Thank you for sharing the resource.

The complete guide of meditation is given in "Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta" DN 22 (D ii 290) in pali thipitaka .
In this sutta the whole meditation topics are group in four main categories.

I. Kāyānupassanā     - Observation of Kāya
II. Vedanānupassanā -  Observation of Vedanā
III. Cittānupassanā  - Observation of Citta
IV. Dhammānupassanā -  Observation of Dhammas.

The "Kāyānupassanā " section has 6 sub sections.

A. Ānāpāna Pabba              - Section on ānāpāna
   B. Iriyāpatha Pabba           - Section on postures
   C. Sampajāna Pabba            - Section on sampajañña
   D. Paṭikūlamanasikāra Pabba   - Section on repulsiveness
   E. Dhātumanasikāra Pabba      - Section on the Elements
   F. Navasivathika Pabba        - Section on the nine charnel grounds

The 32 part body meditation is relate to section D.E.& F.-

To get a idea some extracts are shown bellow. but it is recommend to read from beginning.

... Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu considers this very body, from the soles of the feet up and from the hair on the head down, which is delimited by its skin and full of various kinds of impurities: "In this kāya, there are the hairs of the head, hairs of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach with its contents, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid and urine."

...Just as if, bhikkhus, there was a bag having two openings and filled with various kinds of grain,.....

Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on this very kāya, however it is placed, however it is disposed: "In this kāya, there is the earth element, the water element, the fire element and the air element."  ...

Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, just as if he was seeing a dead body, cast away in a charnel ground, one day dead, or two days dead or three days dead, swollen, bluish and festering, he considers this very kāya: "This kāya also is of such a nature, it is going to become like this, and is not free from such a condition ...

  The method of practicing is given as ..     Thus he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya
  externally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally and
  externally; he dwells observing the samudaya of phenomena in kāya, or
  he dwells observing the passing away of phenomena in kāya, or he
  dwells observing the samudaya and passing away of phenomena in kāya;
  or else, [realizing:] "this is kāya!" sati is present in him, just to
  the extent of mere ñāṇa and mere paṭissati, he dwells detached, and
  does not cling to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
  dwells observing kāya in kāya.


The Buddha mostly lived and taught in the Gangetic plains of India, and there's no record of him sojourning to the Himalayas like most Indian mystics.

However he is also said to have favored the Vulture peak near the city of Rajgir, so it's not like he exclusively preferred the plains either.

Most mystics like mountains for the solitude, in the Buddha's times it was possible to find it in the tropical Indian forests as well. In modern times, forest monks in Indochina keep the forest tradition alive.

The Buddha often chose meditative spots for the calm and tranquility, where meditation could proceed undisturbed, however he was also aware of spirits and other hinderances that could arise and rejected some otherwise calm places to meditate.


Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas?

There is no awareness beyond the khandhas.

There is no such thing as the "Thai Forest Tradition" having a uniform set of teachings. The "Thai Forest Tradition" is just a variety of different jungle gurus who made up their own versions of Buddhism.

Ajahn Amaro has wrong view when he said: "that which knows the khandhas is not part of the khandhas".

SN 22.48 refers to two types of five khandhas. Five khandhas without clinging and five khandhas with clinging.

SN 22.85 describes the end of the life of a Buddha as the ending of the five khandhas. Therefore, there are pure undefiled liberated khandhas.

  SN22.85:13.1: If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?” “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.” “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

"Lokuttara" means "beyond the world"; which means the mind not attached to the khandhas. SN 20.7 says "lokuttara" is "sunnata" ("emptiness"), which means "empty of self & anything pertaining/belonging to self". It is the mind that does not regard aggregates as "self". "The mind" is also a khandha. A khandha does not attach to the khandhas.

For example, the Buddha called liberation "cetovimutti" or "cittavimutti" (MN 30). Or Dhammapada 154 says the mind "citta" of the Buddha attained the unconditioned. "Citta" ("mind-heart") originates from nama-rupa (SN 47.42) therefore is part of the khandhas.

Or MN 43 says wisdom & consciousness are cojoined. Wisdom is required for liberation. SN 22.53 describes liberation in terms of freed consciousness. Consciousness is a khandha.

The Buddha never said liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. The Buddha did not even use the word "awareness", which is too broad or vague to correlate with a specific Pali world.

The Buddha said liberation was possible because the element of Nibbana exists (Ud 8.3). Nibbana is not the khandhas but is a sense object (ayatana; Ud 8.1) known by the khandhas.


Sammasam Buddha's Sila, was it the best Sila?

The Sila becomes higher depending on your knowledge of the virtues/benefits of it.
The Sila becomes higher depending on how focused you are when you are keeping them.
In other words, Sila becomes higher depending on your Samadhi & Panna.
That's why the Sila of the Buddha is higher than anyone else's.

The Lord did not use the flowers offered to him.Offering flowers is merely a way of people showing reverence to the Buddha. Perfumes are not offered. Perfumes would have been sprayed by the people when preparing places for the Buddha to stay. It is the same with jewellery.


In Vipassana meditation - How long does one keep watching an object?

(This depends on the teacher or lineage.)

Generally if you stay too long on a object the following can happen:

get attached to it or obsessed with the object. Say you have a pain in your stomach then you will think this might be food poisoning. Also why is it lasting so long? It is supposed to be impermanent but why is it lingering. Likewise all kind of thoughts will keep arising due to the object.
you can miss out on other experiences in other areas. Main thing is that you should be able to see all experiences through out the body. Staying in one object means that you miss many more subtle experiences. Say your stomach hurts but there is a itching on the head. If you stay with the pain you miss the itching.

So best is to systematically change the objects (emphasis on systematic and methodically here so you don't miss watching experiences even on a small part of your body,  i.e., you have to make every inch of your body sensitive to sense the subtlest of contact / sensation, e.g. the air touching your skin in absence of any other sensations. To see things as they are you have to horn your recognising or conscious part of your mind /  aggregates to register the subtlest of realities) so you experience everything on your body at most waiting on one object for for only a few minutes or so. If you are aware of the breathing, then you can see effects on it. In my case I stay on the breath only for few breaths. (No counting the breaths.)

Likewise if there are any parts of your body which is not sensitive enough to register any input / sensation (there is an object as your facilities are in contact with something or the other by your consciousness is not strong enough to recognize it), you have to wait on that place for a short time to see if you sense something.

You have to be equanimous in facing the sensations. In the absence of craving and clinging, your perception / mental reaction towards such experiences will become weaker and weaker. Also your stop putting fuel to the fire by creating new fabrications which will create further sensual experiences in the future.

As you do this you will start seeing things dissappear faster and faster until it disappears instantly once your attention comes to the object.

Any object, arises and passes away with such rapid succession. When you are sensitive to recognise it when your attention is brought to the object itself then you will see it happening. Otherwise by staying with the object your mind can get a bit concerned and then you will start seeing the arising and passing. (Keeping in mind the above arguments. ) In the latter case if the object is something like pain sometimes it may pass away before you can get concentrated enough to see the phenomena arising and passing. (At a grosser level this is arising and passing away also. ) Any case don't get excited or disappointed.


"Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way. Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter." ~ Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka."

I'd imagine it spread much the same way as other religions. In many cultural centers of the ancient world you would have places where multiple beliefs congregated to talk to those who walked by about their faith.

Imagine going to the mall today and in center court you had a Christian,  Hindu, Buddhist,  Jewish, Muslim, and taoist all speaking of their doctrines?

You get a glimpse in the Kalama sutta of the time of the Buddha being one where teachers and traditions were numerous and they wandered about teaching their doctrines.

"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

So it is obvious that Buddhism was spread much the same way as other traditions in ancient times.  What makes Buddhism mostly different is that there are almost no examples of buddhism involving forced conversation.

There is no doubt that king Asoka did for Buddhism what King Constantine did for Christianity hundreds of years later.  Once it became a religion of the dominant Kingdom its spread was assured as it went from one of many doctrines to the official state doctrine.


what happens to the mind during meditation?

