The Patimokkha Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, on pages 49 through 50, uses the word "or" (not "and"):

  Blanket exemptions. In addition to bhikkhus who do not know they are
  being assaulted or do not give their consent when they do know, the Vibhanga
  states that there are four special categories of bhikkhus exempted from a penalty
  under this rule: any bhikkhu who is insane, possessed by spirits, delirious with
  pain, or the first offender(s) (in this case, Ven. Sudinna and the bhikkhu with the
  monkey) whose actions prompted the Buddha to formulate the rule. The
  Commentary defines as insane anyone who “goes about in an unseemly way,
  with deranged perceptions, having cast away all sense of shame and
  50
  compunction, not knowing whether he has transgressed major or minor training
  rules.” It recognizes this as a medical condition, which it blames on the bile. A
  bhikkhu under the influence of a severe psychosis-inducing drug would
  apparently fall under this exemption, but one under the influence of a more
  common intoxicant would not. As for spirit possession, the Commentary says
  that this can happen either when spirits frighten one or when, by distracting one
  with sensory images, they insert their hands into one’s heart by way of one’s
  mouth (!). Whatever the cause, it notes that insane and possessed bhikkhus are
  exempt from penalties they incur only when their perceptions are deranged
  (“when their mindfulness is entirely forgotten and they don’t know what fire,
  gold, excrement, and sandalwood are”) and not from any they incur during their
  lucid moments. As for a bhikkhu delirious with pain, he is exempt from penalties
  he incurs only during periods when the pain is so great that he does not know
  what he is doing.

  These four categories are exempted from penalties under nearly all of the
  rules, although the first offender for each rule is exempted only for the one time
  he acted in such a way as to provoke the Buddha into formulating the rule. I will
  only rarely mention these categories again, and—except where expressly stated
  otherwise—the reader should bear them in mind as exempt in every case.

So I read that as saying that any one of the conditions is reason for it's being a non-offence; and that the only condition for exemption that's only applicable once is being a first offender.

On page 29 it says,

  If any of these factors is missing, the penalty changes. For instance, object: If
  the bhikkhu kills a dog, the penalty is a pacittiya. Perception: If he cremates a
  friend, thinking that the friend is dead, then even if the friend is actually alive but
  severely comatose, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. Intention: If he accidentally
  drops a rock on a person standing below him, he incurs no penalty even if the
  person dies. Effort: If he sees a person fall into the river but makes no effort to
  save the person, he incurs no penalty even if the person drowns. Result: If he
  tries to kill a person, but only succeeds in injuring him, he incurs a thullaccaya.

Pages 76 though 78 (which I won't quote here in full) discuss intention w.r.t. killing; briefly:

  The non-offense clauses state that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who acts
  unintentionally, not knowing, or without aiming at death. In the Vinita-vatthu,
  unintentionally is used to describe cases in which a bhikkhu acts accidentally, such
  as dropping a poorly held stone, brick, or adze; removing a pestle from a shelf
  and accidentally knocking off another one. Not knowing is used in cases in which
  the bhikkhu deliberately does an action but without knowing that his action
  could cause death. An example would be giving food to a friend not knowing
  that it is poisoned. Not aiming at death is used in cases where the bhikkhu
  deliberately does an action but does not intend that action to result in death.
  Relevant examples include trying to help a bhikkhu who is choking on food by
  slapping him on the back and inadvertently causing his death; telling a bhikkhu
  to stand on a piece of scaffolding while helping with construction work, only to
  see the scaffolding collapse; describing the joys of heaven to an audience, only to
  have a member of the audience decide to commit suicide in hopes of going there.

  Thus, to fulfill the factor of intention here, a bhikkhu must be acting
  intentionally, knowingly, and aiming at death.

Page 78 suggests that acting when aware of danger might or might not count as intentional:

  In discussing the topic of pitfalls, the Commentary also treats the issue of
  how much of an intention counts when setting up a situation that might cause
  death. Specifically, it asks whether—while one is digging a hole for another
  purpose—a passing thought that “this hole could kill anyone who fell into it”
  would fulfil the factor of intention under this rule, or whether this factor would
  be fulfilled only if the original purpose for digging the hole was to cause death.
  The Commentary notes that opinions are divided on this point, but it sides with
  the latter position.


Why did Buddha put so much emphasis on no-self?

You're speaking of the self as if it is real. Only when you know it is not does the benefit of knowing otherwise become real. Being told the self is unreal will be of no help to you except as a clue. The idea is most definitely not to pretend anything.

You say 'Even if we do assume....' It would be an error to assume anything, and of no use at all. When you see beyond the self you wont be asking about the benefits but marveling at them. The theory is practically useless, the reality is all that counts.

