In meditation, should one pursue tranquility first, prior to looking for insight?

I will try to answer from my point of view as a Vajrayana practitioner.

I've been taught that one needs to have a relatively stable mind in order to practice insight meditation. But this doesn't mean that one has to spend years in Samatha meditation before trying Vipassana.

In Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition too much tranquility and so-called 'inert peace' is considered as an obstacle on the way since it is not a full enlightenment and it can easily prevent a practitioner from pursuing next stages of realisation. To avoid that, practitioners can take a Bodhisattva Vow to remind them that they want to pursue happiness not only for themselves but mainly for all the sentient beings.

One Vajrayana Lama was asked whether we need to calm down and bring our energy down in order to practise insight meditation. He replied that we don't have to calm down at all, we just have to transform this energy into something useful. I found it very liberating, since, personally, I found it somewhat boring to sit in peace for hours. When I got introduced to insight meditations which involved visualising Buddha forms and receiving lights from them, I liked them straight away. Then I met some more experienced practitioners and indeed, they weren't particularly calm, rather lively, very joyful and stable at the same time.

I would say that choosing the right practice and teacher is very individual. If you already think that attachment to blissful state might be an obstacle for you, maybe it is a sign that you are ready for insight meditation. It seems that you know enough theory so it is high time to put it into practice. Try not to overthink, just give it a try and when meeting a teacher or other practitioners, just ask yourself - do I want to become like them? Do I want to behave like them in 5 years time? If your answer is an honest one, soon you should find the right teacher.


Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'?

Conceptually, Buddhist ethics is very simple and elegant, at least in my limited understanding.

The state of Buddha (Nirvana) is taken as the gold standard of all the best.
While Samsara, and within Samsara the hell realm particularly, with its absolute dukkha, is taken as the worst possible condition. Psychologically, subjectively, Hell is defined as state "everything is wrong" -- and Nirvana as "everything is right"1

The good and bad then are defined in relation to these two extremes. Whatever is conducive to psychological suchness is considered good (kusala). And whatever is conducive to psychological wrongness, to staying in or getting deeper into Samsara, is considered bad (akusala).

So in Buddhism the connotation of kusala/akusala is not a moral quality but the effect in terms of propelling us one way or another. Researchers of pre-Buddhist sources suggest that kusala originally meant "wise", "clever", "intelligent", "expert" -- and later "blameless". As in, if you act wisely, you won't be blamed. My favorite choice of translation, is one that Thanissaro Bhikkhu settled on: "skilfull". On one occasion I translated akusala as "pathological" -- kinda the opposite of "healthy", which is another connotation of kusala. Although in informal speech I simply say good (as in "drinking milk is good for you").

To add more depth and color, both long term and short term effect must be considered. While achieving harmony of short term and long term is said to be a sign of a high skill (e.g. enjoying pleasant being in the here and now, and at the same time making progress towards Nirvana), sometimes the two cannot be reconciled at which point long term becomes more important than short term. All this follows from Buddha's explanations in Pali Canon.

Also, both personal as well as global result must be considered. Again, harmonizing the two is a sign of class, but in case of conflict -- Mahayana folks close your ears -- personal result wins. Buddha is very explicit about this. It does not mean it is Ok to achieve personal bliss at the expense of the world, vampire style. It just means, if oxygen masks jump out, first put on yours, and then help your neighbor. This is my understanding of course, but I swear I did not make this up.

There is one distinction that Buddha usually drew and that is between the good that leads to worldly happiness vs. good that leads to Liberation. The two match pretty closely in most basic scenarios (like adhering to five precepts in day to day behavior, which both helps social harmony AND involves taming one's mind), but may diverge on more advanced stages:

  ... Now, I say that right view is twofold. There is right view that has
  cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving to
  new birth. There is right view that is ariyan, cankerless,
  super-mundane, a component of the Way...

This is how it basically is... What else... To answer your question directly, if there is anything like "sin" in Buddhism, it would only be so because of its correlation with bad effect, getting one further from Nirvana and closer to dukkha. Buddhism is a very practical framework, and because it grounds itself in first-hand experience it's kinda hard to to argue with.

For a more professional take on the topic, check out this piece by Bhikkhu Thich Nhat-Tu. There is also tons of research on this topic in buddhological academia, but I would be very careful with putting my trust in research that does not come from a practicing Buddhist.

To conclude on a practical note, in case you have doubts as to whether it is in our power to develop kusala and abandon akusala here is some encouragement from The Man Himself:

  "Abandon what is unskillful (akusala), monks. It is possible to
  abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is
  unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But
  because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you,
  'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful
  were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what
  is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is
  conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.'

  "Develop what is skillful (kusala), monks. It is possible to develop
  what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful,
  I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is
  possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is
  skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to
  harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But
  because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit
  and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" -- Kusala
  Sutta AN 2.19

......
1not really, as "everything is right" would be the god's realm. Nirvana achieves "everything is right" in a funny way, by transcending the axis of psychologically agreeable/disagreeable, which makes everything right even when it's wrong, but that goes beyond our present discussion. For practical purposes let's pretend Nirvana is a simple "everything is right".


31 planes of existence coming together is one universe. In each universe there is a Maha Brahma in each Brahma plane.

  ... a thousand brahmā worlds. ...

According to the Abhidhamma there are infinite world systems. See: Abhidharmartha Pradipika By Amaradasa Rathnapala.

Also see: The Buddhist Concept of World by Bhikkhu T. Seelananda and also this answer.


Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism?

First a bit of background or context -- just in case you didn't know.
So apparently, as well as the suttas, there's something called the vinaya i.e. the code of Monastic discipline. These are (or include) many of dozens of rules which the Buddha established for monks -- and "following the vinaya" is one of the things that a monk is supposed to do (and affects or defines whether someone is considered to be a monk).
The (codified) vinaya defines the letter-of-the-law of what monks must or mustn't do. I only know some details and vague outlines but I think it amounts to something including this (and more) ...

No handling money
No secular "job"
Maybe a limited acceptance of secular authorities (e.g. perhaps no secular "boss")
No selling the Dhamma (no secular "clients")
Limited interaction with lay-folk

... so "psychotherapy service" doesn't quite sound like what a monk should do -- e.g. I wouldn't expect to look up "psychotherapy" in the Yellow Pages and find a Buddhist monk advertising there.
People also have an ideal (perhaps idiosyncratic or judgemental) of what a monk should do, I think it's something like ...

If you're interested in Buddhism you go to a  monastery for training
Monks teach Buddhism to novices (i.e. monk-candidates), to lay people who are taking "retreats", and the occasional Dhamma-talk (like an academic "lecture" on a subject) to a group of people when invited
Monks take their bowl e.g. to the local village or onto the public street once a day, where people may put food in the bowl, but that's a silent transaction (or not transactional)

... so limited opportunity for any one-on-one -- and, "providing a service" to lay-people isn't entirely what being a monk is about. To the contrary, it's lay people who should provide some service to the sangha, doing or providing things which monks may need but aren't allowed to do themselves (including storing food, buying any goods and services, and so on).
Incidentally some people observe that the present actuality isn't as ideal as the outline above, in many Buddhist countries -- e.g. that some monasteries (or temples) do collect money, that monks live luxuriously, that there are "superstitions" or "folk religions" mixed in, that monks seem to make a living by showing up at lay funerals, and so on.
But anyway the content of the Vinaya -- the letter of the law if not the spirit -- varies quite little I think, over the centuries and over continents. Monks are expected to memorise it and recite it regularly.
Still there are deviations, in particular I think it's difficult to practice ...

When there's no support or cooperation from lay society (e.g. where the lay society isn't Buddhist and isn't prepared to support a monastic society)
When there's hostility from the secular powers (e.g. when the emperor thinks that Buddhist monks have become a drain on the empire's or the provinces' ability to raise taxes and/or armies)

For these reasons the existence of the sangha is a bit precarious, and without the sangha i.e. without monks being able to live, Buddhism might not be viable. Other traditions develop e.g. monks work in the fields to help support themselves, etc.
There also "competition" from other religions -- Hinduism, Islam, Daoism, Folk religions (e.g. animism), not to mention Christianity (and, perhaps most recently, western Rationalism and/or Science) -- but that's not on-topic here.
Anyway I think that Japan -- Japanese Buddhism -- might be one of the more extreme examples of the Vinaya being modified by secular edict. So, for example, I think that Japanese senior abbots might even marry and so on. I can't comment on countries where Buddhism itself has become a secular power.
As a gross approximation I'd guess that the "ideal" I outlined above (e.g. keeping separate from lay society) is a "Theravada" (the "Way of the Elder monks") ideal, whereas mixing more with lay society might be more "Mahayana" (the "Great vehicle") -- though Andrei points out that in practice this is a great oversimplification (and perhaps or arguably not a genuine distinction at all).