This experience is called Asanna in Buddhist meditation. (see no 22 in the link)
Please make sure you practice this meditation in conjunction with Vipassana meditation.It also advisable to practice meditation in conjunction with Noble Eightfold Path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


How can the concept of Anicca be linked to Sunyata?

See anattalakkhaṇasutta, anicca and dukkha are fully used to describe anatta, suññata.

  “Monks, are feelings permanent or impermanent?”

  “Venerable sir, they are impermanent.”

  “Those which are impermanent, are they unpleasant or pleasant?”

  “Venerable sir, they are unpleasant.”

  “Those which are impermanent, unpleasant, changing, are they suitable
  to be reflected, ‘They are mine, I am there, they are my self?’”

  “That is not so, venerable sir”

For the example explanation "If something is atta (autocrat, controllable), sāra (real core, like wood core), asuññata (real existent forever)":

It must can control itself to live permanent,
It must can control suffering to be far away from itself forever,
It must can live at the same time/same place/same status forever
(real core must be permanent stable, real asuññata must never
disappear anyway), etc.

However, the fact is nothing can act like that. Every aggregate arising and vanishing depending (paṭiccasamuppānna, saṅkhata) on many variant causes (paṭiccasamuppada), so they are impermanant, and unpleasant. And by that no ability to control anything even itself, therefore aggregate is anatta.

Even nibbāna can not control anything, too. So nibbāna is anattā, also. But it is not anicca and not dukkha, because nibbāna not depending on any causes (asaṅkhata). So, nibbāna is not anicca and not dukkha, too.


Are there any english translation of the Shobogenzo of Master Dogen?

I like the translation I have at home, by Chodo Cross under guidance of Gudo Nishijima.

What makes this translation unique, it's goal was to stay as literal or as close to Japanese original as possible. So unlike other translations which are often overly idiomatic and make their interpretations for you, this one leaves it all as written by Dogen. Beside leaving interpretation of subtleties up to the reader, it also preserves the flavor of Dogen's speech - which makes for a more tasteful reading experience.


How do different traditions define "intoxicant"?

Let me first explain the original Pāli version of the fifth precept, according to what I learnt from prof. Richard Gombrich, who knows Pāli well and is a Theravāda scholar, but is not a Buddhist.

  Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

The last three words are the same for all precepts and mean "I undertake the rule of abstaining from". The key word here is surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā. It is a compound that can be split as follows: surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā. The literal translation is surā-meraya-majja-carelessness-occasion. Surā, meraya and majja are names of three intoxicating drinks, but we cannot be sure what they exactly were. So if we look at it literally, the rule deals with three specific drinks, and whether and how it shoud be extended to other intoxicants is a matter of interpretation.

The use of pamāda (carelessness) is even more interesting. Since it is a part of a compound, the grammar rules of Pāli tell us very little about how it should be interpreted. So the literal reading of the fifth precept could be either

  I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, because they cause occasions for carelessness.

or

  I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, in so far as they cause occasions for carelessness.

Coming back to your question, there is no agreement among Theravāda Buddhists on which of the two readings should be used. There are quite a few who interpret it according to the latter reading and don't think that consumption of small amounts of alcohol is against the precept. But in any case, there is an agreement that surāmerayamajja should interpreted as alcoholic beverages in general. There is, however, a controversy on whether the precept is applicable to smoking.

To sum up, various Buddhist traditions have surely different views on that matter, but in any case, the word pamāda seems to be the key. It is what defines intoxicants, and - for traditions that allow some use of intoxicans - defines the limits of their use.


In which context did the Buddha say this, about ordaining women?

The context of this quote was the proposed ordination of women: Gotamīsutta (AN 8.51).

Since men established Buddhism around the world the quote is obviously true.

For example, even today, women who want to ordain also want to take advantage of the community & facilities established by men.

When Buddhism declined in India, it was men who took Buddhism to other places, such as to Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, etc. When this happened, the order of nuns was broken because women could not flee to & survive in foreign & often hostile lands.

It is a plain reality that it is difficult for women to establish & spread a religion, particularly in hostile places.

Many monks were killed in their efforts to spread Buddhism. Walking around the world with only robes & a begging bowl is not easy.

The women asked to be ordain after the Buddha was famous; after the Buddha had benefactors who provided land for monasteries, etc.

It is very difficult for women to do what Jason The Walking Monk did.


This may sound surprising to you... but as I understand, in Buddhism the expectations like you described would be seen as your attachments and your ignorance.

Indeed, if you were infinitely wise, you would see this person as they are, and would not be mistaken by the appearance. The fact that your original opinion turned out to be wrong means you are not infinitely wise! :)

Two, once the expectations have been unfulfilled and you become disenchanted, to continue to be upset and to regret that things are not the way you thought they were, is a case of attachment. Meaning, you had one experience of the world, and now situation has changed - hence another experience, but you continue to hold to the past picture.

So in this way, these expectations are your ignorance and your attachment.


Nature of Craving in Charm and Impressing Others

What type(s) of attachment(s) are involved?

This is carving arising due to self-view.
There are 18 internal and external views across past, present and future making a total of 108 views of self rooted in carving.
18 Internal Preoccupations with Craving

(1) “I am”
(2) “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) “I am otherwise”
(5) “I do not exist”
(6) “I exist”
(7) “May I be”
(8) “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) “May I otherwise”
(11) “I might be”
(12) “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) “I might be that [be like that]”
(14) “I might be otherwise”
(15) “I shall be”
(16) “I shall be this [be like this]”
(17) “I shall be so [be like that]”
(18) “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
18 External Preoccupations with Craving

(1) by this (form, etc), “I am”
(2) by this, “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) by this, “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) by this, “I am otherwise”
(5) by this, “I do not exist”
(6) by this, “I exist”
(7) by this, “May I be”
(8) by this, “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) by this, “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) by this, “May I otherwise”
(11) by this, “I might be”
(12) by this, “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) by this, “I might be that”
(14) by this, “I might be otherwise”
(15) by this, “I shall be”
(16) by this, “I shall be this”
(17) by this, “I shall be so”
(18) by this, “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
With regard to external preoccupation with every interaction, one reinforces the self-view with further escalate to sensation resulting in the craving.

"by this experience or interaction, I look good and I appear positively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look good but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look good but I appear neutral"
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad and I appear positively",
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look bad but I appear neutral"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral and I appear positively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral but I appear negatively"
"by this experience or interaction, I look neutral but I appear neutral"

More the one appears positive with respect to the self-evaluation and the perception one appear, one experiences deeper shades of pleasantness. Similarly with it is negative one experiences unpleasantness. When there is no disparity, i.e., one's evaluation of oneself matches one's expectation of how one is perceived by others, there is a neutral sensation.
This is further appplified based on the people one tries to project the evaluation, the level one want to make an impression, the number of people involved as well as the source of the experience. The grouping of people could be:

oneself
special people (friends, foes, coworkers and family)
acquainted people
strangers

If the source is a close person then the feeling is more. If a loved one does something unexpected one feels more strongly than a stranger. E.g. if someone you admire is negative about you the pain is more.
If something about you is known by many vs few it will increase the feeling. E.g. if someone does something improper and is caught one may try to stop the knowledge of it spreading as one sees this as damaging.
If one it trying hard to impreses then this also will intensify the sensations. E.g. If one does badly at school it might be harder to let your parents know the results than a stranger who does not care as much.
The combinations give different shares of feelings:

something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other special people
something done by a special person, which does not affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other special people
something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other people who I care about
something done by a special person, which affects how I want to project my self, which is projected to other people who are strangers

...

How can one best relinquish a need to appear a certain way to others?

This is by eliminating the classes of craving leading to self-view.


Before I became Buddhist I did a lot of random "spiritual" practices, including "astral travel". The later is when you try to retain "waking" consciousness as you fall asleep.

