add it when I find it) which tells about 2 brothers, one of low intelligence and one of high intelligence. The brother with low intelligence progresses faster in meditation practice due to not having too many thoughts and reflections. Intellectual thinking has nothing to do with meditation and won't get you anywhere.
It's about passive, impartial observation of the mind and it's habitual tendencies and reactions (Vipassana meditation). That will lead to understanding and insights, namely into the Three Marks of Existence which is the gateway to Liberation.
What kind of meditation are you practicing now? Do you have a teacher? I highly recommend finding a teacher that can guide you one-on-one either in person or via the internet. Please see Ruben's post for info on the Buddhist monk Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Now regarding the brain injury and the challenges you face - that's not really a problem as long as you can practice a little. You mention 15 minutes - that's great! Maybe start with 5 minutes and try to keep your posture. Posture is not that important you just shouldn't be slouching too much or sitting too straight. Somewhere in between. The Buddha said that even a moment of mindfulness is better than 100 years of mindlessness. What that means is that it's not important how long you meditate - what's important is the quality of the mind. One can meditate for 2 hours but only be mindful for 30 minutes of that time. That's not useful. So try to think of it as quality over quantity.
Again, I highly recommend finding a teacher to guide on the path.
Lastly, don't be too hard on yourself. You have a good Karma by being able to be born as a human being (very rare) and to meet with the Dhamma in this life and being able to practice. Right now you are laying the foundation blocks for future lives. Enlightenment is something that takes many lifetimes for the majority of people. So don't bother with results or how long you can sit for. Just do what you can now and be happy with it.
Also you can be mindful in daily life when going about your day. The formal practice (cushion practice) is meant to bridge mindfulness into your daily life. It's not useful if you are only mindful on the cushion but unmindful in daily life. Try to be mindful when doing the dishes, taking a shower, brushing your teeth etc. That's where the real practice lies.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.


In Pali Buddhism, 'consciousness' ('vinnana') is the sense awareness or cognition that operates through the six sense organs to facilite: (i) seeing; (ii) hearing; (iii) smelling; (iv) tasting; (v) touching &; (iv) knowing of the mind's internal feelings, perceptions, moods, thoughts, images, etc.

To use a rough analogy, 'consciousness' can be compared to the mere reflecting of an image by a mirror. Consciousness only 'reflects' sense objects, like a mirror, that is all. Consciousness does not 'think' or 'analyse', just like a mirror does not think or analyse.

To quote:

  And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness.
  This is called consciousness

  SN 12.2

~~~

  Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises.

  Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

  Dependent on intellect (mano) & ideas, intellect-consciousness (mano-vinnana) arises.

  The meeting of the three is sense contact.

  MN 18

In Pali Buddhism, the ability to rationalize, analyse & concentrate are other functions of other kinds of mentality (called 'mano', 'nama', 'sankhara khandha', etc).

Each of these mental functions, be they consciousness ('vinnana'), intellect ('mano') or mental intention ('sankhara khandha'), can operate without ego or self ('atta'). 'Ego' or 'self' is a natural instinctual yet ignorant idea the mind imputes upon conscious experience & mental activity. (If interested, read more here).

In Buddhism, what 'we' are is a product of the mind's accumulated & conditioned intentions & thinking (sankhara khandha) & thus 'what we are' is essentially unrelated to consciousness itself (even though what 'we' are are thoughts about what the mind is conscious of).

In short, we are what we 'think' we are. What we think we are is called 'bhava' ('becoming' or 'existence') in Buddhism. To quote:

  The craving that makes for further becoming (bhava) — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be (bhava), craving not to be (vibhava):
  This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification
  described by the Blessed One.

  MN 44

The 'view' or 'belief' ('ditthi') of 'what we are' is what the mind clings or attaches to (rather than what the mind is conscious of). To quote again:

  There are these five clingings to the aggregates, friend Visakha: clinging to the form (body) aggregate, clinging to the feeling (vedana) aggregate, clinging to the perception (sanna) aggregate, clinging to the fabricating aggregate (sankhara khandha), clinging to the consciousness (vinnana) aggregate. These five clingings to the aggregates
  are the self-identification ('sakkhaya ditthi') described by the Blessed One."

  MN 44

For example, a small baby, before its mind/brain is mature enough to develop ideas of "me" & "I", is continually conscious of an image, sound, smell, taste & touch of a certain woman. Then one day, when the mind/brain became mature enough, it started to categorise (label & solidify) those images, sounds, smells, tastes & touches as "my mother". This categorising of "my mother" was the beginning of developing the ideas that dictate what we are or what we think ourselves to be.

To continue the original quote from above so to incorporate the process of thinking:

  Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies

  MN 18

What "we" are, namely, "self-identification", is what the mind thinks & objectifies about.


How important is constancy in meditation practice?

I'm just wondering - if you were to take an antibiotic and not feel the effects, would you lay off the medication for a couple of days?  Meditation is really no different.  Nothing is more important than the consistency of the dosage.  Some days you'll have sits where the heavens open up and angels start singing.  Other days it's a slog.  Your legs hurt, your breathing is shallow, and nothing appears to be happening.  Rest assured, however, that something always is happening.  Tectonic karmic plates are shifting slow deep underground.  Keep applying the pressure of practice and the tremors of insight will eventually rise to the surface.  If anything, those sits where you feel like you're "running dry" are the most important.  The effort that it takes to actually get your butt onto the cushion is exponentially more important than the focused bliss you feel during a good sit.  The selfless offering that you make of yourself to your practice is what makes change happen.


