The difference will always be the mental state of the person performing the action. Giving is dependent on one's state of mind while giving; the amount is intrinsically inconsequential (though obviously a poor person will feel more strongly about giving $1000 than giving $1). As Sakka, king of the devas of Tavatimsa says in the Vimanavatthu:

"Natthi citte pasannamhi, appikā nāma dakkhiṇā;
Tathāgate vā sambuddhe, atha vā tassa sāvake"ti. (vi. va. 804);
There is not, when the mind is confident, such a thing as a small gift,
In regards to a Tathagata, fully enlightened Buddha or, furthermore, his disciples.

Giving to the Buddha is considered to be of greater merit, not because of the benefit to the Buddha, but because of the ability to inspire faith and confidence in the giver.
As for killing, the mental state involved in killing large animals is generally more intense; also the sense of the weight of the act is greater, so the mind will be more strongly affected by it. Killing virtuous people, parents, etc. is even worse, because it sets one squarely against virtue.
But there is no hard and fast rule here either; if you obsess over killing a single mosquito buzzing over you at night, you may cultivate more unwholesomeness than a single act of killing a larger animal.
Furthermore, karma isn't a single act of killing; it may be cultivated every moment; every thought concerning a moral or immoral act is karmically potent, so it's imprecise to ask if x or y is good or bad, better or worse, since karma is only a single thought moment at a time, and thus the potency depends upon the nature of the individual mind states.


As per my teacher, this happens when we train ourselves to hate meditation. We do that by turning meditation into torture and punishment.

Instead, meditation should be something natural and (yes) pleasant.

-- 1) diminish the time of sessions?

Yes. You can start from something as short as 30 seconds. Do not ramp up too fast, only ramp up when you really WANT to sit more.

-- 2) change my meditation type?

Yes. Do not weigh your emotional mind with any notion of the correct target state. Do not blame yourself for not conforming to some ideal style, posture, or state of mind. Allow your meditation to be a natural discovery process that it is. Like a child playing a game, completely natural and spontaneous.

-- 3) change the consistency of my meditations?

Yes. Better meditate regularly, twice a day, 30 seconds each time - than randomly for an hour.

-- 4) apply something else?

Yes. Make it pleasant for your emotional mind. Beautiful setting, nice scenery, little visual noise in your peripheral field, comfortable pants, etc.


'Dana' can be a 'test' of true 'metta'. For example, the Christian Bible refers to 'metta' without 'dana' as being something 'dead', as follows:

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not
provide for his physical needs, what good is that ? So too, faith by
itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead.…
James 2:16

The Pali suttas often refer to 'dana' as follows:

... devoid of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishment, devoted to charity, delighting in giving and sharing
SN 11.11

'Dana' can show we have true metta towards others rather than the fake metta of politicians, virtue signallers and social justice warriors.


Antinatalists argue that people should refrain from procreation
  because it is morally bad

According to the third precept, it's not procreation that is morally bad, it's sexual misconduct. So it's perfectly fine for a Buddhist layman to have a family and make kids. Buddhism doesn't really care if you have kids or not. Although the Buddha once said "Putta wattu manussanam"- son is an asset to man. But that's about it.

For monks, it's out of the question as they are not allowed to have any kind of sexual activity with anyone. But it's not because of women getting pregnant. It's because the lust that is involved is detrimental to their spiritual progress.

Birth is indeed part of suffering, but Buddhism never says that the solution to it is to stop people from making children. Even if you ban women from getting pregnant by law, beings will still be born elsewhere. The only way to end it is to cut off craving. So to call Buddhism antinatalist shows a weak understanding of the teachings of the Buddha.


Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings?

This is dangerous ground, and liable to a lot of fluffy thinking, especially when referring to the area I like to call "Quackum Mechanics". But fluff aside, I think the notion is indeed true. And it's not a surprise since both Buddhism and Physics are trying to understand the nature of reality.

One example is in fact that very-prone-to-new-age-woo area of Quantum Mechanics. Staying clear of the woo, and although there's still a lot of debate over how to interpret the results, I don't think there's much if any debate over the idea that whatever reality is, it's not what it looks like.

Now until QM came along, that idea -- that the underlying cause of our experience cannot be said to be the same as the experiences it causes -- was respectable among philosophers and philosophically minded scientists which, back in the day was almost all scientists. After all, "Physics" was often called, until only very recently, "Natural Philosophy". But it wasn't at that point a "scientific" idea. It was metaphysics.

However, with the advent of QM, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, and so on, we now have scientific reasons to believe that idea, as well as philosophical/metaphysical ones. We now know, for example, that whatever an electron "is", it's not simply a wee ball whirling around a blob of slightly larger balls. Now some interpretations of QM would go even further and say that whatever an electron is, it's some function of a consciousness interacting with something else. In other words, that interpretation says that "reality" is not properly described as subject/object -- that is, reality is "non-dual".

So I'd consider all of that to be a confirmation of one aspect of the kind of metaphysics proposed by the Buddha. He claims to have experienced some aspect of these things -- the illusory nature of our experiences, and the non-duality -- that only now, 2,500 years later, our Western science is beginning to pick up on.

Now, again, caution is needed. I don't for a minute think that the Buddha knew about the double-slit result, or could work with Schrödinger's equation and so on. In understanding his position in this I'd use the analogy of selective breeding versus genetic engineering. The Buddha is like the expert cattleman who over years of selective breeding transforms wild animals into domesticated cows. But he may not know the full details of how he does what he does. Then, in that same analogy, the Physicist is like the modern gene expert who now understands in scientific detail what the cattleman had figured out in general by practical trial and error.


Can We give any value to anything in truth?

Your question reminded me of this Zen koan

Dead Cat Treasure
There once was someone who asked Ch'an master Ts'ao Shan, "What is the most expensive thing in the world?"
"The head of a dead cat," was the answer.
"Why?"
"Because nobody gives it a price."
Commentary: By using the image of a dead can, Ts'ao Shan tried the destor the common virtues of the ordinary mind. On the other hand, [etc.]

That might be memorable or striking -- but I didn't find it easy to understand when I first read it.
There appears to be some explanation of it here (but beware that people say that explaining a koan will spoil its effect on the reader). This explanation seems to criticise the master:

In his book Pointing at the Moon , Alexander Holstein offers an explanation to the  above mentioned answer of Zen master, as being his attempt to teach his disciple to “destroy the common values of ordinary mind”.
As it is evident in this teaching, the answer to “what is valuable?” - was answered here  based on “what is not valuable” in the ordinary view of people. Zen master of this koan does not know how to answer a question on what is valuable in Buddhism, and takes what is regarded as not-valuable (in the mind of common people) as a reference to say something.
Additionally, the master’s aim to “destroy the values of ordinary mind”  - is non-Buddhist in essence. Nichiren teaches, that the ordinary mind of ordinary people (of the Nine Worlds) contains within it the Buddha mind (Buddhahood) as well.

I think that's saying that to ask "What is expensive?" or "What is valuable?" is ordinary and unenlightened thinking -- i.e. what I might think of as, "the wrong question to be asking".

There is incidentally a proverb or idiom in English (not Buddhist), "The best things in life are free."
What Does The Best Things in Life Are Free Mean?

Someone might say, “The best things in life are free” to celebrate something that he enjoys that has no monetary value [...] for example, after spending a day on a hike through nature
Someone can also use this phrase as a warning, [to] indicates that a person is forgetting about the things that truly matter in life.
The phrase the best things in life are free expresses that happiness comes from places other than money and objects.

I think that may normally be non-Buddhist if it involves delighting in and attaching to experiences, but even so.

I'm not sure whether this is inline with Oyamist's answer, but here's another Zen story:

Inch Time Foot Gem
A lord asked Takuan, a Zen Teacher, to suggest how he might pass the time. He felt his days very long attending his office and sitting stiffly to receive the homage of others.
Takuan wrote eight Chinese characters and gave them to the man:
Not twice this day
Inch time foot gem.
This day will not come again.
Each minute is worth a priceless gem.

The suttas tend to talk about what's "praiseworthy" rather than about what's valuable -- virtues like harmlessness, generosity, ethics, good will, discernment, right speech, wisdom.
Perhaps we should also consider as "valuable" that which is "instrumental" -- for example, a hammer is valuable (a useful or essential instrument), when you want to hit a nail.
Similarly the noble eightfold path is valuable; the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha); or see for example AN 11.1.


Two days ago, my person translated a possible benifical talk on this matter, which is actually nothing else as complacency, or pamada. ([Q&A] Appamāda - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits?)

So here are the traditional and required three tools:

Respect, Confidence & Patience

Is more than smart, to beginn with devotional practice and integrate it in daily live, for a practice without that will in all ways lead just to another complacency.