You say everyone understands that no-self is truth but this is far from being the case. Even you seem to be questioning it. I'd guess 1 in 500 would be an optimistic estimate of how may people think non-self is truth, and those who know are even thinner on the ground. Most people wouldn't know what you're talking about.

The 'theory' of no-self is not designed to help us. It's not designed at all. It's just what is the case. It is not a theory for those who know but just the way things are.


Compassion vs the invisible hand and capitalism

I think it is clear that Buddhism does not concern itself with capitalism, or any other economic “ism,” except to the extent that one should occupy oneself with a “right livelihood.”
And I want to point out that modern ‘capitalism’ bears little resemblance to Adam Smith’s use of the word. He had nothing good to say about corporations, and his use of the term “free trade” referred, not to to the ‘right’ of multinational corporations to move their capital freely around the world in search of cheaper labor pools, but rather to the right of each individual to freely move about to ply their trade. This is clearly not the case today.
Modern capitalism cannot survive without captive labor, who necessarily suffer, in order to keep costs as low as possible. This—modern corporatist capitalism—is not “right livelihood” in Buddhist terms, but people today are stuck within a system that is oblivious to the needs of the majority of people, spiritual or economic, or even sustainable in any sense. Capital can move on, after destroying an area, impoverishing the captive populations. Thus, we face the continuing crisis of global ecocide for ‘profit’.
The only “invisible hand” evident in today’s economy is one that pops out to sweep whatever is on the table into some private pocket. Quant-trading firms are only the most recent and efficient example of this, in the financial trading markets.
Compassion towards all sentient beings is more than an “ideal” in Buddhism, it is the path to accomplishing everything else, including our survival as a species.

Update to the OP’s update:
I’d like to correct some of your assertions. I am doing this because you are making assumptions about the Buddha and Buddhism as if they operated under the same understanding as economists, which is not the case.
The Buddha does not ”empathize with” anything. The Buddha manifests what is known as “Great Responsiveness” (Mahakaruna), which is often translated as “great compassion.” It is different though, than the compassion that unrealized humans can manifest, as it is not a feeling of compassion towards the suffering of others.
It is, instead, a mode of being in which all actions are directed spontaneously towards the benefit of all beings in each context (moment). This does not exclude the one manifesting the responsiveness, but includes all, thus it is not altruism—in its normal sense—either. (By that I mean that in Buddhism, “selfless” (Anatta) means something totally different than “selfless” in economic theory.)
Thus, when the Buddha taught, for example, his answers were always slightly different, just as his questioners’ understanding was always slightly different, and just as yours and mine are slightly different. This difference in teachings was not something planned, they arose spontaneously. I want to emphasize that because it is so different from the world we believe we live in, unless you happen to be an engineer who has to deal with the stochastic nature of electronic components on a micro-scale, where the spontaneity is something one has to always design for.
So, think of Mahakaruna as the great Market in the sky, making sure everyone involved goes home comfortable with what transpired, only really, and not just in some abstract, in the best-of-all-worlds, kind of academic hypothesis. Because, while Smith could assert “that following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic) results” he could never prove such a thing, and our experience to date is strongly indicative that no such thing is true.
I’d also like to point out that Smith’s “recipe” is only simple if you exclude the monetary system, banking system, communications technology, shipping capabilities and the infrastructure all that needs, storage facilities, corporate transnational legal structures, blah, blah.
In short, Smith’s “recipe” is only simple because all of the hard work has already been done. Unfortunately, it all got sold at a steep discount by corrupt politicians to greedy—as opposed to just ”self-interested”—people, who have undermined the proposed elegance and positive benefits of such a system, in order to aggrandize their own wealth, no matter how destructive (i.e. costs foisted off on the public) their activities are.
It may be true that communism and socialism (not the same things in theory, just in historical practice) have failed, but corporate capitalism is in the end months of ecocidal destruction of the world.
And whatever corporate capitalism actually is, it is lightyears away from anything Smith ever envisioned—but more to your question, it is anathema to what the Buddha taught.


Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem?

If you want an abhidhamma answer, you have to speak in abhidhamma terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a sutta statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a sutta action.
lobha and dosa cannot arise in the same citta, certainly. They are mutually exclusive cetasika that arise in the javana cittas of the process of a single experience, and all of the javanas in any given thought process are said to be the same, since they arise from the same votthapana citta.

Only one type of citta runs for all seven occasions of the javana process.
-- Bhikkhu Bodhi, Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p. 157

One act - of wishing for pain to go away, for example - may contain many such processes, each one with javana of different makeup.  So, in wishing for pain to go away, there are probably multiple consecutive lobha, dosa, and moha cittas - though all unwholesome cittas contain moha.


What are the Buddhist teachings on how best to live a married life?