Thanissaro Bhikkhu equates papanca with objectification:

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/ArrowsThinking.pdf

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SkillInQuestions/Section0008.html#sigil_toc_id_14


How can I overcome the breathing trouble while meditating and increase concentration?

It is difficult to answer your question due to not many facts. However, the impression is you are suppressing your mind or pushing your forehead down into your body; making your mind & forehead/forebrain rigidly still; and, at the same time, pushing your air/breath/outbreathes out; clenching your jaw & emptying the lungs & nostrils of breath.

In Buddhist meditation, the face should be relaxed and the mind/brain bright, awake & open. The Buddha taught to start meditation by establishing awareness in front of one's face. Possibly do some practise keeping your eyes gently open and keeping your face & jaw relaxed. Buddhist meditation is the practise of "non-attachment" rather than forceful suppression.

It is probably best to visit a Buddhist/meditation centre and talk to a teacher.


Mumonkan Case 35: Seijõ's Soul is Separated

  Goso recounted:
  'During the T'ang dynasty, there lived a girl named named Seijo. Seijo
  was enamored by a boy named Ochu who lived in her town. The people of
  her village used to call them the "old couple" for everywhere that
  Seijo and Ochu went, they held hands and were inseparable. As Seijo
  grew up her father turned his attention to the question of a suitable
  husband for her and eventually selected a good and strong young man.
  But Seijo had no interest in him. She and Ochu had already promised
  their selves to each other.

  The wedding went on as her father had planned and Ochu, unable to bear
  the prospect of witnessing the loss of his beloved, left the village
  without saying farewell. He took his boat and rowed into the night. As
  he rowed he noticed the outline of a figure running along the bank. He
  put into the shore to see who it was; and there was Seijo, tear
  stained and adamant. Together they traveled to a distant land where
  they lived as man and wife. Five years went by. Seijo gave birth to
  two girls. But though she loved Ochu and the children, she was weighed
  down by the dishonor she'd done to her father. All this she told to
  Ochu. And he admitted that he too longed for his homeland.

  "Let us go back and beg forgiveness," he said.

  And so they returned. At the port, Ochu left Seijo and the girls while
  he walked to the village. He went directly to Chokan's house,
  confessed the whole story, and bowed his head at their ungrateful
  behaviour. Chokan received him kindly.

  "Which girl do you mean?" he asked.  "Your daughter Seijo," Ochu
  replied.  "That is not possible," Chokan said. "Seijo is here in the
  house with me. Since you left the village without bidding her farewell
  she has lain here; she lies here now."

  Chokan took the mystified Ochu into the house. "She has not spoken
  since you left," he said. "It is as if she has been absent in mind, or
  drugged. Now I see that her soul left to follow you."  So saying, he
  showed Ochu into Seijo's room. Hearing the story, Seijo rose from her
  bed, still without speaking, and walked out into the village just as
  Seijo and her children stepped from the cart that had brought them
  from the port. The silent Seijo moved forward to greet her, and as she
  did, the two Seijos were united.'

  Goso then said to his monks, "Seijõ's soul is separated from her being. Which was the
  real Seijõ?"

  Mumon's Comment
  When you realize what the real is, you will see that we pass from one
  husk to another like travelers stopping for a night's lodging. But if
  you do not realize it yet, I earnestly advise you not to rush about
  wildly. When earth, water, fire, and air suddenly separate, you will
  be like a crab struggling in boiling water with its seven or eight
  arms and legs. When that happens, don't say I didn't warn you!
  Mumon's Verse
       The moon above the clouds is ever the same;
       Valleys and mountains are separate from each other.
       All are blessed, all are blessed;
       Are they one or are they two?

So this is the koan that ends marriages, gets people to quit their jobs, and even results in others giving up their practice entirely.  Luckily, in your case, you probably haven't yet made a decision that'd force you into a similar situation.  Hooray!  :-D

A lot of people are drawn to Buddhism because they value a life of calm and peace.  I can't say I blame them.  Who wants to go around getting beat up in samsara with all of it's ups, downs, disappointments, and intense passions when an alternative is available!  But this is kind of a lie, isn't it?  Buddhism really doesn't work that way.  The real purpose of sitting isn't to find calm, but rather to open ourselves to our Buddha nature.  Sometimes that will result in peaceful states of mind, but more often than not, the more we open ourselves up, the more intimate we become with our own internal obstacles.  Instead of calm, we find turmoil.  Instead of peace, a storm rages within.  This can be a little disheartening at first.  When the peace dries up and we are left on the cushion, steeped in sweat and facing down all our internal bullshit, there is always a feeling that we must be doing something wrong.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The question I'd ask of you is which of your two choices really rips open your heart and puts you in touch with your Buddha nature?  Is it the path of following your passion, of facing the headwinds of samsara straight on both on the cushion and in your day to day life, or does your Buddha nature lie waiting at the end of the path of peace and calm?  Down which road can you hear the singing of your heart?

Which Seijo will you be?  If the path you take is the one that opens you up to your Buddha nature, you have the opportunity never to be separated.


In a short piece called Right Speech by Thanissaro Bhikkhu he defines idle chatter as that "spoken with no purposeful intent at all". and he stresses the important of intention in speaking.