As the Buddha told even after awakening: "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference."... now think how poor and in suffering are those not awakened, not having proper means for devotion and act on it. All they could do and do is consuming, consuming signs, sounds, smells, tasts, touches, ideas... a poor consumers life like that of the most.

There is no much better practice as to simply assist and render help for ones teacher, and it's already a practice on the path. Veyyāvacca, only in German for now.

Usually one starts by his first Gods in doing so, one parents. And to give you as well as others the possibility to serve, having the Sangha and the other Gems as object, there are many ways to get joy and to spend ones time by working on ones conditions, even if maybe not capable for intensive meditation practice, here. There might be others as well, and if even have a monastery near, monks you could assist, take this oppotunity.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How compatible are Buddhism and Communism?

Marxism is strictly materialistic. It builds on the idea that if you distribute all goods evenly, people will stop suffering. That was a reasonable assumption to make when the vast majority of the population suffered from uneven distribution of goods.

Buddhism on the other hand does not regard changing the outer conditions as being important in overcoming suffering. More precisely, it suggests that transcending the outer conditions is the key to overcoming suffering, so in essence it denies the core question that Marxism seeks to give an answer to.

So I would say that they are pretty much orthogonal. Buddhism could probably act as a formidable complement to the Marxist theories when trying to build a society. But to individual Buddhists, Marxism is not necessarily useful.


Should I teach an infant practice Anapana?

I have a 17 month old and personally I feel there needs to be an intention to meditate in an individual, rather than blind copying or operant conditioning.. An infant's mind effectively goes through a process of building a self in the first few years and Buddhist thought goes against such a process in a way that I don't think a really young infant will comprehend. Myself, I am waiting till the kid hits 2.5-3 years old, when he will have enough access to language to begin the process of meditation through a personal, conscious choice (if he doesn't want to, then I won't force and will wait!).


This is turning away from the worldliness with a view to attain Nibbana.

When you get input fro your sense door you are equanimous towards the sensation that arise knowing their impermanence. Reacting creates the conditioned existance.


Madhyamaka, Mādhyamaka, Madhyamika, Mādhyamika?

From Wikipedia:

  Madhya is a Sanskrit word meaning "middle" ... The -ma suffix is a superlative, giving madhyama the meaning of "mid-most" or "medium". The -ka suffix is used to form adjectives, thus madhyamaka means "middleling". The -ika suffix is used to form possessives, with a collective sense, thus mādhyamika mean "belonging to the mid-most" (the -ika suffix regularly causes a lengthening of the first vowel and elision of the final -a).

  In a Buddhist context these terms refer to the "middle path" (madhyama pratipada) between the extremes of annihilationism (ucchedavāda) and eternalism (śassatavāda), for example:

  Kātyāyana Sūtra: Thus, the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma by a middle path avoiding both these extremes.

  Madhyamaka refers to the school of thought associated with Nāgārjuna and his commentators.
  Mādhyamika refers to adherents of the Madhyamaka school.

  Note that in both words the stress is on the first syllable.

So if we are to believe this, it looks like "madhyamaka" with a short "a" is the middle path school, and "mādhyamika"s with a long "a" are its followers.


Where is this budha from and would love to know any history of maker?

At first I thought this could be Jigme Lingpa, who's is often depicted with this typical shape of eyebrows and this style of facial hair. But on a second look, I'm pretty sure this is obviously Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism himself, thanks to the unmistakable hat, the dress with epaulets, as well as the ritual objects he holds.

According to a traditional iconographic description,

  ...he is white in colour with a reddish hue, one face adorned with a moustache and goatee, the right hand holds to the heart an upright gold vajra. The left hand placed in the lap holds a white skullcup filled with nectar, jewels and a long-life vase. The ornate katvanga staff of a Vajrayana mendicant decorated with streamers rests against the left shoulder. Adorned with gold earrings and necklaces, the head is covered with a lotus hat, a gift of the King of Zahor, of silk brocade topped with a half-vajra and a single vulture feather. Attired in various robes of different colours reflecting the disciplines of the Vinaya, Bodhisattva and Mantra Vehicles, he sits atop a sun and moon disc above a lotus blossom rising from the blue waters of Dhanakosha lake.

You can see the ring for the staff on your copy, while the staff itself seems to have been lost.

  Here, Padmasambhava can be seen in his most well known representation. His eyes are open in a piercing gaze; his face is wrathful and smiling, blazing magnificently with mysterious power. He cradles a khatvanga in his left arm, representing his consort Mandarava, who arouses realization of emptiness. His khatvanga is crowned with three severed heads and a trident, symbolizing Padmasambhava's liberation from the three kayas of desire, form and formlessness.

  He wears a lotus hat ornamented with a sun and moon, representing skillful means and wisdom. His hat also has a vajra top, symbolizing his unshakable samadhi, and is crowned with a vulture feather, representing his realization of the highest view. In his right hand he holds a vajra, an implement used in Tantric ritual to symbolize the union of conventional and ultimate truth. His left hand rests in his lap in the gesture of meditation (Dhyana Mudra) and holds a skull cup containing the vase of immortality. The vase is filled with the nectar of deathless wisdom and is adorned with leaves of a sacred flowering tree.


effectivness of removing triggers for temptations?

I find it effective.

I wrote this answer about quitting cigarettes by not having them (and similarly a technique to help distance myself from web sites, e.g. news sites, if they become problematic).

I use a similar technique for alcohol, e.g. the easiest way for me to not have alcohol is to not buy it: if I shop once a week then I'm tempted (to buy it) no more than once a week, for maybe a minute in the day-time (when I'm in the grocery store, which sells it); and not on other days (when I don't even have it so I'm not even tempted by it) and times.

Incidentally a few days ago I found this web site https://everydaycheck.com (or you could do the same with paper, probably) which might help to create good habits. It may be better to do things as a team (e.g. meditate with a group of friends), so that social pressure (which is powerful) will encourage you to partiipate regularly; but even just having a written record helps you supervise yourself; and it records your successes not just your failures, which I find encouraging.


How does Karma work for an inventor who changed lives of millions?

The Buddhist version of karma may not be the same as the version of karma in other Indian religions.

It's not a system of cosmic justice. If you invented something to help millions of people, you would not get more rewards compared to someone who helped just 10 people.

In Buddhism, karma is about cause and effect, due to intention and volition (see this page). It's about one's state of mind and its expressions in actions and words. It's not about the impact made on the world or on others.

This means that one who has unintentionally helped others, but out of originally evil intentions in mind, he would experience negative karmic results.

On the other hand, if one had good intentions, but his actions inadvertently harmed others, he would still experience positive karmic results.

It's all about intentions.

From the Dhammapada:

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

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

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

  "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.


Your question is a good one. If I understand it correctly you are referring to the process of "bridging" your experiences in seated meditation into the time between such meditation sessions. You recognize that there is such thing as focusing one's meditation in a certain way (on emptiness) and it's not clear how to bring that focus to one's daily activities. If that isn't your question I apologize. If that is what you are asking then it's important to understand some of the practical aspects of focusing on emptiness. Focusing on emptiness is not necessarily the same as meditating on emptiness nor is it the same as realizing emptiness.

Focusing on emptiness is using the idea of emptiness as taught by the Buddha to change the way you see your self and your life.

Focusing on emptiness can be described as keeping impermanence always in mind. In other words, whatever you see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think ALONG WITH the organs you use in order to see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think are going to die (or end) REAL SOON! That type of reflection has the PRACTICAL effect of doing two things. First, it causes an increase in awareness of the precious little time we have in this body. And second, it creates an ambivalence towards things that waste that time.

In other words, when you come into awareness of death you start to realize the futility of grabbing onto things you experience with the senses and you also realize the limitations of those organs you are using to perceive objects. This creates dispassion and eventually revulsion for these habits of grabbing onto such ephemeral, unrewarding objects. The nature of all objects of the senses is to burn unto death (as taught in the Fire Sermon [SN 35] among many other sutras). When you meditate on emptiness you are focusing on that truth within all objects of your life and all aspects of what you call your "self" (those organs of perception).

You don't actually need to "sit" for meditation to "meditate" on emptiness in the way I am describing. "Sitting" actually makes it easier to see into this component of fire/death within all objects and without sitting, perceiving objects of everyday life in this way takes even more courage, determination, persistence and most of all, faith in the dharma (+the Buddha & the Sangha). But even if you sit and experience the jnana states sequentially the meditation on emptiness must continue in the same way at each new state. Even the jnana of "nothingness" (one of the highest states experienced by the body) must be seen with using this meditation on emptiness; that is, 'this state is temporary, it too shall pass, it too is on fire.' That is why Sariputta would describe his experience of the jnanas as (forgive my paraphrasing): 'And then the first jnana assailed me, and then the second jnana assailed me . . .' etc! [I will look for the reference to this sutra and add it later, it's in the SN]. The mind as an organ of perception is on fire/subject to death/empty and so, the appropriate practical response to the experiences it delivers is the same: dispassion, revulsion & eventually release.