Anyway, to get round to your question -- yes, I think there are: in some places.
You asked about "in Buddhism" -- and I'm not sure what that means ... e.g. "in traditional Buddhism", or "in modern Buddhism", "in what we know of original or early Buddhism".
But for example, there's Welcome to Kusala.org ...

Kusala Bhikshu - is a volunteer Buddhist chaplain for -- The UCLA Medical Center Spiritual Care Committee, the University Religious Conference at UCLA, and the Garden Grove Police Department. Rev. Kusala is active in the interreligious communities of both Los Angeles and Orange County. He lives/works at the IBMC teaching Buddhism and meditation.

Perhaps what you're looking for is a Buddhist "chaplain"?
If you're dying in hospital then the staff might ask you if you want a visit from a chaplain, and some people might want a Buddhist chaplain.
Another possibility is that what you're asking about is a "teacher" -- i.e. a teacher might talk with you one-on-one and so on.
Another possibility is that you are asking for a (e.g. clinical) psychotherapist, but a Buddhist one.

It's this which ties the first bit of this answer to the second, by the way:

Kusala Bhikshu
Ven. Kusala Bhikshu (Thich Tam-Thien) is an American born Bhikshu (monk) ordained in the Zen Tradition of Vietnam.

Another (more famous) example of Vietnamese Zen in the west is Plum Village and Thich Nhat Hanh (I don't know whether that has anything to do with psychotherapeutic consulting though).
I don't know much more -- this suggests that the Vietnamese Zen tradition might be inclusive rather than exclusive, maybe not very dogmatic.
Also I hope the first bit of this answer might help to explain, amplify or give some context to the answers from Samana Johann and user12901.

This, I don't know, might be another example, it's a publisher's blurb about an author:

Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula
Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, PhD, was born in Sri Lanka and became a Buddhist monk in childhood. He holds a Master's Degree in literature, and a doctorate in English. He serves the congregation at the Houston Buddhist Vihara, and teaches English at the University of Houston. He lives in Texas.

I don't know what "serving the congregation" there might mean exactly, but that might include something of what you're asking about (see also that book).

I think I've also seen it argued or imp[lied, though, that a monk who serves the community which supports them is therefore not a true monk.

My personal opinion is that, broadly, lay people will want you to function well or to improve your functioning within samsara -- conversely Buddhism might be about stopping samsara altogether -- consequently there may be some disconnect between the aims of lay society and "Buddhism".
I also think that anyone who wants to "stop" might be seen as dysfunctional, by "puthujjanas" and so on (people who aren't disinterested in what you do for them).
Wanting to stop might therefore be stigmatised as some symptom of mental illness -- ironic that stopping, if it's meant as a cure or therapy, should be mistaken for the disease.
I can only hope that any psychotherapist worth their salt, Buddhist or not, might have some patience for their client's best interest, advocate for their client/patient rather than only for society.
People tend to be pushed, not just by their society but by their family, to perform. I happened to read an extreme example of that recently, here:

In my country if I will become a homeless guy who don't want any money even à cents who looking for illumination I will send to psychiatrict hospital.
Asking for food when you made de choice to live without money is ok in bouddhisme and Indian for yogi. Not in my country.
And the weather...

That's actually a bit contrary to my limited experience (or at least, "in my country") of homelessness and psychiatric hospitals, it might help[ to illustrate a dichotomy though (possibly a false dichotomy).


What happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give?

It's not really about what you give, it 's about what you give up. What you let go.

We can always give love. We can always send lovingkindness and compassion.

We can give to ourselves if it is from the heart. Love yourself by loving all beings. Free yourself by loving all beings. When you love yourself in a virtuous way, you see yourself as you humbly see everyone.

Anyway, If your tank is empty for giving then remember there are 7 other parts of the eightfold path other than giving that can be practiced by monastics    and    laypeople.  -m e t t a


More is better.  Period.  If you want some nuance to this answer, once you start getting above three hours straight in your sits, you start to get into diminishing returns.

The untrained mind and all of its obstacles and doubts is like a game of whack a mole.  You’ve got to keep swinging, every day, if you ever expect to make any progress.


What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon?

From SN 15.2:

At Savatthı. “Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would reduce this great earth to balls of clay the size of jujube kernels and put them down, saying [for each one]: ‘This is my father, this my father’s father.’ The sequence of that man’s fathers and grandfathers would not come to an end, yet this great earth would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this sa˙s›ra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving."

Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

No, the concept of Samsara already existed in other religions before Buddhism.


In the Theravada tradition, we learn Yoniso Manasikhara. It means paying wise attention. And the knowledge or vision gained by paying wise attention is called the Yathā Bhūta ñāna Dassana or the vision of manifestations in their real form.


Boredom is a sign of restlessness. If you're bored, you want to try to do something else. You're not contented with the present moment. Please read this essay on the five hindrances to meditation by Ajahn Brahmavamso.

However, if you're falling asleep or cannot focus, then that's sloth and torpor (quoted below from essay). Since you have already commented that sloth and torpor is the likely cause, we will focus on that.

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic.

You can use another essay entitled A Guided Meditation (quoted below) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to help you with this problem.

From the above essay, you know that you must set a goal to generate energy that is, by generating interest. In the following quote, the author suggests to explore sensations in other parts of the body (otherwise you will doze off). Please read the whole essay to get the whole picture.

  If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

  When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...


I'd suggest to leave anapanasati behind, do low-concentration ("dry") vipassana which will make you face and learn to face the anger (you will learn how to not attach to it, let it come & go, not judge yourself for it, not analyze and not make theories about the pain it causes), dtto for the back pain. There is nothing wrong with anger, it is your teacher just like pain; the attachment and unskillful dealing is the problem; by observing the pain or anger, you will get insight into yourself, and will learn to accept anger and pain as a part of you being human, and integrate it into your life skillfully, without (progressively) harming yourself and others.

(Explanation:) The reason for this is that people tend to use concentration (including anapanasati or brahmaviharas) to run away from conditions, instead of dealing with them. Those practices can be beneficial, but they have also their blind spots, and the best is to have a long-term teacher who can guide you here. Otherwise it  likely that the ego will use metta-practice to re-affirm itself, such as persuading you about being loving and caring when you're perhaps full of anger and hate. I've seen on a few occasions people developing metta-crust on the top of stuff they never dealt with; which means (a) they learn to live with lie (delusion) instead of being in the present and in the truth (b) in more difficult situations, the crust breaks and I was very surprised how quickly the seemingly loving person turned into almost a hate monster; they regretted that themselves later, but did not understand what happened.


You probably know, you have to practice.
  You haven't watched Bhante Yuttadhammo's videos on how to meditate? Bhante Yuttadhammo is always talking about how it takes moment by moment experiencial practice to understand the enefable Dhamma.
  We can't read about insights into our own personal habits and beliefs that are below the surface of consciousness,  we have to witness them.

  Here are some specific Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu videos concerning this issue:

  Intellectual Knowledge of  Insight Knowledge
  https://youtu.be/_qw0qRro2es

  Intelligence, Wisdom, and Stupidity
  https://youtu.be/gBTOOI1bk-o

  Overdosing on Study
  https://youtu.be/SfG1Dk6yUKE

  Study of the Dhamma Vs. Practice
  https://youtu.be/T2CodNAHzf0

  Conceptual Truth vs. Ultimate Truth
  https://youtu.be/jg48H8VtN9E

  Why Practice Meditation
  https://youtu.be/0rbspa_39EY

  Basics of Vipassana
  https://youtu.be/YmcE3TlCDYE

  One Who Lives By The Dhamma
  https://youtu.be/aVWCyaAmgSc

  How I Became a Buddhist Monk
  https://youtu.be/5PajaN34xK8


How concerned should Buddhists be with the actions of others?

