Does the Nihilism view (natthika-dithi) actually deny rebirths?

Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is no
  fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other
  worlds; no mother, no father; no beings who are spontaneously born;
  no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have
  themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
  other worlds.

I have amended the translation above.

The word 'beings' ('satta')  is defined in the suttas as mental states of attachment & identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a 'self-view' held by Mara.
The very fact that 'beings' are 'spontaneously' or 'immediately born' ('opapatika') due to acts of karma into the other worlds (heaven, hell, animal & ghost) show it is not related to after-death-reincarnation or a new physical birth, as explained below:

  32. Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation (opapatika).

  Maha-sihanada Sutta

For example, the very moment the mind gets angry, it is spontaneously born as a 'hell-being'.
'This world' ('loka') refers to the human world of good morals & conscience. The 'other worlds' ('paraloka') refer to the heavenly (bliss), hell (torment), animal (immoral, emotionally reactive & unreflective) and ghost (addiction) worlds. For example, MN 79 refers to the 'world of only pleasant feelings':

  Kiṃ panudāyi, atthi ekantasukho loko, atthi ākāravatī paṭipadā
  ekantasukhassa lokassa sacchikiriyāyā

  Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of
  actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?

  Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa).

  The person is composed of the four great elements; when he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water returns and
  goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes back to the
  element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element of wind,
  while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the bier as a
  fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far as the
  burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end in
  ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
  affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
  alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
  not exist after death.

This quote from the Samaññaphala Sutta is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. In many places (eg. MN 115, MN 62, etc) it is taught life is only composed of elements (dhatu), which accords with Emptiness (sunnata). That is why the Buddha's response to the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin is similar but different, as follows:

  'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to
  impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is
  supported here and bound up here.'

There are two primary reasons why the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin (quoted) is 'nihilism'.

The quote denies the efficacy (consequences) of kamma (actions). Thus, Buddhists who believe in present-life kamma-vipaka are not nihilists.
The quote holds there is a 'person' or 'self' that ends at death. This is the precise definition of 'nihilism' found in the suttas. In other words, 'nihilism' is not the view of 'impermanence' but the view that a 'self' is impermanent. Thus, 'nihilism' is a wrong view because it is a 'self-view'. To quote:

  Herein, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self (attā), good sir, has material form; it is
  composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and
  mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated (ucchijjati) and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self (attā) is completely annihilated
  (samucchinno).’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation (ucchedaṃ),
  destruction (vināsaṃ) and extermination of an existent being
  (sattassa).

  Brahmajāla Sutta

~~~

  And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

  How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed and disgusted by this very same being (bhaveneva) and they rejoice in (the
  idea of) non-being (vibhavaṃ), asserting: ‘In as much as this self
  (attaṃ), good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated
  (ucchijjati) and destroyed (vinassati) and does not exist (na hoti)
  after death (parammaraṇā) — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this
  is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

  Iti 49

~~~

  What you, Kassapa, first called ‘suffering caused by oneself’ — this amounts to the eternalist theory (vadaṃ sassataṃ)….and ‘suffering
  caused by another’ — this amounts to the annihilationist theory (vadaṃ
  ucchedaṃ).