I think that this might be the result of a translation problem. The concept of a noumenon in western philosophy is very foreign to Buddhism I think. In western philosophy a noumenon is the opposite of a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is experienced, whereas a noumenon is something that is somehow outside of experience all together but somehow exists anyways.

Most forms of Buddhism don't settle well with the idea of any kind of reality having some sort of existence that is independent like that because it falls into the error of essentialism, or at least it appears to.

I think you may be coming across this word in an off translation or something relying on such a translation, because I suspect a translator may be trying to translate the concept of 體用 (tǐ yòng, usually now translated as essence and function) as noumena-phenomena, but I don't think this is a very good comparison at all. Definately the term 體 does not mean noumena, but something more like the nature of something.


Where does the Buddha say 'you will be punished by your anger'?

The fakebuddhaquotes web site attributes it as follows:

Going back to 1993, we hit pay dirt! In To Love Is to Know Me: The Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living (Volume 3), author Eknath Easwaran says the following:

Even more intriguing to me is the karma of our health. Again, let me illustrate one or two kinds of connection. For one, the Buddha says that we are not punished for our anger, we are punished by our anger. In other words, anger is its own karma.

Note the absence of quotation marks. Eknath is not quoting the Buddha, but paraphrasing his teachings on anger and karma.


Understanding that Perception and Consciousness are temporary

Mr/mrs nish1013

Perception (remembrance, preoccupation): How did you understand the word "world" when you have been 4 years, 15 years, now? Or let me ask: When you saw a attractive man/woman when you have 6 was it the same perception as with 16, and now? When did you learn what red looks like? How does pure red looks like. How do you feel about the person who writes you this answer? How will you perceive it later?

Consciousness (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, intellect): What is your current consciousness, of what are you aware right now? Of what have you been aware when you wrote this question? Have you been aware of a certain sound, form? Is it still present?

And let Atma then also ask you back of what you estimate being formation, feeling and body.

(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.)


Does the Buddha speak of the nature of time, vis-à-vis "past," "future," and "present?"

Lord Buddha definitely does talk about Past, Present and Future; but I guess your questions is mainly about, "Do we have something called time?" or "What is time?"

With regards to Abidhamma, there is no "Paramartha" dhamma which we can relate to time: i.e. there is Citta, Cetasika and Rupa and Nirvana, but no reference to time. One of the best explanations I've heard is that the impermanence (Anicca) that we see is what we comprehend as time: i.e. the change that we see, is what we associate with time.

Sorry if it's not very helpful.


At the time of the Buddha there were no schools, only one "type" of Buddhism was known: The teachings of the Buddha, the discourses and verses spoken by him.

Buddha taught the Dhamma-Vinaya, he did not teach Theravada, Mahayana or Zen.

After the Buddha passed away to PariNibbana, the monks got together in councils to unify and register the teachings of the master, they put together the suttas, the Vinaya, the verses (Dhammapada), Jakata stories etc.

After many decades there was a split in the Sangha due to different interpretations of the teachings and that was when this discussion of Mahayana and Theravada began. As Buddhism reached different countries, different versions of the religion appeared addapting Buddhism to the culture and older religions of the country. Tibetan Buddhism is a good example, it still has traces of Astrology and Shamanism in some of its schools (this is not criticism, I'm not claiming this or that school is right or wrong, I tried not to take any side on this answer and respect all views)


Karma is dependent on:

intensity of your volition and number of thoughts involving the action
purity of the subject of the action

So if you seal from a very good person the the karma will be strong likewise you take time to execute with a lot of effort and /or you feel very strongly overcome by greed then this will cause more strong Karma.

Now to overcome this Karma if you make a donation the same apply. In this case the motivation is not strongly rooted in greedlessness hence Karma may be week. Hence giving many time over what you stole may not defunct this Karma.

Also note your roots of good are generally weaker than roots of good. This again means unwholesome action (stealing) and counteraction (donation) in the balance of probability might be heavier.

All this is balance of probability. There are rare cases where people who have done a loot of good and little bad have got bad results and people who have done a loot of bad and little good have got very good results, hence this is also a motivator to get out of the cycle of birth than accumulating Karma may it be good or bad. Whenever you face a situation alway try your level best to accumulate good karma and not the bad though.

Also if you perceive someone to be good to do something against them you need stronger volition regardless of the person being good or bad. Also you repent and regret the action more increasing your Karma. Regardless of the level of volition of perception if a person is good he is like a mirror. If you steal from such a person the Karma will be greater.

Also see: The Working of Kamma, 2nd ed, by Ven. Pa Auk Tawya Sayadaw


What meditation is best to learn to "control" your mind?

Any thoughts, including negative thoughts, are triggered by some stimuli, and have a sensation associated with it.

The best would be to deal with them as per in the Suttas. Suttas like: "Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta", "Titth’ayatana Sutta", "Bahu,vedaniya Sutta", "Pañcak’aṇga Sutta", "Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta", "Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta" mentions "18 mental explorations / examinations". This says, essentially, look at the 3 types of sensations (which are, "pleasant", "unpleasant", and "neutral") which comes through each sense door. This helps in prevent the arising of the unwholesome roots due to any stimulus from any sene door. You just have to be equanimous towards the sensation, knowing that they are:

conditioned, and therefore subject to the 3 universal characteristics (or the Pacalā Sutta and Meghiya Sutta imply that it's enough to see impermanence, because if you see impermanence you see the other characteristics)1
dependently arisen based on contact
sustained by the nutriments, contact and mental activity
conditioned by fabrications, of past and present (breath, volitional activity)
tainted by ignorance
etc. see Sammaditthi Sutta

  ... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction,
  subject to passing away, subject to fading away, subject to ending ...

Mahā,nidāna Sutta

  ...  conditioned, gross, dependently arisen ...

Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

  ... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen ...

Parileyya Sutta

You should not do any verbalisation, sub verbalisation, visualisation, etc. when doing the above as this will create verbal fabrications and hinder true and deep insight and cause undesirable results.

Needless to say to examine the mind you need some level of mastery over the mind, hence is a prerequisite before you practice the Vipassana technique above, since Panna is built on a strong foundation of Samadhi which in tern is build on Sila.

  1
  Aniccasaññino hi, Meghiya, anattasaññā saṇṭhāti, anattasaññī asmimānasamugghātaṃ pāpuṇāti diṭṭheva dhamme nibbānaṃ.

  In one, Meghiya, who perceives impermanence, the perception of selflessness is established. One who perceives what is selfless wins the uprooting of the pride of egotism in this very life, and thus realizes nibbāna.

  Source: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna by VRI


What are the results of doing meththa meditation?

There are many good returns of Meththa to a practitioner.If you look at "Meththanisansa sutta" Lord Buddha had spoken of all of those in one teaching.Here's the english translation of Meththanisansa sutta

Meththanisansa sutta

I heard this way.....

Once when Lord Buddha was residing in Jethavana Monastery of noble anepidu Lord Buddha started a conversation saying fortune ate monks, The monks replied saying "yes,Fortunate one".Lord Buddha then went on to teach this.

Fortunate monks, one should expect 11 returns from a "Meththa Samadhi" which has been

Frequently practiced

Practiced like a vehicle/ship

That has been a basic goal of the mind

Which has been started well

And which has been established well in the mind.

What are these 11 returns?

Sleeping without discomfort
waking up without discomfort
Not seeing sinister dreams
Others become friendly
Non-human beings become friendly
Receives protection from "Devas"
Becomes free from any harm that comes from fire,wepons or poison
Reaches "Samadhi" Faster
Face/Appearance becomes pleasant
Die with proper consciousness
If this person fail to reach the goals of the path he/she will have the next life among Brahmas

One should expect these 11 returns from a "Meththa Samadhi" which has been

Frequently practiced

Practiced like a vehicle/ship

That has been a basic goal of the mind

Which has been started well

And which has been established well in the mind.

Lord Buddha taught this and the "Sangha**" accepted it happily.

May the power of truth in these words bring comfort to all

Explanation of marked words above.

*Meththa Samadhi** -*

Samadhi is a state of mind in which the chaotic state of the mind has been stopped by a meditation. Mettha samadhi is reaching it with Meththa meditation

*Non-human beings** -*

Non-Human beings are Brahmas,Devas,Animals,Asuras and beings in lower realms

*Die with proper consciousness** -*

This means when the person dies he/she will not be dying with fear,anger,hate,greed or any other corrupting state of mind.The person will die with the knowledge of death and will be conscious enough to revisit the learning of dhamma

*Brahmas** -*

*Brahmas are at the peak of life.They are even above the "Devas" and they are actually the highest that any normal being can reach without the help of dhamma.Birth in this realm happens only to beings with "Samadhi".They hold the highest life expectancy of all beings (Unfortunately our number system will not have a number to match it).