I am going to quote Jack Kornfield's Living Dharma, specifically the interview portion with Achaan Chaa, excerpt from the question of "If putting everything together in our bowls is important, why don't you as a teacher do it yourself?" (page 42 to 43 of my edition):

Wisdom is for yourself to watch and develop. Take from the teacher what is good. Be aware of your own practice. If I am resting while you must sit up does this make you angry? If I call the color blue red or say that male is female, don't follow me blindly.
[…] If you watch others at most ten percent of the time and watch yourself ninety percent, this is proper practice. […]
Looking outside the self is comparing, discriminating. You will not find happiness that way. Nor will you find peace if you spend your time looking for the perfect man or the perfect teacher. The Buddha taught us to look at the Dharma, the truth, not to look at other people.

So I would say that, based on this, the lesson here is to remain focused on your own intentions and actions, but to strive to fully notice your own reactions to what happens. If someone else kills the insect and you benefit, how does that make you feel? How do you respond to it?
I would argue that goes even if you have encouraged them not to do it.


One way to understand Buddhism, is to understand how the Buddha frames happiness and suffering and what he was trying to achieve.

Wordly Happiness & Suffering

First, the Buddha did not denied that we experience pleasure:

  “Ānanda, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. Sounds cognizable by the ear … Odours cognizable by the nose … Tastes cognizable by the tongue … Tactile objects cognizable by the body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure. The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on these five cords of sensual pleasure: this is called sensual pleasure.

  “Though some may say, ‘This is the supreme pleasure and joy that beings experience,’ I would not concede this to them. Why is that? Because there is another kind of happiness more excellent and sublime than that happiness."

  -- SN 36.19

One problem with the pleasure/happiness that we experience normally, (through our senses, thoughts, emotions) is that they are impermanent. In this sense, they are only temporary shelters in our lives. A second problem is that they seem unable to absolutely satisfy us, in the greatest sense. For example, eating may satisfy hunger at a certain moment, but does not satisfy every single necessity or desire at that same moment.

In the pāli scriptures, the term that describes the characteristic of being impermanent is anicca. And the term to describe the unsatisfactoriness of things is dukkha. With that said, the Buddha declared:

  "All sankhara are dukkha."
  "All sankhara are anicca."

   -- AN 3.136

sankhara is usually translated as "phenomena", "formations", "fabrications" or "preparations". It refer to the "things", all these "fluxes" that are experienced, touched, heard, smelled, seen, felt, thought, etc. Everything that comes to be with conditions as basis.

At this moment, it's relevant to point out that dhukkha can also mean pain or suffering as well. So, that explains why some people came to conclude that the Buddha said that everything (or life) is suffering, which is problematic, as it should be clear now.

What he said, then, is that all these worldly experiences we go through are unsatisfactory in it's ultimate sense. And even if they may be temporarily pleasing at the present, they always carry the danger of suffering in the future. The Buddha also said:

  “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on form: this is the gratification in form. That form is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in form. [repeats for all aggregates of our individuality]"

  -- SN 22.26

That is, by evaluating all experienced based on our sensory faculties, he established the pleasure that arise with them as condition (the gratification). And due to it's characteristics of being impermanent, he observed it carries a danger for suffering.

That sums up the first noble truth: "this is dukkha".

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five situations that are unobtainable by an ascetic or a brahmin, by a deva, Māra, or Brahmā, or by anyone in the world. What five? (1) ‘May what is subject to old age not grow old!’ ... ‘May what is subject to illness not fall ill!’ [...] (3) ‘May what is subject to death not die!’ [...] (4) ‘May what is subject to destruction not be destroyed!’ [...] (5) ‘May what is subject to loss not be lost!’."

  -- AN 5.48

Nirvana

While most people are fine with all that situation of living with pleasures and sufferings, others feel enslaved by this existential situation they find themselves in. These people came to conclude that no matter what happiness they may find in the world, they know deep inside that such happiness has an expiration date -- and suffering is around the corner. The Buddha was in this later category.

The problem the Buddha set out to solve was: is there the ultimate happiness? and how to achieve it? By ultimate happiness, it's meant something that has no trace of unsatisfactoriness. And also, something that is not impermanent. Because it doesn't change, and because there's nothing else to desire, this is then the ultimate peace, where there's no danger whatsoever of suffering. It's impossible, then, to conceive any happiness greater than that, for this would denounce it's unsatisfactoriness.

In Buddhism, this is called Nirvana, the end of dukkha without reminder. And the third noble truth is a declaration by the Buddha that Nirvana can be attained: "This is the cessation of dukkha".

Because all the "worldly experiences" are conditioned, impermanent, subject to change and to vanish, the Buddha halted any of his attempt to find the ultimate happiness on these things.

  Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be suffering will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]. [...] [But] it is possible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be hapiness will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]."

  -- AN 6.101

Samsara

What makes our situation more dramatic is the idea of the cycle of births. While some people don't believe in life after death, the tradition understands the Buddha declaring that after the death of this life there's another (and on it goes), seemingly with no external force that will make it stop.

Some may see this as an endless opportunity for entertainment and living all sorts of interesting things. But others see it as a burden. Here, we go around experiencing things that come to an end, and then experiencing other things, with no pause. Sometimes they please us, sometimes they cause suffering. Things that were something become otherwise, continually. Everything we hold with our hands vanish -- and soon, our hands also vanish.

The Buddha concluded that this "never ending wandering" has a cause: our thirst (tanha), our desires, specially the desires based on the sense faculties. By desiring, we keep experimenting, and these experiences have the nature of changing, the nature of being unable to satisfy us, and the nature of cause suffering.

This thirst, then, is a root of our suffering, the second noble truth: "this is the origin of dukkha."

  “Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  “Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

  -- SN 15.13

The Path

Thus, the Buddha taught a progressive training where gross and worldly pleasures are gradually abandoned in favor of more sublime and beneficial pleasures.

  If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.

  -- Dhp 290

This training is the noble eightfold path, the fourth noble truth: "This is the path that leads to the cessation of dukkha."

The Buddha said this path is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end". It promotes happiness in this very life, happiness in the after-life, and if taken to it's last consequences, to Nirvana.

Final Notes

It's not known exactly what happens to someone who attained Nirvana after death. When questioned about it, the Buddha did not answer. He denied that after death, an Arahant or Buddha is annihilated. He also denied that he reborns. Finally, he asked that those things that he left undeclared to be remembered as undeclared by him.

But, from what we know he has said, Nirvana is the cessation of dukkha and the end of suffering. We also know that it is said to be, indeed, happiness. So Buddhism is not depressive. It is, in fact, positive. It promotes knowledge about the nature of suffering and happiness and how to cultivate the latter. And to those "tired of the rollercoaster", it affirms there's indeed a secure shelter out of it and shows the path that leads to it.


Does the Doctrine of No Soul mean there is nothing permanent to continue?

I agree with you.

The Pali suttas do not refer to a continuous consciousness at the termination of life.

Instead, the suttas explain 'birth' ('jati') & 'death' ('marana') refer to the birth & death of 'self-views'.

Therefore, 're-birth' refers to the re-arisings of 'self-view'.

For example, you make $100,000. Re-birth is the happy view: "I made $100,000; I am rich". You lose $100. Death is the unhappiness of 'I lost $100; I am poor".


Have Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara?

SN 22.85 says Arahants have "sankhara":

  “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”

  “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

  “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

MN 43 says a living individual has ayu-sankhara (vitality/life force):

  But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are
  different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of
  perception and feeling can emerge from it.

  Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā
  saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṃ paññāyatī”ti.

  When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled.
  But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and
  their faculties are very clear.

  Yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā
  niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
  cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā
  avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.

MN 26 describes Nibbana as the "calming (samatho) of all sankhara" rather than "destruction of all sankhara":

  It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of
  all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of
  craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.

  Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho
  sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.


Reference wanted for "To see your past karma, look at your present body (and environment)...."

Found it... mostly --
Tweet by H.H. The Dalai Lama, May 6, 2010...

  If you wonder what you were doing in the past, look at your body; to know what will happen to you in the future, look at your mind.

3149 retweets -- so that's probably where I saw it. As for adding environment to body, that's probably my interpolation, since the material circumstances of one's present life are clearly karmic, according to Buddhadharma.

