Question on sexual immorality and a family situation

It is not officially a breach of the 3rd precept, which, per definition, relates to actual sexual activity with specifically defined people (such as another person's husband or wife or children/teenagers still living under the care of their parents).

However, pornography is of the kind of extreme "dangerous" (ādīnavā) potentially addictive vices found in the 'six causes ruin a man' in the Sigalovada Sutta.

Also, extreme pornography is particularly discordant with Buddhist views about the aims & needs of women (AN 6:52); it is often 'sexual objectification'; is a 'delusion' about reality; & thus does not abide with metta (wishing good welfare) & compassion (mitigating suffering).

Since, it was your computer, you have a duty of care (towards yourself) to mention it to your relative because it was a breach of your trust & something that could potentially have imperiled you (such as if it was an illegal kind of pornography that could be traced to your computer or if it was a work computer supplied by an employer).

If the relative is your child, again, the Sigalovada Sutta states a parent has the duty to restrain their children from evil & encourage them to do good.

Similarly, as a genuine friend, the Sigalovada Sutta states to protect a friend when he is heedless, to not forsake him in his troubles, to give good counsel, to discourage from doing evil encourage & to do good.

The Sigalovada Sutta contains most answers to Buddhist personal & social conduct.

As for pornography, it is a very powerful (alluring) sense object, even if looked at out of curiosity. Since it is freely accessible on the public internet, many people watch it or have viewed it.

I have noticed more than a few members on a certain Buddhist chatsite that have brought up their problems with & addictions to pornography.

About sensual pleasures (which includes pornography) the scriptures advise to be cognizant of: (i) the origin (all lifeforms are sexual/reproductive/filial beings); (ii) the allure/attraction; (iii) the drawback/danger; & (iv) the method to escape the danger (which is appropriate healthy use of appropriate sexual relationship or, otherwise, restraint). Some links below.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.010.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.054x.than.html

Pornography can have a powerful allure but I assume many people grow out of it (just as many people get addicted to it).


Reconciling metta & avoiding fools/immoral people

I think it's a matter of degree, not entirely black-and-white -- how stable you are, how much contact there is between you and of what type, etc.

A monk's giving a formal dhamma talk to a polite audience might be not-very-adversely affected, for example.

Whereas, conversely, your joining a criminal gang would be maybe not so harmless.

It might possibly be a conceit, too, to imagine that you're better than someone else; that you're able to benefit them even when they don't already benefit themselves; that your goodness is stable and is independent of the situation you're in (the company you're with); and so on.

It's good to want to be kind, but you might beware of pathological codependency for example -- which might seem well-intentioned but maybe isn't beneficial (and therefore not actually kind, or not skillful).


That's not all that uncommon.  If it's not your toes, it'll be something else.  Personally, my hands will sometimes contract by themselves and my forearms will occasionally rotate a few degrees.  Other people usually report muscles in their faces that start to fire, maybe their shoulders will bounce a bit, etc.

All this is a result of tension leaving the body.  The more you relax into your meditation, the more your body will loosen up.  The deeper the concentration, the more relaxed you'll get.  As you keep at your practice, you might even see other places start to loosen up - places of deep seated tension that you didn't even know existed.

It's nothing to be alarmed about if that's your concern.


According to Abhidhamma Jhana is one thought moment. One thought moment is so small there could be billions of thought moments in a splash of the light. So the five minutes of Jhana is quite an achievement for a beginner.


Is rebirth/reincarnation central to Buddhism?

There are two concepts here. We pass away every moment and arise every minutes. Other is rebirth after death. Rebirth is partly a belief but much of the Dhamma should be realised at experiential level. What is much needed is that at the last moment is that you maintain equanimity so you do not take a new birth. The level of stillness can be achived only by a fully accomplished person who has complete mastery over the mind and cognitive process. The aim is to develop this. Generally Buddhist take rebirth at face value but belief in this is not necessary to practice Buddhism as the emphasis is to realise the truth through ones own experience. Your experience re-enforces your belief.


Was the influence of Taoism on Buddhism responsible for the development of Mahayana?

It is hard to assess half a sentence without a wider context, but I would interpret this as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development [but not creation] of [some branches of] Mahayana[, more specifically, some of the Chinese ones]". And in this form the statement is true.

You seem to interpret it as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development of Mahayana [in India, even before it reached the Chinese soil]". Which is a false statement.


In my humble opinion, "pursuing gain with gain" refers to any purely speculative business activity that involves creating no added value whatsoever.

This is confirmed by Visuddhimagga:

  Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain (lābhena lābhaṃ nijigīsanatā)?
  It is when one bent on gain/esteem/renown, one of evil wishes, a prey to wishes
  carries there goods that have been got from here,
  carries here goods that have been got from there,
  fishing out material goods by means of material goods,
  seeking, searching, looking, hunting, trying, sniffing out.

According to commentary, this describes the process of aggressive deliberate speculation, buying low, selling high, with no other mission than making profit.

According to this, and in my own opinion, stock trading is indeed a wrong livelihood, unless it also has a charity element or is used as a way to fund some other constructive enterprise.


Tonglen - Exchanging Self and Other - Intersubjectivity

Refer to SN 55.7, which discusses each moral precept against killing, stealing, adultery & wrong speech.

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another – of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering–that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?’ Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.
SN 55.7

Also, refer to Dhammapada X:

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


Yes, there are 31 realms of existences.

From top to bottom:

4 immaterial realms
16 fine material realms
6 heavens
human realm
Asura hell
ghost hell
animal hell
Niraya(hells of unimaginable suffering)

Life spans of each realm varies, but there are no ever lasting places of existence. Yes, you will keep being born in these places again and again according to your Karma, every time you die, until you attain Nibbana and end the process.


In Buddhist ethics, where does personal responsibility end?

MN 61 is the most basic sutta about ethics, which refers to not harming oneself or another.
SN 55.7 is more extensive, as follows:

Reflecting this way, first, he gives up killing beings. Second, he
encourages others to abstain from killing beings, and third, he
praises the act of abstaining from killing beings. So, his bodily
behaviour is purified in three ways.

Therefore, not engaged in the wrong livelihood of selling weapons, poisons, etc, is an example of: "encourages others to abstain from killing beings".
Then there is AN 4.62 similar to DN 31), which extolls the virtue of blamlessless in relation to livelihood. If you sell weapons then learn your weapons were used by others to kill people, you might feel blame.


"I read somewhere (perhaps in an unreliable introduction to Tibetan beliefs) that rebirth is conditioned by the last thought before death (or perhaps affected by a thought or desire that you have after death).

Another belief that's similar, if not the same, is that a person may have had some (good or bad) life but that having some (bad or good) final dying thought determines their rebirth (e.g. into hell or heaven).""

In the pali canon there are suttas that suggest the "state of mind" in the last moments before death has a strong influence on where one reappears after dying. Two suttas on this subject:

  "It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus."

  -- SN 35.235

And:

  (i) “Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here… has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.

  (ii) “Now there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. [...]

  (iii) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.  [...]

  (iv) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.

  -- MN 136:

That is, SN 35.235 discusses the danger of having consciousness tied to the gratification of sensual pleasures at the time of death. Also, even though we read frequently in the suttas that wrong view leads one to reappearing in hell, MN 136 discusses the (seemingly proeminent) role of right and wrong view at the time of the death.

"[...] Are we supposed/expected to have some kind of control over such thoughts/ideas/images?"

Sure, to the extent we can think over, investigate, train and, thus, transform our thoughts, ideas, convictions, beliefs, and knowledges.

Naturally, an untrained mind might easily produce thoughts, ideas and images against one's desire and a non virtuous person might easily incline her mind to unwholesome states.

"If it's true that they [thoughts/ideasi/images] are not self, and not subject to control-by-self, then how are they associated with the kamma which affects rebirth?"