*Sangha** -*

The holy monks.


Did Buddha walk on water? Was Jesus trained as a Buddhist?

There have been books supporting the idea suggested in your question ("Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism?").
Christianity was a religion not generated from a teaching and converted to text. If you study Christianity's origins as an outsider from a historical perspective you will see that Kings,Clergy & some other influential figures modified the religion to suit the needs and even the birth of modern Christianity is a bit of a untold story.
As Buddhists we do not speak bad of other people's faiths so what needs to be said about the suggestion you make is that there  hasn't been direct proof of any kind to support the idea. And even if Jesus was a Buddhist he would not go around offering food and walking on water because Lord Buddha forbid the acts of miracles unless it was an extremely necessary task.
Let me tell you a story for why i'm saying this.....

One day a Shepard boy saw a monk walking towards him while going to work. He saw that this is a good opportunity for him to gain some good karma and he stooped the monk and offered his lunch to the monk. After he was on his way back to work but he was bit by a snake only after taking few steps.
The monk saw this and thought to himself "This kid could die any moment,the best help i can give is to be more worthy of his offering". So he sat down and started meditating just few feet away from the child. He was able to reach nirvana Before the boy died. The boy died happily looking at the monk. He opened his eyes in the higher realm called "Deva realm" (Buddhist version of heaven). He returned to earth to tell the Arahat monk his story.

As you can see for a true Buddhist monk the real suffering is not hunger,slavery or poverty. It is "Samsara" and he only care to help a being's Karmic circle to end so he would be closer to Nirvana.

Walking on water....
Walking on water is a piece of cake compared to what Buddhist monks and Lord Buddha has done.

The best one of all miracles that only a  Lord Buddha can do is called "Ama maha pratiharya" which is basically spraying both fire and water at the same time from  the whole body.

Here are some very unique miracles Arahat monks have performed.
Optical illusions - Making moon or sun appear closer and show as if he or she is touching the surface.
Walking through mountains.
Making waves from solid objects like earth.
Sinking in to earth like oil and appearing from a desired location.
Transporting things trough space (Almost like teleportation)
Shrinking body size to fit through a keyhole of a door lock.

Lord Buddha's view on levitating upon water...
One day Lord Buddha and a group of monks were waiting next to a river until the boat arrives. A monk or a sage from another religion saw this and he immediately levitated off the ground and crossed the river. This was a mocking.
Lord Buddha asked "How much does it cost to reach across on this boat?". That is how much his practice is worth.

Lord Buddha said this because the ability to levitate can save him from the fee but that ability does not help him at all on his long journey of "Samsara".
Lord Buddha saw Miracles as a non important thing and never encouraged anyone to follow them. Because Lord Buddha's work is not to teach people how to do miracles, Lord Buddha knew that there is no need of Buddhism to give people super powers because those existed before Lord Buddha even though Buddhism unlocks some unique ones of its own.

One day in the early age of Buddhism Lord Buddha saw a misguided group of sages and went to make them understand the wrongful way of their understanding.
Lord Buddha saw that the leader of the group is full of ego and the best way to make them understand is to get the leader to a correct understanding.
So lord Buddha decided to spend some time among them.
One day Lord Buddha went to have a bath and thought "It would be easier if there was a branch to hold onto when getting in and out of water" then the King of Gods ("Sakra Devendra") came and bent a branch nearby. After having the bath Lord Buddha thought "It would be nice if there was a stone to wash my cloths on", and the King of Gods came and created a large stone.

Not only Lord Buddha was capable of miracles everyone was willing to assist Lord Buddha in any way possible knowing the power of Karma they could gain. That's why you see a "King of gods" acting like a personal assistant.

Truth about Jhanas and miracles...
You do not need Jesus to walk on water even you can. But as Buddhists we do not pursue such worldly goals. And there is no necessity of Buddhism to do miracles. Id you go to india you can finds many sages and monk who never knew the first thing about Buddhism and doing pretty amazing stuff. But they all do it to be praised or to gain a following. That is exactly the reason Lord Buddha forbid the showing off part of the practice.
Because soon as you feel special and more capable than the normal humans what you do is very simple. You go out there and say "Look at me vermin, i' the god".read the following to see why...

Here is a good example from lord Buddha's time....
One day a monk and his apprentice monk went to worship a temple and the teacher said "I would love to offer some flowers to this great stupa.".So the apprentice monk took off to the sky and disappeared, Soon he came back with a bucket full of flower from the "Himalayas forest". The flowers were offered and the elder monk gave advice to the younger "Be careful with your mind because if you don't you will be looked after by a one eyed woman".
One day the younger monk (Apprentice) was going somewhere through a jungle levitating in the air. Then the monk heard a nice song sung by a lovely voice. He lost his "Jhana" and slowly descended to earth. He has lost all of his powers because of the attachment he made up within seconds to that voice.
After few days he married the girl who sang and became a householder he was a monk no more. He had become a monk very young and had little knowledge about the life of a householder. After starting a fight with his wife he threw a knitting needle at his wife which ended up piercing her eye. He did not intend to do that but suddenly he realized the teacher's advice.

The is an event monks to this day teach to us and to apprentice monks to remind us the temporary nature of all things including powers.


"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Err... not literally...

The point of this quip is that attachment to a teacher is itself something that must be overcome. Even if you are lucky enough to meet a truly enlightened teacher, that teacher's enlightenment is his enlightenment, and you have to find your way to your own.

I'm not familiar with Culadasa or his issues, but a quick google search tells me he indulged in prostitutes and sex outside of marriage. It could be worse — he didn't seem to misuse the student/teacher relationship, as I've seen too many other teachers do — but it still displays some moral turpitude that shouldn't be ignored. Clearly he has a number of miles yet to walk on the path. That is his concern.

Your concern is whether his work advances you on your path. At this point you are not going to be able to see the path all the way to its end; what you want is something that will give you a reliable map for the next few miles, and when you get to the end of that you'll find something that takes you farther. If Culadasa's work feels 'right' to you, follow it for a while. He may have strayed off off his own map into the mire, but that doesn't mean his map is bad, it just means he lost his way.

Trust me, he spiritual path is littered with teachers who have become object lessons for their own teachings. It's ok to use them as guideposts, so long as you commit yourself to turn right where they turned wrong.


Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

The following three quotes from the question are merely more annihilationist wrong views (per SN 12.17) based on the original annihilationist wrong view:

Requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas.
When they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes.
My goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you.

The above ideas are "annihilationist" (per SN 12.17) because these views ignorantly assume a "self" exists that must non-attach from itself & from other "selves", "persons" or "beings".

When the mind is enlightened with right view, it does not think it is helping "people". It is only helping "ignorance" become wiser. Since the enlightened mind has no view of "persons" or "beings", it naturally also has no attachment when helping.

Please refer to SN 12.17 and also MN 102.

  Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  these venerable contemplative & brahmans—through fear of
  self-identity, through disgust for self-identity—(nevertheless) keep
  running & circling around self-identity.

  MN 102

Therefore, if & when "helping necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", one party (the helped) is attached & the other party (the helper) is non-attached. In other words, the helper is free from fear & is unconcerned about whether the other party attaches to them. The helper trusts in virtue, appropriate boundaries & the Dhamma. The helper does not need to and should not physical touch the helped, let alone engage in sexual relationship. Thus, pure metta will always be harmless to both, even if the helped becomes attached. When a Virtuous One acts with pure metta, the helped will always remember & love them but this type of love is not harmful.

As Volkov wisely said elsewhere:

  As my teacher explained, it's only when the person is completely
  abandoned by the currents of normal life, is when they get picked up
  by the current of Dharma.

In other words, those looking for help can even spend months in a monastery, where they may speak each day for one or two hours with a monk. But, eventually, such ordinary worldly individuals will leave the monastery when they feel better or restored (to try their luck again in the world of attached relationships).


Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?

Today the widely accepted definition of the term “Sangha Bedha” is division among bhikkhus. All Buddhist sects would rather hold on to this erroneous interpretation of the term “Sangha Bedha”, as the true meaning of it is not in the best interests, or even worse – it is anathema to them. What is meant by “Sangha Bedha” is described in at least six suttas in the Pali Canon.

Patama Ananda Sutta and Sangha Bedha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya describes what this Anantariya Kamma – the last of the five heinous acts (Kammas) – mean. If you read through the Suttas, this is what is said:

The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4).

Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3

The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …


Burst bubble : How to deal with a traumatizing event?