Right speech, explained in negative terms, means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).
Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind. Before you speak, you focus on why you want to speak. This helps get you in touch with all the machinations taking place in the committee of voices running your mind. If you see any unskillful motives lurking behind the committee's decisions, you veto them. As a result, you become more aware of yourself, more honest with yourself, more firm with yourself. You also save yourself from saying things that you'll later regret. In this way you strengthen qualities of mind that will be helpful in meditation, at the same time avoiding any potentially painful memories that would get in the way of being attentive to the present moment when the time comes to meditate.

So in your examples above, of putting someone at ease socially or bonding with your daughter, you have purposeful intent. With awareness of yourself and your motivations and mindfulness of what you are saying, there are surely many opportunities to engage in casual conversations with family and friends without letting it get out of hand and turn into truly idle and mindless chatter.
In your original quote, the mention of "what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya" seems like it would be more geared towards monastics, but I lack the knowledge of the background of that sutta and the audience for whom it was intended to say for sure.
In Ajahn Brahm's book The Art of Disappearing: Buddha's Path to Lasting Joy, he makes the statement that we talk to say we are here. It's interesting to pause and think of our intention and if it's really only to create attention and remind people that we exist (verbally or digitally with social media posts) with no other purposeful intent, that's definitely an opportunity to understand ourselves a little bit better.


Explain consciousness (viññāna) to non-Buddhists

It sounds like you're trying to explain consciousness within a framework that supports rebirth to people who understand consciousness in a (materialistic) framework that won't allow for rebirth. Seeing consciousness as tied to an organism and the development of consciousness in an organism leaves no room for the "migration" of consciousness required for rebirth to work.

Am I correct in understanding this difficulty?

If so, you could try the following...

Get people to abandon materialism.  For many, this is the same as asking them to abandon science.
Explain rebirth in a materialistic framework.  If consciousness is a property of structure, rather than organism then a rebirth mechanism exists by simply having the same structure arise in the future.  Karmic imprints could be explained by neuro-plasticity (which is said to be affected by meditation).  Still, they may ask what happens if this structure is replicated now (and why wouldn't it be, given how much life we have?).

An alternative is to look at the big picture.  If you are trying to introduce people to Buddhism, why mention rebirth?  The Buddhist path is identical, whether or not one believes in rebirth.  Further, many are attracted to Buddhism (or at least it's secularized variant popular in the west) precisely because of its less supernatural nature.  Introducing rebirth therefore might cause them to abandon Buddhism.  For many, if it's a choice between Buddhism and Science, then Science will win, no contest.


Why does Mahasi Method have the points on the Body to attend to?

Any type of meditation that is worth the name will increase concentration in a beginner.

The body is a good first object of vipassana meditation because it is inescapable and we identify with it so strongly, so automatically all kinds of thoughts also get faced.


How do you balance your desire for liberation with your wordly desires?

One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship. That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth

Indeed. Insightful or intuitive question by the lady

  One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me. The other part is not so sure if is
  ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties,
  feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara,
  and still having ignorant tendencies.

Worldly friends generally will not abandon you when you live a more isolated life. They like to reassure themselves you are not crazy when you occasionally turn up to one of their social events & act reasonably normally. This said, yes, a genuine Dhamma life in ordinary society is very isolated. It can be more isolated than living in a monastery (because in the monastery there may be some like-minded persons).


Effects of modern culture (Movies/Gaming) on karmic reactions

If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects?

I guess there may be two problems with it:

It may be unlikely to create positive karmic effects -- I think that positive karma is associated with wealth and ease and so on -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) for an example of some of the Buddha's advice for lay-people (I remember it as the sutta of the "six directions").
It may be (which I think is what RuthLydia's answer was saying) an activity that not associated with progress towards the ending of karma.

I guess that playing video games is associated with sensual craving -- craving ongoing sensual stimulation.

Instead perhaps you're supposed to find peace in the "unconditioned" ("unconditioned" meaning "doesn't have a cause") -- or possibly something to do with, beginning with, conditioned by, virtues (perhaps "good deeds" or "skilful" actions).

Also it might be worth mentioning the "Brahma-viharas" which are said to be, "the answer to all situations arising from social contact". Assuming that video games are a type of social contact, perhaps they're unskilful to whatever extent that they don't involve the Brahma-viharas (i.e. developing "good will" towards people, and so on).

As for movies, there's a sutta addressed to an actor (SN 42.2) which warns against acting, for which it reasons:

  Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival.

In other words, what's presented on the stage in a festival will tend to increase the Three poisons (i.e. desire, aversion, and ignorance).

From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible?

I think you tend not to blame other people for your own lack of progress (e.g. "It's not my fault, it's his fault that I'm chained to samsara!").

When there is an opponent to enlightenment, an enemy, that's often portrayed as being Mara.


What are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean?

Piya Tan's analysis of DN 15 (on pages 160 through 163, i.e. page 16 through 19 of the PDF) explains that,

  According to Brahma,jāla S (D 1) and Pāṭika S (D 24), this is not a “station for consciousness” because no
  consciousness is found in the beings there. All cognitive activities are suspended here. As soon consciousness arises
  in a being there, he vanishes from that world

It cites many references including e.g. DN 1 to begin with ...

  There are gods named ‘non-percipient beings’.