  Acela Sutta

~~~

  Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One
  would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the
  body, is annihilated (ucchijjati), perishes (vinassati) & does not
  exist (na hoti) after death (parammaraṇā).’

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?

  Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is
  impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased
  and gone to its end.’

  Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

  Yamaka Sutta

In summary, often unenlightened people (puthujjana) falsely accuse Noble (Enlightened) People of being 'heretics' & 'nihilists', as also occurred to the Lord Buddha himself:

  37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

  "As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

  "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

  Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile


Well, first point... Things do not have opposites. Things simply are. Qualities have opposites, and to the extent that a 'thing' is seen as an epitome of certain qualities, we can point at other 'things' that have opposing qualities. So (properly speaking) Buddhism doesn't have an opposite, although there may be other movements that try to create exactly the opposite of the qualities that Buddhism strives for.

With that in mind, I'd point at any kind of fanaticism: political nationalism, religious fundamentalism, commercial exploitation, ideological extremism... any movement that intentionally distorts perception and understanding, and purposely creates turmoil, in order to advance some abstraction. I'll leave examples to the reader, so as not to politicize.


Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?

The only time I've seen the heart-beat mentioned in a similar context, is when Trungpa Rinpoche discussed beginner-level practice:

  ...Usually hinayana-level student works with reality using exclusively phenomenological methods. He pays attention to his heart-beat, he watches his breathing, controls his posture and gait, how he eats, how drinks water etc...

The reason the breath is watched (as was explained by Trungpa Rinpoche) is because breath is the window onto the state of mind, or rather, the state of the entire mind-emotions-body continuum:

  If there is an out-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the out-breath was conditioned by the mind. If there is an in-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the in-breath was conditioned by the mind.
  --from Ānāpānasmṛti Sutra (EA 17.1)

One you get access to your state of mind by seeing how your breath is "conditioned by the mind", you use the feedback of the breath to work on calming and gladdening the entire body-mind:

  ’Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘...calm my whole body...
  ‘...feel joyful...
  ‘...feel happy...
  ‘...aware of my mental formations...
  ‘...calm my mental formations...
  ‘...aware of my mind...
  ‘...make my mind happy...
  ‘...concentrate my mind...
  ‘...liberate my mind...
  --from Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118), as translated by Thich Nhat Hanh

I'm not sure heart-beat alone provides the same level of insight into the state of body-mind as the breathing, even though it is related. If you think about the two from signal theory perspective, breathing is amplitude-modulated while heart-beat is (low) frequency modulated, so necessarily heart-beat is a lower-resolution signal. Although as Trungpa Rinpoche says, there is no reason it cannot be used as a secondary indicator, along with stomach and chest tension, face mimics, gait / body language etc.

More importantly, regarding your comment about it being difficult for you not to control breath. As per the above quotes, I don't think the point of (anapana) meditation is to watch breath without controlling anything, nor to regulate the breathing directly. The point is to use breath as a feedback for working with body-mind.


A basic answer is, Nirvana is zero attachment and zero aversion. Imagine how you'd feel if you had zero attachments and zero aversions, not even a slightest hint. That is Nirvana.

I'm not sure what the orthodox position says about vedana, but from my perspective it should still have vedana. It is just, when pleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. When unpleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. No attachment and no aversion - therefore no suffering.

Could you say the absence of suffering is bliss? Yeah, kinda - you could qualify it as a very subtle form of bliss, a #0-thickness bliss.

Have you ever had a dream in which you fly so high that there is nothing left but sky on all sides around you? They say, the experience of dharmakaya is like that. Another comparison I heard from teachers is what astronauts feel on the orbit - constant free fall. It is scary at first, because you feel like you're going to crash - but you can get used to it and even be functional.

So I guess that must be the feeling: the absence of suffering due to attachment/aversion, but also the absence of any kind of comfort you normally get from having some kind of reliable ground. Could we call this the bliss of endless free fall?

Another way to describe Nirvana, is as death of ego. Imagine you have lost everything. All hopes, all promises, all meanings - nothing left. Because you lost your valuables and futures, you have nothing to lose. Because you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear. Which makes you into a kind of superman, just a very sober superman, because you no longer get intoxicated or carried away by childish illusions. No hope, no fear. That's another way to see it.

Now combine the two images: the endless free-fall with no grasping onto anything  and no suffering, with no ground, no home, no hope and no fear, everything lost and everything gained, very sober and absolutely stable in infinite agility. That's what they say Nirvana feels like.


What are the personal consequences opposing, mobbing or even revile Noble Ones or right view?

The mark of a Noble One is sunatta (emptiness; voidness), as the Lord Buddha explained about the perfectly virtuous Sariputta in MN 151.

  The Blessed One said to venerable Sāriputta. `Sāriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you
  spend your time mostly?”

  “Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidance.”

  “It's good Sāriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of Great Beings. Sāriputta,

When a monk exhibits greed, ambition, anger, conceit, domineeringness & delusion; always harassing laypeople; it is good karma to expel that monk from a community.

For example, in AN 6.54, the lay Buddhists expelled the bad monk Dhammika from their district.

The personal consequences are wisdom & liberation when opposing, mobbing or even reviling an Ignoble One of wrong view.

The Lord Buddha explained in the Dhammapada:

  64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

  72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

  73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries and honor among householders.

  74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of
  the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.

  75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple
  of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim but develop
  detachment (viveka) instead.


what is the meaning of the cryptic formula in the 4sp satipatthana formula? (for the Chinese parallel)

"seeing body as body" and "body in body" both means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is". This is to see the body without any additional interpretations or view. Essentially seeing what is there as it is.

This does not mean "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp". You can choose to if you want to as your main focus, but any of the 4sp one cannot do purely in an isolated manner as one influences the other. E.g. if you are doing kayanupassana this influence vedena. Following highlights how the 4 elements (part of kayanupassana) influence feelings.

  vedana can certainly be connected with three of the four mahabhuta (elements), which are collectively known as rupa. These three are pathavi (earth element), tejo (fire element) and vayo (air element). Apo (water element) is too subtle to touch, or is so subtle that one finds difficulty in feeling it. Now, to illustrate the connection between vedana and the three bhuta, when you have a cramp, which is the tightening of the muscles, it is pathavi; when you feel temperature of the body it is tejo; when you suffer from pain in the stomach, it may be something to do with vayo, for when the air in your stomach is stuck and finds no vent to get out, you have that experience of unpleasant feeling called pain. The connection of vedana with these mahabhuta makes it all the more manifest and helps one realize its true nature.

Source: Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin


How do you develop the right view with lack of information, knowledge and time?

Right view is basically the knowledge/realisation of Four Nobel Truth, which is not subjective. Our current view about things we observe is subjective and we need to have the right effort to get to the right view. The main constraint is not the time, it's the priority I suppose.


Severe sensations in throat during Vipassana

I haven't had the "throat" experience, but it's not uncommon to have long or recurring periods of some kind of weird painful or uncomfortable physical/somatic sensation. Teachers that I know of link it to the "knowledge of the three characteristics" phase of the Theravada "progress of insight". It's a sign of maturing insight into the non-self nature of your physical and mental sensations.

It's not a reflection on you or the state of your practice- in fact, it may be a sign that your practice is healthy and getting results.

However, if it starts to be accompanied by disturbing imagery or strong negative emotions, especially if it seems linked to memories of past potentially-traumatizing experiences, then reduce your meditation periods and look for professional psychological support before continuing intensive vipassana practice. However, if it stays purely physical/somatic, then it's not that unusual.

You just won't feel equanimous about it in the short term, but your non-equanimous feelings about it can be part of your vipassana practice. Examine the sensations in terms of "vedana" - the quick arising and disappearance of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant feelings.


Which mindfulness technique should I choose?

The way I was taught, is that mindfulness is not practiced in-and-of-itself; instead it comes from a critical attitude to ourselves, which in turns comes from a certain goal that we set for ourselves, a certain standard of behavior.

For beginners, this goal or standard is the attitude of egolessness and non-attachment. We watch our reactions (thoughts, emotions) for signs of attachments and egoistic attitudes, and learn to overcome those, learn to be selfless. As we watch ourselves with that goal in mind, we develop a habit of awareness or mindfulness - of our mind and emotions.

For mature practitioners who have mostly mastered selflessness, the next goal is generation of positive, uplifted, powerful state of being. To achieve that, we watch our posture, gait, manners, our inner sense of comfort or discomfort, and we learn to walk in peace and gracefulness. As we work on that goal of peace and gracefulness, we develop mindfulness of our body, and a deeper level of mindfulness of mind.

Right mindfulness is NOT going around with eyes wide open, trying to do everything painstakingly deliberately. Most of our skills - from walking, to talking, to driving - are developed from scratch to the point where they become automatic. Being deliberate is only useful when you are trying to change a (bad) habit, but once you have established a good habit, it works better (faster, more smoothly) when your slow discursive thinking does not interfere. Ask any sport professional or musician or dancer about developing right instincts and right automatic responses.