Know that they are only actors and don't watch it if it's going to traumatize you. Don't watch any movies unless you like distraction.


What is today’s equivalent of a world system?

I don't think it refers to parallel universes as an alternate dimension of the sensous realm because the world systems shake when the Bodhisatta gains final attainment which would be strange if an eventuality caused effect over multiple worlds which are supposedly closed systems with laws of conservation, essentially closed systems of information. To me an eventuality causing a tremble over a multitude of such systems is philosophically like magical thinking as far as i can tell.

Also when the Buddha delivers a discourse such as the Brahmajala Sutta the ten thousandfold world system shakes.

Furthermore given that afaik i've never seen a declaration of a thousandfold multitude of formless realms i think it is the thousandfold world system that undergoes expansion and contraction and the vastness of the universe of form explains the variety of sub worlds which could be planetary systems or galaxies.

Another point is that there is only one Buddha in a world system simultaneously (mn115).  Which is significant because if Buddhas can supposedly teleport and if one followed an intepretation of one Buddha per solar system (as some people do) then a Buddha could meet another and this would be contradictory.

I think there are the 31 planes and it is a single expanding & contracting field of form that is inhabited by a multitude of galaxies with suns and habitable planets. I also think there is only one Maha Brahma per expanding system and one Buddha at a time.

Another point worth mentioning is that during a world system contraction, beings are said to be for the most part inhabiting formless realms.


What you can do to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching is to practice the noble eightfold path to the best of your ability while the true Dhamma can still be heard in the world. There is nothing else to be done. The teaching will inevitably become corrupt and disappear from the world. There is nothing that you or anybody else in the world can do to prevent that. It's only a matter of time.

When you witness others acting in ways that dishonor the Buddha's teaching, your mind will likely respond with aversion. Identify this aversion and let go of it. If you cling to this aversion and let it be a basis for further action you're only working against yourself, even if you think that you're trying to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching. Mindfully recognize the impermanence of the teaching itself and use that to cultivate samvega (urgency).

Cultivate compassion towards those who, intentionally or otherwise, dishonor the Buddha's teaching. Recognize how helpless these beings are. Recognize that under different circumstances you also have the capacity to act in similar ways due to delusion. Recognize that you're just as helpless as these beings because you aren't yet free from delusion. Then work towards realizing the Dhamma in this very lifetime because you can't help anybody else without helping yourself first. Otherwise it'll be the blind leading the blind.


"Mystics" in buddhism? ("There is nothing hidden in my teaching" and the like)

It's the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, DN 16:

31. And the Blessed One recovered from that illness; and soon after his recovery he came out from his dwelling place and sat down in the shade of the building, on a seat prepared for him. Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, and sitting down at one side, he spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One at ease again! Fortunate it is for me, O Lord, to see the Blessed One recovered! For truly, Lord, when I saw the Blessed One's sickness it was as though my own body became weak as a creeper, every thing around became dim to me, and my senses failed me. Yet, Lord, I still had some little comfort in the thought that the Blessed One would not come to his final passing away until he had given some last instructions respecting the community of bhikkhus."
32. Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
(source)

The Pali is simply:

natthānanda tathāgatassa dhammesu ācariyamuṭṭhi.
Ananda, there is no teacher's fist in regards to the dhammas of the Tathāgata.


As a Buddhist how do I get over hatred towards my previous religion?

Think of the followers of your former religion as people who believe that the earth is flat. There's no point getting angry at them. It's ok to argue with them in social circles if you feel it might be useful to some and if you are confident that you can handle it.

But if it is getting to the point that you start shouting at them or trash talking at them, you should stop and contemplate the Anatta nature of beings. You cannot make other beings think the way you want at will. Meditate on the wanting to control others' thoughts. Whenever anger arises in the mind, simply note it.


"Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer?"

  'Yes, Sutavā, you heard correctly [...]. A bhikkhu who is an arahant [...] is incapable of transgression in nine cases. (1) He is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life"

  --  AN 9.7 (Bodhi trans.)

  "Here, Visakha, a noble disciple considers thus: 'For all their lives the arahants dwell having abandoned killing living beings, refrain from killing living beings, they have laid down their staffs, laid down their weapons, they are conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings; so today I dwell, for this night and day, having abandoned killing living beings, refraining from killing living beings, I am one who has laid down my staff, laid down my weapon, I am conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'"

  -- AN 8.43

"If no, why?"

  Through greed a covetous man kills breathing things [...]. Through hate a malevolent man kills breathing things[...]. Through ignorance a deluded man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
  [...]
  Through non-greed an uncovetous man does not kill breathing things [...]. Through non ill-will an unmalevolent man does not kill breathing things. [...] Through non-delusion a man with true knowledge does not kill breathing things... Will that be long for his welfare and happiness?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
  -- AN 3.66

Summarizing, it's wrong action:

  And what is wrong action? Killing, taking what is not given, illicit sex. This is wrong action.

  -- MN 17


Joining and then leaving the monastic order?

I do not recall any suttas that refer to a bad outcome due to disrobing. This said, I do not recall any suttas about a monk returning to lay life given the Buddha generally intervened and prevented them.
However, the suttas do have teachings I recall about bad monks, such as the Dhammapda verses below:

There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because of their evil deeds.

It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

As for good rebirth, this can only come from general good karma (rather than a token amount of time as a monk). For example, in Thailand, often corrupt politicians temporarily become monks to redeem their reputations. However, if they are inwardly rotten, ordaining temporarily won’t help much change their destiny.


Does Buddhism teach an apocalyptic cosmology?

Another Buddha -- Metteyya (Maitreya) -- will gain Awakening, his
  monastic Sangha numbering in the thousands
  Digha Nikaya 26 ref- http://www.basicbuddhism.org/index.cfm?GPID=29

I had to look up apocalypse, "the complete destruction of the world." That doesn't seem to be a theme in the Buddhist cosmologies where the universes have no beginnings and no ends.

(EDIT: Hmm, looks like I'm wrong-- the universe periodically falls to pieces and then rebuilds itself.  But it isn't immanent-- a Mahakalpa is a long time from now, and a new universe rebuilds itself every time.)

Mappo, the time when the Dharma is forgotten and no longer taught is a Buddhist catastrophe, but more of a moral one.

Digha Nikaya 26 ag

  Monks, a time will come when the children of these people will have a
  life-span of ten years.  And with them, girls will be marriageable at
  the five years old.  And with them, these flavours will disappear:
  ghee, butter, sesame-oil, molasses and salt.  Among them,
  kudrusa-grain will be the chief food, just as rice and curry are
  today.

  And with them,  the ten courses of moral conduct will completely
  disappear, and  the ten courses of evil will prevail exceedingly:  for
  those of a ten-year life-span there will be no word for "moral",  so
  how can there be anyone who acts in a moral way?

  Those people who have no respect for the mother and father,  for
  ascetics and Brahmins, for the head of the clan,  will be the ones who
  will enjoy honour and prestige.

  Just as it is now the people  who show respect for mother and father,
  for ascetics and Brahmins,  for the head of the clan, who are praised
  and honoured,  so it will be with those who do the opposite.

Mappo also leads to interesting consequences for current times, such as questions on if traditional forms of practice are effective anymore if we don't have a Buddha in the world. This is a big theme in Nichiren Buddhism.

When the Maitreya Buddha returns he is a like the historical Buddha, but in some accounts, much better. For people who care about the future Buddha, it is sort of like Pure Land Buddhism, where you wait to be reborn in a universe with an active, living, teaching Buddha. In Maitreya's case, that happens to be the same universe as our own. By the logic of Pure Land Buddhism, it seems like it would be more expedient to be reborn in the next life in the Amitabha's Pure Land.

Also interestingly, Maitreya played a big role in the White Lotus Rebellions, a political-religious movement in ancient China that lasted several hundred years that predicted Maitreya was returning right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus


If breathing is difficult concentrate on the sensation at the focal point. Apply (Vitarka) Sustained (Vicara) Attention Directing your Mind (Manasikara) to keep your mind on the focal point to cut out Thinking and Pondering / Verbal Fabrication (Vachi Sankhāra). Even with a stuffed nose you still breath hence you can just concentrate in the in and out flow. I don't think it is very advisable to breath through the mouth through.

See my answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12342/295 which contains more  details.


Why does the third noble truth not include the ten fetters?

Craving cannot be eliminated at will. You need to do something to eliminate it. That is what the fourth noble truth is about. In other words, one needs to cultivate wisdom to eliminate craving. Elimination/weakening of fetters are the mileposts of developing wisdom.


Why must we not wear a hat or cap when listen or teach Dhamma?

This rule has very archaic origins. When listening to a monk explaining the dhamma we normally put the monk in a more respected position (e.g. sitting in a chair while we sit on the floor); when we do this we tend to treat the monk's words as more important so being humble is helping us to learn the dhamma.