I only had mixed success with the various techniques for achieving that, but the one that worked more or less well was to relax the body and completely refrain from any movement until you lose all bodily sensations. So effectively you let the body "fall asleep" while keeping the mind awaken.

The major difficulty for me was (to avoid) getting overexcited at the moment the body falls asleep - which (overexcitement) resulted in hyperventilation and loss of control.

Eventually I realized that establishing lucid mind inside the dream was easier for me than carrying it over from the waking state, and so I dropped that frustrating practice.

Another related technique I had better success with was doing the Four Immeasurables type meditation at that same moment of falling asleep. This works better as you don't have to artificially restrict body movements, which seems to go counter to deep meditation in my experience.


Based on my study of Buddhist texts, the guidance of my teachers, and my own experience - the most effective meditation (of this type) is to maintain awareness of the entire breath AND feelings, while releasing any mental/emotional blocks that you notice thanks to this awareness.

First of all, there is no magic in merely holding your attention - whether it is the tip of the nose or the diaphragm or abdomen or anything else. There is no magic button somewhere that will open some door if only you keep pushing, nothing like that.

Instead the key principle is to stop creating/maintaining trouble in your mental continuum. This is called "samatha". In order to stop creating/maintaining trouble we must notice it first. This is called "vipashyana". The better you see, the better you stop, the better you see.

When you watch the entire "body" of your inner experience, it is likely dominated by thoughts. This is expected in this era. There is another type of meditation for working with thoughts. But for this meditation you need to tune your awareness to predominantly watch everything but thoughts. This includes sensations of the body, the somatic components of emotions (the part of emotions felt in and around the body), and the emotional aspect of your mindstate (colloquially known as "the mood"). Sensations of the body include the muscle tonus, posture, and any acute neuroses manifesting in body shaking, tensions, or blocks. In the very center of this entire body of non-discursive experience is the cluster of sensations connected with breathing.

The breathing sits right on the intersection between physical and mental, which is what makes it special. If you center your awareness on the breathing, you will naturally include most of the bodily sensations on one side and most of the emotional aspect on the other side. This makes breathing a perfect focal point.

Specifically, it is the muscles involved in breathing in and breathing out. Because, if you watch carefully, you will notice that these muscles are extremely sensitive to all emotions. Any change in emotional "weather" results in the change of tension and affects the speed with which these muscles contract and relax. So by watching the state of muscles connected with breathing you can very clearly see your emotional state.

Once you learn to see the emotional state, you don't really have to focus on breathing. The point of all this exercise is not breathing, after all, it is perfection of samtha and vipashyana.

So the entire exercise of meditation is to watch all that, and to trace these blocks and neuroses to their emotional roots, so you can uproot them. This process of tracing may involve a little bit of thinking, but for the most part your job is to dwell on the feelings. The hangups are something you discover by seeing, not by reasoning.

Once you see them, you let them go, release them, dismiss them - whatever you want to call it. As said in the sutta, you watch your breathing in long, you watch your breathing out long, you watch your breathing in short, you watch your breathing out short, you watch your breathing while paying attention to the whole experience, you watch your breathing while relaxing the mind, you watch your breathing while gladdening the mind, you watch your breathing while liberating the mind.

This is not all there is to Buddhist meditation, and not all there is to Buddhism - but this is a big chunk. Just practicing this for a while (months? years?) will be of great benefit to most anyone.


1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?

2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?

3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?

Beginning with the third question, the most effective meditation to start with is that which brings up repressed or subconscious thoughts and feelings and gets rid of them. (Bodhidharma called this cleaning house.) Anything thought that makes you uncomfortable can help you to identify these negative feelings. Once you identify a negative feeling towards someone, use Lester Levenson's Release Technique to let go of it, and then change it to a feeling of love. While the Contemplation on the Four Sublime States has you begin with people you care about, I think it's better to do the opposite. Make a list of everyone you dislike, beginning with those you dislike the most. Go down the list and work on loving each person in order; don't move on until you feel only love for each. Do this daily until you feel love for everyone. Jeffery Martin calls this the Lester Levenson Love Exercise.


What is the difference between Jhana and Samadhi?

Samadhi is a general term for concentration. Jhanas are stages you achieve in Samatha meditation when your concentration reaches a certain level.

To give an analogy, Samadhi is like the temperature of ice. When the temperature reaches a certain level, it becomes water. That's like reaching the first Jhana. If you keep heating, it will become steam. That is like reaching the second Jhana and so on.


Does loving kindness meditation help beings other than the practitioner?

I don't think it'd make other beings become "free" from sorrow, but it could bring certain level of peace to both the practitioner and the people s/he's interacting with. AN 11.16 mentions 11 benefits of cultivating metta:

"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?
"One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds."


MN 137 - Directed only to Stream Entrants (and beyond)?

The way my teacher explained a crucial point about this was summarized with a single but powerful word: Immediacy!

At some point in our practice our familiarity with Dharma should go beyond it being something "over there" that we study and try to understand, and become something very personal that is happening "right here" in our own immediate experience, second-by-second.

This type of joy that arises in case of mature student, is part of this breakthrough to the Immediacy of Dharma. On the initial phases of the breakthrough, we keep discovering more and more real life microsituations that turn out to be perfectly described by some ancient scripture, and this gives a sense of wonder and joy. And then as we get used to this match, we get a kind of relaxed bliss of a traveler who reached the oasis, had enough food and water to recover, and is now resting in the shade (to give a traditional image of what "bliss" means in this context).

Specifically as it pertains to Transience/Inconstancy of all configurations, once you clearly see that every frustration you used to take seriously is a temporary arrangement of clouds that actually shifts beyond pain fairly quickly, as long as you don't hold on to it, -- this immediate observation gives a sort of deep peace and a sense of relief that you experience continuously as you interact with all kinds of situations.

So to answer your question explicitly, it's not just intellectual pondering nor is it meditative insight, as it is the immediate observation (directly seeing) it all in your own life.


Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path?

Yes. That's the promise

  Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

This is a misunderstanding. True benefits are realized now. At the present moment. Anyone who wait for next life or even tomorrow are simply in a state of suffering.

  If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?

Non of your suffering is based on bad karma. Suffering is something you do. Not something that happen to you. Enlightened person realize this and stop doing it.

You may have a back pain, which may or may not be karma from past life. But you don't have to suffer it.


I'm not certain it can be said that jhāna itself extends to daily life after meditation, with all the different interpretations of jhāna going around.
At the same time, consider the following excerpt from AN 3.63:

“Here, brahmin [...], I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the third jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna [...].
“Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed”

So, the Buddha is describing a certain quality persisting after the meditation, referring to it as "celestial" (dibba). This might be the trait your are asking about.
Note also that, if after samatha meditation one were "just like before the meditation", then for every single meditation, the difficulty to practice samatha would be the same. However, it's expected that it gets easier with time and practice.
I would claim it gets easier because the mind acquires the qualities of samadhi, even though arguably these qualities may not be in their most potent state -- say, during jhāna.
This might not be surprising from a neurological point of view, since the chemistry and behavior patterns of the brain are bound to change with any kind of repeated practice.


OP: Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't
  exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

To put your "salvation" or your liberation from suffering into someone else's hands, is unskillful in Buddhism.

To reinforce belief in a self, is unskillful in Buddhism.

To take anything that is impermanent as permanent, is unskillful in Buddhism.

Faith in an eternal permanent Supreme God who is one's personal saviour would include all three unskillful views above, in some way or the other.

  OP: Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round
  during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat?
  Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

Whether the Earth is round or flat is not of concern to Buddhism, and can be left to science. In this case, it is skillful to rely on scientific methods.

However, metaphysical investigations that cannot be proven by science is not skillful, as seen in the Acintita Sutta:

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.


How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated?

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?

In Pali just one word, sankhara, or pair of words.

English, being precise, has a lot of grammar. You can't construct an English sentence without a verb, a subject, maybe an object, and "prepositions". Maybe English has too much grammar (maybe there's a similar problem translating from Chinese into English), i.e. that to create a grammatical English translation you need to add extra grammar which didn't exist in the original.