  "It is volition, bhikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech or mind"

  -- AN 6.63

Thoughts (perhaps specially the ones manifesting inclinations) are kamma. That is the association.

EDIT: I don't believe that, say, if the thought of ceasing to exist after death, or if the thought of having a permanent soul (or any other wrong view) appears in one's mind, that it would constitute wrong view -- one needs to actually believe these. Additionally, I'm sure that a thought about hate is not a thought of hate -- otherwise, it would be impossible to be virtuous and think & talk about such things. Furthermore, I understand thoughts originated by will are kamma, but still, one should ask what was that will that manifested such thoughts.

"Is this article reliable, i.e. is true as far as you know, or does it say some things that would contradict or add to?"

From the above we can conclude there is a basis in the suttas for the idea that the last moments may have a strong influence in determining one's destination (but I don't see how "the last thought moment a person has before they die will determine their next life." could be based on the suttas).

I fail to see this as conflicting, given the teachings on kamma -- specially the ones above, and this next one:

  Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through [greed, hatred, delusion] [...] rippens wherever the individual is reborn. Wherever that kamma rippens, it is there that one experiences its result, either in this very life, or in the [next] rebirth, or on some subsequent occasion.

  -- AN 3.34

[there is a some polemic surrounding that particular passage, but the quote above should be safe to further elucidate these points].

"The account of the Buddha's own death is of his having mastered jhanas, and making use of that ability at the time of his death [...] Is this what everyone is supposed to do when they die? Must we (and can we) hope that we will be so lucid at the time of death? Aren't people often unconscious or asleep or perhaps in a coma or something when they die?"

I don't think most people are unconscious, asleep or confused when dying -- some, surely. Though I'm sure that some people are very lucid when dying (not necessarily buddhist monks).

I can't say for sure going through jhanas is the "de facto itinerary" for parinibbāna, only that this what the Buddha seemed to have done. And that if we know how to attain jhana, that that is probably what one wants to do before dying, if one hasn't attained arahantship:

  "Here, bhikkhus, secluded from sensual pleasures [...] some person enters and dwells in the first jhāna [...]. He relishes it, desires it, and finds satisfaction in it. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of Brahmā's company.

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the second jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of streaming radiance. [...]"

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the third jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of refulgent glory. [...]"

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of great fruit. [...]"

  -- AN 4.124

Also, following the same formula of AN 4.124, AN 4.125 associates:

loving-kindness to the company of Brahmā's company
compassion to the company of devas of stream radiance
altruistic joy to the company of devas of refulgent glory
equanimity to the company of devas of great fruit

[Additionally, it also states that a Buddha's disciple, at the end of the life span in these realms, attains nibbāna there, contrasted with a wordling that, after dying in such realms, reappears in a lower realm. AN 4.126 adds to the formula the contemplation of the three marks, which makes one reappears in companionship with the devas of the pure abodes -- a destination not shared with wordlings].

"Can you summarize what conclusion you draw, about..."

In regard to the subject in question:

"How to practice Buddhism now?"

Stay away from unwholesome acts of body, speech and mind, nurture wholesome acts, restrain the 6 senses (sigh this is hard). Study, investigate, meditate. Rinse & repeat... (at least, this is what I try to do).
"What if anything to expect or hope at time of death?"

If jhana is not an option, at the time of my death, I would like to remember to be mindful and equanimous while it happens -- no expectations or hope.
"Whether death and rebirth are even especially worth thinking about (or whether we're even capable of thinking about them), or whether it's more important/useful to think about this life?"

I see no danger in thinking about it. It concerns our existence, after all. Moreover, many religions emphasize the prize of the after life -- this seems to be an important ad to gather adepts.

In the canon, I think a particular sutta might tackle this, titled by Thanissaro Bhikkhu as "A Safe Bet" (MN 60):

  A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.

  A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

  A3. "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: [2] one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.


What is the benefit of staying with one method, lineage or Dharma tradition?

This leads to great breadth, but little depth. If you want to get to the depth of a practice, where the true wisdom is, you need to stick to a practice and see it through. As Goenka said, if you are looking for water, you dig a well. But you don't start digging a well, stop digging down after 2 feet, then start a new well. Over and over again like this, you will never find the water that you are looking for. You must dig down deep to the depth that the water table is at. So you may start one or two wells, but you don't stop digging until you've gone to sufficient depth to know there is no water there.


How is the "manifestion" (pātubhāvo) of the earth element the arising (uppāda) of suffering?

The genius student can memorize and understand a big/maximum data each studying, so, the sutta is long. But, if the student is not too much smart, he can memorize and understand a little/minimum data each studying, so the teacher have to teach the sutta for him in short form and maybe incomplete paṭiccasamuppāda's process.

Because, in the oral study system, we memorize one sentence/paragraph (=each sutta) from the buddha or the tipitaka-memorizer (arahanta). Then we study/ask/practice/comprehension follow that memory, until we perfectly understand it (professional). If we still not enlighten after that. We will go to memorize the other lesson more, again. We will loop it until we are the tipitaka-memorizer, too. This is the tipitaka tradition. We still doing follow this tradition, for 2600 years.

So, it is already described itself, if you read the previous sutta. They were sequenced by paṭiccasamuppāda.

Let's see:

13.4.1 (30) Catusso — Four Elements = kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) = rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda, upattibhava/jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.

13.4.2 (31)/13. 4. 3.(32) Pubbe — the satisfaction (assāda), danger(ādīnava) and the escape (nissaraṇa) on account of the earth element.

Assāda = 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa, in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, which are objects of taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda:

  Bodily phenomena in the world are pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

Buddha said assāda as somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32):

  Whatever pleasantness and pleasure arises on account of the earth element, that is the satisfaction in the earth element.

So, above quote showed assāda as 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa which come to salāyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, then let somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise, then let taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise.

But the way to escape "kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) in paṭiccasamuppāda" showed  in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32), too:

  “ That the earth element is impermanent, unpleasant and a changing thing is the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element. Taming the interest and greed for the earth element and dispelling the interest and greed for the earth element is the escape(nissaraṇa) from the earth element.

13.4.4 (33) Yo no cedaṃ –– If There Weren’t, is then if the practitioner can not realize the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element to escape (nissaraṇa) it, then there are the interest and greed (taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda) which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda. (And that sukkha/somanassa-samphassaja-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda taking the earth element at kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda together with kāya/mano-samphassa-paṭiccasamuppāda as well. Also, that  kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda are rūpa/nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda, which is "mano pubbaṅgamādhammā".) So, buddha showed somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda, and upattibhava-paṭiccasamuppāda in 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35):

  “Bhikkhus, he who does not delight (taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda) in the earth element (mana-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda's object) does not delight in unpleasantness(kevala[ssa] dukkhakkhandha[ssa]). He that does not delight in unpleasantness, I say, is released from unpleasantness.

Then the buddha presented the effects, jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, of "he who does not delight in the earth element does not delight in unpleasantness. " from 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35) into 13. 4. 7. (36) Uppado — Arising:

  “Bhikkhus, the appearance(upādo=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), being (ṭhiti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), arising (abhinibbatti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), and rebirth (pātubhāva=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda) of the earth element is the appearance of unpleasantness, the continuance of ailments and the manifestation of decay and death.

Please notice, abhinibbatti and pātubhāva are used as the synonym of jāti-dukkha-ariyasacca to describe "jāti" in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, too. So, they are connect together.


Is there any such thing as a bad meditation?

In the Gopaka-Moggallana Sutta (MN 108), Ananda points out that the Buddha didn't speak in praise of all types of meditation:

“The Blessed One, brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation, nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind [14] of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust, a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. He abides with his mind obsessed by ill will, a prey to ill will … with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor … with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse, a prey to restlessness and remorse … with his mind obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation."
(Bodhi, Trans.)