It's probably impossible to trace this to a single origin, however, as it seems to be all over the place in various versions, including from sources other than Buddhists.


Does suffering entail being overwhelmed for the person who is suffering?

-- "Does suffering entail being overwhelmed"

Yes, I think it often does...

...In some cases, when a disagreeable experience arises (irrespective of its sensory modality) we have a strong and completely unconscious attachment - and so suffering arises immediately and without any resistance. In this case we can't speak about "overwhelming" (or else we could categorize this as an absolute "overwhelming" that meets zero resistance) This probably happens more often to children and to people with relatively undeveloped Emotional Intelligence...

-- But in most cases, modern people have developed various coping techniques to try and alleviate potentially disagreeable experience and prevent it from turning into suffering.

The main technique I see people using every day, many times a day, is "reinterpretation". This is when a person re-frames a (potentially) disagreeable experience to make it agreeable. For example, someone drives to a supermarket and sees all parking spots near the entrance taken. The spots in the middle of the lot are taken too. The only available spots are on the far end of the parking lot. The person then re-frames the experience by saying (out loud or to oneself): "This is even better. Will make me walk a longer distance, and I can use some exercise."

Most healthy people have very "healthy" but also rather unconscious habit of re-framing everything they encounter as to protect their inner comfort. They re-frame circumstances, objects, people, and events in such a way as to reduce a sense of failure, doom, inadequacy - and ensure inner peace. Because we are intelligent species, many of us (but not all) prefer these re-interpretations to be logically consistent and to add up to some sort of more-or-less cohesive life philosophy. This requirement of logical consistency makes this process exhibit a kind of self-sustaining growth, what I call hardening of the ego. What I mean by that is the fact that for most people, their newly made (re-)interpretations arise from -- and add to -- the existing set of internalized interpretations. In other words, the new interpretations are offered by the ego to ensure its integrity. If a new re-interpretation successfully manages to prevent a disagreeable experience from turning into suffering, and does not meet too much rejection from the external world, it is added to the ego's collection of workable interpretations. Thereby tightening up ego's space of possible interpretations, or "hardening the ego".

For example, if someone's life grew out of a difficult background, and he or she was not taught positive re-interpretation, this person's ego starts framing the difficulties as something normal and expected, using this as its coping mechanism -- suffering getting reduced when experience match expectations. This interpretative style continues to accumulate new interpretations until it hardens into a cohesively negative or pessimistic worldview. Other people harden into an optimist, a villain, a victim - with corresponding worldview to match.

Most people who grow up in a consistent and non-conflicted environment, by the time they reach adulthood end up having a virtually impenetrable ego with no possibility of interpretative ambiguity - and therefore no space for maneuver when a re-interpretation is required to alleviate another piece of disagreeable experience - but no logically consistent interpretation can be offered without breaking the logical network of assertions comprising the ego. When this happens, we end up being helpless in the face of the disagreeable experience, which at that time can be said to "overwhelm" us and arise as full-blown suffering.

As Buddhism developed historically, it developed various techniques for dealing with this entire pattern of suffering, its arising and prevention. These techniques range from primitive, such as simply "enduring"; switching attention; and forcing the thoughts out, to re-framing, such as seeing things "phenomenologically" as mere "stimuli", "notions", "feelings", "energies" etc; to detachment or letting go of deep-lying assumptions&preconceptions that lead to evaluation of experiences as something negative, to methodical deconstruction of ego's existing interpretations, to non-evaluating acceptance of all experiences, and finally to interpretative ambiguity.

What's cool about interpretative ambiguity is that it ends up being rather enduring in the face of disagreeable experiences of all kinds. The complete mastery of interpretative ambiguity prevents any possibility of being overwhelmed with a disagreeable interpretation of any and all experience. In other words, it prevents suffering.


What is the equivalent scientific term for samsedaja? What kind of beings on earth are born from samsedaja?

Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  Conception in moisture-laden media such as moss etc. (sansedaja), represents the coming into existence of some larva etc.

  http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Dhammacakkappavattana%20Sutta.htm

In this view, the larva seems to be seen as an embryonic stage.

Nina Van Gorkom says:

  Queen Padumavati was conceived in a lotus blossom and Queen Veluvati in the hollow of bamboo plant. Cincamana who slandered the Buddha took rebirth in a tamarind tree.

  http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3179.html

These allusions are to cases where a human being was born miraculously outside of the womb; somewhat apocryphal.

She also says most insects are samsedaja, but that doesn't seem technically correct.

As for bacteria, I'm only going to state as an opinion that given that stem cells are not sentient, I'm not convinced that bacteria are either. There seems to have to be a higher level of organization for sentience to be possible. At any rate, there is no reason to assume that just because something is alive and reproducing that it is also sentient; unless the mind takes hold of the organism, there will be no sentience even in the case of a fertilized egg.


Seeking to enlighten other sentient beings - is it ever redemptive

I used to wonder whether I did good deeds just to do good deeds or because it made me feel better and I got something out of it. I laugh sometimes at how hard we think about things. Literally worrying to much about whether we are being self rightous in doing good deeds causes us to actually be self rightous just worrying about it. Who cares whether we are doing good deeds or enlightening others for our own benefit! If it actually gets people to awaken and helps others then so be it! If doing good deeds because it makes yourself feel better ends up helping other people, then we should hope that our egos be filled to the brim!


Is there a serious TV channel which is for Buddhist community?

While I'm not aware of any TV channels which are not geographically bound, I think you can use YouTube channels, that have regularly published content, as sort of TV channels.
Here are some Theravada Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Buddhist Society of Western Australia
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery
Ajahn Sona
Vimutti Buddhist Monastery

Here are some Tibetan Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Dalai Lama
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche
Bodhicharya Dharma Channel


Is this an ok understanding of Dharmakirti's vināśitvānumāna?

I'm not familiar with Dharmakirti, but from a cursory skim of the argument, it seems he is using typical Nagarjunian reductio-ad-absurdum to yet again show that all (spatially and temporally) discrete things are mental imputations.

It seems he is saying, if things were real, then they would have to perish for real, but if things perished for real, then the effect of the cause that would lead to such perishing would have to be something completely absent. Now, since absence is not real in any sense other than as a mental abstraction, the perishing cannot be anything other than an abstraction. Since perishing is an abstraction, then temporally discrete things must be imputations, hence the ontological momentariness which is just another facet of Emptiness.


Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas that occurs just over one lifetime?

All factors of the pratityasamutpada occurs in this lifetime. Just from different causal rounds of it. And of course, there is much more relations between the nidanas than just sequential enumeration of 12 states.

  Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

If you deny just one link, that should not make other 10 links of no value even for you.

In Sarvastivada school there is also instantaneous (ksanika) interpretation of pratityasamutpada. Quoting Abhidharmakosa-bhasya:

  [Question:] – How is dependent origination momentary? [Answer:] – When
  persons who are a victim of the defilements commit murder, the twelve
  members are realized in the same moment:
  1. their delusion (moha) is ignorance (avidyā);
  2. their intention (cetanā) is the formations (saṃskāra);
  3. their distinct perception of a certain object [vastuprativijñapti] is consciousness (vijñāna);
  4. the four aggregates co-arisen with the consciousness are name-and-form (nāmarūpa);
  5. the sense-faculties abiding in name-and-form are the six sense-spheres (ṣaḍāyatana);
  6. the functioning [abhinipāta] of the six sense-spheres is contact (sparśa);
  7. to experience [anubhava] contact is sensation (vedanā);
  8. greed (lobha; LVP: attachment [rāga]) is craving (tṛṣṇā);
  9. the envelopments (paryavasthāna) associated with craving are grasping (upādāna);
  10. bodily or vocal action [kāyavākkarma] that proceeds [from sensation or craving] is existence (bhava);
  11. the emergence (utsarjana; LVP: unmajjana = utpāda = arising) of all these factors is birth (jāti);
  12. the maturity (paripāka) of these factors is old age (jarā); and the breaking down (bhaṅga) of these factors is death (maraṇa).


Where do westerners get their "Buddhist" names?

Where do westerners get their “Buddhist” names?

In the Theravada tradition a novice receives a new name in Pali when a senior monk accepts his/her request to become Preceptor.

For more information see "Ordination Procedure in the Theravada Tradition".