Insisting on having a subject (an actor or an agent) for each verb (as English does), doesn't that invite the same kind of mistake as I-making or I-assuming, or reification?

So FYI (and I might be wrong) I think of (i.e. I mentally translate) sankhara as "putting together", i.e. as a kind of verb or a kind of process ... but without assuming there's a corresponding subject ... or you might translate is construction or constructing (or fabrication) without assuming there's a corresponding constructor.

So if you take thought as the cause (or prequel) of speech, I understand it as saying that it's the putting together (creation or construction) of speech.

You said that "speech is the fabrication" but in this context I think it's the fabricated.

Also I think that in English the word "fabrication" can refer to the process and to the end result (so "a fabrication" can be used as a synonym for "the fabricated"): e.g. "the story is a fabrication" means that telling the story is the process of telling a lie, and the told/completed story is the result of telling or having told a lie.

I think that sankhara is the process of constructing/fabricating something (e.g. breath, speech, thoughts) and also the product or result of that construction/fabrication.

Another thing is (and again I may be wrong), isn't the direction of the causation deliberately a bit vague? I read the answers to this topic as saying that it isn't as simple as "A causes B", nor "B causes A". It's not that "body causes breath" nor "breath causes body", rather it's "body and breath co-arise", or "body is the condition in which breath arises and vice versa". I might be wrong but does Western science/philosophy/logic/religion for one maybe try to teach us to believe in "cause and effect"? But isn't Buddhist logic rather about "co-arising", which might be a better description than simplistic "cause and effect"?

Assuming "causation" leads to (it invites) logical problems/fallacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For example, I think, it is that "fire causes heat", or is it that "heat causes fire"? Instead of one or the other, let's say that "heat and fire co-arise".

A final comment, if you read the Dharmafarer commentary on MN 44, the author distinguishes (or tells us to distinguish) between the singular saṅkhāra and the plural saṅkhārā -- saying that the singular (e.g. thought forming speech, or mindful speech, or "functional consciousness") is a quality (property or function) of the relatively enlightened mind, whereas the plural is "mental proliferation" or papañca.


What would happen if everyone became a monk or nun?

The distinguishing principle in the quote from MN 71 is:

  'without abandoning the fetter of householdership'

I would assume (I will research later) 'the fetter' of householdship refers to concerns about & bondage to family, etc, as written in many suttas with the stock phrase:

  ...dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying Kasian sandalwood, wearing garments, scents and unguents, receiving good &
  silver... AN 8.54; Ud 6.2; SN 55.7; SN 55.53

A layperson can abandon 'the fetter' of householdership, as explained in the Haliddakani Sutta, which describes the 'household life' is a state of mind rather than a state of physical habitation:

  The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form,
  it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling...
  perception... fabrication is the home of consciousness. When
  consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of
  fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.

  "And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,
  or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata
  has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

  "Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of feeling... perception... fabrication...

  "Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to the
  property of consciousness: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

  "And how does one live with society? One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions is said to be living in
  society. One who is in bondage to the distraction of the society of
  sound-impressions... aroma-impressions... flavor-impressions...
  tactile-sensation-impressions... idea-impressions is said to be living
  in society. This is how one lives with society.

  "And how does one live free from society? The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of form-impressions, its
  root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions
  of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the
  Tathagata is said to be living free from society.

  "The Tathagata has abandoned bondage to the distraction of the society of sound-impressions... aroma-impressions...
  flavor-impressions... tactile-sensation-impressions...
  idea-impressions, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be living free from
  society.

  "And how is one intimate in villages? There is the case where a certain person lives entangled with householders. Delighting together
  with them, sorrowing together with them, happy when they are happy,
  pained when they are pained, he takes on any of their arisen business
  affairs as his own duty. This is how one is intimate in villages.

  "And how is one not intimate in villages? There is the case where a monk lives unentangled with householders. Not delighting together with
  them, not sorrowing together with them, not happy when they are happy,
  not pained when they are pained, he does not take on any of their
  arisen business affairs as his own duty. This is how one is not
  intimate in villages.

Therefore, a layperson can end suffering (generally regarded to the degree of a Non-Returner).


Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist

The popular portrayal of kamma isn't what The Buddha believed in (if someone does good deeds then good things would happen to them or if they do evil deeds bad things will happen).

He thought that there were many different variables involved in one's experiences besides good or bad deeds.

There are also certain deeds perceived as good that are actually bad and other deeds perceived as bad that are actually good.

As explained in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) there are certain people who do evil deeds who still go to heavenly worlds after death and other certain people who do good deeds who still go to hell after death:

  "Now there is the person who has killed living beings
  here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But
  (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time
  of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
  But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he
  will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or
  in some subsequent existence

  ..."Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here... has had right view. And on the dissolution of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in
  an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was
  undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was
  why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the
  states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in
  hell. But since he has abstained from killing living beings here...
  has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or
  in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence." (Maha
  Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

Here we see The Buddha explaining the variables involved earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death.

The person will always feel the effect their deeds in some form, but how that happens relies on many different factors.

As explained in the Lonaphala Sutta:

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell."

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

So you see there can be many people perceived as good but undeveloped in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so any trifling evil deed they did in the past many take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).

And there can be many people perceived as evil but developed in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so many trifling evil deeds they did in the past still may not take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).

There have been many genocides in history besides the holocaust, the genocide of the Jews. There have been for instance the persecution and execution of Buddhist monks by many different groups in history.

How this ties in is that there are many different variables involved in one's experiences...it does not necessarily mean that those who took birth into a region or time-period where they were persecuted and executed for no real reason are evil-doers or came from one of the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) although it does mean that they are exhausting their evil kamma that was caused for some reason or another (and also means that the one executing the violence is causing evil kamma).

If mankind as a whole wants violence to end all around the world we have to cause good kammas (bodily, verbal, mental) such that only good beings can exist on Earth...if you look the global homicide rate and violence around the world that time hasn't come yet...but will certainly come sometime in the future if more and more people continue doing good deeds and practicing metta (loving-kindness).


In Theravada, these questions are considered abhidhamma material. The goto reference is the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, which says in regards to your second question:

2. Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?

  A second distinguishing feature of the Abhidhamma is the dissection of the apparently continuous stream of consciousness into a succession of discrete evanescent cognitive events called cittas, each a complex unity involving consciousness itself, as the basic awareness of an object, and a constellation of mental factors (cetasika) exercising more specialized tasks in the act of cognition.

In the Theravada, reality is reality, whether you are meditating or not.

As to the first set of questions:

Can you give any citations for this explanation of 'rebirth'?

Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  Before death the stream of consciousness depends on the physical body and is continuous with one unit following the other uninterruptedly. After death, the body disintegrates and the stream of consciousness shifts to the physical process in another abode. This may be likened to the continuous appearance of light in an electric bulb through the ceaseless generation of electricity. When the bulb is burnt up, the light goes out but the potential electric energy keeps on coming. Light reappears when the old bulb is replaced with a new one. Here, the bulb, energy and light are all changing physical processes and we should be mindful of their impermanent character.

  (source)

Which tradition[s] of Buddhism is this from?

Maybe better to ask which it is compatible with... it is compatible with Theravada, and probably most other orthodox schools.

Is it described in any canonical suttas

As with many doctrines, the concept of rebirth as a continuation of a momentary string of consciousness is not explicitly spelled out in the Suttas. The way rebirth works is implicit, for example:

  “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

  -- SN 12.38 (Bodhi, trans)

  “Bhikkhus, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.

  3“Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

  If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

  -- SN 22.53 (Bodhi, trans)

  “Sisters, suppose an oil-lamp is burning: its oil is impermanent and subject to change, its wick is impermanent and subject to change, its flame is impermanent and subject to change, and its radiance is impermanent and subject to change. Now would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘While this oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, but its radiance is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”

  “No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, while that oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, so its radiance must be impermanent and subject to change.”