This seems like an obvious answer; just because something is called meditation doesn't make it wholesome. A hunter may spend his time meditating on how to catch a deer (pre-meditated murder), or one may spend an entire sitting meditation fantasizing about sensual pleasure.
A common example of this is the case where a meditator gets stuck on the ten vipassanupakilesa (imperfections of insight), like visions, rapture, quietude, etc., and mistakes them for the path. As a result, as you have read, a meditator can spend years basically going nowhere, just using meditation as an escape into these pleasant but meaningless experiences.
What isn't so clear cut, perhaps what you are really asking, is whether there is any condition that arises in meditation that one should avoid when cultivating wholesome meditation (proper samatha or vipassana). In this case, the answer is generally "yes" for samatha and generally "no" for vipassana.
In samatha meditation, where the object is absorption, one should avoid a great number of things; anything that is an obstruction to calm. Noises, pain, sickness, even indigestion, can all get in the way of your attainment of calm. Sitting in the wrong position can be an impediment, so the Buddha recommended the full-lotus with one's back perfectly straight. When one's mind enters into unwholesome thoughts or emotions, one should avoid such mental activity, replacing it with its opposite or coaxing the mind back towards wholesomeness.
As catpnosis points out, one should also not practice samatha against one's character type; a person of angry character should avoid asubha (loathsomeness) meditation, for example.
In vipassana, where the object is insight into reality, almost every experience is a valid meditation object; almost, because there may be cases where an experience may be physically harmful to the meditator (e.g. dangerous situations or physical injury) or a cause for cultivating unwholesomeness (e.g. getting caught up in obsessive thoughts or emotions). In some cases it is necessary to change one's posture from sitting to walking or vice versa to deal with these situations.


Elaboration of Vasubandhu's argument for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable?

There is a famous allegory in Mahayana Buddhism relating three different beings' experience of the very same cup of liquid. The first being is a God, the second is a human, and the third is a hungry ghost. To the God, the cup full of liquid is experienced as a golden chalice full of the most wonderful crystal clear ambrosia giving off a mesmerizing scent. To the human being it is a rather ordinary cup of water. To the hungry ghost it's a revolting and ugly basin full of blood and pus.
Then the Buddhist student is asked to consider what is the truth of this object? Is it a chalice of amazing elixir? Just a cup of water? A vile concoction of mucus and phlegm? And what is it to an ant? An ocean? Is it something else? All of these things at the same time? How about to other humans? To other gods? To other beings? Could it be that there are countless experiences of the same "thing" all related to the karma of the beings experiencing it?
A western philosophical student might wonder what is the qualia of this object? How can different beings experience such different qualia of the same underlying object? Is it "the same" underlying object?? If so, how can it have different qualia? If it is not the same, then what is it? Can anything at all be objectively measured and understood and experienced the same by all beings that might encounter it? By some subsets but not others?

"As a side note, I know this is very similar to the Problem of Other
Minds in modern social science where scholars and philosophers
invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the
existence of certain social common "thought communities" one
unavoidably belongs to explain why people can share their private
intrinsically different experiences."

I think that is a very poor set of definitions. From all I can tell, it sounds like "intersubjectivity" is merely another word for "convention."

But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the
sound of a chorus which can be entirely reduced to the superposition
of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept.

Ah, this is rejected by Mahayana buddhism (and I think Thervada too) as can easily be seen in the allegory of the chariot by Chandrakirti. This can be found also in this sutta.

Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs
to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true
possibility of exact mental appearances sharing?

What do you mean by "exact" here? I would challenge you to find even one set "thing" in this world or any other in which all beings immediately agree or have a universal objective experience that does not differ in any significant way. Name one such universal qualia that is permanent and fixed. Can you?
I'm not sure if these allegories help answer your questions, but your questions aren't very specific. Rather they seem to allude to a whole host of ideas that are not well defined and mixing western philosophical words/ideas - that are themselves ill-defined - with Buddhist ideas that may/may not be defined according to your usage. Anyway, I hope it is helpful.


How does a reborn stream-winner know that he or she is one?

Like a math or music prodigy who can easily recall their skillset through just some basic exposure to music or math, a stream-winner would be like that, if not much quicker or even instantaneous since Path/Fruit are supra-mundane skills, unlike mundane fields like math/music.
There're concrete metrics to determine a stream-winner. Details are available in many suttas like AN 9.12, AN 3.87, SN 12.41, etc. (ref: suttacentral.net)

  Does being a stream-winner in a previous lifetime, mean that one would be reborn into a devout Buddhist family in this lifetime or would definitely be led to the Dhamma eventually?

S/he's to be born into any place(devas or humans) and time where the conditions are conducive to guarantee enlightenment at most 7 more life times.

  Is the reborn stream-winner's Dhamma eye open immediately at birth, or only after he or she encounters the Dhamma and returns back to the Noble Eightfold Path?

The DhammaEye opens just once and will stay there when the noble disciple makes the breakthrough to StreamEntry, as said in AN 3.94:

  "Bhikkhus, just as, in the autumn, when the sky is clear and cloudless, the sun, ascending in the sky, dispels all darkness from space as it shines and beams and radiates, so too, when the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye arises in the noble disciple, then, together with the arising of vision, the noble disciple abandons three fetters: personal-existence view, doubt, and wrong grasp of behavior and observances"

.

  How is it guaranteed that the reborn stream-winner would not choose another path or another teacher, and drop out of the stream, considering that we do not remember previous lifetimes?

S/he won't switch path since they possess the Seven Great Reviewing Knowledges of Stream Entry (MN 48), one of which is: "Knowledge that no other recluse or brahmin outside the Buddha's Dispensation possessed of a view that one possess." Also see the child prodigy analogy mention in question 1.

  Please provide any info from the canon regarding this

All refs. should be available on accesstoinsight.org or suttacentral.net


Did the Buddha talk about "out of body" experiences?

According to DN 2, the Samaññaphala Sutta, it seems that OOBEs are possible:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

In the Translator's Introduction to the Potthapada Sutta, Thanissaro Bhikku identifies the mind-made body as the astral body:

  The mind-made acquisition can result from an experience of the mind-made body — the "astral body" — that constitutes one of the powers that can be developed through concentration practice.

The mind-made body is a body that is made out of, composed of mind. Seems you can probably OOB with it.


The Buddha had a personality, for sure. His personality is who he was, moment to moment, but not the result of him desiring to become that personality.
But you are not a Buddha, and much of your life experiences has built upon the habit of creating a self-reinforcing personality. Those habits are part of who you are, moment to moment, the result of deep desires to become that personality.
You are now seeing your own personality and experiences with a different perspective, a partially complete dharmic perspective, and that too is naturally going to become part of your personality. The deep desires to have a personality will latch onto this new found perspective with excitement, but those deep desires for a personality aren't intelligent enough to realize that this perspective is set upon unravelling these very habits and what that even means.
If you are really curious and really want to know what your personality is, then you are free to ask yourself those questions. Your personality is something completely fluid that is modifiable by your own or others input. So ask yourself, what do you really want? And feel free to strive for that.


Does "old karma" come from our parents, family, community, surroundings?

When you feel a breeze on your skin, where does the breeze come from? Is there a single time or place where we can say "The breeze started here"? Is there a group of air molecules such that we can say "These molecules (and no others) are the breeze"? A breeze comes from everywhere and nowhere. It is the culmination of all the movements of the atmosphere, dependent on all the breezes that came before, and on the heat of the sun and the earth as they pass through the days and the seasons.
Karma is like the breeze: neither here nor there, not specific to this or that, not inherent in him or her or them. It's not personal. It's the culmination of all the movements of human minds as they brush past and push against each other, dependent on all the actions of all who have come before. Our bodies are given to us by the actions or our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, etc... Our minds our shaped by the minds of our parents, which were in turn shaped by the minds of our grandparents... Our bodies and minds are continuations of karma that ran through them to us, and continues on from us to others.


Should I practice Anapana after 10 day Vipassana course?