  Santi, bhikkhave, asaññasattā nāma devā.

  When perception arises they pass away from that group of gods.
  Saññuppādā ca pana te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti.

A STUDY OF VIÑÑĀṆA IN ABHIDHAMMA (by Ho Thi Lien) includes a description of what is meant by "unified in body" etc. (see pages 30 through 32 i.e. pages 42 through 44 of the PDF). It appears to be paraphrasing the DN commentary, for example:

  ‘Viññāṇaṭṭhiti’ means ‘abodes or supports of consciousness’, ‘the stages
  of sentient beings’. In the Dīghanikāya and its commentaries,86 the stations of
  consciousness are classified into seven kinds as follows:

  2) Nānattakāya-ekattasaññī = Beings who have different bodies but the
  same perception are Brahmās of the first jhāna plane who are born first in the
  Brahmā abode. Although their bodies and life spans are different, they have the
  same rebirth linking consciousness, which is the first jhāna. According to the
  Dīghanikāya Mahāvagga commentary, beings in the four apāyas are also
  included in this category because they possess different bodies but the same
  type of rebirth-linking consciousness, which is ahetuka akusalavipāka
  santīraṇa.

  3) Ekattakāya-nānattasaññī = Beings who have similar bodies but
  different perceptions are those living in the second Brahmā abode. They have
  similar bodies but different perceptions. While in the first jhāna their minds are
  associated with both vitakka and vicāra, in the second jhāna, the minds are
  associated with vicāraonly but not vitakka; and in the third jhāna, both vitakka
  and vicāraare forsaken (according to the pañcaka method).

The footnote says,

  86 D. II, 58, DA. II, 99 -102, DṬī, 114 -116 (CSCD).

I presume the "eight liberations", which immediately follow in DN 15, also refer to these stages.

Piya Tan's analysis quotes the Paṭisambhidāmagga to say that the first few liberations are associated with meditations using internal and external kasinas (perhaps you'll disagree with that -- so far as I remember, perhaps I'm misquoting you however, you associate the jhanas with making "letting go" as the "object").


In short they get reborn as a human being sometime in the future and practice.

You could help by reading some dhamma(suttas) to your cat if you wish.

There is a precedence in a sutta where a frog was listening to a Buddha's discourse and got killed because someone accidentally impaled it with a walking stick. It was then reborn as a deva.


What is the true meaning of The Middle Way

In Buddha's time there was hedonistic indulgence and extreme ascetic practices. The ascetic practices was to exhausting bad Karma though inflicting pain.

Seeking pleasure creates fabrication through attachments hence resulting in present and future dukka.

Though through experiencing Karma (Sañcetanika Sutta) karma looses its potent this is cannot be achived through inflicting pain as Karma acts when it ripens (you cannot hasten or force the result) while artificially inflicting pain leads to metal instability and other new fabrications.

The middle path is restrain in morality thus abandoning one source of grave unwholesome Karma (reducing store of fabrications) thus cultivating a conducive environment to develop collected mind (due to non remorse - (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, and Karmic calamities) to finally gain wisdom and release. (See comments [section 1.3] in (Ānanda) Subha Sutta for relationships moral virtue, mastery over the mind and wisdom.) Any experiences that arises should be used to eradicate metal influxes casing future becoming, i.e., not creating new fabrication due to past karmic and other experiaces. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2) This is systematised as the Noble Eightfold Path initially in Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta which was the Buddha's 1st disclosure. More thought explanation is found in the: Samma,ditthi Sutta


What must be done before rebirth in the hell realms becomes inevitable?

Five offences in Buddhism which are said to irrevocably propel the offender into hell are:

patricide,
matricide,
killing an Arhat,
injuring a Buddha,
creating schism in the Sangha

Smaller offenses like common murder, adultery etc. can still be "repaired" even if with great difficulties.


Would making a video game be considered "business in intoxicants" or "business in poisons"?

Maybe it's more like entertainment: analogous to being an actor or a musician; or telling stories or making pictures.

There are vinaya rules about what constitutes killing: a condition is that there must be "intention to kill". For example if you carelessly knock something off a cliff, which falls on someone underneath and kills them, doesn't count as "killing" because that's an accident, i.e. there's no intention to kill. I'd argue that similarly, when people play a video game there's no "intention to kill".

You could instead argue that playing is intoxicating; but I think there's a more direct analogy, i.e. it's like playing a game. I think there's a sutta which warns that too much game-playing (especially with disreputable companions, perhaps gambling, perhaps spending too much time at it, perhaps becoming 'addicted' to the activity) isn't profitable for a lay-person.

Another direct description of the activity is that it's pursuing sense-impressions: so maybe it's samsaric. I think it's more like the seventh of the eight precepts:

  I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).

It's not the first ("killing") nor the fifth ("intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness").

You could perhaps, possibly, argue that it's the fourth:

  I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words.


Categorizing common thoughts patterns and believes

There are different classifications for unwholesome thoughts:

Vipallasa

(can be compared to "cognitive distortions" from contemporary cognitive psychology. I assume you have those mentioned in your app).