  “So too, sisters, would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘These six internal bases are impermanent and subject to change, but the pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling that one experiences in dependence upon the six internal bases is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”

  “No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.”

  “Good, good, sisters! So it is with a noble disciple who sees this as it actually is with proper wisdom.

  -- MN 146 (Bodhi, trans)

  5“Master Gotama, when a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  6“When, Vaccha, a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, I declare that it is fuelled by the wind. For on that occasion the wind is its fuel.”

  7“And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  8“When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.”

  -- SN 44.9 (Bodhi, trans)

  When this was said, the Venerable Moḷiyaphagguna said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?”

  3“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One consumes.’ If I should say, ‘One consumes,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who consumes?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, for what is the nutriment consciousness [a condition]?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the production of future renewed existence.

  When that which has come into being exists, the six sense bases [come to be]; with the six sense bases as condition, contact.’”

  -- SN 12.12 (Bodhi, trans)

and/or does this idea have any specific names/nouns (e.g. in Pali, Tibetan, and/or Chinese) associated with it?

The term for the stream of consciousness is viññāṇa-sota:

  Again, having done this and gone further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next. That is the third attainment. Again, having done this and gone still further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next.

  -- DN 28 (Bodhi, trans)

The term for the consciousness that links back to a new rebirth is paṭisandhi-viññāṇa.

The term for the process of the mind is citta-vīthi.


How does the craving or clinging to existence survive after death?

I guess I have found an answer in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence(page 394).
It mainly states that Upadana and Karma lives on after death, due to which another being is reproduced.However the exact mechanism is not known.

  The cleaving to existing objects is upadana. There are two properties
  inherent in all sentient beings, except the rahats :—first, upadana,
  and secondly, karma, literally action, the aggregate result of all
  previous acts, in unbroken succession, from the commencement of
  existence, in the births innumerable that have been received in past
  ages. At death, the five khandas are dissolved. As they no longer
  exist in combination, they can maintain no reciprocity of influence ;
  their mutuality of operation has ceased for ever. But the ^upadana
  still exists, and the karma lives on. The cleaving to existing
  objects, or the breaking up of the khandas, by some unexplained
  instrumentality, produces another being. The upadana cannot but exert
  its power ; another being must necessarily be produced. It is as
  impossible, under ordinary circumstances, to separate reproduction
  from upadana, as it would be to separate heat from fire or solidity
  from the rock ; the one follows as naturally as the other, and all are
  equally mysterious in the manner of their operation. As it is the
  grand tenet of Budhism, that all existence is an evil, it thus becomes
  consistent with right reason to seek the destruction of upadana, which
  alone can secure the reception of nirwana, or the cessation of being.


What are the benefits of practicing Sila?

Just like a house needs a strong foundation to last a long time, one would need sila as the foundation upon which the entire Path is built:

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship." ~~ AN 11.1 ~~


Petty anger is resentment.
From DN33 we are told:

Nine grounds for resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me,’ you harbor resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me’ … ‘They will do wrong to me’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike,’ you harbor resentment.
Nine methods to get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me …’ … ‘They will do wrong to me …’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike …’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike …’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

I can confirm through personal experience that the above does in fact work in everyday life. Memorize and repeat.


Can the elements of Buddhist Cosmology be confirmed?

Buddha's response to such questions has been that whether or not other worlds exist, his teaching is still beneficial if applied in practice.

So, for example, if it is said that acting on an extreme negativity-rooted-in-confusion leads to hell, whether the hell is taken literally as a place you go to or metaphorically as a highly disagreeable state of subjective experience, in either case it is something a sane person would definitely prefer to avoid, and so refraining from acting out one's negativity rooted in confusion should be beneficial in either case.

While I personally lean towards a more "secular" view, I feel that by shifting my focus from the metaphysics ("how things are") and towards soteriological methodology ("how to act towards Bodhi") I can avoid hurtful and non-productive arguments in the public space.


Desperate for help about intent and my fears

"Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone. - Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen."

In Buddhism, it's the intention behind an action that counts. It's the intention that's "kamma-potent" and what causes future effects to take place.

Harming or killing another living being can only happen with an impure mind, i.e. a mind that acts with intentions of anger, hatred, ill-will.

If your intention is wholesome, i.e. based in renunciation, good-will, harmlessness and a sincere and honest wish to help other beings, then only wholesome future resultants will take place.

Please read about "Right Intention (Samma Sankappa)", p. 26 in "The Noble Eightfold Path", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Twin Verses about "Intention", p. 58, in The Illustrated Dhammapada.

  "...I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion..."

Are you in any medical or therapeutical treatment? If not, you might want to see a therapist regarding the OCD.


How to identify a sotapanna (stream enterer)

I have posted this book before, here it is again: Sotapanna Handbook (or available here).

It's a compilation of 50 or so suttas where Buddha mentioned stream-enterer (free from publisher).

Yes, Buddha gave us tools to measure ourselves.  Please notice that there is no tool to measure other people's progress.  Only Buddha had that quality, not even his great disciples ever proclaimed progress in others.

And for reference why one should not judge other's progress (stream-enterer, once returner, etc..) is from Migasala Sutta, Buddha told Ven. Ananda

  "I alone, Ānanda, can measure their measure or one like me."

The reason i feel it should be told because some teachers would proclaim their students to be such and such for some other questionable purpose.

summary of migasala sutta

  Ananda visits Migasālā in her home and is questioned as to why both
  Pūrana and Isidatta, the former of whom was a brahmacārī and the
  latter not, should both have been born in Tusita, as sakadāgāmins.
  Ananda offers no explanation, but consults the Buddha, who declares
  that Migasālā is but a foolish, frail, motherly body with none but
  mother wit; how, then, could she understand the diversity in the
  person of man? (purisa-puggala-paropariyañāna). The Buddha then goes
  on to divide men into six classes according to their capabilities and
  attainments. It is not possible for anyone, save a Tathāgata, to
  measure persons.


How important is the Sixth Precept to monks and nuns?

Here's an alleged quote from the Dalai Lama,

  After my lunch I come here to my office until about 5:30. Then at 6:00 I have my evening tea-as a Buddhist monk, no dinner, sometimes just a few biscuits or some bread. At that time I always watch BBC television. Then evening meditation for about one hour and at 8:30, sleep. Most important meditation! Sleep is the common meditation for everyone-even for birds. The most important meditation. Not for nirvana, but for survival!

In other words he "eats" but doesn't "have dinner".

In this video Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu explained why he prefered to eat once a day.
It's noticeable that both his companions laughed at time 12:15 of this video.


Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect?

In Buddhism, the laws of nature based in cause & effect are said to be fivefold, namely:

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of
natural law, or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results."

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Therefore, kamma is only one example or subset of the "principle of cause & effect", called "idappaccayata".
Per MN 136, the results of the same kamma can vary. Per MN 117, the law of kamma is not any kind of absolute truth or law and is only a general law.
For example, two heedless people may engage in sexual misconduct, by having thoughtless aimless sex outside a clear mutual plan of marriage; where one individual falls in love with the other person and the other person loses interest in the first person due to non-mutual attributes.
The heartbroken individual may suffer for many years while the other person may realise the heedless interaction was sexual misconduct and then attain enlightenment via the abandonment of heedless behaviour.
This shows kamma does not involve any equal and opposite reaction. In the Lonaphala Sutta, it is said the results of kamma for a wise person may be trifling; while for an unwise person the results of the same kamma cause 'rebirth' in hell.
In conclusion, Le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and Newton's third law of motion in physics have zero application to the Buddhist law of kamma because the results of the same kamma for each person will have differing degrees.


In what way(s) does engaging in sexual activity affect meditation practice?

Sensual pleasure is one of the Five Hindrances which are like "canals dissipating the force [awareness/discernment strength] of a river current" as taught by the Buddha in AN 5.51:

"Sensual desire is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms awareness and weakens discernment. Ill will... Sloth & drowsiness... Restlessness & anxiety... Uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms awareness and weakens discernment. These are the five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment. And when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment: for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible."
"Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible."