Anapana in the context of the one hour sessions should be practiced if your mind not not calm, i.e., :

Lot of distracting thoughts
You are emotional
Hindrances have come up
etc.

It is always good to do about 5 to 15 minutes to start with, to calm your mind.


I always approached the precepts as very important guidelines rather than rigid rules for banning one's actions.

Certainly, while on the eightfold path, if one intakes a substance that even subtlety  clouds the mind  then that substance would lead to one's suffering and the suffering of those around one. The more one understands this and the more one sees things as they are, the more one will follow the presepts naturally like a river follows the best way down the side of a  mountain.-Metta


Does this count as breaking the first precept?

The first precept is:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Conditions that Break the Precept
(By Ñanavara Thera)
The five factors of the first precept are:
* pano -- presence of a living being.
* panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
* vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
* upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
* tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

All factors must be fulfilled in order to break the first precept.
If you can answer yes to all of them then the first precept is broken. If you can answer no to one of them the precept is not broken.


Basic readings and references: where to start

You can use the book by bikkhu Nyanatusita to learn the vinaya. It has the pali, then the english translation, then the definition of all the pali words. The draft from 2008 is here
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books14/Bhikkhu_Nyanatusita-Analysis_of_the_Bhikkhupatimokkha.pdf

the book from 2014 is here
https://books.google.com/books?id=6s3iBQAAQBAJ

For a list of suttas and a super short summary, there is always
An Analysis of the Pali Canon and a Reference Table of Pali Literature By Russell Webb and Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp607s_Webb_Analysis-Of-The-Pali-Canon.pdf
which has also a huge catalog of texts on buddhism, as of 2011, and it has also  A Reference List of Pali Literature, which is also found here separately
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Nyt008__Nyanatusita_ReferenceTableOfPaliLiterature.pdf

The course by bikkhu bodhi for Pali is a good introduction
https://bodhimonastery.org/a-course-in-the-pali-language.html

and the little help for Pali Verb Conjugation and Noun/Pronoun Declension Tables, by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita (2005; 486k)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatusita/index.html

For the suttas themselves, you can begin with the short ones, so DN which is some copies of suttas form SN and AN, MN, dhammapada, sutta nipata, then SN and AN

Also do not forget the parallel suttas. Scholars already know about this since the 80s, like lamotte says in HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDHISM (Peeters Press, 1988, page 156):

  However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in the Ekottara [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's Anguttara],
  which are easily discernable, the variations in question affect hardly
  anything save the method of expression or arrangement of the subjects.
  The doctrinal basis common to the agamas [preserved in Chinese and
  partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] is remarkably uniform. Preserved and
  transmitted by the schools, the sutras [discourses] do not however
  constitute scholastic documents, but are the common heritage of all
  the sects.

THere is a short book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutranga Portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama by Mun-keat Choong
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Fundamental%20Teachings%20of%20Early%20Buddhism_Mun-keat.pdf

and of course lots of work by Bikkhu Analayo

A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol1.pdf

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol2.pdf

Madhyama-āgama Studies

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/mastudies.pdf

Saṃyukta-āgama Studies

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sastudies.pdf

Dīrgha-āgama Studies

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/dastudies.pdf

Ekottarika-āgama Studies

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ekottarikastudies.pdf

Vinaya Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/vinayastudies.pdf

Early Buddhist Meditation Studies

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ebms.pdf

Perspectives on Satipaṭṭhāna
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/perspectives.pdf


Can Buddhist practice lead to pure consciousness experiences?

PCE sounds very much like Eckhart Tolle's experience in his book "The Power of Now", of which you can find the excerpt on this page:

“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept
repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a
peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with
myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’
cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”
I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I
was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt
drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement
at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and
my body started to shake. I heard the words “resist nothing,” as if
spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void.
It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside.
Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that
void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.
I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had
never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw
the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound,
this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of
dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt,
I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That
soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears
came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized
the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before.
Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into
existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at
the beauty and aliveness of it all.
That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of
life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world.
For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep
peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or
perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could
still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever
did could possibly add anything to what I already had.

I would speculate, the same as your PCE page, that this refers to what Buddhism calls jhana in Pali (same as the Sanskrit dhyana) and ch'an or zen in Mahayana traditions.
While the Sanskrit dhyana simply refers to meditation, jhana in Buddhism is defined into 8 levels - 4 lower jhanas and 4 higher jhanas. You can find more info on this in "The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana.
Another two good books on this subject is "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook" by Ven. Ajahn Brahm and "Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners" by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. These two books provide the Buddhist methodology.
From Chapter 5 of Ven. Ajahn Brahm's book "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook", obtained in PDF format from here:

As you build up mindfulness and it gets sharper, you will realize that
you are emerging from a world that has been very dim. As you get more
and more mindful, it’s as if someone has turned on the lights in the
room, or the sun has come out, illuminating the surroundings. You see
so much more of what’s around you. It’s like shining a spotlight on
reality, and you begin to see the subtle beauty of rich colors,
delightful shapes, and deep textures. It all appears very beautiful
and wonderful. When mindfulness becomes powerful, it generates not
only insight but also bliss.
When you have developed powerful mindfulness, it’s like going out into
a beautiful garden in the brilliant sunshine. It’s energizing and
inspiring. Possessing strong mindfulness, such brightness of mind, if
you then focus it on a small part of the world, then you will see so
deeply into its nature. The experience of bright and focused awareness
is wonderful and amazing! You see much more beauty and truth than you
ever imagined.

I'm not sure about Actual Freedom, but Eckhart Tolle really thought he became perfectly enlightened with this experience.
However, in Buddhism, this is nowhere close to enlightenment. This is only part of the samatha (tranquility) meditation to calm the mind, concentrate the mind and overcome the five hindrances.
Also, there are 8 levels of jhana. Actual Freedom's PCE and Eckhart Tolle's experience is probably only up to the first or second level of jhana.
The Buddha himself experienced this (first jhana) as a boy, as narrated in MN 36:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied,
while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite
secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I
entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by
applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of
seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following
on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to
enlightenment.’

Samatha (tranquility) is not enough. It has to be combined with vipassana (insight), to reach the enlightenment that the Buddha speaks of, as stated in Kimsuka Sutta:

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
concentration."

So, in my opinion, a number of new age gurus have experienced the rapture (piti) and joy (sukha) of jhana and imagined that this is enlightenment, when this is only a small part of the journey towards complete enlightenment that was discovered and taught by the Buddha.
In his journey to enlightenment, the Buddha was taught by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta as described in MN 26, and they reached the 4 higher jhanas, which is higher than what is taught by Actual Freedom's PCE or Eckhart Tolle's "entering the Now", but even then the Buddha was not satisfied that this ended suffering permanently, and he continued till he achieved complete enlightenment.
The jhanas by themselves calm the mind and refine consciousness (which are impermanent), but they do not solve the problem of realizing the truth i.e. the four noble truths, the three marks of existence and dependent origination.
Samatha (tranquility) is needed to calm and concentrate the mind, while vipassana (insight) is needed to observe the nature of reality, which is not possible if the mind is not calm and concentrated.


"Spirits" are lower ranking devas that occupy the realm of the Four Great Kings, and include earthbound devas too, that live invisibly in human cities and influence human beings telepathically. These correspond to the nature spirits found in all traditions. I cant think of any examples of spirits of ancestors as such, but King Bimbisara appears to the Buddha as a king in the realm of the Four Great Kings after the former's decease.


How can Buddhism help me to get rid of a suffering due to a disease?