Vipallasa are misconceptions regarding:

The impermanent (anicca) being permanent
Pain (dukkha) being pleasant or happiness-yielding
That which lacks a self (anatta) being a self
That which is repulsive (asubha) being pure or beautiful

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html

Akusala cetasikas

These are mental factors grouped in four categories. They are not cognitions in the strict sense, but still has relevance for your question (The five hindrances are included in the akusala cetasikas):

Universal unwholesome mental factors (akusalasadharana):

Moha - delusion
Ahirika - lack of shame
Anottappa - disregard for consequence
Uddhacca - restlessness

Greed group (lobha):

Lobha - greed
Diṭṭhi - wrong view
Māna - conceit

Hatred group (dosa):

Dosa - hatred
Issā - envy
Macchariya - miserliness
Kukkucca - regret

Other unwholesome mental factors:

Thīna - sloth
Middha - torpor
Vicikicchā - doubt

(A good abhidhamma source for the akusala cetasikas turned out to be really hard to find online)

These are concepts on the top of my head, and could need more elaboration. Also, ChrisW pointed out that you might have asked for everyday examples, and not classifications from dhamma if i understand you.

However, one may have to connect the theoretical dharma concepts with thoughts actually appearing in everyday life by observing vinnana with the aid of meditation. Vipassana is inevitable for understanding dharma:

  There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html


Question about the contrast between Buddhist statements and Christian doctrine

The word 'Buddha' means 'Enlightened'. It is the Buddha that is the light of the world. Buddhism states there can be only one Original Buddha in a world-system (MN 115). Jesus was a new light for Judah but not for the world. Jesus brought light to the violent tribal hypocritical religion of Judaism but Buddha (obviously; probably) brought light to Jesus.

When Jesus came to Judah and taught new teachings, which were different to Judaism, such as: (i) forgiveness, (ii) non-violence, (iii) showing the other cheek, (iv) non-hatred, (v) universal love & mercy, (vi) deeds before faith; (vii) God is love, (viii) celibacy, (ix) wandering like a monk, (x) not thirsting again (xi) liberation from the world, (xii) a kingdom not of this world, (xiii) eternal life (not experiencing death), etc, these new teachings obviously came from Buddhism because they have no source in the pre-Babylonian-exile Old Testament. All of these teachings have direct parallels in Buddhism, including the idea that 'God (Brahma) is love', which the Buddha taught to Brahmans in the Tevijja Sutta.

The Buddha revolutionized the ancient spiritual world, such as the famous Hindu book called the Bhagavad Gita (300BC), which is about Krishna, who is very similar to Jesus, being a human incarnation of god. Although the Bhagavad Gita refers to god & its theistic, its more profound principles are very similar to Buddhism (such as giving up craving & attachment).

The Buddha did not 'give up his life' for 'sheep' because the Buddha taught: (i) to not sacrifice one's life for another (Dhp 166); and (ii) he was the teacher of gods & humans (rather than animals or 'sheep'). Unlike Jesus, the Buddha forbade the practise of miracles for the religious conversion of others (DN 11). Unlike Jesus, a Buddha must live the whole term of his natural life as a demonstration of his virtue, i.e., his social harmony.

Unlike Jesus, the Buddha did not wander around picking fights with the religious establishment. The fact that Jesus (supposedly) violently died on the cross & was (supposedly) killed by Jews resulted in a religion that perpetuated violence and engaged in revenge killing against Jews for 2,000 years, which ultimately influenced the 'Holocaust'. This cycle of revenge was not one-sided, with (wealthy) Jews also plotting for hundreds of years to destroy Christianity. In short, the (supposed) sacrifice of Jesus has not really brought peace to the world but the opposite. Where as practitioners of the Buddha's noble path are peaceful & don't engage in conflict with other religions.

The Buddha called himself the 'Spiritual Friend' or 'Noble Friend' because he showed people a path for individual freedom that was self-reliant. The Buddha said:

  Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable
  people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to
  develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. It is in dependence on me
  as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained
  release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release
  from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from
  death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress &
  despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
  & despair.

  Upaddha Sutta

In his first sermon & many other places, the Buddha described his teachings as 'light':

  'This is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose
  in me concerning things not heard before.

  Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The following phrase is found many times in the Buddhist scriptures about the 'lamp' of the Buddha:

  It is, good Gotama, as if someone were to set up something that had been knocked down, or to reveal what had been hidden, or to point out
  the right path to a man who had got lost, or to bring an oil lamp into
  a dark place so that those with eyes could see what was there — just
  so has the good Gotama shown me the truth in various ways!

And this, as Jesus taught (from Buddha):

  Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears.

  MN 26

As for the term 'emptiness', it means 'empty of self', such as found in the term 'kenosis' in  Philippians 2:7:

  Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
  servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance
  as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death
  on a cross.…

Also Luke 17:33:

  If you cling to your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you will save it.

To conclude, the Buddha is the true light of the world. The Buddha shows the path of the best wisdom & the best human ethics. Many, such as Jesus, obviously adapted the Buddha's teachings to try to make people free. However, the Buddha is the original & the best, as the Buddha said:

  Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is
  the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.

  Dhammapada
  273


If buddha never got angry, why do so many buddhist teachers say anger is inescapable?

Because teachers, or even if they are arahats, are not Buddha.  They often err or have some imperfection in their teachings.  They may have destroyed all or some of the fetters but they are not perfect as Buddha in Dhamma (both in seeing and how to articulate it).  In Ani Sutta, Buddha said not to lend ear to new teachings. I have not seen "anger is inescapable, or even necessary and healthy" in any sutta that could be credited to Buddha's original teachings.  As for myself, I disregard it.