So in Buddhism, mindfulness serves a goal. First we practice mindfulness of our (selfish) goals, attachments and reactions - in order to overcome them and develop the new habit: operating out of wisdom and compassion. And then we practice mindfulness of our psychosomatic state - in order to overcome inner conflict & suffering, and develop the new habit - living in peace and harmony.

Once we have achieved our two objectives, hard mindfulness is no longer necessary. In fact, at that point it would interfere with spontaneity of suchness, which is the final phase of Liberation. So at some final point very very far down the path, you are supposed to let go of all sense of self-observation and self-control and immerse 100% into spontaneity. It's not that you stop being aware and mindful at that point. It is that mindfulness has achieved such a level of perfection that it becomes fully integrated with spontaneity and suchness. At that point you ARE mindfulness.


Why would anyone ever want to go to the heavens?

There is suffering in heaven. They still have to eat to maintain their bodies. They feel frightened when they get to know that their lives are running out. I've heard that there's a divine tree with flowers in the palaces of the Devas. When an year of their world comes to completion, a flower will wither and fall down. That is how they know that they are ageing. When they see this, they get upset and worried. Then they come to human world to acquire fresh merits. Also, their radiance diminishes as they age. When they are about to die, the flower garlands around their necks wither and they start to sweat as well. It is also said that they can perish if they get angry or forget to eat because they are too caught up with other pleasures.

Yes, there are greater distractions to the path in heavens due to the extreme sensual pleasures, but there are Devas and Brahmas who spend their time meditating. Especially the ones who have attained Magga Phala. Also, in the suttas we hear about many Devas and Brahmas attaining enlightenment after listening to the Buddha's sermons. Ex: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Anatta Lakkhana Sutta etc.

Here are some of the advantages of being a Deva or a Brahma with regards to practicing the Dhamma

They are born in full form with palaces and all the other requirements. They are not clumsy like humans at birth. So they don't need to spend a childhood orienting themselves to the world, studying and acquiring skills to make money just to get food, clothes and lodging. That saves a lot of time.
They don't get sick. It can be difficult to meditate if you get sick often.
They don't have bodily discomfort. So they can sit in one position for a long time. This is actually more useful if you do Samatha first and then turn it to Vipassana.
They don't have to take bath or cleanup as divine food has no excrements. So while meditations like Patikulamanasikara won't work in heavens, it saves time for other meditations.
Their life spans are huge. So once they learn a meditation technique, they can keep practicing it without having to learn it all over again.
They don't get angry easily, so they can possibly attain concentration faster, if they seclude themselves (helpful for samatha pubbangama vipassana).
They possibly get to meet other Devas and Brahmas who have directly heard the Dhamma from the Buddha. The Abhidhamma was fully preached at Tavatimsa heaven. So there are Devas and Brahmas who have heard the comprehensive version. We humans only have the summarized version.
The higher chance of meeting enlightened beings in heaven compared to human world nowadays.
The ability to read the minds can help them recognize enlightened beings easily. The divine eyes and the divine ears can be used to listen to all the sermons of the Buddha even from the palace.
The chance to hear the Dhamma from several Buddhas

Also, bear in mind that suffering in the first noble truth doesn't just mean pain. A pleasurable experience is also an instance of suffering as it is subjected to change and death.


Between Ana & Apana. What is the terminology for this moment?

I am not familiar with this terminology.
Technically, speaking of 'a moment' only goes as far as the discernment of a beginning & an end.
If one can not discern a beginning & end then one can't talk about it in terms of temporality.
The conditioned changes as it persists and in as far as change is discerned one conceives of a before & after.

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

“Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who knows not these three things Development is
not obtained. Sign, in-breath, out-breath, are not object Of a single
consciousness; By one who does know these three things  Development
can be obtained” (Patis I 170)


Is suspending judgement a way to avoid wrong view?

Vicicicca(doubt) is one of five mental factors that hinders progress in meditation.
Reserving judgment might sound like a neat trick. But Vicicicca is already there and your mind is already corrupted to start with. So the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards doubt. Because most of your thoughts are tainted with ignorance. Accepting Nibbana with faith shuts off one major avenue for Vicicicca.

It would be hard to keep to any path without faith, unless you know by direct experience that the path is right and it leads to the intended destination. It's the same with Nibbana. If you have no faith in the path or the destination, you wouldn't even bother to follow it. Even if you do, the slightest setback can make you give up on it. But if you have faith, you'd be more inclined to look at your own shortcomings instead of doubting the path.

How many times we put our faith in regular people on a daily basis? When a doctor gives you medicine, even when your life's dependant on it, you don't do any in depth analysis of the drug before using it. When you buy food, you don't lab test it 1st to see if it's completely safe. You just go by the reputation and put your faith on the quality assurance certifications. You don't know any of those by direct knowledge. When you fly, you put your life in the hands of the pilot and the airliner. Will you still take the flight, if you can't make up your mind about the safety of the plane? :)

Compared to all that, having faith in Nibbana shouldn't be a hard thing to do. And it is also the wise thing to do since it keeps doubt at bay and prevents you from getting discouraged easily. It is the same case with believing in rebirth. For those who have trouble believing in that, the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards nihilism. That is harmful for the progress in the path.


It's a Mahayana sutra. Info. about the Samadhiraja sutra from the wiki page here. Full infos. and whole sutra is available here.


What I believe is what I look up to, everyday.

What you believe in may just be your perception and not reality. Whatever you should be able to verify at the experiential level then you should look up to it. Since you know it from experience no external person needs to convince you of it.

  Every belief originates me.

Many thoughts gives arise to self notion which intern aversion or craving based on your evaluation. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta] To be more precise you crave to the sensations based on your evaluation. This conditions your future.

  Then am I a phenomena in itself?

You are sum total of past conditioning including that of your past conditioning ue to yourself notion.


Why ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"?

This wiki page link is not a great translation and it is easy to be confused if you don't understand what is being negated/refuted by this line of reasoning: the inherent existence of a chariot. If you understand what is being negated, then
the fourth point becomes: "There is no inherently existing chariot which depends on its parts" and the simile often given is of a lion in the forest.


Please check out the second link (Tibetan Medicine Education Center) for more details.
From Nalanda Translation's "Lha or is it La?" page:

Lha La (lha bla)
Some confusion exists between two Tibetan words, sometimes used
interchangeably:lha and la. The first, lha, is the Tibetan word used
to translate the Sanskrit deva, meaning “deity,” “god,” or “divine.”
This is also the term used in the Shambhalian sense of natural
hierarchy: lha, nyen, and lu. (If we were to be more daring in writing
this word like it is actually pronounced, we might spell it hla!)
The word la (bla) literally means that which is “higher” or “above,”
as in the word lama, the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit guru
(which literally means “heavy,” —heavy with good qualities, as the
tradition explains). Lama Ugyen once explained lama as “one who looks
down from above (la) with the love that a mother (ma) has for her
children.” La is also a Pön term, meaning “soul,” “life force.”

From the Tibetan Medicine Education Center's page on "Lha and Lha Ceremony":

THE LHA BODY
What is the lha?
“Lha” (bla) in Tibetan means ‘superior body‘, or
‘energy body‘. According to the Tibetan medicine and astrology
concepts, between the physical body and the mind is the Lha body,
which develops like a body copy, a shadow or reflection of the
physical body. Therefore it is called subtle or energy body. It can
hardly be seen by naked eye. The Lha body is very important to the
health of the body/mind, as it always protects, nourishes and gives
energy to the physical body, keeping it strong, stable and powerful.
It gives psychological confidence, sense of ego and it plays a
defensive role. The natural shape and form of the Lha body is exactly
like that of the physical body and therefore they can be thought as
dual bodies. When the subtle Lha body and the physical body are in
correct position, it could bring harmony, the person feels well, has
only few doubts and confusion, has a good concentration, a stable mind
and a good immune system. If our physical body is healthy and in good
condition, of course our mind and emotions are more stable and
function well. But the modern stressful life, traumatic situations and
many natural conditions can weaken the equilibrium between the
physical body and the subtle Lha body, creating the conditions for a
possible division, weakening, or loss of contact between the two
bodies. This result of losing the Lha body is called: «lost Lha ». Lha
can be damaged, become ill or leave the physical body, which could
cause serious effects for the person.


hmmm  here is a free book. it has about 40+ sutta of a stream enterer (none-contradict each other whatsoever.  We buddhists want to know if we have achieved this level of dharma.
Buddha allowed us to proclaim ourselves so and here is the tool.

http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf

I remember a sutta from pali cannon where this rich merchant invited buddha to receive meal at his mansion in a week.  later a king or prince desperately wanted buddha to come eat at his place on the same day (i dont recall why).  Buddha said he couldnt change the reservation without consent from this merchant because he invited him first.  So buddha sent ven Moggallana to this merchant to see what he would think about moving the reservation to a week later.  the marchant would agree if ven Moggallana  could confirm 4 (or maybe 5) things  1) would he still be alive ?  answer was yes.  2) would buddha still be alive? yes. 3) would he still have his wealth? yes.  4) would he still have the unshakable confidence in buddha?  ven Moggallana did not answer the last question citing that this was something the merchant had the ability to answer that himself.   finally he agreed to move the reservation to a week later.   Point is, a confidence in buddha, dharma, sangha is one characteristic of a stream enterer.  And Buddha was explicit that only him and yourself can make such a claim.

How common is it?  Buddha said in one sutta, plenty. not 10, 100, 1000+ as long as 8 fold path is practiced, world is not going to be absent of an arayan (those who is a stream enterer or higher. perfectly good word ruined by Nazi).  also compare to another sutta, he compared dust on his finger tips to the entire earth as reference to numbers of Arayans compare to all other beings (seen and unseen) so the ratio would be large!

read the book and ask yourself.  only you can proclaim yourself ..


Is the mind different from the other 'six senses'?