Is it okay to seek financial gains as a layman?

Contrary to the popular belief, Buddhist way of life does not start with the eradication of attachment.Detached nature is a quality of final realization but definitely not the main part of the process. The noble eight fold path starts with right-view(Samma Ditti). If the path is correctly followed, the final destination will be free of suffering which is caused by attachment. Worldly beings are attached to the sensual world due to a false view(ignorance). Therefore, it is important to clear the vision first rather than removing attachment. Because it would be something forceful and artificial which leads to more problems.
This is clearly evident in Buddha's main lay disciples such as Anatapindika, Vishakha or King Bimbisara who were successful in worldly life as well as supra-mundane life.

All in all, aspiring financial success is not against the path as long as you are doing it in a right way(Samma Ajiva) and your main goal in life is the cessation of suffering.


How does Emotional Intelligence go along with Dhamma practice?

The Abhidhamma is useful for this question. I quote from The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis.
Starting from the top:

The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in an ultimate sense,
called in Pali paramattha dhammaa. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as that which knows or experiences an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of
consciousness.
Cetasikas, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the cittas.
Ruupa, physical phenomena, or material form.
Nibbaana.

Next we go into the cetasikas:

The second reality or paramattha dhamma is the cetasikas. The
cetasikas are the mental factors or concomitants that arise and perish
together with consciousness (citta), sharing its object and basis.
The Abhidhamma lists 52 kinds of cetasikas. One is feeling (vedanaa),
another is perception (saññaa). The remaining 50 are grouped together
under the term sa"nkhaaraa.

And then we go into sa"nkhaaraa:

Sa"nkhaaraa is a collective term for the other fifty cetasikas. These fall into four groups:

Universal mental factors (sabba citta saadhaaranaa)
Particular mental factors (paki.n.nakaa)
Unwholesome mental factors (akusalaa)
Beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa)

There are 7 universal mental factors (including feeling and perception) and 6 particular mental factors. These are neutral:

The universals and particulars are, in themselves, ethically
indeterminate but become wholesome, unwholesome, or neither, depending
on the state of consciousness in which they occur.

There are 14 unwholesome mental factors and 25 beautiful mental factors.
The four Brahmaviharas are included in the list of 25 beautiful mental factors. Others on the list include mindfulness, faith, non-attachment, shame of evil, fear of evil, right action, right speech, right livelihood, wisdom etc.
The lists are very long, so I will let you take a look at it on the website yourself.

OP: I am wondering how does it (emotional intelligence) affect and get affected by the practice of the Dhamma?

With Dhamma practice, the unwholesome mental factors should become weaker and the beautiful mental factors should become stronger or more dominant. This is the increase of emotional intelligence that comes with the practice.

OP: Does deeper meditative absorption lead to heightened awareness and control of one's emotions and vice versa or are they completely
unrelated?

Your ability to consciously identify and eliminate unwholesome mental factors, and consciously apply beautiful mental factors, increase with the Dhamma practice, including meditation. You get more control over your mind, so to speak.

OP: Also, does the 'feeling' skandha include feeling of one's emotions?

The feeling aggregate is sensing the six sensory media, which includes thought and mind. Emotions are a kind of thought. So, yes.
But unlike externally originated sights, sound and smell which you cannot control, thoughts come out of your mind in a process chain described in this answer. So, you can control it through increasing emotional intelligence.

OP: Are there any wholesome emotions one feels as the practice deepens? Are the Brahmaviharas all there is to wholesome emotions?

No. As shown above, there are 25 wholesome mental factors including the four Brahmaviharas. So, Brahmaviharas are not all there is to wholesome mental factors.


Page 19 of the Dharmafarer PDF says they're explained in the commentary:

  The Commentary here explains them as follows:

  “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) as incest, that is, “lust between mother and mother’s sister and
  father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such improper situations” ;
  “excessive greed” (visama,lobha) or “neurotic desire,” as excessive greed by way of consuming
  things (in other words, unbridled materialism and
  consumerism); and
  “deviant conduct” (miccha,dhamma) as homosexuality, ie, sex “between men and men, women
  with women.”

I haven't quoted the whole page here: see page 19 of the PDF for more.


The paradox of the Bodhisattva Path (Bodhisattvayāna)

There is no paradox.  Rather, it seems there may be some mistaken assumptions behind your question.
First, if someone is enlightened that does not mean that they will enlighten all people. For example, The Buddha was enlightened and yet he did not enlighten all people.  In fact, after his enlightenment, he actually wondered whether he should teach what he learned to others!
Second, no one can enlighten anyone, they can only help or hinder people on their quest to enlightenment.  Whether someone gets enlightened is up to that person.
Third, you don't need to be enlightened to help others on their quest for enlightenment.  For example, I am not enlightened, but I can still explain the benefits of mindfulness to another person.  This can encourage the other person to try mindfulness practices, and this can set them on their journey to enlightenment.
Finally, a Bodhisattva chooses to forego Nirvana in order to aid all sentient beings.  Depending on which definition you go by, this aid can be mundane -- such as feeding the hungry, reducing pain, etc... Or it can be sublime, such as aiding people on their quest for enlightenment. Either way, there is no paradox here; the Bodhisattva chooses to be reborn.


Why did the Buddha take 7 years to attain Nirvana?

the nirvana Gotama sought was a permanent nirvana.
being without sin will not stop suffering from hunger, heat & cold, sickness, etc
the only permanent nirvana is the complete eradication of self-view
it is not easy to comprehend the hallucination of self-view, let alone discover self-view is suffering
for example, the self-instinct of gotama was searching for nirvana therefore it appeared illogical or counter-intuitive to find the self searching for nirvana was the actually obstacle to finding nirvana
therefore it took gotama seven years to find nirvana because 'self' is a strong instinct in people


Are these simple sentences right? They are about 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, craving, etc

People argue whether "suffering" is the best translation. Perhaps it depends on context. I guess dukkha has range of meaning from (extreme) anguish to (chronic) unsatisfactoriness to (eventual) insufficiency.
And whose goal?
And is it possible that the goal varies -- at the beginning people are caught up in suffering and want to escape it. Perhaps later they're not suffering so much, and there's a slightly different goal i.e. "liberation" or "unbinding".

The "root" poison is ignorance.

They're called "clinging-aggregates". To the extent that the doctrine distinguishes "craving" from "clinging", I think it's "clinging" to aggregates.

I think that tool is the noble eightfold path -- "right view" etc.
Seeing the three characteristics is an example of right view, Jhana is an example of adhicitta-sikkhā

Here I think I'd refer to the Dhammanusati and say, "The doctrine is effective etc.".


Can contemplation of the four noble truths lead to penetration of them?

Contemplate here doesn't mean thinking about it intellectually. Sure we all have to think about it first but real insight happens when you realise it through direct experience.You have to experience the four noble truth not churn it through your head back and forth trying to get a sense of it.This is like contemplating how a mango tastes a hundred times Instead of just picking up the fruit and tasting it.


Spiritual Potential and Consequences of Actions

Instead of "spiritual potential", you probably meant those with supernormal powers/Iddhi capability right? because those with higher spiritual potential would naturally tend to act/speak/think in a more skillful way than those who don't. If that's the case then sure. Just like that common expression "with great power comes great responsibility". A foot soldier can save or kill someone with just his weapon, but an emperor can build or annihilate an entire country with just an order! So probably a more apt expression would be: "with great power comes great kammic consequences".


When and where were the mother and father of Buddha born?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's Family of Gautama Buddha:

The Buddha was born into a family of the kshatriya varna in what is Nepal in 567BCE. He was called Siddhartha in his childhood. His father was King Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan in what was the growing state of Kosala, and his mother was Queen Maya. He was raised by his mother's younger sister Maha Pajapati after his mother's death seven days after childbirth.
He later married Yaśodharā, and together they had one child, a son, Rāhula. Both Yaśodharā and Rāhula later became disciples of Buddha.
His first cousin, by his father, Ananda, joined the Buddha as his attendant.

I would also recommend 2 books for you. The first one is called "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda and "The Buddha and His Teachings" by Ven. Narada Mahathera.
Both books have an introductory section on the life of the Buddha. In the second book there are also 2 chapters on the Buddha's relatives.