Nothing i seem to have flipped the switch by getting rid of everything

Yes, you were a monk, but not in one previous life, but in very many previous lives. Through good deeds you did in those and other your previous lives, now you have a good fortune and met Buddha's Teachings.

Now you can practise those teachings and find the true will of your heart this moment. Finding true will of your heart this moment is the highest realization, on which you have worked during many lifetimes, but still you have not mastered it completely in your previous lives. However, there are good chances that you could do that in this present life.

Also, your first life was not as a monk. Before becoming a monk, you lived many lives, doing many deeds, both good and evil. However, when you became a monk, you changed, and an immense amount of your previous bad karma was destroyed through your practice.

Every life you changed, and every moment you continue to change. Don't bother with previous lives: they passed and exist no more. Think of this moment: what is the wish of your heart now?

There was a time I dedicated my life to that cleaning: like a nugget of gold, covered with dirt, was my mind and my behavior. Every moment I tried to be in accordance with the original longing of my heart, keeping efforts to act as gold, not as dirt. With the help of other beings, including you in your previous lives, I was able to realize what the heart wants, and I try to not lose that realization since.

When I remain in that presence of the will of the heart, it gives rise to feelings of easiness and freedom, kindness and purpose.

I wish you the same!


Hmmm that's an interesting take. It's not that feeling bad is bad. That would indeed lead to the vicious circle you describe. It's more like feeling bad is lame. It's like you're starving when your fridge is full. Or you're itching but don't know how to take shower. Or you have cockroaches in the kitchen but don't realize that keeping it clean could solve that. That's the idea.

Per Buddhism, feeling bad is not something we should feel helpless against. Despite life always giving us trouble or even completely failing us in many ways, there are ways to feel good regardless of all that. These Buddhist techniques for feeling good are not fooling oneself, not wearing pink glasses - in fact they are more real than what we're used to call "real".

Having said that, in my experience of having a teenage son (who is now 19) they can sense B.S. from nine miles away, so unless one has really mastered it in one's own life, giving them some fairy-tale explanations is not going to work. But if you have walked the path yourself and know what you're talking about, you can totally help a teenager achieve stability and agency in their own life.


Is there any specific description of life according to Buddhism?

In Buddhism there is the word "dukkha", which has a number of meanings & uses:

(1) "Dukkha vedana", which means "painful feelings".

(2) "Dukkha lakkhana", which means conditioned things are unable to permanently satisfy; or "unsatisfactoriness"

(3) "Dukkha" as "suffering"; i.e., "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".

Every person born in the world must experience 'painful feelings' from hunger, cold, heat, sickness, brokenness of the body, old age, seeing violence & ignorance of humanity. If  a person does not have wisdom when feeling painful feelings, these painful feelings will create sorrow & torment.

Every person born in the world cannot find lasting happiness from conditioned or worldly things. Even rich people become unhappy & bored and must buy new things for pleasure because the old things do not make them happy any more. If  a person does not have wisdom when experiencing the unsatisfactoriness of worldly things, their cravings & dissatisfaction will increase, like the addictions of a drug addict increase, until they die from drug overdose.

Life itself can be "dukkha", that is, difficult to bear, hard to endure, because every person must find food to eat, work & take care of a problematic physical body. This "dukkha" is because of attachment to life as "me" & "mine" or selfishness. If  a person has wisdom when experiencing the challenges of life, they will not view life in terms of "me" & "mine"; therefore they will not suffer. Life is "dukkha" when there is attachment to life in terms of "self".

Therefore, 'life is struggle' because the body gets hungry, hot, cold, sick & broken and ordinary pleasures do not bring lasting happiness. 'Life is like a gold coin' because there is nothing in the gold coin that can guarantee & secure happiness. 'Life is statue of problem and sorrow' because the ignorance of the mind will inevitably lead to problems & sorrow, which is why the world still has many wars, many social problems and why people still sorrow & grieve.

But the 'Holy Life' of the Buddha is not a struggle, not a (deceptive) gold coin and not a problem with sorrow. The Buddha explained Nirvana is undeceptive true happiness (MN 140). Nirvana is experienced when the mind does not have attachment to anything as "I", "me" & "mine".

  His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a
  monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth,
  for this — Nirvana, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.

  MN 140

  This is peace... the calming of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation (of
  suffering), Nibbāna.

  MN 26


Do the gods help us if we pray to them according to Buddhism?

As the common saying goes: "god(s) help those who help themselves", if the gods could help someone, it'd be only in accordance with that individual's wholesome kamma. Someone who kills, cheats, or engages in various misconducts shouldn't expect to get "help" no matter how frequent and sincere s/he prays:

From AN 5.57: "There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, ... death, ...
"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.


In the commentary story of Dhammapada Verse 285, good householder.

Cut off your craving as one plucks an autumn lily with the hand. Nibbana has been expounded on by the Buddha; cultivate that Path which leads to it.

Withering...... old-age, sickness and decay...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape from the wheel]


lady sayadev, saygi u ba khin goenka lineage vipassan

Not sure how Goenka tradition explains it, but Contact(Passa) means the union of form,sense & sense consciousness. That always causes feeling(Vedana) to arise according to Paticca-samuppada(dependant arising).


Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and for what reasons?

Any sect of Buddhism which emphasises the emptiness of all things probably says that there are no existent wholes but some sects would say that there are conventionally existent wholes. In other words, we can only talk about their existence from a conventional perspective.

Here's a nice description which talks about a car's existence and its emptiness

    You're walking through town and you get to a street where you see a car. Is there a car? Sure thing! That's why we look left and right before crossing the street, and it would be dangerous to say that "there is no car" (without further explanation).

    But if we take one car aside and take a closer look, there's no such thing as a car. The windshield isn't it, the wheels aren't it, the chassis isn't it, neither is the engine. What we call a car is just a bundle, a construct not only physically but conceptually.

It's a point which can be difficult to convey. Something is there which will hit you when you cross the street, we call this a car. On the other hand, if we take that car and dismantle it into its pieces we can not find any piece which is the essential car-like-nature.

This is the same as when we look at the self. We can investigate all five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) and there is no inerrant soul or "me" to be found. However, we can still talk about the "me" existing by convention.


How can I make amends with the one I wronged?

The Kamma has been laid down.

Now there's no use in scruples over the past.

The best and the most constructive thing to do I think is make a commitment to never repeat acts of callousness and actually fulfil it.

It is possible to mitigate acquired new bad Kamma, counterbalance it as it were, by development of wholesome qualities such as good will, cheerfulness and compassion.


How do I practice ' see things as they are'?

In my understanding of the explanations I received:

As many Buddhist concepts, "seeing things as they are" is a pointer to something happening in real life, but not necessarily in a sense we assume. Its meaning is more practical than strictly technical.

Most of the time we are "in our heads". We have so many preconceptions, thoughts, and inner chatter going on, that we can barely see what's going on in the real world. Instead, our vision is limited by our thoughts and preconceptions to such a degree that we barely notice things outside of our frame of reference. We tend to ignore them for two reasons: either

A) in our frame of mind they are not cohesive phenomena, they seem illogical (because we don't understand their inner logic) - and so we tend to ignore them as noise, or

B) they go against our emotional attachment to some sort of theory or ideology, and so we semi-subconsciously dismiss them as fake / illusory / insignificant.

When we learn to suspend our judgement and lay aside our attachments and preconceptions (this is what Mahayana's realization of Emptiness entails in practice), and stop our never-ending inner-monologue, and lose solidity of this heap of overgeneralizations we call "ego" -- then and only then we start seeing things "as they are".

In my experience with it, this vision liberated from preconceptions can be allegorically called "quantum" or "multidimensional". Because we are not limited to one theory and one interpretation of what's going on, we see them all, or rather, we directly see the entire "space of interpretations". There is an element of ambiguity, but it's not regular ambiguity which is hazy vision - instead it is a very clear kind of ambiguity.