I don't know your situation and haven't suffered anything like it, so any advice I have may mean nothing to you, but I will say these things:

Karma is the fruit of past action. Don't concern yourself with what's past, and focus on the actions you do in the present. The Buddha said that speculating about the workings of karma is a waste of time, because it is too complex, and (at best) only fully-enlightened beings can see the full chain of causes and effects that led us to where we are now, or where we will go in the future. Kindness and mindfulness in the present moment are our tools to create good karma. Taking care of your health is a part of kindness and mindfulness, because it is important to be kind and forgiving to yourself. If you condemn or harm yourself, you are condemning and harming a future being, so be kind to yourself.
Practicing the Dharma and ending suffering are long-term projects. You may not be able to cure the disease. But every moment of kindness and mindfulness erases a moment of future suffering. Repent to yourself first. If, as you do this, you're moved to repent or ask forgiveness from someone else, then do that, but don't put more pressure on yourself than the disease is already putting on you. Be kind to yourself.
Look at the body in a moment-by-moment way and watch the way energy and pain and sensation change in every single millisecond. Watch how feelings that you think last for minutes, days, or hours are actually fluctuating in every moment. Sometimes there are eruptions of pleasant in the middle of a painful feeling. Different parts of the body are feeling different sensations and energies at different moments. Karma doesn't just act on your life, but also on every single moment within your life- the truth is, you die and are reborn many times a second. Observe the bodily sensations as much as you can.
You will be low on energy, and so practice will be difficult. Forgive yourself for not being a great practitioner, and only do the best you are able to. Look into the mind and see if you can find that little part of your mind that's always fully alert, always watching itself, even when you feel that you're tired and your attention is weak. Use that part of your mind to watch the rest of your body and mind and know that none of it is "you" or "yours".
Disease and physical health are partly the result of karma, but also partly the result of the nature of being human in a world made of matter. To be born human is to be born with a body subject to disease and death. So don't blame yourself for what's part of your nature as a human being. To be born human also means being born to hear the Dharma and to be free to act kindly and mindfully in ways that will improve your future. The fact that your karma led to a human birth means that your past included more positive karmic influences than negative ones. So be kind to yourself.

May you be well.


Your question is a variation of the question, "if there is no self, then who is responsible for actions?"

The Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self doing anything, in the Attakari Sutta:

  “Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There
  is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
  (“Natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro.”)

  “I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you
  think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly
  discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer.

  “What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion ... is
  there an element of effort ... is there an element of steadfastness
  ... is there an element of persistence ... is there an element of
  endeavoring?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings
  clearly discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

There is a self (the self-doer), but this self is impermanent, conditioned and compounded. It arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates, and ceases when the five aggregates cease. By breaking down a violin to its constituent components, you cannot find something called music. Similarly, by breaking down the five aggregates, you cannot find anything called the self. The self, like music, depends on the inter-working of other components, that are themselves dependent on other things. The self, like music, is not non-existent. Please see this answer for more details.

There is such a thing as the concept of wholesome thinking in Buddhism. Being virtuous, one reaps material benefits (see Ittha Sutta) and is also lead towards enlightenment (see Kimattha Sutta).

So, how can a lay person cultivate a wholesome way of thinking that would lead him towards becoming virtuous? AN5.57 holds the answer:

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

And what about a noble disciple?

  “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

By reflecting on the notion that all beings are owners of their kamma (and inherit the results), the noble disciple cultivates a wholesome thinking that results in renunciation.


How does someone decide from what direction to approach the twelve-Nidānas?

Because I believe I understand twelve nidanas, I suggest you approach them from the bottom up.

This way, each next nidana up will be the "cause" (or, more precisely, the ground or the context) for the one below it.

As I said here, I believe the relationship between nidanas is that of implication. Be sure to check out the thoughts of Nanavira Thera and ven. Buddhadasa for useful hints. I do not agree with all of their conclusions but they are on the right path, as far as I can see.


In AN 4.171, what is "reincarnation where the intention of others is effective"?

Per commentary, this passage refers to "devas corrupted by the mind" (Manopadosika-deva), living in the world of the Four Great Kings. When they get angry with one another their mutual anger leads to their mutual deaths.

Here are descriptions of Manopadosika-deva from different sources:

Buddhist Dictionary. Manual of Buddhist Terms & Doctrines (4th Edition) by Ven. Nyanatiloka:

  Manopadosika-deva: ‘the celestial beings corruptible
  by temper’, are a class of devas (q.v.) of the sensuous
  sphere. “They spend their time in becoming annoyed
  with one another, and getting into a temper, and thus
  by being bodily and mentally exhausted, they pass
  from that world” (D. 1; 24).

The "Dictionary of Pali Proper Names" by G. P. Malalasekera:

  A class of devas living in the Cātummahārājika world (DA.i.114; AA.ii.544; MNid.108). They burn continually with envy one against another (Buddhaghosa relates a story illustrating this in DA.i.114) and their hearts become ill disposed and debauched. Their bodies thus become feeble and their minds imbecile, and, as a consequence, they fall from their state (D.i.20; iii.32). The Manopadosikā were among those present at the preaching of the Mahāsamaya Sutta (D.ii.260). They are so called because their minds are debauched by envy (dosassa anudahanatāya) (VibhA.498).

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'corrupted by mind.' These gods contemplate one another with excessive envy. As a consequence their minds becomes corrupted by anger towards one another. When their minds are corrupted by anger, their bodies and minds become exhausted and consequently, they pass away from that plane.

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) translated by Bhikkhu Sujato:

  There are gods named ‘malevolent’. They spend too much time gazing at each other, so they grow angry with each other, and their bodies and minds get tired. They pass away from that group of gods.

So, one deva's hatred towards another deva provokes hatred in that deva towards the first, causing a vicious circle, and this very hatred exhausts their spirits until they fall from their godly state.

One deva's hatred is not his own deliberate intention but is merely a reaction to another deva's hatred. Therefore the deva falls from his state and comes to a different state through an "intention of other".

It's interesting how the vicious circle of judgement starts not through one of the devas performing some unwelcomed act to another, but rather through both spending too much time wondering about the other's attitude to oneself.

I suppose this basically means that not all karma is strictly personal. While in the simplest cases sentient beings inherit their own karma, there are cases when they create (bad) karma for one another, and there are cases when a karmic pattern emerges spontaneously from a background of ignorance - not through anyone's fault.

On a side note, per my (Russian) dictionary, attabhāvapaṭilābhe is not "reincarnation" but "a state of personal existence".


How worried should one be about the lay precepts?

Precept is a promise or pledge or vow to abstain from certain actions. When you break a precept you break the promise, i.e., you pledged you will abstain but you have done what you promised not to do. You should retake the precept, i.e., promise or pledge or vow to abide by the rule of abstaining.

Also saying them loudly maybe you are psychologically more serious about preserving or abiding by them. Also as with any pledge or promise or vow you should mean it and have intention to keep it.

The abstainment in the precepts are towards actions that are unwholesome. So if you break them this also means you are doing something unwholesome hence accumulating bad Kamma. Precepts is a rule base or ritualistic approach from abstaining from what is unwholesome.


Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem?

Sez who?

Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress.

To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!" (Not to be taken too literally.)


What are do's & dont's which should be followed for serene & calm life?

The don'ts:

Buddhism teaches ten kinds of unskilful action the serious lay Buddhist to refrain from, namely:

Killing.
Stealing
Unwholesome (uncaring) sex
Dishonest speech
Harsh speech
Divisive speech
Frivolous speech
Greed
Hatred
Selfishness & ungratefulness (delusion).

To this add avoiding the roads to ruin (DN 31), namely:

Addiction to drugs & alcohol
Gambling
Nightlife/nightclubbing
Addiction to sensual entertainment
Bad friends
Chronically laziness.

Add to this:

Avoid borrowing money leading to living beyond your means (AN 4.62).

The dos:

The opposite of the above.
Safeguard your social relationships in the 'six directions' (DN 31).
Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.
Engage in wholesome pleasures, such as exercise, sports, outdoors nature, arts, contemplative music, charity work, generosity, meditation. etc.

The entire list is here: https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html


In short, the five hindrances disrupt mindfulness.

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

Also related to the five hindrances are the general defilements (kilesas), which also hinders mindfulness.