According to Theravada Buddhism anyway, mind is different; it acts as both the receiver of the other five senses, as well as being a sense in and of itself. Meaning the mind can receive objects from any of the physical senses, but it can also receive mental objects. The reception of mental objects is different from receiving physical objects:

  The six types of cognitive processes are conveniently divided into
  two groups—the five-door process (pañcadvāravīthi), which includes the
  five processes occurring at  each of the physical sense  doors; and the
  mind-door process (manodvāravīthi), which comprises all processes that
  occur solely at the mind door. Since the bhavanga is also the channel
  from which the five-door processes  emerge,  the  latter  are sometimes
  called mixed door processes (missaka-dvāravīthi) as they involve both
  the mind door and a physical sense door. The processes that occur solely
  at the mind door are then called bare mind-door processes (suddha-mano-
  dvāravīthi) since they emerge from the bhavanga alone without the instrumentality of a  physical sense door.  As will be seen, the first five
  processes all follow a uniform pattern despite the difference in the sense
  faculty, while the sixth comprises a variety of processes which are alike
  only in that they occur independently of the external sense doors.

  -- A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi

Since, in regards to the sixth sense, the mind is both the object and the receiver, it my often appear as though the mind is outside of the senses; in a sense it is, since it covers all senses, and acts as receiver for each. The standard understanding is that just as there are six senses, there are also six types of consciousness.

There are other ways of looking at reality that may shed light on the subject in a different way, e.g. the five aggregates, the elements, the faculties, etc.


What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by meditation and the path?

There is no 'rebirth' (aka 'reincarnation') but kamma (the idea of 'agent' doing & reaping) is eradicated by the path. This means if the path is not realised, 'the agent' experiences the results of their actions even if there is no rebirth (reincarnation).

However, 'an agent' experiencing the results of their actions is what 'rebirth' really means. 'Rebirth' in reality is the re-arising of the idea of 'the agent' or 'self'.

'Rebirth' does not mean 'reincarnation' into another life. 'Rebirth' means the idea, obsession and neurosis of 'self' keeps getting born; as follows:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that.

  SN 22.81

In the teachings in the Pali suttas, 'rebirth' always includes the delusion of 'an agent' or 'a being', as follows:

  I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human —
  beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad
  conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong
  views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with
  the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane
  of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But
  these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, &
  mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
  undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
  break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine
  eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away &
  re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.

  MN 4

As long as the mind continues to construct the idea of 'self', 'agent', 'person' or 'being', rebirth will continue. This is samsara. Samsara is circling around in self-views, as follows:

  "Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
  around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self...

  "He assumes perception to be the self...

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.

  "He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
  very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  SN 22.99

"A being" is merely a view or idea, as explained below:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.

  SN 5.10


Conflict between Brahmajala Sutta and current Buddhist practices

You are correct. The Buddha spoke out against such things because it corrupts the right livelihood of Monks because people will support Monks to get them to preform fortune telling for them or other such things instead of supporting Monks for their virtue and practice.

Most laypeople in Theravada countries don't engage in study of the canonical texts to any significant degree and they simply don't know better, and perhaps the Monks involved don't know it either. If they do and continue to do such things, I think it is very unfortunate.


What is observing the precepts in a Hinayana way or a Mahayana way?

To avoid confusion - I base my understanding of the term 'Hinayana' on Andrei's answers to two different questions - this and that.

Hinayana way (or as Andrei puts it - level) refers to basic/elementary/foundational aspects of Buddhism. On this level precepts are central and students learn to follow basic discipline. The main idea is to work with one's own Karma - having a simple life protects one from difficult situations and clear-cut rules help in achieving that. However, this is not all that Buddhism offers. Once the foundations are understood, one can move on to more advanced teachings which can be called Mahayana-based (as Andrei pointed out, this can also happen in Theravada).

The main difference, as I understand it, is that it is the Bodhisattva Vow that is central in Mahayana level. Here, one is no longer worried about one's own Karma (like on the Hinayana level), but recognizes that there are countless beings who suffer and one wants to benefit them in the first place. One does not need a precept to know that killing or lying is bad. In every situation one has to be mindful and decide which action will bring more happiness or suffering to other beings. Sometimes lying is the right way to protect someone's life, sometimes eating enormous amounts of roast beef is the best way to make our auntie happy after she spent the whole day preparing this dish for her beloved family. No clear rules, rather guidelines and constant wish to benefit others.

I believe it all boils down to motivation - if you observe the precepts in fear of spoiling your own Karma - it is Hinayana level. If you are mostly interested in benefiting others - it is Mahayana. One view violates the other one.


What does pari-mukha mean in 16 APS anapana sati?

There's an article discussing the use of that word here -- parimukhaṃ -- which interprets it literally, as you did, by referring to its being used literally in other texts like the Vinaya, the Abhidhamma, the Khuddaka Nikāya, and a Commentary.

Piya Tan disagrees, in his introduction to MN 118 he writes,

  2.4 PARIMUKHA
  2.4.1 Abhidhamma interpretation.
  Unlike in Hatha Yoga, in breath meditation the breath is not
  deliberately regulated, but a sustained effort is made to fix one’s awareness on the breath as it moves in and
  out in its natural rhythm. Those who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentarial traditions, teach that mindfulness should be focused at the nostril or the upper lip, wherever the contact of the breath is felt most distinctly. This tradition is mainly based on the Patisambhida,magga and Vibhanga interpretation of parimukham as being “at the tip of the nose or at the centre of the upper lip.”

  Parimukha literally means
  “around (pari) the entrance (mukha),” here always used idiomatically and as an adverb, meaning “in front.”
  This is the interpretation followed by U Thittila, Maurice Walshe, Soma Thera, and Ñānamoli & Bodhi.

... and he includes a half a dozen footnotes as references for that last sentence.

He also wrote,

  In this connection, the Tiantai master, Zhìyǐ 智顗 (538-597), in his Tóngméng zhǐguān 童蒙止觀
  (Samatha and Vipasyana for Beginners), gives this advice for dealing with two kinds of distractions:

    What is a sinking mind? If during the meditation the mind is dull, confused or unrecordable,
    while the head drops, this shows a sinking mind. In such a case, it should be fixed on the tip of the
    nose to nail it there and to prevent it from wandering elsewhere. This is the way to regulate a sinking
    mind.

    What is a floating mind? If during the meditation, it drifts about and is uneasy, while thoughts
    follow externals, this shows a floating mind. In such a case, it should be pushed down and fixed on
    the navel to prevent thoughts from rising; thus the mind will be stabilized and will be easily quieted.

    Therefore, the absence of the sinking or floating state shows a regulated mind.
    (Zhìyǐ, Tóngmén Zhǐguān 童蒙止觀 in Lu K’uan Yü, 1964:126;41)

That latter reminds me of the little I was taught about Daoist meditation, incidentally.


Under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?

My question is under what conditions Buddha arises?

There's no set patterns. For example Buddha Gotama came during a relatively uneventful period where human life span was within normal range. However, for the future Buddha Metteyya to arise, per DN 26, life on earth must undergo some very drastic "downswing", and then some recovery, and finally thru some great upswing before He'll appear.


Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha?

Yes, the Buddha speaks of them in his suttas, many of them from different times/planets throughout the universe(s).

If so, are there any evidences of it.

Other than the suttas themselves, yes in various other religious traditions.

How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization? Is it linked with this fact?

Yes it could be but rather than spending our lifetime endlessly trying to settle historical matters and learn other histories, let us be grateful for what the Gautama Buddha has provided us: a complete, methodical practice towards Enlightenment. We will need to devote whatever spare time aside from job and other duties to achieve what he achieved and the Buddhas after him (Padmasambhava). The other Buddhisms that stemmed from Hinayana Buddhism suggest there is a greater journey towards Complete Enlightenment and complete power, even after initial srotipanna and escaping the force of rebirth.
No need to excavate skeletons--it was hard enough for the Buddha to leave behind what he has and those after him.


Should one literally think "I am breathing in long, I am breathing out long."

It is not necessary to think: "I am". The mind should know the action of the breath being long or being short. Also, there is really no need to "focus". When the mind is quiet & silent, the mind will know the breathing. Be as silent, still, upright, awake & alert as possible.

Note: At the highest level of practise, the Buddha taught to reflect:

  Monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be
  regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

  SN 22.59


The fear is instinctual (due to the ego fading/dissolving/melting somewhat). This instinctual fear can only be endured with composure & with the full acknowledgment it will pass. After the mind has experienced the impermanence of the fear a few times and is fully confident the fear will pass, the fear will no longer be a hindrance because it will be easily passed through.

If the mind thinks about/rationalizes the fear too much, the concentration will be lost. You have answered your own question, since the only real method is composure & courage.

From the Pali suttas:

  What if I, in whatever state I'm in when fear & terror come to me, were to subdue that fear & terror in that very state?' So when fear &
  terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I would not stand
  or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth until I had
  subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was
  standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would keep standing
  until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
  while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand up or walk. I would
  keep sitting until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
  terror came to me while I was lying down, I would not sit up or stand
  or walk. I would keep lying down until I had subdued that fear &
  terror.

  Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror


You don't have to be a vegetarian if you follow Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha himself left it up to the individual preference. Only certain later Buddhist schools started demanding the followers to become vegetarian.

But you have to stop drinking as it leads to heedlessness and breaking of the other 4 precepts. Smoking does not break the precepts, but it's an addiction and very bad for your health.

Being a Buddhist only requires you to take the refuge in the Triple-gem, but you will not get far in Buddhism without keeping to the five precepts.


In my understanding, the notion of Nirvana was a nod towards pre-Buddhist (Inc. Jain) ideas of the times. Nirvana was something transcental, something ultimate everyone spoke about but barely anyone could define.

When The Buddha achieved his Breakthrough, he mapped his ideas back to preexisting notions, to make it easier to communicate with people. So Nirvana is a bit tongue-in-cheek term, the so-called Nirvana. The Buddha attained what he himself called "Liberation of mind from suffering through Wisdom", which he equated with the Nirvana everyone at the times were looking for.

Then, the notion of Parinirvana is an even more ironic gesture. Since "Nirvana in this life" was actualized by not holding on to anything that could create a basis for suffering, death of "someone who is like this" (Tathagata) was the ultimate act of not holding on to anything to the highest degree possible, thus it can be half-jokingly called Super-Nirvana or Parinirvana.

Regular people die while still grasping at things, and so their death leaves an element of regret which then lives on as a negative impulse affecting the lives of people to come.

The Buddha's death is the ultimate act of letting go. It's an act of letting things go on their own course, governed only by Natural Law. The Buddha haven't attempted to stay behind and continue teaching Dharma indefinitely - which would be an act of grasping. Instead, his Parinirvana is an example to all of us Buddhists to not force the right Dharma on everyone, nor be aggressive in teaching and saving people, but to let things play out naturally while helping whenever we can.


Does Samadhi realm of desire require single-pointed focus?

There are no 3 realms of Samadhi(Jhana). The jhanas have nothing to do with sensual desire. First four jhanas lead to birth in fine material realms. The last four lead to immaterial realms. One-pointeness by definition is pointed at one object. At that moment all sensual desires are subdued.

But it is possible to get in and out of the Jhanic  states quickly if you master them. ex: It is said that the Buddha enters the Jhanas between each word he speaks while maintaining a normal speaking speed.


How should Buddhists deal with Loneliness

Overall, the Buddha says:

MN128:6.30: If you find an alert companion,  a wise and virtuous friend, then, overcoming all challenges, wander with them, joyful and mindful. If you find no alert companion, no wise and virtuous friend, then, like a king who flees his conquered realm, wander alone like a tusker in the wilds.

Rarely do we have to "wander alone like a tusker in the wilds." Spiritual friends often enter our lives when we take the time to recognize them as such.
But the above advice works best for those committed to and firmly on the path. For others struggling with day to day issues it's more challenging given the need to maintain relationships to simply survive. Surrounded by materialistic pursuits and people, alienation and loneliness can overwhelm. If sangha and/or teacher are not available to you locally or even online, then you may very well be a "tusker in the wild."
To build deep, trusting and long-lasting relationships requires ethics. On the path we practice ethics, immersion and wisdom. Ethics define our relationships with others. When we behave ethically, others trust us and relationships grow.
Ethics is surprisingly complicated. In MN8, the Buddha declares forty-four (44!) things to attend to. The list starts with:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Indeed, for this online age, the following seem quite appropriate:

MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

There are a lot more in that sutta. I read it regularly to refresh my perspective. Perhaps that may help you as well.


Buddha's mind is unshakable. But they still get tired and has to rest.

"Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about the person who follows the practice for one in training. [2] My backaches. I will rest it."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html


Question 1: Does side effects occur due to basic or minimum of Buddhism Precepts or Sila (requirement) not been achieved yet?

Yes. Right speech, right action, and right lively hood are all foundational virtues. If your morality is not in check, the mind tends to be busy. The side effects that occur due to the above precepts not being adequately followed include but are not limited to gilt, anger, fear, worry, frustration, and the cultivation of complicated and trouble causing situations.
The reason why they suggest tackling the above before meditation, is so that you can stay focused. It is easy to be distracted if you try to meditate when, due to poor morality, you have cultivated pervasive mind states.
You could still meditate before getting your life into a peaceful state, but you make more work for yourself if you don’t.

Question 2: As a lay Buddhist, is it a right practice if the sequence is wrong or Sila/Precepts and Meditation being practiced together? If no, then at what stage of requirements? Well, i know at least not after being drunk and go meditate.

As a lay Buddhist, the order doesn’t really matter. The order only matters if your goal is to become enlightened. Each layer makes the next one easier to achieve. By having good morals it becomes easier to meditate. By meditating you train the mind to be more able to observe the universe as it is and gain wisdom.
If you are meditating for some other reason than to train the mind to cultivate wisdom, such as to de-stress or energize the body, just make sure you set the right environment to achieve what you are looking for. If your goal in meditation is to enhance concentration, don’t drink beforehand. If your goal is feel peaceful, don’t murder someone the day before.
Just know if you don’t follow the suggested order, the next link in the chain will be harder to achieve.


Does anyone know the origin of the Buddhist Prayer of Forgiveness?

According to this Google search the first appearances of this text on the internet is in 2001.

And (among those earliest references) this says,

  Actually, the origins of this prayer are unknown. Sylvia Boorstein shared with me that she learned a prayer almost exactly like this one—a Jewish prayer—as a child.

I think that may be right -- it seems to me similar in structure to the Serenity Prayer, for example.

Also I think that "forgiveness" doesn't show up as a major theme in the Pali canon (but it's central to Christianity, e.g. "the forgiveness of sin"). This search doesn't return many results.

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong explains a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation -- to the extent that they do talk about reconciliation, I think that's mostly in a monastic (community) context, and along the line of confessing one's own transgression and admitting a fault, to avoid repeating the mistake: and I think you'd do that in person i.e. say it to someone else, not say it silently in prayer.

The other side of the coin that is promoted in the sutta is the Akkosa Sutta, where an insult isn't forgiven because it isn't accepted.

And Wikipedia's article about Forgiveness (which talks about "reliious views" of forgiveness, starting with Judaism) says,

  Buddhism places much emphasis on the concepts of Mettā (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkhā (equanimity), as a means to avoiding resentments in the first place.

The one kind of Buddhist text that this does remind me of is the Metta Gatha.

By Googling for khama gatha I found some slighty similar texts, for example in this Gatha Book:

  ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS ( KHAMA YACANA)

  Kayena vaca-cittena Pamadena maya katam
  Accayam khama me bhante Bhuripanna tathagata.

  If, due to neglence, I have done some wrong by body,speech, or mind
  Forgive me of that offence, O Bhante, Perfect One of vast wisdom.

... and these Daily Buddhist Prayers:

  Rectification of faults

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me bhante
  Bhuri pañña Tathāgata

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me dhamma
  Sanditthika akalika

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me Sangha
  Supatipanna anuttara
  Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, Bhante!
  Perfect One of vast wisdom.

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, O Dhamma
  Visible and immediately effective.

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, O Sangha
  Practising well and supreme.
  Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!


What does "Namaste" mean in Buddhism context and why is it even associated with Buddhism?

Namaste is a greeting in the Hindu custom and does not have a context in Buddhism.

Namaste (/ˈnɑːməsteɪ/, Hindi: [nəməsteː] (About this sound listen))), sometimes spoken as Namaskar, Namaskaram is a respectful form of greeting in Hindu custom, found on the Indian subcontinent mainly in India and Nepal and among the Indian diaspora. It is used both for salutation and valediction. Namaste is usually spoken with a slight bow and hands pressed together, palms touching and fingers pointing upwards, thumbs close to the chest. This gesture is called Añjali Mudrā or Pranamasana.
In Hinduism it means "I bow to the divine in you".The greeting may also be spoken without the gesture or the gesture performed wordlessly, carrying the same meaning


Daniel Ingram writes a lot about the 'dark night' and working through it. In an interview (Buddhist Geeks I think - sorry no exact reference) he said that dark night will be encountered by

Intense meditators who really go for it - many hours a day over months
Committed but steady meditators who meditate every day for around 30 minutes and maybe go on a week's retreat once a year. Then after 20 years - bang - they are in the dark night

So according to Daniel you don't need to be a intensive meditator to get the dark night effects. You just need to be reasonable committed and practise over a long enough period. So advising lay people to moderate probably wouldn't be effective - at some point they are going to hit something unpleasant. Perhaps the best thing would be to make them aware and give them tools to cope. That approach is one of the major themes in Daniel Ingram;s book.

On a personal note - My practice is firmly in the second category but I have banged up again some crappy stuff. Not "dark night" but crippling doubt and inability to move forward for extended periods. I think it just happens.


If a snake is eating a human infant in front of me what should I do?

Just kill the snake and save the baby

Ok , this would be the reaction of a person who has no idea what Buddhism is . But , even if we know Buddhism to some extent, we would do the same . Because still our minds are not developed.

According to Buddhism

Basically all lives are equal , if a snake is eating a frog , there will be no reaction from a person who has achieved nirvana. If the snake is eating a human (even if the infant is his own kid , there won't be a difference )he would never kill the snake , he will try to remove the snake using a stick , if it doesn't succeed,he will give himself to the snake and will save the life of his kid or any other human. But if the snake is eating some other animal, he will not interfere . Because according do Buddhism , people should not interfere with animal lives , all those things are unnecessary attachments. Buddha advises not to have pets , not to even give food to animals continuously , because if you do those animals will start to make bonds with you and you with them , that will definitely make ones samsara longer .

Conclusion

People should not interfere with actions of animals. But you can save any human being by sacrificing yourself or by using some strategy


Through the Processes of Jhana does it have a Permanent effect or temporary effect on your life