PS.  I certainly not to be disrespectful to your teachers.  They may be imperfect in their teachings but it is still a good idea to hangout with people who are virtuous in their precepts.  IMO.

PS2.  wanting to be near, approach those with virtuous actions, keeping precepts is a sign of Saddha.


Mindfulness is very important, but it is part of the path, not the goal. It is the seventh of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, and the path can be grouped into three trainings. The wisdom training, the morality training, and the concentration training. Mindfulness falls under the training of concentration.

In MN 29, the longer heartwood simile discourse, the Buddha talks about the different reasons for practicing and compares them with different parts of a tree, and he warns against thinking that the parts of the path (including morality, meditation, and wisdom) as being the goal. It says:

  "Just as if a man in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering
  in search of heartwood — passing over the heartwood of a great
  standing tree possessed of heartwood — cutting away the sapwood, were
  to go off carrying it, thinking, 'heartwood.' A man with good
  eyesight, seeing him, would say, 'Ah, how this good man didn't know
  heartwood, didn't know sapwood, didn't know inner bark, didn't know
  outer bark, didn't know twigs & leaves! That's why he, in need of
  heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood —
  passing over the heartwood of a great standing tree possessed of
  heartwood — cutting away the sapwood, went off carrying it, thinking,
  "heartwood." Whatever heartwood-business he had with heartwood, his
  purpose won't be served.'

  "In the same way, monks, there is the case where a certain son of good
  family, out of conviction, goes forth from the home life into
  homelessness, [thinking,] '...Perhaps the end of this entire mass of
  stress might be discerned!' Having thus gone forth, he encounters
  gain, offerings, & fame. He is not gratified with that gain,
  offerings, & fame, his resolve not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that gain, offerings, & fame, not heedless about it, and does not
  fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  virtue. He is gratified with that consummation in virtue, but his
  resolve is not fulfilled. Because of that consummation in virtue he
  does not exalt himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with
  that consummation in virtue, not heedless about it, and does not fall
  into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  concentration. He is gratified with that consummation in
  concentration, but his resolve is not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that consummation in concentration, not heedless about it, and
  does not fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves knowledge
  & vision. He is gratified with that knowledge & vision, his resolve
  fulfilled. Because of that knowledge & vision he exalts himself and
  disparages others: 'I dwell knowing & seeing, but these other monks
  dwell not knowing & not seeing.' He is intoxicated with that knowledge
  & vision, heedless about it, and falls into heedlessness. Being
  heedless, he dwells in suffering & stress. This, monks, is called a
  monk who grasps the sapwood of the holy life, and with that he falls
  short.

  "Furthermore, there is the case where a certain son of good family,
  out of conviction, goes forth from the home life into homelessness,
  [thinking,] 'I am beset by birth, by aging-&-death, by sorrows,
  lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs, beset by stress, overcome
  with stress. Perhaps the end of this entire mass of stress might be
  discerned!' Having thus gone forth, he encounters gain, offerings, &
  fame. He is not gratified with that gain, offerings, & fame, his
  resolve not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated with that gain,
  offerings, & fame, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in virtue. He is
  gratified with that consummation in virtue, but his resolve is not
  fulfilled. Because of that consummation in virtue he does not exalt
  himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with that
  consummation in virtue, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves consummation in
  concentration. He is gratified with that consummation in
  concentration, but his resolve is not fulfilled. He is not intoxicated
  with that consummation in concentration, not heedless about it, and
  does not fall into heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves knowledge
  & vision. He is gratified with that knowledge & vision, but his
  resolve is not fulfilled. Because of that knowledge & vision he does
  not exalt himself or disparage others. He is not intoxicated with that
  knowledge & vision, not heedless about it, and does not fall into
  heedlessness. Being heedful, he achieves a non-occasional liberation.
  And it is impossible, monks, there is no opportunity, for that monk to
  fall from that non-occasional release. [1]

  "Just as if a man in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering
  in search of heartwood, cutting away just the heartwood of a great
  standing tree possessed of heartwood, were to go off carrying it,
  knowing, 'heartwood.' A man with good eyesight, seeing him, would say,
  'Ah, how this good man did know heartwood, did know sapwood, did know
  inner bark, did know outer bark, did know twigs & leaves! That's why
  he, in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of
  heartwood, cutting away just the heartwood of a great standing tree
  possessed of heartwood, were to go off carrying it, knowing,
  "heartwood." Whatever heartwood-business he had with heartwood, his
  purpose will be served.'
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

This Sutta makes it clear that it is incorrect to identify a part of the path such as mindfulness as somehow being identical with the goal. Mindfulness is a tool, not the result.


What does venerable Sariputta mean by "dwelling withdrawn"?

Piya Tan's comment for AN 8.2:

The third factor that conduces to developing wisdom in an individual is aloneness of body and of mind (kāya,vūpakāsa citta,vūpakāsa), that is, cultivating aloneness of both the body and the mind. The word vūpakāsa (“estrangement, alienation, separation, seclusion”) comes from the verb vūpakāseti (causative of vavakassati, “to be drawn away, to withdraw”). It is found in only as a suffix (in fine compositi) to these two compounds: kāya,vūpakāsa and citta,vūpakāsa.10 These two terms also appear in the (Bojjhaṅga) Sīla Sutta (S 46.3), which should be studied with this Sutta.11
“Aloneness” is not “loneliness” (where we miss someone or something familiar). Here, aloneness is where we leave behind the world we were familiar with to face ourself so that we dedicate ourself fully to the spiritual life. It means being undistracted by the world and worldliness, and to commit all our body and heart to our training.