  I am also wondering whether merely paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

It’s a good start. However, one needs to purposely commit to the entire eightfold noble path in order to completely eliminate those behaviors.


Why do the scriptures employ so much repetition?

Mr David V.,

There are many aspect but one of the central is to be and stay concentrated. Its also the case, if you try to translate a Sutta for example, that if you go a head, you would suddenly see "Oh, that part did I miss before" since mind loves to interpret things into certain attention gaps. One would even swear that one read this or heard this or that.

Listener, or reader, if not very concentrated would either get bored and lose patient or start to be aware of that matter and put an effort into it.

Upasaka John Bullitt (founder and generous giver of accesstoinsight.org) wrote some useful and guiding words, worthy for everybody new to the texts:

Befriending the Suttas - Tips on Reading the Pali Discourses

If Atma remembers right, Upasaka mentioned this question as well.

Oh yes (from a sound engineer and musician):

  Don't ignore the repetitions.

  Many suttas contain repetitive passages. Read the sutta as you would a piece of music: when you sing or listen to a song, you don't skip over each chorus; likewise, when you read a sutta, you shouldn't skip over the refrains. As in music, the refrains in the suttas often contain unexpected — and important — variations that you don't want to miss.

and also good, even if very unusual in modern or western world:

  Read the sutta aloud, from beginning to end.

  This helps in several ways: it encourages you to read every single
  word of the sutta, it trains your mouth to use right speech, and it
  teaches your ears how to listen to Dhamma.

You could even record it and share it (if your like): Dhammaoke! Giving others the possibility to listen to the Dhamma

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


Where to do a 'Rains Retreat' in South Korea?

In his book, "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", Stephen Batchelor, Spiegel & Grau, Random House, 2010, describes his experience of doing just this in 1981.  Batchelor's first Zen retreat was at Songgwangsa, under the guidance of Kusan Sunim, and he stayed until 1984, a year after Kusan Sunim's death.


What is the meaning of uppajjati versus upapajjati?

I think there are two rather different words confused here.

One is Sanskrit "utpada"/"anutpada" (to arise / not to arise) and its Pali corruption "uppada" with a past form "uppanna".

Another one is Sanskrit "upaprajati" (something like "offshoot" or "derivative" - meaning something that is born off a family but separate) and the Pali corruption of its past form, "upapanna".

Google dictinary for "offshoot" gives the following meanings:

  a thing that originated or developed from something else.
  "commercial offshoots of universities"
    synonyms: outcome, result, (side) effect, corollary, consequence, upshot, product, by-product, spin-off, development, outgrowth, fallout
    "rap music began as an underground offshoot of disco"
  subsidiary, branch, adjunct, derivative
    "the company now controls several offshoots"

Checking the examples of sutta usages in @ChrisW's answer, I think they all make sense.


Does anybody knows origin and reference Buddha teaches a bossy & angry the seven kinds of wifes

Atta feels inspired to help translating further this sutta Atma is searching for. Below are seven translations of the seven wives sutta:

1.සුජාතඝර සුණ්හා සූත්‍රය

2.妻子經

3.Жёны

4.Các Người Vợ

5.ภริยาสูตร

6.Az erőd

7.Istri-Istri

With metta

Householder # 3,454,845,812


How does Buddhism explain consciousness if there is no self?

Acts of cognition do not require a "cogniser, a subject" that knows (apart from the mind itself), because consciousness belongs to the body & mind.

The original question contains an implicit assumption that is invalid.

Cognition results from consciousness; just as a mirror reflects without a self.

Buddhism explains there are five aggregates (khandha) that compose a human life. SN 22.81 explains the idea of 'self' is ignorantly created by the 'sankhara khandha' (mental forming aggregate) and not the 'vinnana khandha' ('consciousness aggregate'). SN 22.59 clearly states each aggregate is 'not-self'. The sankhara created 'self' is a temporary product of ignorance (SN 22.81) & suffering (SN 5.10).

Despite ideas contained in later-day Buddhism about 'relinking' or 'stream of consciousness', the Pali suttas report the Buddha taught there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38), without other aggregates (SN 22.53) and without a mind-body (SN 12.67).

Also, the suttas do not explain a 'cause' ('hetu') of consciousness, i.e., the parts or sub-elements that create consciousness (similar to how water, clay & pain are the parts used to make a cup or how ignorance, craving & attachment mix together to create suffering). The suttas only state consciousness has a requisite 'condition' ('paccaya'), which is the mind-body ('nama-rupa') & sense bases ('salayatana').


What does MN 18's "delineate a delineation" phrase mean?

Ven. Bodhi's MN 18 version:

  "When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact.233 When there is the manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling, it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception..."

and footnote:

  The Pali idiom phassapaññattiª paññ›pessati, in which the verb takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. Ñm originally rendered “that one will describe a description of contact.” “To point out a manifestation” is less literal, but it should do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence (va˛˛a) by way of the twelve sense bases; §18 shows the cessation of the round (viva˛˛a) by the negation of the twelve sense bases.

Prof. Piya Tan shares similar explanation:

  So vat‟āvuso cakkhusmi sati rpe sati cakkhu,viāe sati phassa,paatti paāpessatîti hāna. Comy says that this passage shows the entire round of existence (vaā) by way of the 12 sense-bases. The next section [§18] shows the cessation of the round (vivaa) by the negation of the 12 sense-bases. (MA 2:78). The structure paatti paāpessati (lit “he describes the description,” “he defines the definition”) is idiomatic, meaning simply “he describes; he defines.” Paraphrased, this sentence may also read “It is possible to define contact as the meeting of sense-organ, sense-object and sense-consciousness.”


Mindfulness, conciousness and directing attention

From a traditional Buddhist perspective, the purpose of mindfulness is threefold:

At a superficial level, the level of mere beginner or layperson, we pay attention to what we do and how we do it, evaluating it against the basic Buddhist guidelines, in order to overcome our basic unwholesome habits.
On a deeper level, the level of dedicated practitioner, mindfulness is viewing everything through the prism of Dharma, which means our basic frame of reference we use to interpret all of our experience is superseded with the Buddhist system.
On the deepest level, mindfulness is practiced as a way to cultivate tathata or suchness. This is when we learn to observe phenomena with no judgment or taking sides. In the absence of taking sides our experience becomes pure reflection of whatever is happening, with no conflict of interest generated when experience mismatches the expectations of the side we took.

As you can see, nowhere on this ladder do we try to "be in pure consciousness" without directing or doing. What we try to do is change our frame of reference and indeed our identification to free ourselves from all traces of existential conflict.

This means that "doing" and "thinking" is not your enemy, it's not your goal to stop them or to go without them - not at all. Your goal is "cessation of craving & attachment", meaning to not take sides or boundaries in any way that would lead to experience of suffering.

Your entire mental machine - including thoughts, emotions, and impulses - should keep functioning, it's only your attitude that must undergo purification and "liberation" (from mind-made boundaries).

Among other things this means that at some point you even stop judging your own thoughts and taking sides wrt them. But of course, there is a fine line here between allowing your mind go unbounded vs letting the pathological urges and neuroses drag you around. The standard Buddhist approach is, first you liberate yourself from crude types of conflict, then gradually move onto more and more subtle kinds.

In general my advice is, as you go around your day, your mindfulness should be in how you don't get involved in maintaining drama - not in trying to avoid controlling anything at all. Your level of involvement in drama is something you must control, all the way until this very control remains the only extant drama, at which point you drop it too - but not before that.


As I understand things: Metta-meditation is not "magic", not something like "positive voodoo". In the first instance it is a training for you and your ability for loving kindness.
Based on this it is also a stepwise training: you start with simple ones (loving kindness with yourself, your mama, your spouse, your best friend). After you have some fluent experience you change the subject to more neutral persons, and then even to some people you dislike (or you think they dislike you), or to rivals.
The effect of the training - if successful for you : then your new way of impulses might have effects to the world...