"Jhana is like a meditative absorption state? I've come across this term."

"[Jhanas are] distinctive meditative states of high concentration in which the mind becomes unified. [...] Jhana is often referred to as an absorption state, since the mind in Jhana is so deeply concentrated that it 'absorbs' into the meditation object."
Richard Sankman, The Experience of Samadhi

Yes. Jhana also corresponds to "right concentration" (samma samadhi) in the eightfold path (see SN 45.8).
"Like a barrier once broken you go onto the next barrier an so on an so on."
Yes. There are multiple jhanas. The canon describes a sequence of 4 Jhanas followed by 4 more states (in later commentaries, they are known respectively as Rūpajhānas and Arūpajhānas). The commentarial tradition also expanded on the states that precede the first Jhana (e.g. access concentration).
"Is this process a permanent effect on the mind or a temporary effect of the mind, Do you basically start over from stage 1 every time [?]"
It may affect the mind in many ways, but one doesn't really stays permanently absorbed in Jhana during day-to-day. Reaching a certain Jhana may not necessarily require going through previous jhanas (though it is emphatically advised to perfectly master them in sequence and develop stability instead of trying to "jump around").
"does your body ever become accustomed to it [?]"
I'm not aware of any body related issues associated with Jhana.
"do you have to constantly renew the Jahana over an over in order to progress?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "renew", but just like any training that requires repeated practice, mastering jhanas also requires effort and training, specially to reach deeper Jhana states.


In the five paramitas, what is patience and why is it on the list?

Patience is actually a great translation.  Think of the etymology of the English word:

  patience (n.) - c. 1200, "quality of being willing to bear
  adversities, calm endurance of misfortune, suffering, etc.," from Old
  French pacience "patience; sufferance, permission" (12c.) and directly
  from Latin patientia "patience, endurance, submission"

Patience is to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.  It is to endure, without complaint.  When one is patient, they turn headlong into discomfort and do so with a mind marked by equanimity.  Think of the countless lives of the Buddha - all of the suffering he had to endure in order to achieve nirvana.  His was a patience par excellence.

Patience is an indispensable virtue on the road to Buddhahood and absolutely deserves to be on this list!


Help me with my panic attack during meditation

I would recommend learning & practising meditation in a group, that has a competent teacher or monk, so you can learn to become fluent in the basics of meditation.

As for your panic attack, it sounds like your mind was focusing more & more on the space, thus lengthening the gap of the space & shorting the duration of the breathing.

Therefore, not only did your mind lose a soothing, comforting & calming sense object (the breathing) but also found itself in a state of 'emptiness' ('diminishing ego') that it could not cope with; thus fear or panic arose; which is similar to a fear of 'death' people commonly feel.

Ultimately, correctly practised Buddhism meditation should 1st develop a strong foundation of calm, which gives the mind refuge & strength to develop more profound insights.

Where as "space between breathing" (emptiness) meditation is taught by ambitious teachers who foolishly believe they will enlighten students more quickly.

The real Buddhist meditation path is something gradual & natural and based on giving up desire (craving) & positive & negative judgments (rather than based on exercises designed to eliminate the 'ego' or 'self' prematurely; when the mind is not yet ready or spiritually mature enough).


Meditation help - Am i observing a thought like I should or entertaining it?

What you have described is not really "observing". It is "thinking".

Thinking & observing are basically two different & antagonist activities.

While there is a place for thinking, pondering or 'reflection' (yoniso manasikara) in Buddhist meditation, it is not observing (anupassi).

Therefore, if you just let thinking continue instead of addressing it, you certainly might subconsciously believe it.

If the thought arises: "I am a bad person", you should investigate or examine the truth or falseness of this thought; but in terms of emotions & actions rather than 'persons'.

In Buddhism, there are five precepts which are about: (i) killing; (ii) stealing; (iii) unwholesome sex; (iv) dishonesty; & (v) drugs & alcohol. These five are bad or harmful actions. In addition, thoughts & emotions of greed, anger/hatred & selfishness are also considered bad or harmful.

In Buddhism, a meditator does not think: "I am a bad person". Instead, a meditator acknowledges or refects: "This is a harmful emotion" or "This a harmful action". The focus here is upon the emotion or the action rather than the person. The meditator then reflects (thinks about) why the emotion or action is bad or harmful, which, in itself, will change the emotion & action towards a good emotion & good action.


Will Karma 'balance out' in most cases by the end of a lifetime?

Clearly there are already different answers to this. In fact the different answers are indicative of the problems of Buddhist karma. I've published two articles which touch on this question:

Did King Ajātasattu Confess to the Buddha, and did the Buddha Forgive Him? Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Vol. 15, 2008.
Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014.

The main point of the 2014 article is that the theory of karma changes over time. I trace one particular major change from the earliest records into the later records (and add some more speculative thoughts on the origins of karma theory).
Early Buddhists believed that karma must ripen no matter what. There is no escape from the consequences of one's actions. On the whole one's actions ripen as rebirth (punabhava). A few of them might ripen in this life as vedanā or sensations, and a few in subsequent lives (as rebirth or sensations), but most of them go to conditioning the next life. At least one Pāḷi sutta, Karajakāyasuttaṃ (AN 10.219; v.299-301), claims that in causing rebirth all unripened karma comes to fruition and we start each life with a clean slate. Though typically early Buddhists allow for karma to come to fruition after many lifetimes.
The only light in this picture is that through religious practices one can make oneself less vulnerable to the ripening of karma in this life (whether it was caused in this or a previous life).
However this changes. We begin to see more possibilities in the Theravāda Abhidhamma which invents a new kind of karma - upapīḷakakamma "counteracting karma - which can counteract or suppress the ripening of karma. Buddhaghosa, the great 5th Century father of Theravāda orthodoxy, is clearly still in the "Karma must ripen" camp.
For Mahāyāna Buddhists there are a whole range of religious practices one can do, including confession and dhāraṇī chanting, that can mitigate the effects of karma ripening, or even eliminate karma completely. Many of these are listed in the Śikṣasamucaya, a sūtra compilation by Śantideva (ca 7th or 8th century)
The difference is epitomised in the story of King Ajātasattu (2008) as found in the Samaññaphala Sutta. Having killed his father Ajātasattu experiences some uneasiness and goes to see the Buddha. After telling the Buddha what he has done and promising to be good from then on, the king leaves. In the Pāḷi version of the story the Buddha turns to the monks and says "Well, he's done for". Having killed his father even meeting the Buddha is not enough to save him. And indeed the commentaries say he went to Hell when he died. In the later retellings of this same story (ca. 4th-6th centuries) in Sanskrit and Chinese however, the king is miraculously saved by his meeting with the Buddha. The whole attitude to karma and how and when it ripens has changed. Karma is no longer inevitable.
The early Tantras, particularly the Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha, take this to its apotheosis by introducing the 100 Syllable Vajrasattva Mantra (see also my Western Buddhist Review article on this mantra). This mantra, when chanted, is supposed to clear away any unripened karma, even of the most serious kind. Chanting it purifies all karma. Chanting it 100,000 times is a common prerequisite to receiving a Tantric initiation. Although it is interesting to note that at least one Tibetan group seems to be teaching the old story of inescapable karma.
Clearly there is no single "Buddhist" view on this question. Karma undergoes many changes over time and a number of mutually exclusive karma theories survive in the present. That said, I have yet to find any documented Buddhist teaching which suggests that karma will "balance out" in a single lifetime. The whole point of karma is that it is the mechanism that drives rebirth. And while many modernist Buddhists are dismissive of karma and rebirth, history shows that it was almost always a priority for historical Buddhists - I have informally written about a number of doctrinal changes in which the supposedly fundamental theory of dependent arising is modified to make for a better karma theory.
We also see that modernist Buddhists are apt to delude themselves about traditional Buddhist teaching. Buddhist ideas often suffer from ad hoc changes to bring it into line with psychology or modern views on rights for example. Rather than reject concepts which conflict with our values, we tacitly (perhaps even unconsciously) alter them to fit and then claim that this is what the Buddha intended.


Why there is limited sharing in Buddhism

Teaching of the Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) to those who need it, by those who are qualified to do so, is considered the best gift anyone can give to others.
From Iti 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

However, only those who can appreciate the Dhamma (teachings) should be taught it. There is no use trying to teach the Dhamma to one who cannot appreciate it.
From SN 9.3:

Now at that time Venerable Kassapagotta, having withdrawn for his
day’s meditation, tried to advise a tribal hunter. Then the deity
haunting that forest approached Kassapagotta wanting to stir him up,
and recited these verses:

“A tribal hunter wandering the rugged hills
is unintelligent, unthinking.
It’s a waste of time to advise him;
this mendicant seems to me like an idiot.
The tribal hunter listens without understanding,
he looks without seeing.
Though the teaching is spoken,
the fool doesn’t get it.
Even if you lit ten lamps
and brought them to him, Kassapa,
he wouldn’t see anything,
for he has no eyes to see.”

Impelled by that deity, Venerable Kassapagotta was struck with a sense
of urgency.

Furthermore, the Patimokkha, the rules for Theravada Buddhist monks and nuns, restricts teaching to only people who are respectful to the teacher - details can be found in this answer.
So, these are the limitations to sharing in Buddhism:

The Dhamma should be taught only by one who is qualified to teach it
The Dhamma should be taught only to those who can appreciate it
The Dhamma should be taught only to those who are respectful to the teacher


Why do I experience a second, floating body when body scanning?

That's really interesting.  I would say that because Goenka and the ATs (and the Buddha as well) say to scan the actual bodily sensations, the reality, it was the right thing to do to return to the body itself.  Did you talk to one of the ATs about this, by the way?


What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine?

Short answer: because understanding that phenomena are not "solid", but are in fact an interpretation/imputation, removes craving and passions in regards to them, which prevents dukkha that arises from that.

Long answer:

Normally we think that world is like a fish tank - a 3D environment full of objects, some of which are food, some friends, some dangerous sharks etc. with ourselves being one of the fishes in the pool. Then we spend most of our lives chasing the food and attractive fish, avoiding sharks, and trying to occupy the best spot in aquarium.