The Access to Insight website has a number of related translations and essays;
Suttas

How to ensure that you'll be with your spouse in future lives: AN 4.55
Spouses' duties to each other: DN 31

Essays

"A Single Mind" (Fuang)
A Happy Married Life: A Buddhist Perspective (Dhammananda)
Nothing Higher to Live For (Nyanasobhano)
Buddhism and Sex (Walshe)

It all seems to boil down to "be ethical". Although on the other hand ideally one would not get married, but would take up celibacy and reject family life. For example in the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta the Buddha says:

so tena saddhāpaṭilābhena samannāgato iti paṭisañcikkhati — ‘sambādho gharāvāso rajopatho, abbhokāso pabbajjā. nayidaṃ sukaraṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasatā ekantaparipuṇṇaṃ ekantaparisuddhaṃ saṅkhalikhitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carituṃ. [MN 27; i.179
And having become possessed of faith [from hearing the dhamma] he thinks: household life is crowed and dirty; having gone forth one is wide open. It is not easy to live the religious life, so perfect and pure like a polished shell, while living in a home.

In short the best way to do marriage, is not to do it all, but to dedicate yourself to practising the Dharma.
This question is similar to a previous one:
What does a traditional Buddhist wedding look like?


Is there such a thing as craving for enlightenment and would it be unwholesome?

A strong craving (Taṇhā) for enlightenment would not get you there as it is unwholesome.

You need some desire or motivation (Chanda) to get to enlightenment. But when you get there this desire is also no more. Say you want to go to the park you need some desire to get there. When you are there you no longer have the desire to go there.

Craving for enlightenment would be unwholesome, the intention to achieve enlightenment would be wholesome.


If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching?

I'm not sure that "immediately effective" is a good translation -- may be misleading.

The Pali word is akaliko i.e. "without time" which I'd guess might have a range of meanings ...

"Timeless" -- i.e. not limited to a specific time ... maybe "eternally" true
"Immediate" (not "immediately effective") -- i.e. "relevant to" or "applicable" or "practicable" now
Continual or continuous

... as well as "without delay". When you translate you have to pick to pick one translation (e.g. "immediately effective"), which may not convey the whole range.

See also What is Sat-Dharma?

Also he translated -- and I don't mean to criticise, but I don't know why he did it -- as "immediately effective" something that's maybe two (separate) adjectives in the original: i.e. "immediate" and "effective".

For example, see here ...

  Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:

  sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  visible here and now, immediate,

  ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  inviting to come and see, effective,

  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

... where "immediate" and "effective" are two separate words (akāliko and opaneyyiko), though the dictionary also gives "immediate result" as one of the meanings of akāliko.

Also maybe "immediately effective" is correct -- if it's understand as, "successful practice has a present effect".

That might lead to a "No true Scotsman" argument (e.g. "If it's not immediately effective then you're not practising it correctly"), but anyway.

If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori?

Perhaps not.

For example I read The Radio Amateur's Handbook when I was child -- that book explains how to build various radios, and starts with the "basics" -- an explanation of electronic components and the behaviours of electromagnetic radiation. I think the lessons in the book were "true", but I didn't/couldn't understand most of it when I read it -- I understood a bit more when I read it the second time, and a bit more again the third time.

So I don't think it's sensible to "discard" lessons, which we're told are true and useful, just because we don't understand them immediately.

That said I do tend to classify lessons into "useful" and "not useful", and a lesson that I don't [yet] understand might be not [yet] useful for me -- not that it's false, just that I'm not yet sure how to use it.

So bits of Dhamma which I don't understand, I tend to put "on the shelf" -- perhaps I don't understand how to use it, but I don't want to discard it either.

Also I think that a lot of the doctrine is meant to be practised, practical. If it's like other "practices", it's something that people ("students") become better or more skilled at, as a result of practice. If you view it like that, then you might prefer not to say, "If I can't practice it immediately -- do it perfectly without effort, without practice, without mistakes -- then it isn't 'timeless' and I can discard it."

How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false?

I think we were supposed to use the four great references to determine whether something is the Buddha's doctrine.


What is Right Action for a Buddhist regarding talking about personal success?

I would suggest that it depends on how you relate to the success, your attitude to it. Relating an experience can be beneficial to the recipient in many cases, both in terms of use as a teaching and possibly of merit as you mention. In terms of telling about a successful experience as a teaching, this can be related to the Udayi Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, on how to teach the Dhamma.

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching."

Interpreting personal success as in the interest of self promotion is not helpful in terms of the teaching - so again it comes back to the attitude towards what is told. If for the benefit of the recipient (in terms of the Path), it could certainly be helpful.

Mudita as a divine abiding is a wholesome state, and allowing mudita to arise in oneself and others by sharing a success experience would be beneficial. However, modesty and humility are beneficial traits to acquire, especially for those of us who have not entered the stream. For most of us, sharing success stories is more about self inflation than for the benefit of others, even though sometimes on a subtle level.