It's a very practical, very direct kind of vision. We are simply not in our heads, are eyes are open and we really look around, and see things we have not seen before.

This is the critical point of the explanation.

And then on top of that, as we develop prajna, we begin to "see" "hidden connections" between things. These are not as much some magic properties as abstract relationships of (latent) influence and causation.

Combination of this "quantum" vision and seeing the latent influences is called "seeing things as they are" - in my understanding.


This is the way my teachers have explained it:

The Buddha is like a Doctor on who we rely to correctly diagnose our condition and to prescribe a treatment.
The Dharma is like the actual medicine and is thus referred to the supreme jewel or true jewel.
The Sangha is like the nurses who aid us in our treatment and recovery.

Just as we take refuge in our Doctors, Medications and Nurses when we become sick just so we should take refuge in the Buddhas, Dharma, and Sangha to shelter us from the sicknesses of samsara.

That said, the Dharma jewel is considered the Supreme Jewel because it is the actual antidote to our suffering. And we must choose to take our medication. The Buddha cannot force us to take our medicine nor can the Sangha. We must choose to listen to the Doctor's advice and take the actual antidote and listen to the Nurses as they help us take the medicine and recover.


How does the path according to Sheng-yen compare with scholastic Buddhism?

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?

Sheng-yen taught Chan which is a synonym for Zen meaning something like meditative mind. This is comparable to meditative absorption in Theravada.
Juxtaposing how the two traditions fragment their understanding of those states is a little tricky, because Theravada shreds the meditative absorptions into miniscule details even going as far as detailing step-by-step the precise instructions needed to attain meditative absorption. Not my forte, but the Theravadins seems to like it!
Chan on the other hand takes on a more natural and organic approach. Flexibility, suppleness and malleability come to mind. In my view, this approach is much more in-keeping with suchness. There is little to no emphasis on moving through the jhanas and the arupa ayatanas. The exertion to reach those states is generally seen as a hindrance. The aim - if we can call it an aim - is that Zen realises meditative absorption in every waking moment; it is not seen as a practice confined to a zafu cushion which is more favoured in Theravada.
I know this doesn't answer your question, but instead points out how it is difficult to level the two schools such that they meet harmoniously.


Satipathanna sutta in audio English (long version)

I guess this is what you are looking for


How to part with potentially harmful possessions

[Angulimala:] "At long last a greatly revered great seer  for my sake
has come to the great forest. Having heard your verse in line with the
Dhamma, I will go about having abandoned evil."
So saying, the bandit hurled his sword & weapons    over a cliff    into
a chasm,
a pit. Then the bandit paid homage to the feet of the One Well-gone, and right there requested the Going-forth.
The Awakened One, the compassionate great seer, the teacher of the
world, along with its devas, said to him then:    "Come, bhikkhu." That
in itself was bhikkhuhood for him.
Angulimala Sutta


Difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana

The two terms are not exactly synonymous although their context of usage is synonymous since both terms are associated with "seeing" ("passa") the same true reality.

'Yathā bhūta' means "true nature", as is found in AN 11.2, namely: 'yathā (true) bhūta (nature) jānāmi (know) passāmi (see)*'

"Vipassana" means "clear seeing" (namely, the Four Noble Truths, the true nature of suffering & peace; & the Three Characteristics, the true nature of conditioned things).


The SN 54.3 linked is not a "simple version". The link is merely abbreviated because the 16 stages are listed in previous suttas.

If per SN 47.20, mindfulness is keeping the mind on the task, since the body breathes automatically via its own nature, how can breathing be a ‘task’ to keep the mind on? There can be no such thing as mindfulness ‘of’ breathing.

As for Sujato’s translation of “letting go”, this is the 16th step. Letting go of the 16th step is a result of 13th step experiencing impermanence. The simultaneous knowing of breathing occurs in the background.

The Pali here is paṭinissaggā. When impermanence & not-self is clearly experienced at 13th step, the 16th step is paṭinissaggā, which means to give up viewing anything as self. Ajahn Buddhadasa translates it as throwing or tossing back.

Paṭinissaggā above is the final step of practice. However, the type of letting go that serves as the initial step of practice is called vossagga. MN 118 at the end says each factor of enlightenment matures as vossagga. SN 48.9 & 10 say jhana is reached by making  vossagga the meditation object.

Vossagga is letting go of craving & ambition. This is the supramundane meditation object or task of mindfulness.

If you try to focus on the breathing, the progress will be very limited. The focus is on vossagga. The task is vossagga. Mindfulness is mindful of vossagga.

When there is mindfulness of vossagga, the knowing of the breathing will occur automatically, without an act of will (AN 11.2). This is why anapanasati means mindfulness with breathing.


Bikkhu bodhi issues a video mentioning precisely the topic of discussion

Anguttara Nikaya: Duka Nipāta, The Book of the Two (2018.07.07) Bhikkhu Bodhi

Sutta 77-

I do not recall at what time he talks about that. But his answer is that the kamma of somebody who does not feel shame of doing bad things as exposed by the buddha is worse than the karma of the guy who feels shame for the same acts.

This answer leads to the conclusion that dangerous are the people who claim that the feeling of shame must be avoided once you follow the path, and that other people who follow the path must not judge other followers.


Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī (“Great Compassion Mantra”) One of the most popular Mantra in China

Most popular current philosophical movement in China is Falun Gong; they've been cracking down on it. The leader contacted me once... was quite insistent and sure he was "god" I've met another male calling himself god and once a female saying she was god too; the female also identified herself later also as the devil... Eh whatever nice to meet you now go take your medication like you're supposed too.
My favorite movement in China is Wing Chun; used to be a female only martial art then men got involved and it became Tai Chi... Same basic thing these days.
The best cure for Buddhism is just sitting; make sure sitting never stops and you'll be doing it right... breathing can stop, world can stop, everything can else stop... Just don't let sitting cease to be sitting. Before or After that Laying down and standing order doesn't matter.
There probably some wisdom or calmness to be found in what you posted... too many people shopping around chasing mind which is the inexhaustible 7th jhana it is the target audience of the poison arrow sutta... it hits the heart of the matter.
My advice to cure that is to go to one's original practice what got them started on whatever path... see it to the end. Make a firm resolve to do so same as Gotama: I'm gonna sit under this tree and see who dies or achieves enlightenment first.
Doubt however is good... always keep some doubt it builds humility otherwise you might start introducing yourself to other people as god.


You should not be teaching your parents Buddhism. It is forbidden in Buddhism to teach others Buddhism; unless the other people request to be taught (AN 9.5).

You should not be practising "zombie mindfulness" in sight of your parents because this will freak them out. As a Buddhist, your practise is to not cause harm or distress to others. In your parent's home, when with others, you should act naturally and normally.

Apart from this, there is nothing stopping you from meditating in private and also practising right speech, right action & right livelihood in public.

Buddhism (DN 31) says your parents have the duty to train you for a profession, i.e., ensure you receive an education. Your Buddhism should not interfere with your schooling and education.


Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins?

Neither You nor Anyone else.

It is not you, because you are dying and reborning with very very short time period all the time we live in Sansara. It is not anyone else because the result taker is a anyway a  part of the series of dying and reborning cycle.

To understand this you have to understand components of a creature.

maximum number of components that a creature can have are two. They are body and mind.
minimum number of components that a creature can have is one. That is mind.(Aruupa Brahmas)
(So now at that moment you must realize that there is no soul to a creature.)

In descriptive Abhidhamma, mind is categorized to 4 components as  Vedanā,  Saṃjñā, Saṅkhāra,  Vijñāna.

This image shows the components of the creature without considering time.

Mind is continues flow of born, existence, dying of Naama (Mindlet). mindlet or Naama is the smallest sub component of the mind. 17 mindlets make a mindlet group called Ruupa.

This image shows how Naamas are born, exist and die with transmitting energy to the next Naama.