We assume that the world actually exists as it appears to us. We take it for granted that objects are objects, that some of these objects are awesome and some are not, that we are in competition with the others, and that the objective of the game is to achieve happiness by arranging a perfect environment for ourselves, and then maintaining it as long as possible.

This entire dream is based on an idea of solidity of the external world, an idea that things are actually out there as they appear, awesome or bad independently of our mind, and that therefore obtaining them or avoiding them is the right thing to do, and that therefore failing at that is the right reason to be upset and to experience suffering.

However, attaining an insight into "how things really are" - which is to say in how things are not solid, and how the mind of illusory solidity develops (process known as D.O.) -- having a direct insight into all this pulls the rug from under the initial illusion of solidity and the entire complex of behavior that comes with it.

The traditional analogy is rope that seems like a snake. Once you see it's a rope, the fear of getting bitten is gone and has no basis for ever coming back.

The next question naturally is, what exactly are we talking about when we say things are not solid, and how does that help remove the craving and other kleshas.

When we say things are not solid, we are saying that each individual thing is in fact multiple independent phenomena that seem to be lumped together, but only when observed from a certain perspective. In fact, this perspective is the main force that gives things their illusory solidity. Or, put in other words, much of what things seem to be actually comes from ourselves, from our own interpretation. Remember the snake-rope.

Once we get a very clear first-hand insight into how we "project" (impute) our perspective onto things, and learn to loosen that up, we realize that much of the importance we assigned to things is in fact our own game of make-believe. We also realize how many conflicts and passions in the world originate from people taking their own perspectives/interpretations all too seriously and assuming things are the way they look to them, and that all other ways of seeing are wrong.

Just like individual phenomena, entire world as it appears in our subjective experience is a giant interpretation that we assemble by looking at things a certain way, and pulling together certain strings of ideas to form a (semi-)coherent picture. And then of course our idea of ourselves, our feeling of "me-ness", is similar construct, made up of a million separate strings we strive to maintain intact. Emptiness of self is studied at length in Pali Canon, under the name of Anatta.

What Buddhists call the circle of Samsara (the cycle of subsequent generations of people inheriting this ignorant way of perception and passing it on to their children) and the struggle that comes with it - entirely depends on ignoring the fact that reality is our interpretation and that our interpretation is based on our limited exposure, and that our exposure comes from the circumstances, and that our circumstances come from results of previous actions, and that previous actions came from taking the illusion of solidity at the face value.

But once we understand how it all works, we can be free from it to a large degree, at least we can certainly be free from the subjective dukkha, and oftentimes even free from getting ourselves into troublesome situations that involve conflict of ideas.

Why? Because when we see that things are our own projection/interpretation/imputation - we no longer are seriously attached to them, we are more flexible, we allow for other interpretations, we see things from multiple perspectives which is a more robust way of seeing things. It turns out that most of our cravings, conflicts, and passions - most of our trouble and suffering - came from the assumption that things are real and actually possess all those qualities and characteristics, and now that we know they are/do not, now we can be free from all that.


Not-self (Anatta) is a teaching which is difficult even to understand by an advanced practitioner. Anatta Lakhana Sutta is the direct teaching of this doctrine.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html


What makes Lord Buddha worthy of worshiping as to suttas?

In MN 77, the Buddha teaches a group of wanderers the five reasons why His disciples venerate Him and look to him for guidance:
1. Supreme aggregate of virtue
2. Excellent knowledge and vision
3. Supreme aggregate of wisdom
4. Teach the Four Noble Truths
5. Show the way to develop wholesome states.


Difference between Equanimity which is diversified and Equanimity which is unified

The Pali version of this expression identifies equanimity that is diversified as upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā and equanimity which is unified as upekkhā ekattā
ekattasitā.

  Evameva kho, gahapati, ariyasāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati:
  ‘rukkhaphalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo
  ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya disvā yāyaṃ
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā
  ekattasitā yattha sabbaso lokāmisūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti
  tamevūpekkhaṃ bhāveti
  Potaliyasutta [Pali]

Following excerpt from Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses by Bhikkhu Analayo explains them in detail.

  The unified equanimity of deeper Jhāna experience is considerably more
  refined than worldly types of equanimity that are based on diversity,
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā

  Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses
   By Bhikkhu Analayo

So in summary,
equanimity that is diversified = undeveloped mind
equanimity which is unified = a mind at Jhāna level


Reference request: three types of actions

The 3 qualities:

dānassa giving
damassa self-control (or desires can't control you)
saññamassā'ti restraint (have control over your faculties)

§ 22.   {Iti 1.22; Iti 14}

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results. Having developed a mind of good will for seven years, then for seven aeons of contraction & expansion I didn't return to this world. Whenever the aeon was contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power. Then for thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the gods. For many hundreds of times I was a king, a wheel-turning emperor, a righteous king of Dhamma, conqueror of the four corners of the earth, maintaining stable control over the countryside, endowed with the seven treasures[1] — to say nothing of the times I was a local king. The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., giving, self-control, & restraint.'"

  Train in acts of merit
  that bring long-lasting bliss —
  develop giving,
          a life in tune,
      a mind of good-will.
  Developing these
  three things
  that bring about bliss,
          the wise reappear
          in a world of bliss
  unalloyed.


Is vegetarianism compulsory/obligatory in Nicherin Buddhism?

There are three lineages of pratimoksha vows and none of them prohibits the eating of meat. Anyway, the transmission of the pratimoksha was lost in Japan, as attests the fact that the "monk" is married and lives with his wife.

He surely has the bodhisattva vows, however. There are also a number of lineages of bodhisattva vows. Some prohibit the eating of meat and some do not. For instance, in the Brahma Net Sutra, it says:

  A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately  eat meat. He should
  not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the
  seed  of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and
  causes [animals and transc endental] beings to avoid him.

The bodhisattva vows that I have (in Tibetan Buddhism) do not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does it advise to restrain from eating meat.

Most Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese have the bodhisattva vows from a lineage rooted in the Brahma Net Sutra, and therefore are encouraged to restrain from eating meat.

Even then, practitioners do not adhere that strictly to the bodhisattva vows.


Is "The body never lies" supported in the suttas?

Obviously, it's not really the "body" that is wiser, it is the non-conceptual mind which constitutes the underwater part of the iceberg the top of which we see as our conceptual mind. The question is, should we trust it?

Generally speaking, in western culture the body with its instincts and emotions is seen as an animal - stupid and violent, while the rational mind is seen as all that is good in the human. However, other cultures may have different basic assumptions. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think that in Asian cultures the ancient heart-mind (the deep emotional mind - what we westerners usually call "the subconscious") - is generally recognized as a source of wisdom, harmony, and the arts - while the modern rational mind is often seen with suspicion as the source of confusion and conflict.

As for canonical evidence,  all we have are some bread-crumble trails that look cohesive enough to some but not convincing to others, as is often the case with Buddhism:

Buddha of Pali Canon spoke about "mindfulness of body" (kayagata-sati) and "the signless" (animitta). The contemporary Mahayana tradition holds that these are references to tapping into the non-conceptual mind, which is experienced as (psychosomatic) sensations in the body.

Personally, I was given a significant amount of training and instruction on getting in touch with the above through various psychosomatic practices, and in my experience it all comes together quite cohesively and makes total sense. To me these practices were presented as integral part of the teaching and I certainly see them as important as meditation and study of texts, if not more important.

As for the textual sources, the closest I can think of is Touching Enlightenment: Finding Realization in the Body by Reginald A. Ray (a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and a Ph.D). There is also a 100% western work called Focusing, developed by a psychologist Eugene Gendlin in 1970s, which speaks about same thing from a slightly different angle (thanks to Ronald Cowen for pointing out the Focusing book to me). If you are interested in emotional intelligence and psychosomatic methods, whether Buddhist or not, these two books are recommended.

Now, to address your specific concern: you are right that in an untrained person the signals from the non-conceptual mind can come mixed up with all kinds of phobias and prejudices, so a lot of preliminary work is required to clean that up until it can be fully trusted. That said, I do believe that the more someone is "enlightened" the more he or she can utilize the non-conceptual mind to its full capacity, which exceeds that of conceptual mind.


Ledi Sayadaw's "Anatta Dipani" in English? (And Ledi/Saya Thet relationship)

Can you provide the complete references from Braun, and is the other U Htay Hlaing? I have never read anything like a complete technique being passed to Saya Thet Gyi. Following is our take (shared here from a draft) concerning the question of Saya Thet Gyi's teachings:

  There are very few surviving records of Saya Thet Gyi’s instructions,
  discourses, or details about his own meditation practice and
  development.  Erik Braun examined Saya Thet Gyi’s famous student
  Sayagyi U Ba Khin’s biography and teaching, and this analysis gives a
  window into Saya Thet. Braun notes that while U Ba Khin’s teachings
  reference Abhidhamma concepts and the observation of impermanence of
  physical sensations, “[h]is teachings…simplify the technique further
  than Ledi had.” For example, U Ba Khin mentions kalāpas “rather than
  the four elements, which together comprise the kalāpas… This method is
  not a dramatic divergence from Ledi, but such a fine-tuning points to
  the fact that meditation teachers who considered his teachings to be
  authoritative did not necessarily preserve exactly the same approach
  to meditation.”

  In contrast to Ledi Sayadaw, who developed remarkable mastery of many
  key areas of Buddhist scholarship and practice, Saya Thet Gyi’s
  activities were centered on formal meditation instruction. Because he