The Buddha is believed to have spoken Magahi. The relationship to Pali is discussed articles relating to Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit.


When the Heart Sutra says "There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow" it isn't saying that none of these things exist. What it means is that none of these things exist in terms of 'Svabhava' which means something like 'intrinsic existence' or 'self nature' or 'essence'. In terms of 'Svabhava' none of these things exist, but in terms of the experience of these things and in terms of their actual features and characteristics, they do exist.

And I think that the quote by Ryokan means that opposites are concepts which are relative and exist as abstract concepts which are imputed onto experience. It is absolutely true that the abstracted concept of Nibbana and the abstracted concept of conditioned existence relatively depend on each other as part of a dualistic pair, but that doesn't mean that the experiences and properties to which these concepts refer are themselves interdependent.


Is praying to a statue of the Buddha for bad things to happen part of Buddhism?

There's no voodoo in Buddhism. Buddha preached his doctrine to help you get rid of hatred, greed and ignorance. Any curse or black magic is not a part of Buddhism, even if the lady ignorantly uses a Buddha statue for it. She only harms herself by being ignorant and disrespectful towards the Buddha.


Impossible. When there's relationship, there's bonding. When there's bonding, there's pain when it ends.

The only thing you can do to minimize pain is to stay as independent as possible, and be your own source of joy and acceptance. Which means playing an active role in your life, instead of relying on your partner for initiative and values.


What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?

Few thoughts, based on my understanding of Buddhism:

One: Vijñāna is not an entity, not a substance - it is an emergent effect, an emergent phenomenon known in modern terms as "subjective experience" or "subjectivity". Most people, when they read this phrase ("Consciousness that is invisible, infinite" etc.), assume it means consciousness as something objective that exists or dwells - like electromagnetic field - but in Buddhism it means subjective awareness, subjective experience, the continuously unfolding content of cognition. So we're not talking about cosmic consciousness that lives in space, we are talking about one's actual state of mind.

Two: on many occasions Buddha spoke about "support" and "condition" and "ground" - and how any such support/condition/ground is a basis of dukkha. He then advocated transcending any notion of ground, to achieve a dynamic state of mind which is ground-less, and therefore unconditional. Consider the following image from SN 12.64:

  "... Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
  "On the western wall, lord."
  "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
  "On the ground, lord."
  "And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
  "On the water, lord."
  "And if there is no water, where does it land?"
  "It does not land, lord."
  "In the same way, when there is no [ground such as] desire, attachment, craving, then viññāṇaṃ [=cognition or cognized] does not land and does not grow."

Also, in MN21 there is a following image:

  "... Suppose a person was to come along with dye such as red lac, turmeric, indigo, or rose madder, and say: ‘I shall draw pictures on the sky, making pictures appear there.’ What do you think, mendicants? Could that person draw pictures on the sky?”
  “No, sir."
  "Why is that? Because the sky is formless and anidassano. It’s not easy to draw pictures there."

Here the word is used in context of blame and blamelessness, indicating a condition when one's pure morals provide no ground for any blame. So, anidassano refers to something that provides no surface to lean on, no basis for something to happen or to be done.

Adding points One and Two together, we can reach conclusion that Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ means subjective experience that is completely open and groundless, without support, that feels like the infinite radiant sky.

This of course matches all of my teachers' descriptions of Enlightenment. For official sources, here's Dogen:

  The water is clean, right down to the ground,
  Fishes are swimming like fishes.
  The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,
  And birds are flying like birds.

or Pema Chodron, a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

  "...Then he [Trungpa Rinpoche] goes on and he talks about the mantra. And the mantra is: OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA.

  In other words, a way to practice the profound prajnaparamita is actually to say this mantra —as well as the on-going practice of continually letting go, or letting be, training in a flexible, open, ready mind.

  [Chogyam Trungpa] Rinpoche's translation is: OM, GONE (GATE is gone), GONE, (then PARAGATE) GONE BEYOND, (PARASAMGATE) GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, (BODHI) AWAKE, (SVAHA) SO BE IT. So: OM, GONE, GONE, GONE BEYOND, GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, AWAKE, SO BE IT.

  There's lots of translations of this, and one is: OM, TRANSCENDING, EVER TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING OF TRANSCENDING, SUCHNESS, SO BE IT.

  What is wonderful about this mantra is that it is not a description of some fruition. It's actually a description of a journey that we are all on. We are all on this journey of going, going, going beyond, going even beyond.

  No matter where we are, we can move on to the next beyond. Do you see? It's not a description of: I made it! It's like this! It's a description of: OM, groundless, even more groundless, can it get more groundless than this, Oh my gosh, it's ultimately groundless, there's no ground!, and then BODHI could be translated as Aaaaaaaaaahhhhiiiiiiiii! [Makes a falling scream] So be it! [Audience laughs]

To summarize, I think

  Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ

means

  Cognition with no support, unbounded, completely transparent.

or perhaps, if we take viññāṇaṃ with an -m to be an adjective, then

  Providing no ground for the cognized [to land and grow into dukkha], without a limit [to stop it], completely transparent.

which reminds of the following instruction given by Buddha in Bahiya Sutta:

  "... Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Either way this is clearly a description of Non-abiding Nirvana (apratisthita-nirvana), also known as "suchness" (tathata).


Why should I give a bowl full of rice to a monk if there is no rebirth?

Buddhism is not an obligatory religion but a religion of voluntary individual participation. There is no obligation to feed monks for non-Buddhists who have not gained appreciation and thus gratitude towards Buddhism.

Monks have carried the teachings over the centuries & established places for dedicated practice. Therefore, grateful Buddhists feeds monks who they have personal faith in & respect for. For example, I once expelled a monk from my home & advised him he was not welcome for alms, because I had no faith in that monk.

In short, non-Buddhists or non-faithful have no obligation to feed monks.

Also, Buddhism states monks should be easy to look after & not cause hardship to supporters. In other words, if your family will be deprived due to feeding a monk, Buddhism does not expect you to feed a monk.

  Dhammapada 49. As a bee gathers honey from the flower without injuring its color or fragrance, even so the sage goes on his
  alms-round in the village.


Where can I read something more about Alara Kalama and Uddaka

Alexander Wynne writes about them in his book, The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. In particular, see chapter 2, which has the following introduction:

In some of the earliest biographies of the Buddha, it is claimed that the Bodhisatta was taught the ‘sphere of nothingness’ by Āḷāra Kālāma and the ‘sphere of neither perception nor non-perception’ by Uddaka Rāmaputta. Since these two persons do not appear outside the early Buddhist literature, their historicity is somewhat dubious. However, the two teachers have an incidental appearance in a number of early Buddhist texts besides the early biographies, and this supports the hypothesis that they really existed. In this chapter I will investigate the historical significance of all these passages; I hope to show that the two teachers really were historical persons, and that they almost certainly taught the Bodhisatta.

and the following conclusion:

In this chapter I have argued that the original (or at least the earliest extant) biographical account of the Bodhisatta’s awakening is found in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta. Its evidence suggests that Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta were historical persons, as was Rāma, the teacher of Rāmaputta. They probably taught the Bodhisatta, although this does not mean that the Bodhisatta did not try other methods. I therefore accept that Āḷāra Kālāma was situated in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu in Kosala as stated in the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta, and that the Bodhisatta’s act of renunciation was to join Āḷāra Kālāma's hermitage. Uddaka Rāmaputta was based in Magadha, probably in or near
to Rājagaha. The sources for these geographical locations (the Bharaṇḍu-Kālāma Sutta and the Vassakāra Sutta) are trustworthy because the information in them is incidental: they have no hidden agenda. The goals of the two teachers—ākiñcañña(-āyatana) and nevasaññānāsaññā (-āyatana)—were thought by the teachers to be liberating, but the Bodhisatta rejected this. If this analysis is correct, it means that we have a knowledge of some events that occurred in the early part of the Buddha’s career. In the following two chapters, I will attempt to form an hypothesis about the intellectual development of the Buddha based on this historical understanding. In order to do this, it is important to establish the religious affiliation of the two teachers.


In any Buddhist Context, is there a Necessary Existent

Yes, you have misconstrued.
Dependent Origination is about the origin of suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair) rather than about the origin of the physical universe (refer to SN 12.2).
Dependent Origination says the 1st cause for the origin of suffering is ignorance; for which no preceding cause can be found (refer to AN 10.61).
In addition, DN 11 clearly says the question: "where do the 4 physical elements cease without remainder?" is an invalid question. This means the ending and also the beginning of the 4 physical elements (earth, wind, fire & water) cannot be known.