At the time of the Buddha sunshades and umbrellas were a sign of luxury. At that time if someone used a sunshade while the monk didn't have one then it is as if they see themselves as more important than the monk and they are less inclined to care about the monk's words.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book The Buddhist Monastic Code I has some explaination about this rule

  SN 6.2 records that the Buddha himself had the highest respect for the Dhamma
  he had discovered; that, as others might live under the guidance of a teacher,
  honoring and revering him, the Buddha lived under, honored, and revered the
  Dhamma. He enjoined his followers to show the same respect for the Dhamma
  not only when listening to it but also when teaching it, by refusing to teach it to a
  person who shows disrespect.
  The following set of rules deals with situations in which a listener, in terms of
  the etiquette at that time, would be regarded as showing disrespect for a teacher
  or his teaching. As the Vinaya-mukha notes, a few of these cases—such as those
  concerning footwear—are not considered disrespectful under certain
  circumstances at present, although here the exceptions given for listeners who
  are ill might be stretched to cover any situation where the listener would feel
  inconvenienced or awkward if asked to comply with the etiquette of the
  Buddha’s time. On the other hand, there are many ways of showing disrespect at
  present that are not covered by these rules, and an argument could be made,
  reasoning from the Great Standards, that a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma
  to a person who showed disrespect in any way.
  Dhamma here is defined as any statement spoken by the Buddha, his disciples,
  seers, or devat›s, connected with the teaching or with its goal. See Pc 7 for a
  more detailed discussion of this point.


Is Mara a real being or something internal, produced by our own minds?

Two snippets from suttas refering to Mara as an entity/position:
MN 115:

"But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in what is possible and what is impossible?"
"Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu undersands [...]: "It is possible that a man might occupy the position of Māra [...]"

MN 50:

The venerable Maha Moggallana saw him [Māra] standing there and said: "I see you there too, Evil One. Do not think 'He does not see me.' You are standing against the door bar, Evil One.
"It happened once, Evil One, that I was a Māra named Dusi [...]

A sutta where a disciple directly asks what is Māra (SN 23.1):

"Venerable sir, it is said, 'Māra, Māra.' In what way, venerable sir, might Māra be?"
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Māra, or the killer, or the one who is killed."

The above are from Nanamoli/Bodhi translations. Bhikkhu Bodhi also writes in a note of the Majjhima Nikaya:

The name means "the Corrupter" or "the Corrupted One". In the Buddhist conception of the universe, the position of Mara, like that of Maha Brahma, is a fixed one that is assumed by different individuals in accordance with their kamma.


What is the story where some of the Buddha's followers commit suicide?

What you're looking for is Vesali  sutta.
vesali sutta

  Then the monks — [thinking,] "The Blessed One, with many lines of
  reasoning, has given a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], has
  spoken in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, has spoken
  in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness"
  — remained committed to the development of [the perception of]
  unattractiveness in many modes & manners. They — ashamed, repelled, &
  disgusted with this body — sought for an assassin. In one day, ten
  monks took the knife. In one day, twenty monks took the knife. In one
  day, thirty monks took the knife.

Edit: I don't think the monks didn't misinterpret the teaching. Perhaps since they're still under training, their mind is not developed and overcome by disgust.


What exactly were the parks that the Buddha spent time in?

Using Google to find a Pali version of the Alagaddupama Sutta , it starts,

Evaṃ me sutaṃ: ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme.

My first guess was that ārāme is the word you're looking to translate (because it's next to the word "anāthapiṇḍikassa").
Various online Pali dictionaries don't return a result when I try to look it up, but I guessed the reason for that is that ārāme is probably a (grammatical) declension of the word instead of the root.
Using this Criticial Pali Dictionary to search for ārām* (note using * "Truncation sign") returns 160 words. Using the 'Next' button to scroll down until the words begin with ārām (i.e. the right accents over the vowels) finds this definition ...

2ārāma, m. [ts.], a place of pleasure i. e. a
pleasure grove, garden, or park in a monastery, or
(as pars pro toto) a monastery itself (see SBE XIII
p. 23, note 2; Geiger, Culture Â§Â§81, 175, 196);

... with a long list of references to places where the word is used.
In English a 'Park' isn't necessarily a municipal, public park: I imagine it might be a like a garden, but perhaps wilder (not all lawn and flower-beds), or a private wood. I expect it's reserved in some way (reserved for public use, or reserved for private use), not used for agriculture etc.
Similar/related/compound Pali words suggest it's used as a synonym for 'monastery', for example,

ārāma-gata, mfn., having gone to or being in a monastery
ārāma-dāna, n., giving of an ārāma

(not too surprising when monks dwell in a 'forest' instead of as 'householders').
It's also used in contexts which suggest it means delight and pleasure:

1ārāma, m. [ts.], delight, pleasure
ārāma-ramma, m(n)., the delightful, charming
or beautiful abode of a monastery

I recommend you browse the other related compound words to see other ways in which it's used; for example some of the less common words include

ārāma-(p)patta, mfn., who has reached the park
ārāma-sīla, mfn., having the habit of going to a park


I don't know pali or Sanskrit if anyone can have pdf of english Tipitaka

The Tipitaka, also known as the Pali Canon, is a very huge collection of text. The main religious text of other religions like the Bible, can easily fit into one hand as a book. Compared to this, the Tipitaka is very huge. It's more like a library shelf full of books.

The Tipitaka is organized into three "baskets", namely the Sutta Pitaka which mainly contains the discourses (suttas) of the Buddha and his chief disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which contains rules for the monastic order, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which contains detailed analyses and summaries for advanced students.

I assume that you're a beginner. A beginner would mostly be interested in the Suttas. Even then, the amount of suttas are vast, and they are not arranged in a way that is friendly to beginners.

For beginners, I highly recommend the book "In The Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. There was an online PDF version here, but that link doesn't work today.

Another option is to try "Path to Freedom: A Self Guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings" by Access to Insight.

This question on Buddhism.SE has suggested lists of suttas in an order or sequence that is suitable for beginners. They are also linked to the online English translations.

Yet another option is the book "Early Buddhist Discourses" by John J. Holder. This is in fact an online PDF copy. According to the books's Amazon page, it contains "twenty discourses from the Pali Canon--including those most essential to the study and teaching of early Buddhism - are provided in fresh translations, accompanied by introductions that highlight the main themes and set the ideas presented in the context of wider philosophical and religious issues."

The options above will give you nicely arranged content for your study.

If you just want to refer to particular suttas of the Tipitaka in English, please see Sutta Central or Access to Insight.

For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.


Why is there Hindu gods in this decorated wall in the Vihara of Bhaja

From Wikipedia, Buddhism and Hinduism:

  Hinduism and Buddhism, have common origins in the Ganges culture of northern India during the so-called "second urbanisation" around 500 BCE. They have shared parallel beliefs that have existed side by side, but also pronounced differences.

The Bhaja Caves date to around 200 BCE, so at the time of the relief carvings, Buddhism would only have been around for roughly 300 years. At this point Buddhism would have been considered fairly "young", and would have lacked as much of the independent symbolism, art, etc. that we see today (after the passage of ~2,200 years).

Within the first 300 years of Buddhism, mainstream society in India would still have been very much Hindu-oriented. Hinduism would have been everywhere, reflected in all aspects of daily life. So it follows that artists would have used familiar symbolism and artistic subjects, taken from the Hindu-driven mainstream culture.

This is, of course, as good a guess as any. We'll never know that specific artist's personal motivations or the circumstances that led to the choice of those particular carvings. But looking back on the period holistically, I don't think it's too surprising that we'd see a lot of Hindu art everywhere, even in and around "Buddhist sites".


What is the relationship between patience and kindness?

Kindness is descriptive of a wholesome state of mind encompassing love and compassion. These states of mind arise in the absence of states of mind having greed, anger and delusion.

Patience is the characteristic of bearing with some form of suffering (physical and/or mental). Being able to bear with suffering prevents mind states based on anger from arising. Hence developing patience allows one to bear with suffering without allowing anger to arise, which allows kindness to blossom.

This is the relationship between patience and kindness.

Although this is not your question, how is one able to bear with suffering and therefore develop patience? By seeing reality clearly. How does one see reality clearly? By paying attention to the four foundations of mindfulness.

So, practising the four foundations of mindfulness allows one to be patient such that anger does not arise while experiencing suffering, thus allowing one to be kind.


What is the effect of giving 'Dana' to the gift recipient's mind?

So far as I know the Buddhist perspective is that the Sangha is a "field of merit", that giving to the Sangha is an opportunity for laypeople to acquire merit -- and therefore, I suppose, that the Sangha are giving -- giving this opportunity -- and making their alms round with this in mind.