This image shows the time intervals of one Naama. Naama's born time=exist time= dying time= t1.
 Time interval between Dead Naama and Born start of Naama = t2. So at that very little time there is no visible mind. At that moment only body is exist. This is the thing called as anathma/anatta.

There can be one mindlet in the mind at once.
For a time of blink, trillions of mindlets born, exist and die (So one Naama exist less than nanoseconds).
If creature consists of body and mind combination, it must be considered both to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
If creature consists of only mind , it must be considered mind to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
When consider a wheel, engine, chase individually cannot be called as CAR. Likewise, body or mind (When both are there) individually cannot be called as me or I.
This rapid born, existance and deth of Naama can be seen in high meditation levels of vidhardhana meditation.
Now you realize there is no soul or thing that can be called as me because even before a person say me or I there are trillions of born, existence, dying of Naama.
When someone do a Karma, karma is completed in one Ruupa (consecutive 17 Naamas).
After doing the karma that Ruupa is dead. but energy transmitted to next Ruupas.
If creature made karma those Ruupas are dead at 17 Naama's time. So the creature did the karma is dead with Ruupa (But Body didn't dead so actual dead is not visible).
When Karma get punished at proper time the creature's body also can be dead.
When body dies we call it as real death.
When Karma get punished the Ruupas did the karma is dead and body also can be dead.
Karma is also get punished to Ruupas. Ruupas feels the senses according to the Karma.
When Karma is get punished, punished Ruupas are not the Ruupas that done the Karma but Those Ruupas are generated from the same stream of Naama cycle. So Load Buddha have said that the Punished person is Neither You nor Anyone else.


Is the seer and seen different? Example i saw tree . tree and "me" are different? Or tree and "me" are same?

It is the people who rely on the commentaries, like [REMOVED BY A MODERATOR], who talk a lot about  ''doer''
They say that being enlightened is when there is no doer, instead there is ''pure action'' or ''pure phenomena''.

for instance Mahasi quotes this

  Thus one realizes that feeling itself is what feels the plea- sure
  associated with pleasant sense objects and so on. We con- ventionally
  say with regard to the appearance of feeling, “I feel.” 512 In order
  to point out that there is no doer apart from actual phe- nomena, the
  commentary says that feeling itself is what feels. 513

https://wisdomexperience.org/academy/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Manual-of-Insight-for-Course.pdf

The pali word they use is ''Karaka atta'' http://www.abhidhamma.com/Mahasi_anatta.pdf

you have to read all their texts to know what they say about ''a doer''.
Their obsession with the doer comes from their lack of understanding the baya sutta, where they cram their view of lack of doer, instead of lack of craving, because the popular view is that ''people suffer because they judge, so when they do not judge they do not suffer'', and ''phenomenologically'' it would mean that there is no subject-object, ie no doer, but only phenomena .

If you want a sutta talking about doer (or lack of doer) there is this

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

  “I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do
  you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”[3]

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4]
  clearly discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. [5]

  “What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ...
  is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of
  steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is
  there an element of endeavoring?” [10]

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

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

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

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

Bikkhu sujato translate attakāro as ''one's volition''


Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?

Ugga, a rich layman, said in a sutta of the aṭṭhaka-nipātā (AN 8.22):

  With confident heart I paid homage to the Buddha. The Buddha taught me step by step
   (anupubbikakathā), with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. And when he knew that my mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, joyful, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in me: ‘Everything(suffering) which  is arise by the origins(samudaya), has an end.’ I saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. I went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. Right there I went for refuge to the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha. And I undertook the five training rules with celibacy as the fifth. This is the second incredible and amazing quality found in me.

After listening anupubbīkathā ("step by step"), some listeners can enlighten dhammacakkhuṃ ("dhamma eye"), i.e. from the Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2):

  So King Ajatasattu, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's words, rose from his seat, bowed down to him, and — after circumambulating him — left. Not long after King Ajatasattu had left, the Blessed One addressed the monks: "The king is wounded, monks. The king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat."

You can find more results by yourself by researching the words dhammacakkhu and anupubbika.

There are many places like that in the tipitaka: so the Buddha did exactly teach the four noble truths to the lay.

The required questions are:

What is anupubbīkathā?
Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to a lay?
Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as many partitions?
Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

 1. What is anupubbīkathā?

Anupubbīkatha:

In pāli canons, it is the sequential teaching or teaching step-by-step. It can be a story or history. See the search results from tipitaka and atthakathā.
In tipitaka context, it is a single-time teaching of the
entire instructional sequence. It is the very long sutta which
describes a buddhist practitioner's procedure, for example:

The single-time teaching of Nidhikaṇḍaṃ (Kp 8) (with some commentary)
Plus Uposathasuttaṃ (AN 3.70) (with some commentary)
Plus Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2) (with some commentary).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

 2. Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to lay?

Buddha taught anupubbikathā to everyone, not only lay, because every practitioner must practice step by step. No one can practice without sequence like a fog -- see Kīṭāgirisutta (MN 70, number 238):

  Mendicants, I don’t say that enlightenment is achieved right away.

However for a newbie lay who is genius,  buddha taught him from the beginning step to the end in single time -- such as single-time teaching of Kp 8 plus AN 3.70 plus DN 2 (as referenced above).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

That's why we can't find the single sutta of anupubbīkathā, in tipitaka context, or even in atthakathā as well. So, in atthakathā comment of anupubbīkathā:

  Anupubbīkathā is sequence of teaching and commentary of dāna subjects then sīla subjects then heaven subjects then practitioner's procedure.

But the buddha and teacher taught a shorter and more complex sutta to the insider lay man and lay woman (upāsaka and upāsikā), because they have enough ability and knowledge to learn the higher level, e.g. Dānasutta (AN 7.49). You can see that sutta is shorter and more complex, included only charity and the Path. It is anupubbīkathā, but it is not the meaning of "anupubbīkathā" word in the context like AN 8.22.

 3. Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as may partitions?

The first saṅgāyanā monks chose "anupubbikathā" words to avoid the over long of sutta. Because most lay people at that time didn't have much knowledge for enlightenment, the buddha had to teach them very long suttas (maybe longer than a DN sutta) and mix many contents to let them enlighten as sotāpanna, or trust to dhamma. So, if the first saṅgāyanā monks didn't separate it to be many smaller sutta, it would have been too long and unable to study by oral recitation.

The evidence from netti vicayahārasampāta:

  Herein, the Lord Buddha advises one of keen faculties with advice in brief; the Lord Buddha advises one of medium faculties with advice in brief and detail; the Lord Buddha advises one of blunt faculties with advice in detail.

 4. Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

Because they are misunderstanding of anupubbikathā. And they don't know how to read teaching as four noble truth, because they never memorize Nettipakarana, or never attained any professional knowledge, ñāṇa, from tipitaka-memorizer and jhānalābhī school, such as Pa-Auk.

Every noble one must enlightened four noble truth, but it is not every ordinary people can discover the noble truth from tipitaka. People who can understand the noble truth from tipitaka must deconflict every uncleared word of tipitaka. This is not feasible for people who can't memorize tipitaka pali and netti, because it needs nirutti-paṭisambhidā to deconflict the whole tipitaka.

For the example from VN Mahāvagga by assachi arahanta to sāriputta, who enlightened as sotāpanna:

  Ye dhammā  hetupabhavā (dukkha)          tesaṃ hetuṃ (samudaya) tathāgato āha
  tesañca yo nirodho (nirodha&magga)           evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo.

  ‘Those things(suffering) which proceed from a cause,  of these the Truthfinder
  has told the cause(origin), And that which is their stopping (cessation&path)— the great
  recluse has such a doctrine.’”

Or in Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ, which king Ajātasattu almost enlightened as sotāpanna, it is included vipassanāñaṇa part (brief dukkha), pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa+cutūpapātañāṇa (extended dukkha), āsavakkhayañāṇa (samudaya+nirodha), and all practitioner's procedures in this sutta are magga.

All above is the example of how to read the noble truth in tipitaka.