What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon?

From Neyyattha Sutta (A 2.3):

  Bhikshus, there are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. What are the two?
  Those who explain a sutta whose sense is direct as indirect. Those who explain a sutta whose sense is indirect as direct. These, bhikshus, are the two who misrepresent the Tathagata.

Examples of provisional teachings from Dharmafarer's analysis of Neyyattha Nītattha Sutta:

  Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc,
  need to have their meaning drawn out (neyyattha), as they do not directly refer to true reality.

  Certain passages in the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta (D 16) and related texts, for example, refer to a post-Buddha non-Buddhist situation, reminiscent of strategic placement or geomancy.

  "offering to the devas" as mentioned in the Ādiya Sutta (A 5.41)

  The Nandamātā Sutta (A 7.50) gives an account of dedication of merit to the deva Vessavaṇa.

  "Dedicating merit" is a provisional teaching.  The point is clear that merit is non-negotiable and non-transferable, as stated in the Nidhikaṇḍa Sutta (Khp
  8).

From interview with Ven. Bhikkhu K. Ñānananda ("comments on the Neyyattha Sutta, which seems to have been the seed out of which the Two Truths doctrine has been developed"):

  The traditional interpretation, as you get in the commentaries, is very simple: it says neyyattha would be such suttas where the ordinary concepts of beings etc. come in, but nītattha is where you get anicca, dukkha, anattā. That’s a very simple definition of it.

  There’s just a flux of life, a functioning, but no agent in it. But the language requires both. That is why we have to say ‘it rains’, leaving the room for someone to ask ‘what is this ‘it’?’. The fire goes out: where has it ‘gone’? The Buddha from time to time had to show the absurdity of such questions. In such contexts you come across the nītattha.

  For all practical purposes, the Buddha’s words are enough. But for those who do not practice, but who are armchair critics, there is so much contradiction in the Buddha’s words. Sometimes He says there is dukkha only, and sometimes He says you are suffering. This is also the reason why there is such a mess...

From Early Buddhist Teaching and Abhidhamma by ven. Tezaniya

  neyyattha suttas are, for example: „O monk, there is one individual, there are two individuals, there are three individuals" etc.

  nītattha sutta is „this is impermanent, this is sorrowful, this is soulless.“

From Wikipedia:

  According to Vasumitra, the Bahuśrutīyas considered the Buddha's teachings of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, anātman, and Nirvāṇa to be supramundane, while his expositions on other subjects were to be considered mundane.

From Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:

  "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

  "And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

  "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities [in terms of the four noble truths].


Solipsism is an extreme opposite of Buddhism. It posits that only the self is truly real. That all that exists is the self. It places the self on a throne.

The Buddha was not a solipsist because he saw and knew the truth: that the self is not real, but rather like an illusion with not one iota of real or inherent existence. Seeing the truth, how could he possibly believe solipsism?


What is the exact meaning of catuparisa (catu-parisa)?

It's the fourfold assembly consisting of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.


Can lokuttara citta's be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)?

No, yathābhūtañāṇadassana is said to refer to early stages of Vipassana insight:

yathābhūtañāṇadassananti yathāsabhāvajānanasaṅkhātaṃ dassanaṃ. etena taruṇavipassanaṃ dasseti. taruṇavipassanā hi balavavipassanāya paccayo hoti.
yathābhūtañāṇadassana refers to that which is understood as knowing things according to existential characteristics (sabhāva). By this is meant weak (taruṇa) vipassana. And weak vipassana is a requisite for strong (balava) vipassana.
-- SN-a 2.1.3.3

The commentary here is explaining a passage showing the following progression:

avijjūpanisā saṅkhārā - formations have ignorance as a cause

saṅkhārūpanisaṃ viññāṇaṃ - consciousness has formations as a cause

viññāṇūpanisaṃ nāmarūpaṃ - mind and body have consciousness as a cause

nāmarūpūpanisaṃ saḷāyatanaṃ - the senses have mind and body as a cause

saḷāyatanūpaniso phasso - contact has the senses as a cause

phassūpanisā vedanā - sensations have contact as a cause

vedanūpanisā taṇhā - craving has sensations as a cause

taṇhūpanisaṃ upādānaṃ - clinging has craving as a cause

upādānūpaniso bhavo - becoming has clinging as a cause

bhavūpanisā jāti - birth has becoming as a cause

jātūpanisaṃ dukkhaṃ - suffering has birth as a cause

dukkhūpanisā saddhā - confidence has suffering as a cause

saddhūpanisaṃ pāmojjaṃ - delight has confidence as a cause

pāmojjūpanisā pīti - rapture has delight as a cause

pītūpanisā passaddhi - tranquillity has rapture as a cause

passaddhūpanisaṃ sukhaṃ - happiness has tranquillity as a cause

sukhūpaniso samādhi - concentration has happiness as a cause

samādhūpanisaṃ yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ - knowledge and vision of things as they are has concentration as a cause

yathābhūtañāṇadassanūpanisā nibbidā - disenchantment has knowledge and vision of things as they are as a cause

nibbidūpaniso virāgo - dispassion has disenchantment as a cause

virāgūpanisā vimutti - freedom has dispassion as a cause

vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ - knowledge of destruction (of the taints) has freedom as a cause.

-- Upanisa Sutta (SN 12.23)

Balava vipassana refers to nibbida. The lokuttara magga and phala cittas are equated with viraaga and vimutti respectively.


With sufficient practice one can develop the ability to very quickly and accurately observe several points in the body in very quick succession.

In a single mind moment only one point in the body is observed, however since mind moments are so fleetingly small, with good concentration intermediate meditators can pass attention to several points in quick succession such that it can appear as a single observation.

With good concentration one can pass the attention from top-down in a ray trace fashion, or left-right, and observe all points in between.

There is no reason to be in a hurry, or be impatient - the quality of meditation does not depend on the number of times the body scanned, but on the quality of the observation. If it takes a lot of time to go inch by inch, that is valuable practice too, since it develops patience and perseverance.


Difference between buddhasasana and buddhadhamma

Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

No.

Sasa = verb (Teach)

Sasana = noun (Discipline&Doctrine;teaching)

Dhamma = Discipline&Doctrine

BuddhaSasana = Discipline&Doctrine of the Buddha

Sutta. Tī. Pā. Udumbarikasuttaṃ:

  Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach (aham-anusāsāmi) and instruct them doctrine (Dhamma). By practicing as instructed they will realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life, in seven years.

  Ahaṃ  pana  nigrodha  evaṃ  vadāmi etu viññū puriso asaṭho amāyāvī   ujujātiko   ahamanusāsāmi   ahaṃ   dhammaṃ  desemi  yathānusiṭṭhaṃ tathāpaṭipajjamāno     yassatthāya    kulaputtā    sammadeva    agārasmā anagāriyaṃ   pabbajanti   tadanuttaraṃ  brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ  diṭṭhe  va  dhamme sayaṃ   abhiññā   sacchikatvā   upasampajja   viharissati   satta  vassāni .

Dhamma in your context is a part of Buddhasasana. To consider abot it, the  Buddha taught in Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

  'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All conditioners are inconstant. All phenomena (Dhamma) are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."

  rūpaṃ  bhikkhave aniccaṃ   vedanā   aniccā  saññā  aniccā  saṅkhārā  aniccā  viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ   rūpaṃ   bhikkhave   anattā   vedanā   anattā   saññā  anattā saṅkhārā    anattā   viññāṇaṃ   anattā   sabbe   saṅkhārā   anattā sabbe   dhammā  anattāti  evaṃ  kho  ahaṃ  aggivessana  sāvake  vinemi evaṃbhāgā ca pana me sāvakesu anusāsanī bahulā pavattatīti.

By above Sutta:

All aggregates are conditioners (each others) because they are same inconstant.
All aggregates are Dhamma because both of them are same not-self.
So some Dhamma, Nibbāna and Sammati, is not conditioned and not inconstant.

-Nibbana is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is reality which never arising, no aggregates at all. It's real because it is the opposite of all aggregates, not based on any aggregates. People can access Nibbana by the complete Vipassana, Magga.