1.Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?

We all experience dukkha differently depending on our karma.The wealthy can afford to experience happiness born out of sensual pleasures than the poor.

2.If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?

How refined their dukkha is depends on how strong they attach to the happiness their wealth brings to them.The more they attach to it the more painful their dukkha is the less they attach the more subtle it will be.

3.What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?

Money or wealth does not bring suffering.It is our strong craving/attachment to it that brings suffering.Wealth is actually in a way kind of like a blessing.It is one of the karmic resultant of practicing generosity in previous lives and the result of being hard working and industrious.The Buddha often instructed lay people on how to preserve their wealth.And in the Adiya Sutta even describes the benefits to be obtained by having wealth.Adiya Sutta:Benefits to be Obtained from Wealth So don't see money or wealth as a cause of suffering.you can easily substitute the word money for anything under the sun and the only way it will cause us suffering is through our strong attachment to it.


Are Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism the same?

I could see some similarities in the Theravada  Mahayana Doctrines.

Mahayana and Theravada

Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.

The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.

Both Mahayana and Theravada doctrines help us to not being influenced by the objects of the six senses. In Mahayana they call it the becoming of Buddha Nature – to be awakened. We call it being an “Arya Shrawaka” in being a part of the ideal community of Noble Ones (ariya-sangha)

The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. ‘Paramita’ in Mahayana is this ‘crossing over’ and ‘reaching the other shore’ in walking the eightfold path.

The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.

Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.


Is Mindfulness a poor translation for Sati?

Wikipedia does not accord with the Pali suttas and the PTS Pali English Dictionary entry at Sutta Central is confusing, given it includes numerous different English terms.

Pali words can generally only be understood in their contextual meaning. A sutta that clearly contextually describes 'sati' is MN 117, as follows:

  One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness.

This contextual meaning accords with a later Abhidhamma commentary, as follows:

  What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
  Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
  Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
  that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
  [Vbh.105, 286]

Ajahn Jayasaro properly explains 'sati' in his video called: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna.

Similarly, Ajahn Buddhadasa properly explains 'sati' in his lecture called: The Scientific Cure of Spiritual Disease, as follows:

  Sati (mindfulness, reflective awareness, recollection) is the quick awareness and recall of the things which must be recalled. It must be
  as quick as an arrow. We also can describe sati as a vehicle or
  transport mechanism of the fastest kind. This most rapid transport
  doesn't carry material things, it carries wisdom and knowledge. Sati
  delivers paññä (wisdom) in time to meet our needs. Through the
  practice of mindfulness with breathing, sati is trained fully

  Sati realizes that something is happening and recalls the paññä relevant to that event. Sati immediately transports the necessary
  wisdom to that situation in time to deal with any possible problems.
  Mindfulness comes first. That wisdom applied to the experience is sampajanna. Delivered on time by sati, wisdom-in-action deals with the immediate situation. Then, in the very moment when sampajanna goes to work, the power and strength of samädhi gives force and energy to wisdom so that it can cut through the problem. To the degree that there is samädhi, to that degree wisdom-in-action will be able to solve the problem. Paññä acts as the warehouse of accumulated knowledge and insight which sati draws upon to deal with the sense experiences.

While the standard definition of 'samma sati' in the Noble Eightfold Path, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta is not inherently wrong, it confuses students and scholars alike because the definition includes many different concepts. This definition is as follows:

  And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk is a contemplator / observer of the body in & of itself — ardent, clear-comprehending &
  mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
  (ii) He is a contemplator / observer of  feelings in & of themselves — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iii) He is a contemplator / observer of the mind in & of itself — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iv) He is a contemplator / observer of Dhammas in & of themselves
  — ardent, clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with
  reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.

The word that gives rise to confusion is 'anupassī', which means to 'contemplate' or 'observe' or 'see'.  Students and scholars alike focus on this translation 'contemplate' and take it to be the meaning of 'sati'. However, if the definition of 'samma sati' is carefully examined, it is discerned the roles of 'sati' are:

Remembering to put away greed & distress with reference to the world.
Remembering to maintain the mind in the activity of 'contemplation'.

Therefore, to paraphrase the Wikipedia definition into a Buddhist context:

  Buddhist mindfulness is the psychological process of remembering & not forgetting to bring one's attention & wisdom
  to experiences so those experiences occur without covetousness, distress & other forms of craving & defilement; which can be developed
  through the practice of meditation and other training. The term
  "Right Mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term 'Samma Sati', which is a
  significant element of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.


Is it in line with the pali cannon suttas to accept other scriptures?

Other teachers do not teach all four types of clinging;

  Clinging to sensuality
  Clinging to rites and rituals
  Clinging to views
  Clinging to a doctrine of self

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

Only Buddhadhamma is for the abandonment of all four. Other teachings in as far as they include abandonment of a type of clinging are to that extent wise.

Brahmajala sutta explains various wrong views and speculative doctrines about the world which are basis for other religions.

Also when hearing or reading teachings it should be compared to teachings known to be true, to see if they align and if they do they align they then ought to be accepted. I think this is in the great references sutta.

Making use of Abhidhamma depends on what you want with it. It's quite useful for improving expression and understanding of the Dhamma as it breaks down many teachings word for word, it will improve understanding of terms like jhana, factors of enlightenment etc. In this sense it is very useful imo.

  Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

That's a mark of a Sotapanna in this sense; In the Sarakaani Sutta Buddha says that if trees could discern what is rightly spoken he would proclaim them a Sotapanna how much more so his son Sarakaani who took to drink https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html


"Was the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?"

Anatta -- "not self" -- is a doctrine broadly present in the discourses preserved and currently available.

"Is it true that there no support in Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas for the commonly held doctrine?"

There's no reasonable support for any doctrine of self in the collections above (and, just for completeness, there's no declaration "there is no self" in them as well, but more on that below).

The episode Christopher Titmuss refers to is probably the following:

  Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

  When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

  "Then is there no self?"

  A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

  Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

  -- SN 44.10

The Buddha then proceeds to explain why he did not answer (another explanation is given in SN 44.7):

  "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

  — "No, lord."

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

This knowledge ("that all phenomena are not-self") is famously repeated in the tilakkhaṇa formula:

  all conditioned phenomea are impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti)
  all conditioned phenomena are suffering (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā'ti)
  all phenomena are non-self (sabbe dhammā anattā'ti.)

  -- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

Commenting on it, Richard Gombrich -- an Indologist -- writes:

  The third hallmark is very often mistranslated (sometimes by me too, in the past) as 'not having a self or essence'. That is indeed how later Buddhists came to interpret it, but that was not its original meaning -- in fact, it is doubly misleading. Both Pali grammar and a comparison with the Vedānta show that the word means 'is not ātman' rather than 'does not have ātman'. However, as time went by the term was taken as a possessive compound and also taken to refer to everything, so that it became the one-word expression of Buddha's anti-essentialism.

  -- What The Buddha Taught, pg 70

Then, some people find themselves understanding that the Buddha advocated annihilationism (because of anatta), or eternalism (as some sort of occult teaching of a real Self behind his words). But the most obvious answer to these understandings is his own words, since he explicitly rejected both.

Among his many self-doctrine refutations, my favorite is this:

  "Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."

  -- MN 22


Ethics regarding the sharing of paid Dhamma material

I doubt sharing things is a transgression of the 2nd precept; otherwise how could we practise generosity?
I would be more concerned about the kamma of selling the Dhamma for money since the Pali suttas state the Dhamma should be taught with "benevolence" & given (freely) as a "gift".

And what, monks, is the power of benevolence? There are four ways of benevolence; by gifts, by friendly speech, by helpful acts and by
bestowal of equity. This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma.
AN 9.5


Why Buddha was not worried about his family after enlightenment?

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

Yes.

  I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

You remember?

  How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

Gautama had this urge to find out the meaning of this life and suffering, and that was his ONLY goal. He wanted to leave so he could concentrate on that. I am going to quote Chuck Palahniuk here -If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. This is the SAME with any other goal. You have to make some sacrifices.

  If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

Cannot hurt any feelings? That doesn't make any sense. Feelings are for the person who is at the receiving end. Not for the Buddha. Have you heard of the saying "truth is bitter"? Bitter is a feeling that we experience because of our subjective minds.

  I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.

I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.


What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?

According to Sanskrit dictionary, the two words have different connotations that I think are important for correct understanding of Buddhist doctrine.