Are the 16 stages of Insight mentioned by the Buddha in the early Pali texts or are they a later addition to the Dharma?

The Seven Stages of Purification are summarised in the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification), a 5th century Theravada text (about 800 years after the Buddha lived).

  the seven visuddhis come from the Ratha-vinita Sutta (MN 24), and the sixteen stages of knowledge are found in the Patisambhidamagga. –  yuttadhammo

  This comparison between practice and "seven relay chariots" points at the goal. Each purity is needed to attain the next. They are often referred to as the "Seven Stages of Purification" (satta-visuddhi):[3]

Purification of Conduct (sīla-visuddhi)
Purification of Mind (citta-visuddhi)
Purification of View (ditthi-visuddhi)
Purification by Overcoming Doubt (kankha-vitarana-visuddhi)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision of What Is Path and Not Path (maggamagga-ñanadassana-visuddhi)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Course of Practice (patipada-ñanadassana-visuddhi)
    Knowledge of contemplation of rise and fall (udayabbayanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of dissolution (bhanganupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of appearance as terror (bhayatupatthana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of danger (adinavanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of dispassion (nibbidanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of desire for deliverance (muncitukamyata-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of reflection (patisankhanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of equanimity about formations (sankharupekka-nana)
    Conformity knowledge (anuloma-nana)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision (ñanadassana-visuddhi)
    Change of lineage
    The first path and fruit
    The second path and fruit
    The third path and fruit
    The fourth path and fruit

  The "Purification by Knowledge and Vision" is the culmination of the practice, in four stages leading to liberation and Nirvana.

  The emphasis in this system is on understanding the three marks of existence, dukkha, anatta, anicca. This emphasis is recognizable in the value that is given to vipassana over samatha, especially in the contemporary vipassana movement.


What's the first thing that arises, from which everything else arise?

Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts

This is what happens when you go into deep sleep. When you don't dream, the mind falls back to the Bhavanga process. This is called the passive state of the mind. It is what keeps you alive, when there's no other thought. This Bhavanga process is the result of your birth Karma.

  Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought

No, you can't make any choices when you are in Bhavanga state. The Bhavanga process should first be interrupted by one of the sense doors. Volition comes much later in the process.

A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (citta kha.na). These are:

A bhava"nga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (atiita bhava"nga).
A bhava"nga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhava"nga calana).
A bhava"nga that cuts off the flow (bhava"nga upaccheda).
A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (pañcadvaara-vajjana).
The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (cakkhu viññaa.na).
Next a thought moment — the sampa.ticchana citta — which has the function of receiving the object.
When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santiirana citta, arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.

9 to 15. The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.

16 and 17. Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called tadaalambane. When the second registering citta has perished, the bhava"nga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.

As you can see, decision making starts at the 8th stage of the process.

  Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions',
  which leads to the arising of thoughts.

The first unit of Paticca Samuppada is given as ignorance. But that doesn't mean it started from ignorance. There's no real starting point. It's like asking the starting point of a circle. It's wherever you hold it first. The standard Paticca Samuppada teaching spans over 3 consecutive lives. The past, the present and the future.


How does one know that he's reached a Jhana level in Metta meditation?

IMO, you are mixing apples and oranges. Metta meditation is practiced towards "the state of brahmas" (AN 4.190 and AN 3.63), not one of the Four Jhanas. The "state of brahmas" (brahmapatta) is a state of non-dualistic unity with the world. The way to attain it, is through progressively expanding the context of Metta meditation, starting from yourself, to include a closest person (e.g. mom), then friends, then neutral people, then enemies, then all the world. The sign of having reached the state of Brahma are the thoughts like "I am God", "I am all this infinite Universe", "I am True Goal of all religions and the Real Meaning of Love" etc. It is a very powerful experience.

While Four Jhanas are much more localized around oneself, esp. one's emotional state. Like you say in your question, The First Jhana can indeed be practiced with a help of a phrase, that helps one focus on the topic of meditation (in case of the first Jhana the topic is one's actual state of successfully having separated oneself from unwholesome dharmas). However, from Second Jhana onward, the target state of rapture/bliss/equanimity must be generated directly, with no help of discursive thinking.

To emphasize one important point: Four Jhanas are "mastered", not "reached". They are not states/levels you automatically find yourself in. In other words, you don't practice something towards Jhana level X and then "reach Jhana level X". You practice Xth Jhana itself. After having mastered First Jhana, you then practice Second Jhana and so on. The sign of having mastered the First Jhana is ability to successfully do the First Jhana at will at any time, that's it.


Vipassana retreat while in post acute withdrawal?

Ask the people arranging the retreat. If they lack experience and/or accommodation for dealing with withdrawal I’d advice against participating.


Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student

Once you find the right teacher, your search for one is over, and there is no need of thinking about how you should approach him or her, as this will happen like that of a reflex action. The big question is how to find this right teacher.
This is because a person needs to be fully established in this path in coming to one of the path factors above that of a stream entrant but this person can present a completely different image to others.

Therefore, it is very difficult to know another person. It is difficult to know whether a person is in the correct path or not, or whether you can place your trust or not, whether you will get into trouble by sharing your experiences with that person or not. It is a great relief if we knew how to understand a person whether that person is a person of integrity or a person of no integrity. It is far greater relief if we have such a person in our life to share our experiences with.

But if you take the trouble to learn the Dhamma contained in the original scriptures to some extent, whether it is from books or online, you will be in a better position to know how to identify ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’. In Sappurisa sutta of Anguttara nikaya the Lord Buddha explains how to identify ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’.  Here, the Buddha explains ‘a person of integrity’ and ‘a person of no integrity’ can be identified by their qualities.

This, however, is where the tricky part is: You can't be a fair judge of another person's integrity until you've developed some of your own. This is probably the most uncomfortable truth of all, for it requires that you accept responsibility for your judgments. If you want to test other people's potential for good guidance, you must pass a few tests yourself. Again, it's like listening to a pianist. The better you are as a pianist, the better your ability to judge the other person's playing.


How does Buddhist (supra-mundane) Happiness differ from ‘mundane’ happiness?

Here is an extract from Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

An equally close connection pertains between looking within and true "happiness." In the Buddhist texts there are two kinds of happiness. One of these is found in home life, called gehanissitasukka, the kind of happiness that derives from being a householder and raising a family. Contrasted with outward happiness is nekkhammanissitasukka, literally the "happiness that comes from forsaking home life." The reference is to a mental forsaking, a state of mind in which there is no longer the idea of "my home." This kind of happiness comes from looking within, observing things according to the dhamma.
The happiness of home life is called lokiya sukha or worldly happiness; and the happiness that goes beyond home life is called lokuttara sukkha or transcendent happiness. It all depends on the state of mind. If a person's mind is worldly, he can stay in a monastery or in the forest but will attain nothing more than the happiness of home life. Solitude in a monastery or any other place cannot guarantee lokuttara sukha. This happiness depends on the ability to look within.
No matter where we are, we have the power to transcend a preoccupation with the world, above and beyond the "home", simply by looking within. There is a large, guarantee return. Without any outlay of capital we obtain this special happiness which appreciates continuously. As the Buddha said, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." All we have to do is "throw away". If we will just throw everything away then we will get nibbana. This means simply having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world. That is all there is to it. We throw away the world completely and get nibbana in return. We do not have to invest anything. We only have to be empty, to live rightly, and nibanna will come of itself.

Note:

It says that the Buddha says, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." -- I don't know which sutta the venerable is paraphrasing when he says that, but that agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer
Being required to "throw everything away" everything might seem like a cost; on the other hand the one example of what you have to throw away is "the idea of 'my home'" -- if all it costs you is an idea (e.g. "ego") that's maybe not a really tangible cost.
You wrote "supra-mundane" in the OP and I'm pretty sure that the Pali word for that is lokuttara (similarly, sukha is "happiness").