-Conception, Sammati, is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is unreal and never arise, just imagination based on aggregates. Every people can access Sammati. Some people can use Sammati in meditating Lokiya-Jhāna to avoid craving in aggregates, but it is impermanent avoidance because minds create Sammati from thinking of aggregates, therefore it is possible to crave aggregates again in the future, so Sammati is not the perfect opposite of aggregates. However Lokiya-Jhāna is still important for Vipassanā meditation.


Relationship between truth and compassion

there is no compassion without truth
when the truth is not beneficial for another person, what is practised in 'equanimity' rather than 'compassion'
how can something be 'altruistic' if it is not the truth?


Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary?

Teaching on gratitude & “duty” is not necessary for Nibbana. MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit. In MN 56, Upali's stream-entry resulted in independence from the teacher. In the Vakkali Sutta, Vakkali was rebuked for wrong gratitude. Dhammapada 294 states to "kill the mother & father to attain Nibbana". In MN 86, the arahant Angulimala, ate his alms food without debt (obligation). Gratitude is a moral teaching for worldlings (puthujjana) but is unrelated to the goal of Buddhism, namely, Nibbana. Dhp 43 says:

  Na taṃ mātā pitā kayirā, aññe vāpi ca ñātakā; sammāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, seyyaso naṃ tato kare

  Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do greater good than the well-directed mind.


I think you are misunderstanding the nature of jhanas. In your defense, this is a mistake made by almost everyone on a certain stage.
You think jhanas are some concrete states that are specific and can be recognized, that all people must go through same exact experiences on their way to nirvana/enlightenment. That the final Liberation is also something very concrete. Alas, those are all wishful simplifications.
Real-life experiences are a lot more fluid and variegated. That's one, and two, as you get more and more enlightened you realize more and more clearly that labels are mere labels and that in real life everything "it depends".
So, the jhanas are not something mighty specific that can be entered, that's bullshit (pardon my language). Jhanas are approximate phases in your mastery of your emotional intelligence, mastery of mind. You don't sit for 12 hours straight staring at the wall and then boom! you're in jhana, no. Instead, you must learn to analyze and condition the state of your mind.
Specifically, you learn what makes you sad and glad, and how to make yourself joyful and motivated. You discover your inner pre-logical core and learn to reconnect with it. You learn to puncture through noise of thoughts and into the inner clarity. You discover first-hand how your mind's association and interpretation circuitry works. You master the connection between your interpretations and your emotions. You understand the power of context, the power of comparison, the role of reference point in evaluation. You learn to juggle contexts. You can freely enter and exit the contexts of other people.
Mastering all this makes you very even-handed. You are no longer carried away by your emotions. First, you have to apply effort to keep your emotions steady and stable in the moments of frustration or challenge, but with time you get rather steady even without much effort, things don't disturb you as much. You can go through difficult life situations without getting overwhelmed.
Because you are no longer overwhelmed by your emotions and no longer bounded by your mental contexts, you are not obsessed with your problems, you can actually see and hear other people's problems from their sides.
Then eventually you get to the existential questions like the meaning of life, the death, the happiness and suffering, karma - and you begin to see it rather clearly. It gets pretty clear, how things work.
That's what this training is about. You don't have to sit until your ass falls off. The point is not in sitting, it's in what you are sitting about. Mental and emotional untangling. And half of that work (if not more) is done off the cushion.
It is serious, hard, non-trivial, but deeply rewarding, process of discovery and mastery. Not some childish fantasy. But in the end it's much more cool - and real - than any fiction.
So the First Jhana, is when you learn to make yourself joyful at will using auto-suggestions, recollections, deliberate thinking on appropriate topics. That's it. Magic!
The Second Jhana, is when you can do the above then stop and keep joyful and energized, optimistic and confident without the auto-suggestions, for as long as you stay awake that day.
The Third Jhana is almost same as above but more refined, without the show-off marching parade function of joy. You can stay lucid, calm, emotionally sober, peaceful, harmonious - all day long, without auto-suggestions - just by maintaining your inner balance.
And the Fourth Jhana is pure judgement-free awareness. Whatever is going on, externally or internally, you can stay judgement-free, not qualifying any experience as good or bad. Unperturbed, immovable like a mountain. Clear like water. Transparent like space. Everything is just the way it is, and not a tad different.
This is all real - and practically useful - stuff, not sitting and wishing for some fictional inner sun to shine.


The paper Buddhism and Medical Ethics: Principles and Practice says (claims):

The study of Buddhist ethics is a recent development brought about by the arrival of Buddhism in the West, and largely in response to the demand of Westerners for clarification of where Buddhism stands on a range of contemporary moral issues.
Although Buddhism is widely respected for its humane and benevolent moral values, there is an apparent absence in traditional Buddhist thought of a branch of learning devoted to reflection on ethical issues.

See also:

While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is the Middle Way and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well being. The keynote of Buddhist economics is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfying results.

It may be that there isn't a direct, traditional answer to your modern question.
I'll try to list some of the traditional answers which may indirectly answer or touch on your question:

Traditional Buddhist monks (who you might look to for ethical advice) don't typically try to develop technology (except perhaps meditation as a type of technology).
The kind of "suffering" that Buddhism tries to address is mental, spiritual, or emotional suffering, rather than material or technological poverty
There's some doctrine (e.g. here) which says that "intention" matters -- if an enlightened person did harm without intending to, that's karmically neutral
There's some but only a little doctrine on the subject of "right livelihood": it's traditionally defined for laypeople as no "trade in weapons, living beings, meat, alcoholic drink or poison". Maybe the best (most harmless) form of livelihood is the monks': i.e. "living from begging, but not accepting everything and not possessing more than is strictly necessary".

I personally took those "right livelihood" guidelines as forbidding "trade in weapons" (e.g. any military R&D), but as permitting telecommunications R&D even though that might be used for good or ill.
Someone else I know studied nuclear physics and eventually chose a career in nuclear medicine (rather than nuclear power or military applications).
You presumably know that there are modern (not specifically Buddhist) guidelines for the development of e.g. medical and nuclear technologies. If you're going to practice that type of development you might at least consider those (modern ethical and engineering) guidelines.
There's some doctrine that's sometimes taken to be general advice, in the Kalama sutta:

... when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Beware I might be quoting this out of context, but I'm pretty sure it's often (rightly or wrongly) interpreted as giving you permission to think (or know) something for yourself -- that includes considering whether it's censured or praised by "the wise".


Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to somewhat different future physical consequences (the physical aspect of the kamma-vipaka)

❓Can the same kamma cetana and action lead to different fruit-of-kamma (kamma vipaka)?

❎ No, a specific cause has it's effect. But one may experiance it different and it's nearly impossible to act, in dependance in- and outwardly, in similar circumstances.

Cetana A has quality X followed by effect y
Cetana B has quality X followed by effect y

A x X = y - B x X = y => A=B

[Note: this gift of Dhamma has not be thought, is not dedicated, for any trade or wordily exchange or stacks]


What can I do to have my destination confirmed?

Im not sure about guarantees but there are these relevant passages;

  Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry.
  Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
  Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry.
  Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
  — SN 55.5

  There is the case where a monk remains focused on unattractiveness with regard to the body, percipient of loathsomeness with regard to food, percipient of non-delight with regard to the entire world, (and) focused on inconstancy with regard to all fabrications. The perception of death is well established within him. [One such as this] attains the immediacy that leads to the ending of the effluents. -an4.163 (excerpts)

  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. -sn45.2

  When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion, thinking: 'There in this venerable no such qualities based on greed, anger or delusion, with his mind overcome by which qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain he places conviction in him.

  With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment. -mn95 (xcerpts)

As to related question. The analogical reasoning in the sutta is smth like this 'there are dangers on the journey, as there are for a sailors; sharks, waves, weather and whirlpools . That some warriors tremble and run away hearing drums of the enemy, some tremble at the sight of their banners, some are defeated in hand to hand combat, some get injured and recover, some get injured and do not recover.'

I assume many things may cause one to disrobe, longing for this or that, perhaps one has to take care of parents.

If one disrobes it doesn't necessarily mean that one's practice stagnates. I think pali lore has a story of a monk disrobing, becoming enlightened and rejoining the order.