This quote is only the first subsection: see the PDF (pages 145 through 147) for further explanation (which describes bodily solitude, mental solitude, and spiritual solitude).


There's no sin in Buddhism. Buddha will not be offended if you're thinking some silly thoughts. Don't hurt yourself with this fear. No need to perpetuate those silly thoughts either, it won't do you any good. Focus on what's beneficial. Such as study of Dharma.
Karma is not watching you, it does not revenge or punish. Karma is the future you build with your choices, day after day after day.


Did Ledi Sayadaw teach that Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations with equanimity?

In this passage Ledi Sayadaw adheres very closely to the Sutta + observes the body etc. etc. = to come to the realization of impermanence. If there is another passage Goenka is referring to, it must be in another text.
The Manual of Insight Vipassanā Dīpanī
By Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera
Translated by U Nana Mahathera:

The Practice of Insight Meditation
I will now indicate the main points necessary to those who practise the exercises of insight. Of
the three knowledges of insight, the knowledge of impermanence must first and foremost be
acquired. How? If we carefully watch the cinematograph show, we will see how quick are the
changes of the numerous series of photographs representing the wonderful scene, all in a
moment of time. We will also see that a hundred or more photographs are required to represent
the scene of a moving body. These are, in fact, the functions of viparinama and annathabhava, or
the representation of impermanence or death, or cessation of movements. If we carefully
examine the movements in a scene, such as the walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, bending,
stretching, and so forth, of the parts of the body during a moment of time, we will see that these
are full of changes, or full of impermanence. Even in a moment of walking, in a single step, there
are numerous changes of pictures which may be called impermanence or death. It is also the
same with the rest of the movements. Now, we must apply this to ourselves. The impermanence
and the death of mental and material phenomena are to be found to the full in our bodies, our
heads, and in every part of the body. If we are able to discern clearly those functions of
impermanence and death which are always operating in our bodies, we shall acquire the insight
of the destruction ( bhanga-nana ), into the breaking-up, falling-off, cessation, and changes of the
various parts of the body in each second, in each fraction of a second. That is, we shall discern
the changes of every part of the body, small and great, of head, of legs, of hands, and so forth. If
this be thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of
impermanence is well accomplished. And if the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence
is well accomplished, then that of the contemplation of non-soul is also accomplished. If this is
thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence is
well accomplished. By the word "accomplished," it is meant that the exercise has been properly
worked out so as to remain a permanent possession, during the whole term of life; but it is not
meant that the knowledge of the path and of fruition has been attained. The attainment of the
knowledge of the path and fruition, however, is quick or slow, according to opportunity or lack
of opportunity in the practice of higher virtues.


I'm asking because sometimes when I hear about it, it sounds a bit like the idea of atman as brahman: which I don't understand, because how can that be compatible with anatman and emptiness?

It can be understood in different ways, dependent on tradition.

It certainly does not mean that there is a soul, an experiencing entity or an inner core. Remember that this is just a word, a convention.

When practicing insight meditation, one will realize that it cannot mean that there is an atman. It is only when such deep doctrines are treated intellectually, that there arises confusion. These profound doctrines cannot be grasped by the intellect. They can only be understood experientially.

  Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is?

One meaning is, that every being has the capacity to win Nibbana.

Nibbana is already there but its covered in thick layers of ignorance (avijja) and has been plastered over with concepts and conventions.

The unconditioned state is an existing reality, that can be experienced when the meditator has done away with ignorance, clinging and attachment and cultivated the paramitas to full maturity.


Recalling Neither Perception nor Non-Perception for Nimittas

I'd argue that its largely irrelevant.  The content of meditative experience really has no bearing on ones practice.  The insight that is attained when one emerges from those states is what matters.  The only value of truly deep meditative absorption is that it allows for equally deep vipassana.


Why is 'do not be unfair' not a precept? And some related questions on precepts

"Do not be unfair" is pretty vague. Do not lie and do not steal, those are easy recognize and not do. What is fair and unfair is subject to debate, well so are perhaps all precepts but I would say unfairness even more so.

Who says its unfair to sack an employee? The entire system is unfair if it forces a company to sack anybody. The problem isn't with the individual, not in the scenarios you mentioned anyway. Does an economic system accumulate good and bad karma? They're not sentient so they can't follow precepts.

Just because a home owner feels awful doesn't mean its unfair. Don't get into the game if you don't want to play, meaning don't make loans if you might not be able to pay them.

I don't know what Buddhism has to say, but escaping the hassle of financial injustice does seem to be one of the perks of becoming a monk. Maybe the Buddha felt great leaving royal life behind and not having to concern himself with taxes, but this is just speculation.


What's Buddhism view on choice, choicelesness and causality?

causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect

This is agreeable with Theravada Buddhism. This is dealt in dependent origination

  Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without

Not relevant. As there is no one with absolute power nor are we puppets to some external force.

Having said this. We do have some degree of choice in the present moment, which has some degree of influence on the future which hence some level of influence of the future.