Pali kkhaya or Sanskrit kṣayā (kshaya) means "destruction, termination, ruin, perish, wane, decay, end, vanish, disappear". (kṣayā-ya means "for destruction")

Pali and Sanskrit nirodha is made from the root rodha which basically means dam, fence, wall, barrier -- and prefix ni- that means "within", "down into" or niḥ- which means "out", "away". Combined with rodha, both prefixes seem to support the image of containment, blocking something from getting in or getting out. Hence the dictionary meaning of Sanskrit nirodha: "confine, imprison, restrain, control, suppress, obstruct, hinder, keep back". Interestingly, "Nirodh" is a condom brand in India. In modern-day Hindi - a language that grew out of Proto-Magadhi Prakrit, the word निरोध (nirodha) means "contraception", "protection", "detention", "control", "prevention", "restraint", "check", "repression", "preclusion", "obstruction", "constraint", "inhibition", and gives rise to such modern words as "insect repellent" (nirodhaka) and "strangehold" (nirodhana).

So the meaning of nirodha is more like not allowing something to happen, while the meaning of kshaya is more like decaying, falling apart & vanishing from existence.

The common English translations of nirodha as "cessation" and kshaya as "destruction" have it a little backwards, in my opinion. A better translation IMO would be nirodha => "prevention" and kshaya => "ending".

As I understand, Buddha of Pali Canon uses "nirodha" a lot more frequently than "kshaya" because he wants to make it clear that dukkha is something we actively prevent (by not giving rise to craving, by uprooting the ignorance, by developing signlessness, by abiding in suchness), instead of it simply ending by itself when we reach some fantasy state.


Is financial speculation ethical according to Buddhism?

In the Vanijja Sutta (AN5.177), there is defined what kind of businesses a lay person must not indulge in:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

This does not include currency trading or other kinds of speculative trading.

In both the Dighajanu Sutta and Sigalovada Sutta, gambling is criticized by the Buddha and he states many negative consequences of it.

  "These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning
  breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost;
  one's word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues
  display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage,
  since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

On the other hand, the Dighajanu Sutta also seems to be fine with trading:

  "Four conditions, Vyagghapajja, conduce to a householder's weal and
  happiness in this very life. Which four?

  "The accomplishment of persistent effort (utthana-sampada), the
  accomplishment of watchfulness (arakkha-sampada), good friendship
  (kalyanamittata) and balanced livelihood (sama-jivikata).

  "What is the accomplishment of persistent effort?

  "Herein, Vyagghapajja, by whatsoever activity a householder earns his
  living, whether by farming, by trading, by rearing cattle, by archery,
  by service under the king, or by any other kind of craft — at that he
  becomes skillful and is not lazy. He is endowed with the power of
  discernment as to the proper ways and means; he is able to carry out
  and allocate (duties). This is called the accomplishment of persistent
  effort.

The Sigalovada Sutta is also fine with investment in business:

  By dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One
  part should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth
  set aside Against future misfortunes."

So, the question is, would currency trading and other types of speculative trading be considered a form of gambling or a form of trading or a form of investment?

If it is gambling, then it is not good. If it is trading (like trading of goods e.g. retail sales) or a kind of investment, then it is alright.

So, which is it? This is open to interpretation, and is probably best analyzed by the experts at the Economics Stack Exchange.

Regarding the point that currency trading may be harmful to the economy - this is similar to the topic of meat-eating. Business in meat is wrong livelihood, but eating meat, that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket, is not wrong for lay people according to the Theravada tradition. Please see this question for more details.

Similarly, if an individual does not have any direct intention to harm others, but the action indirectly affects others, this is not wrong but may not be preferable.

Also related, is the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124. Please read this answer for more details.


Shariputra and a bodhisattva losing bodhicitta

I can only answer the part of your question relating to the Lotus Sutra. I hope a partial answer is better than none.

From my recollection of reading the Lotus Sutra - Shariputra is portrayed as someone who hasn't made the journey all the way to enlightenment yet. He believed he had however the Buddha clarified this and states that he is stuck on the lower teachings. Unlike some other Mahayana sutras he is portrayed in a positive light and it is predicted that he will attain full enlightenment and become a Buddha named Flower Glow.

Though it isn't translated as bodhicitta in my copy I think this might be the quote you are looking for

  Shariputra in the past I taught you to aspire and vow to achieve the
  Buddha way. But now you have forgotten all that and instead suppose
  that you have already attained extinction.

[Quote from pp 51 of the Burton Watson translation]

I read

  vow to achieve the Buddha way

as the bodhicitta - which I have previous heard translated as the 'will to enlightenment' which I propose is the same thing.


Evidence of determinism in DN 2 Samaññaphala Sutta? Was the King already a faith follower?

I think the Buddha does (supernaturally) know the condition[s] in which someone might become enlightened.

Like (I don't know if this is a good example) this isn't "deterministic" but I know that "if I hit something with a hammer then it will break".

A more explicit story like that is, for example, The Weaver's Daughter from the Dhammapada commentary:

  Now one day, as the Teacher surveyed the world at early dawn, he perceived that this maiden had entered the net of his knowledge. When he saw her, he considered within himself, "What will happen?" And he became aware of the following, "From the day when this maiden heard my discourse on the Dhamma, she has practiced meditation on death for three years. I will now go to Alavi and ask this maiden four questions. On each of the four points she will answer me correctly, and I will congratulate her. I will then pronounce the stanza, This world is indeed blind. At the conclusion of the stanza she will be established in the fruit of stream-entry. By reason of her, my discourse will be profitable to the multitude besides." So the Teacher, with his retinue of five hundred monks, departed from Jetavana, and in due course arrived at the Aggalava monastery.

I'm pretty sure there are other examples of stories like that in the suttas.

I think that's part of what makes the Buddha "a Buddha" -- i.e. insight into other people so as to know how best to teach them.


the gods realm is part of the cycle of existence.

Correct, while devas' lifespan is much longer than ours and they enjoy a lot more bliss/pleasure, they too will die eventually:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:
"When a deva is about to pass away from the company of devas, five omens appear: his garlands wither, his clothes get soiled, sweat comes out of his armpits, a dullness descends on his body, he no longer delights in his own deva-seat. The devas, knowing from this that 'This deva-son is about to pass away,' encourage him with three sayings: 'Go from here, honorable sir, to a good destination. Having gone to a good destination, gain the gain that is good to gain. Having gained the gain that is good to gain, become well-established.'" ~~ Iti 76 ~~


Yes it is OK for monastics to sell things. Sư Trưởng (Head Nun) Như Thanh started the Huế Làm Nunnery and nine other nunneries by selling food and in a few cases businesses like rice sales, making soy sauce, printing sutras and a tailor shop. (1) She was in many ways the Mother Teresa of Vietnam but refused to travel saying she would just give the money to the nunneries thus she remains unknown. In her life she raised over 5000 nuns and 13 Dharma masters including Sư Cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt, PhD sited above. A large reason 90% of the monastics in Vietnam are now nuns can be traced back to her works. I do not know of another person that made such a big change to Buddhism in one country (and by extension the US because her disciples are here) in the scant span of 100 years like Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.

Her book "Path of the Bodhisattva" (Vietnamese only 1989) might be the crowning achievement out of her extensive literary works. Without a doubt she was one of the most stunning people of this world and few know her name. But those that do she is seen as a true bodhisattva.

"Looking up, I seek enlightenment. Looking down, I liberate sentient beings." - Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.

So when you go to a Vietnamese-American temple run by nuns and see food being sold you'll know who started it [so please buy some]. Also any temple named "Huế Làm" will quite likely have her picture hanging around somewhere. She is that important.

Eminent Buddhist Women, p. 88 "Fostering Self-sufficiency" written by her Dharma daughter and personal care attendant of the last 22 years of her life Pháp sư và Sư cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt ("moon"), PhD. http://goo.gl/TKNxns.  She is the apex between intelligence and compassion. Her pháp danh should've been Minh.

Also http://giacngo.vn/lichsu/2009/01/15/7FC650/

As for giving just food I'm someone who's office duties includes cutting checks to pay the electricity, heat, Internet, phone and the myriad of other bills and can say at our nunnery (note: I'm laity and a white guy) money is always accepted with gratitude and is needed. Gratitude was something Sư Trưởng Như Thanh taught should always been shown.

Edit: In hindsight I would recommended making donations for specific needs. If a monastic needs a car fixed you show pay the mechanic. If they need to pay a bill you should it the company directly. Advice I received from a very good monk.


Is there any meditation technique to be aware of what you hear?

Yeah, you could probably make that happen.  What you’re looking for is a sense sensation that has some stability.  Visually, you would use something like a kasina, but I see no reason why a sound kasina couldn’t also work provided that you’re diligent about it.  As to what this sound kasina would be made up of, you’d want something that was consistently present.  A dripping faucet would probably work, but I’d be more inclined to use something like that background hum you were talking about.  You could also plug your ears and listen to the rushing sound of your blood in your ears.

Remember though, the whole point of a kasina is to generate a counterpoint sign.  When that arises, you would abandon whatever sound you were working with.