  did not possess the level of mastery or textual authority of Ledi
  Sayadaw, he was more limited in how he could best disseminate the
  Buddha’s teachings. In understanding where Saya Thet fits into the
  overall Ledi framework, Anauk Sayadaw (အေနာက္ ဆရာေတာ, who himself
  teaches in the Saya Thet tradition) referred to the concept of Ledi
  “mu” and Saya Thet Gyi “ni.” This refers on one hand to the written
  oeuvre and scriptural mastery of Ledi Sayadaw, and on the other to the
  specific meditation technique as taught by Saya Thet Gyi, which fit
  within the general constructs laid out by his teacher. Expanding
  further, Anauk Sayadaw noted that within the enormous breadth of
  Ledi’s teachings, Saya Thet Gyi fashioned a particular and specific
  way to practice, of which Ledi Sayadaw gave his explicit stamp of
  approval.

  At his tazaung, Saya Thet Gyi offered no structured courses of a
  specified time length (indeed, the very concept of formal “courses”
  likely did not exist in those days), but rather yogis were invited to
  come and practice for however long they chose, with many staying
  between one to two weeks. Instructions were not formalized and
  depended more on the teacher-student relationship, as well as the
  student’s own background, aptitude, and progress. When a new student
  arrived, Saya Thet Gyi would begin by teaching ānāpāna, and only if he
  felt the student was ready would he switch to Vipassanā practice,
  sometimes directing them to focus on the awareness of anicca at the
  top of the head, or center of the chest, while doing so.

  In this way one can see how Saya Thet Gyi occupied the middle station
  between the giants of Ledi Sayadaw and Sayagyi U Ba Khin, who both
  transformed Buddhist practice in unprecedented ways. Braun notes that
  the “most salient difference between Ledi and U Ba Khin… is not in the
  theory of meditation but in the practicalities of its teaching. In
  sharp contrast to Ledi’s more flexible approach to meditation
  instructions, U Ba Khin established a rigid timetable for practice
  throughout the day at his center.” Thus, while Saya Thet Gyi may not
  have turned his tazaung into a fully functioning meditation center
  churning out regular courses as U Ba Khin eventually did, he plays an
  important intermediary position, by narrowing down Ledi’s teachings—
  in large part due to the simple fact that Saya Thet did not have the
  same breadth and depth of knowledge as his teacher.

  Regarding his teaching style, Saya Thet Gyi did not meditate all day
  with students, and when in the tazaung with them, he spent most of his
  time in the single cell, from which he sent mettā. He typically came
  in the mornings to check in and give instructions, at which time he
  would sit upon a small raised platform in front of the three Buddha
  statues still existing today. Aware of the sensitivities of being a
  lay teacher and deeply respectful of the Saṅgha, he was careful not to
  sit in anything that resembled a formal monk’s seat. In fact, he
  forewent a higher seat of any kind because he did not wish to put
  himself in a position of power or being above others. And if a monk
  came to learn from him, he was sure to pay formal respects prior to
  teaching, and would see that the monk sat higher than him. On many
  days Saya Thet Gyi gave no discourses at all, but only meditation
  instructions, so that students would focus entirely on the practice.

  In his early days as a teacher, he tended to advise students to stay
  with the mindfulness of breathing for several years, but as he
  progressed as a teacher he was said to bring students to change the
  focus of their attention after less time, sometimes as short as a
  week. To assist newcomers in improving mindfulness of their body
  elements, Saya Thet Gyi sometimes forbade yogis to shower up till or
  on the day when Vipassanā instructions were given.

  Some of the few anecdotes that survive suggest how much Saya Thet Gyi
  tailored his teachings to the individual student. For one student who
  was quite learned in the Abhidhamma and had extensive intellectual
  understanding of samatha and jhana practice, Saya Thet Gyi counseled
  him to be aware of the breath, either by counting breaths or feeling
  its touch.  After one week, he taught the man vipassanā. For another
  student who was in his older years and in ill-health, he instructed
  him in the practice of ānāpāna along with odata kasina (developing
  concentration via a continuous focus on the color white). While the
  primary intention was to help the man accumulate paramis for the next
  life, the practice eventually led him to understand the four elements;
  and he also reported some relief from his heart disease.


To what level can be said that Buddha 'followed' the dzogchen?

Dzogchen is the understanding that enlightenment can't be found outside a person

Not the best definition - most other schools would agree with this - doesn't make them Dzogchen.

Dzogchen (Dzog-pa Chen-po) means Ultimate Completeness or Great Perfection. Dzogchen is the understanding that everything is already perfect, everything is the way it is for objective reasons, the world at large is in balance, there is a great harmony behind everything whether we see it as good or bad. All so-called "problems" are just manifestations of higher-level principles at work, which by themselves are not problems. With this understanding, why look for Enlightenment? What other Nirvana do you need?

In what sense can we say that Buddha 'followed' the Dzogchen? The idea is, that after his Enlightenment, Buddha has awakened to the view of the Great Perfection. So his "internal state" (if we can speak of a state of a non-abiding Buddha) was not different from Dzogchen. But of course he understood that most people are driven by their emotions, attachments, illusions to a large degree - so they can't enjoy the Great Perfection as is. Therefore he taught them the path to clean their minds of the taints, until they get lucid enough that they can "awaken" (budd) to the Great Perfection.

The reason it's a separate tradition is because most Buddhists obsess over the path of purification - they can't seem to accept the simplicity of the result. So the various schools of Buddhism have evolved around the various practices of discipline, wisdom, and meditation. The schools that focus on the result are primarily Zen and Dzogchen.

But even Zen and Dzogchen agree that realization of completeness is not the end of story - this is only the right view - and then there is cultivation of the right view in practice of daily life.


Even though I cannot help explain the first part of your question, for sure I can help you reduce the anxiety and doubt that arises in meditation. What I give below is only one small part of the many things that you can do to overcome this feeling. Please try the following and see….
Impermanence of Breath

Anapanasati is something that should be developed and pursued mindfully and discerningly. Now, he trains himself to breathe in focusing on impermanence, and to breathe out focusing on impermanence. Purity of mind has been achieved through the elimination of the hindrances (nivarana). His effort, mindfulness and concentration are now being directed towards focusing on impermanence. He is contemplating on impermanence within anapanasati. He can see the impermanent nature of his own breath in its rise and fall; the impermanence of his body; and the impermanent nature of the pleasant feeling and perception that he experienced.

Impermanence of Body

What has he seen in the body? What does this body consist of? This physical body contains and comprises the four great elements, which are known as: solidity/earth (pathavi), fluidity/water (apo), heat or temperature (tejo) and air (vayo). We generally use the word rupa (material form) to denote the body. When he is breathing in and out, he is focusing on impermanence of material form which is derived from the four great elements.

Impermanence of Feeling

Thereafter, he is focusing on feelings. Dependent on contact, feeling arises. What is contact? Contact is the coming together of three things. For example, eye, form and eye-consciousness come together, and it is their convergence, that is called contact. Similarly, with ear and sounds, nose and smells, and so on, through to mind and mental-objects.

In this instance, when body, tangible object and consciousness come together, there arises contact. With the arising of contact, simultaneously, there arises feeling (vedana) – feeling born of body contact. Since feeling is conditioned by contact, feeling differs in accordance with the change of contact. This way, he contemplates on the impermanence of feeling.

Impermanence of Perception

Then, there is the recognition of perception. This is called sañña (perception) which is also subject to change as it is conditioned by contact. Perception changes due to impermanence of contact.

Impermanence of Formations

Perception is followed by sankhara (mental formations). If the mental factor was directed to a certain matter, on that occasion there is volitional activity, and this is called sankhara. Here, he observes the impermanence of the mental formation with the change of contact. All these are based on the activities of the mind.

Now he understands every aspect in this life process which was considered as self (form, feeling, perception and formation); or anything pertaining to a self. He has real wisdom to see things as they really are. One may contemplate on impermanence saying “anicca, anicca” continuously, but still be holding onto the notion of “I am” or “mine”. To avoid this, it is important to realize the impermanent, no-self nature in inhalation-exhalation and in any other external object.

Impermanence of Consciousness

Finally, he sees the impermanent nature of all that has been cognized (the rise and fall of breath, rapture, joy, feelings, and perceptions). It is through this insight that the true nature of the five aggregates of clinging is understood and seen in the light of impermanence:

material form (rupa) derived from the four great elements,
feeling (vedana) that is conditioned by contact,
perception (sañña) that is conditioned by contact,
mental formations (sankhara) that is conditioned by contact, and
consciousness (viññana) that is conditioned by mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)

Being fully concentrated on anapanasati, he now dwells ardent, with full awareness, and clear comprehension of impermanence. With the base of this awareness, established in anicca (impermanence), he develops an understanding of his own life, the impermanent nature of others who breathe and live, and the impermanent nature of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness (the five aggregates of clinging).

Thus, he observes the impermanent characteristic of phenomenal existence, internally and externally. He does not see a difference in him and the outer world. He sees the characteristic of phenomenal existence as subject to cause and effect. Now he is gaining knowledge, and his comprehension is increasing. He sees things as they really are, in whatever material form: whether past, present or future, far or near, external or internal. He sees the impermanence even of the rapture and pleasure that he is experiencing in breathing mindfully. Now, based on the impermanent breath, he understands the impermanent nature of the five aggregates of clinging.

He realizes that whatever is impermanent and subject to change, is suffering (dukkha). And, whatever is impermanent is without self (anatta). It is through this insight that the true nature of the aggregates is clearly seen; in the light of three signs (ti-lakkhana): impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and without self (anatta).

He sees the impermanent, suffering and no-self nature of all conditioned and component things. As a result, he knows there is no “I”, no self, or anything pertaining to a self. When he trains himself to breathe in and out focusing on impermanence, he understands that anything taken as ‘mine’ is impermanent; anything taken as ‘I am’ is impermanent; and anything that is taken as ‘my self’ is impermanent. He realizes that whatever is impermanent, is without self. That which is without self, is not ‘mine’, not ‘I am’, and is not ‘my self’. Thus he sees everything as it really is – with wisdom.