  the truth is we are completely out of control

Do not aggree. We have some degree of control but not absolute control (Anatta nature, marks of existence), i.e., fuzzy, stochastic and complex.

  Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it.

Do not agree.

By understanding cause and effect (dependent origination) you can break out of this vicious circle and attain Nirvana. You are at Nirvana when you break the cycle of dependent origination, hence free from cause and effect.

Also cause and effect in Buddhism is more like:

Fuzzy
Stochastic
Complex System

Hence we not completely enslaved nor are we completely free from it. We have some degree of choice but not absolute choice. (Refer to marks of existence)

  Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice?

Also any form of perception clouds your view of reality. So any perception regarding choice also results in misery as you are looking through coloured glass (See Moha and Avidyā in the 3 unwholesome roots).


In the first one I think they are summarizing the following from Ambalaṭṭhikā-Rāhulovada Sutta.

  “Whatever action you desire to do with the body [similarly with mind and word] Rāhula, of that
  particular bodily action you should reflect: ‘Now, this action that I
  desire to do with the body—would this, my bodily action, be conducive
  to my own harm, or to the harm of others, or to that of both (myself
  and others)?—Then, unskilful is this bodily action, entailing
  suffering and productive of pain.
  MN61

The other one seems to be coming from a Mahayana sutta, "Sermon on Abuse" in The sutta of 42 sections

  Buddha said: A man foolishly stating or considering that I do that
  which is not right, will obtain no other refutation from me but that
  which proceeds from the exercise of my four qualities of love (?), so
  the more evil he brings against me, the more good will proceed from
  me; the influence of this resting on me, the effect of that returning
  to him
  http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/jras/os19-14.htm


What are "Good / Correct things" to a Buddhist to do?

Simply do what is really beneficial you and / or others.


To introduce Dharma, what categories of people are there?

It is difficult to group the audience s into categories as the differences are many. Each person differs in each ones' level of understanding. The skillful and unskillful qualities of a persons mind differs from person to person. Then every questioners need is different from one to another. Some questions call for analytical answers, and others require categorical answers.
The Buddha had ten special powers. One of them was the ability to know positive and negative attribute of every being. So Buddha tailored the response depending on the person’s beliefs, or need, or level of knowledge.
The examples are many. One that came to mind was that of Cula Panthaka. The Buddha helped him to remove his ‘kleshas’ & ‘upakkleshas’  and finally release his mind from all defilements. The story goes like this:

At the time of the Supreme Buddha, there were two brothers. They ordained in the Dispensation of the Buddha. The elder brother was very talented in remembering the Dhamma really well, but the second brother was unable to remember even one stanza. So, the elder brother asked his young brother to give up the monkhood and leave, “You can’t remember the Dhamma. You must go back home and start cultivating some plants.” But the younger brother didn’t want to leave the monkhood.
At the end, the younger-brother monk went to the temple’s gate and sat there crying. The Supreme Buddha came to him.
“Chūla Panthaka, why are you crying?”
“Oh dear Sir, my brother asked me to leave the temple.”
“Why was that?”
“I can’t remember any stanza I read. Therefore, he asked me to leave the monkhood and cultivate a field at home.”
“No, that’s not what you should do. Your brother doesn’t own this dispensation.”
The Supreme Buddha gently touched the monk’s head and took his hand, “Come with me.” The Supreme Buddha gave this young monk a small piece of cloth. “Dear monk, rub this cloth saying ‘cleaning, cleaning (rajō haranhan)’.” The young monk did as the Buddha told him. He saw that even though his intention was to clean the cloth, it was actually getting dirty gradually, “I rubbed this saying it to clean, but it is actually getting dirty.” His mind was well concentrated on to what happened to the cloth. The Supreme Buddha preached the Dhamma, so that the monk’s mind will be cultivated. In a moment, the young monk became an Arahant. See how his talent of realizing the Dhamma was concealed within him. If it was not the Buddha himself, who else would be able to do such a miracle? How many chances we may have missed and how many talents of us realizing life may have been concealed within us? Who would know how to unveil that talent in us?
It was this Chūla Panthaka Thero who became the first among the Bhikkhus who were able to create mental (Manōmaya) bodies. His brother monk didn’t know about it. He thought Chūla Panthaka Thero has gone home by that time. On that same day, all Bhikkhus went to alms-offering invitation. The Supreme Buddha told them that one monk is missing. Nobody knew about Chūla Panthaka Thero. The Supreme Buddha asked someone to go fetch the missing monk from the temple.
When he went to the temple, he saw one thousand monks. They were all alike. They were walking, cleaning the ground, and meditating. That person who came to fetch the monk ran back to the house and told the Supreme Buddha, “Dear Sir, there are thousand monks in the temple now.” The Supreme Buddha told him, “Please go back and ask what his name is. Touch the robe of the monk whoever answers first.” So, that person went back to the temple and said, “Who among you is called Chūla Panthaka Thero?” Then all thousand monks came forward saying, “I am… I am… I am…” As soon that person touched the monk who first answered, all other nine hundred ninety nine monks (bodies) disappeared.
He said, “Dear Sir, please come to lunch.” Chūla Panthaka Thero answered, “Dear devotee, you go please. I will come later.” The Supreme Buddha had the devotees at home to make a chair for Chūla Panthaka Thero. Then a Bhikkhu appeared from beneath the ground and sat on that chair; it was the Chūla Panthaka Thero.