Lokuttara is used to refer to the four paths and four path-fruitions.
Apparently its etymology is,

Loka + Uttara = Lokuttara. Here Loka, means the five aggregates. Uttara means above, beyond or that which transcends. It is the supra mundane consciousness that enables one to transcend this world of mind body.

That meaning (i.e. "above") might be why Bhikkhu Buddhadasa wrote, "having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world".
Bikkhu Buddhadasa expands on that in this lecture:

Even an old man who can hardly move about and must remain at home all the time, if he knows Dhamma at this level, while still living in the home, may attain the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life. This is because the term "forsaking the home life" refers to a mental forsaking to a state in which the mind transcends worldliness and goes beyond it. A person who is living at home may experience the happiness that comes from the home life. Or, he may experience the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life, provided he is capable of looking within using the technique and method of Dhamma.

Reading that, maybe you could say that another "cost" (or maybe "prerequisite") is "knowing Dhamma": i.e. time, effort, attention required to learn and to practice the Dhamma.

This answer doesn't directly address the sentence, "The happiness that can be found within our day to day life has to be sacrificed in the form of sense-restraint if one becomes a disciple of the Buddha" in the OP, but it does try to illuminate what was asked about i.e. supra-mundane happiness and cost.


Why people in our realm are so fundamentally different?

The truth is, we don't all live in the same world. The world you perceive is a projection of your mind, so what you see largely depends on your energy which in its turn depends on your karma. Phenomenal reality is not an aquarium full of fish, it's more complicated than that. To the extent that our energy is similar, which means we have made many similar choices in the past, our realities will be overlapping and vice versa.

Someone who came here to teach, may not at all live in the same reality that you live in, but they can project an image into your reality.

My teacher said, a murderer lives in a very different reality than his victim, but they overlap around a few attachments they have in common.

It's complicated, but for practical purposes it's enough to know that it all depends on karma (long term) and on your energy/state of mind (in the immediate timeframe). Karma is what we can control by being careful. Energy can be tuned in meditation and also by controlling your attention. Also, Karma affects your future energy, and energy affects your choices, therefore your karma.


Is Mindfulness the Opposite of Multitasking?

Mindfulness(Sati) and one-pointedness(Samadhi) are 2 different things. Technically speaking, the mind cannot take multiple objects at once. So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind. You feel like you are multitasking because the mind keeps switching so fast. So it is possible to be mindful while you are on so called 'multitasking'.

On the other hand, in the realm of mindfulness, the internet does not exist! Social media does not exist! 'I' does not exist! There are only four types of mindfulness: mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of sensations, mindfulness of mental activities and mindfulness of phenomena. So be careful of what you consider as 'mindfulness'.


Cause or how to get rid of ocd compulsions

In Buddhism, the practise is called 'mental cultivation', which similar to OCD, repeatedly cultivates a Buddhist practise. For example:

  What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?

  For reflection, sir.

  In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

  MN 61

Therefore, when OCD keeps repeating the thought: "Its not good enough; its not good enough"; Buddhist practise would keep repeating the opposite thought in order to make the OCD thought subside, i.e.: "Its good enough; its good enough".

MN 20 states to replace an unskillful thought with the opposite type of thought, as follows:

  When unskillful thoughts... arise in a monk through reflection on an
  adventitious object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect
  on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).

  Like an experienced carpenter or carpenter's apprentice, striking hard
  at, pushing out and getting rid of a coarse peg with a fine one,
  should the bhikkhu in order to get rid of the adventitious object,
  reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).

  MN 20


Clinging to rites and rituals

It is mis-belief in something miracle and shortcut. It is mis-belief in worshipping the creator or god can bring the worshipper's liberation/salvation. It is something one is throwing away own efforts and nurturing own knowledge and wisdom. It is just mis-belief in some powerful beings (god) or some powerful things (fire [in some india place people worship to fire]) that ultimate liberation/bliss can be offered/transferred from it. It is mis-belief that the manners, habits and practice of dog or cow(bull) can cleanse one's impurities in mind.

Noble Eightfold Path

Noble Eightfold Path is one needs to practice oneself. The practitioner of Noble Eightfold Path never expects the salvation from anyone/anything. The very first of the Noble Eightfold Path, Right View already gets rid of the idea of "Clinging to rites and rituals" and so the two path clearly opposite to each other.

Vinaya

Vinaya is set of rules to monks. The tipitaka indicates that it is purely from Buddha's authoritative order (there is no one who defined Vinaya and only Buddha did). The purpose of Vinaya is clearly stated by Buddha in Vinaya pitaka as follow:

To accept and be disciplined by Sanga that Sanga likes to comply
To be in Sanga with pleasant mind/body by complying Vinaya
To identify and punish the committed one
Complied monks stay together peacefully/cherishing
To get away from present dangers/prosecutions by broking the law (vinaya)
To get rid of future dangers/sufferings
To be pleased by lay people who has not done to do so
To be more pleased by lay people who already has done to do so
To maintain three Sasana(s) more longer
To promote the vinaya (rules)

So it is the purpose of Vinaya and it is clearly intended to Sanga (the organization of monks) to be followed, disciplined and complied. The lay people is not abided by the Vinaya.

To attain the Nirvana, it is only one needs to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. It is not necessary to to be part of Sanga, be a monk(eventually it is not necessarily to be disciplined by Vinaya). So Vinaya is optional to lay people and it is only adopted when joining the Sanga.

For about Rules (Vinaya)

In above 10 purposes of Vinaya, Buddha clearly stated that to get rid of dangers and sufferings by complying it. By following it, one can free from accusing/prosecuting oneself at least. On closer learning of vinaya, it is trying to get rid of Five hindrances to some extent.

There is another example that would not go deep like above statement. Even in some club membership (and some religious matters) in real world, there are some ridiculous rules need to follow by new members. The only explanation is "it is tradition" and nothing more will be detailed.

Here is another example also stating that rule is not ritual. For travelers to Singapore it is illegal to bring/consume Chewing Gum but nobody say Singapore is in ritual by applying this law. There are many queer/odd rules applied by a number of countries but it does not totally apply those countries are in ritual. So there is clear distinction between rules and rituals.

Buddha's vinaya is clearly path-ed/reasoned than those of that. The two reasons (7 and 8) of vinaya on Sanga are because organization of monks (Sanga) is totally relied on offerings (meals, robes, accommodations and medicine) of lay people; in terms of living on donation. So it is very heavy burden for monks to comply rules so that people are pleased to see that their offerings go not in vain (they are not offering things bought by their hard-earned money to total jerks for nothing).

And another meaningful of vinaya is by following it, the complied person can feel oneself free from harms. Opposite to this, in ritual, the practitioner cannot clearly state why ritual has to be done, the practitioner cannot explain more than it is a tradition, it must be done but no reason. After completing/fulfilling the ritual, there is no obvious proof that result/outcome is achieved. The only thing is forced to believe. Let say a weight-controlling lady avoids any solid food meal after noon and after some days/weeks practicing this she can feel she lost her weight and feel better, healthy and active. Ritual is not close enough this in the sense of "Result oriented".

In conclusion, Vinaya is not ritual and set of rules bound to Sanga only. It is optional to lay people who follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Vinaya has 10 reasons to be put in place and Vinaya is trying to get rid of bad deeds as much as possible so that the practitioner can please himself and prone to mindfulness (good concentration) but ritual only based on belief (not clearly defined outcome/result of achievement).


What is the reason why Buddhist monks don't work to support themselves? Do the monastic rules prohibit them from working?

I recommend you to read the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta. Kasi Bharadvaja was a farmer who asked this exact question from the Buddha. Monks dedicate their lives to spiritual development. They do not have time to make money or do agriculture. They do not eat for sport or beautification. They only eat enough to maintain life so that they can work towards Nibbana. Yes, farming does break a precept.

"Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is [an offence of Confession.]"