So this answer is 'it depends' - and hopefully the five guidelines above can be of help, when deciding whether to convey a success story, and how to.

(edit: A few notes on Right Action and Right Speech, since they're mentioned in the question)

Right Action

The question refers to Right Action - samma kammanto in Pali - which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Specifically, Right Action refers to action that is in accordance with three of the five precepts - namely abstaining from the taking of a life (i.e. not killing any living being), abstaining from taking what is not given (i.e. not stealing), and abstaining from sensual (or sexual) misconduct. I do not interpret sharing a success as related to Right Action. However, in communication, Right Speech may be more relevant.

Right Speech

As translated on ATI:

  "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

This may be helpful in deciding what to say, when to say it, and whether to say something at all:

  "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which
  five?

  "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken
  affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of
  good-will."

With metta.


Your meditation method cannot to be too comfortable, nor too uncomfortable, that is why people mostly choose to sit in half or full lotus with straight back so they don't slouch and sloth. Be careful not to slouch, keep back upright, work on posture and correct it.

Question 1:

  Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too
  lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping
  sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes
  unclear.

Sustain, but gentle mindfulness or awareness, I wouldn't say alertness as it implies stress as in fight or flight type of thing. Note that you are feeling lethargic. Do not stop, note that mind becomes unclear. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue. It is generally to be mindful of it just to the extent of eating, or waking up (both in meditation and daily life)

  Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts in full awareness when
  going forward and returning; who acts in full awareness when looking
  ahead and looking away; who acts in full awareness when flexing and
  extending his limbs; who acts in full awareness when wearing his robes
  and carrying his outer robe and bowl; who acts in full awareness when
  eating, drinking, consuming food, and tasting; who acts in full
  awareness when defecating and urinating; who acts in full awareness
  when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking,
  and keeping silent. 9. “In this way he abides contemplating the body
  as a body internally, externally, and both internally and externally …
  And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That
  too is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body

Question 2:

  Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's
  meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words,
  waiting for the mind to clear up.

Engage, yet gently noting haziness and confusion, lack of clarity. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue.

On mental hindrances, such as:

Sensual Desire
Ill-will
Sloth and Torpor
Restlessness and Remorse
Doubt

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Bonus: "Is there such a thing as bad meditation?":


Why is there so little emphasis on "mundane" mindfulness?

What gives? Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?

The Buddha's Teaching is about ending suffering completely, ie. to reach Nibbana. Sure there are mundane benefits but that is not really the goal of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth is.


What is The Prediction as defined by the Mahayana tradition?

A "prediction" is a statement made by an enlightened person, originally a previous Buddha, or, in Mahayana tradition, an enlightened master, that guarantees its object eventual attainment of enlightenment in a subsequent existence.


Is sky burial ritual inhumane and if not what is the reason for doing it?

Upasaka Swapnil, interested,

It's a still practiced way in the high cold mountains, with also practical aspects, since such as fire-wood for burning is raw and soil might be frozen. Next to that it serves good for Asubha-meditation for yogies and monks.

Nothing generally wrong with such and not inhuman but not beloved by those attached to body as the Self and Subha.

Good to watch for everyone to get more detached to rupa: Sky Burial: Tibetan Burial Ritual (video on YouTube)

(Note that it has not been given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to use it skillful as means out of this wheel)


Anger is eradicated at the 3rd stage(Anagami) of enlightenment. Lord Buddha is fully enlightened. It is impossible to make him or any other being who has reached or passed the stage of Anagami, angry.


How should somebody who has developed samadhi verify that rebirth occurs after death?

Go into a very deep samadhi. Very deep.

When in that very deep samadhi, make a subtle mental formation arise. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the mental formation, awareness comes to be. That very same awareness is consciousness. Within it is the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

Let the mental formation cease by going back to deep samadhi.

Notice how with the ceasing of the mental formation, awareness goes away. That very same going away of the awareness is death. Within it is the absence of the subtle sense that feels the mental formation.

The way to get additional insight about this is to go into a very deep samadhi and arise a VERY pleasant mental formation. Observe.

Notice how with the arising of the VERY pleasant mental formation, awareness comes to be. Within it is the attachment/craving for that pleasant mental formation. As long as craving/attachment is present, the mental formation is there and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. That very same pleasure is "being alive".

Now, don't let the VERY pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it to maintain it. Crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will cease by itself. When it ceases, as long as there is craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation, the feeling is unpleasant and awareness is present. That very same unpleasant feeling is "fear of death". The cessation of that very same unpleasant feeling is "death".

Now, don't let the craving/attachment for that pleasant mental formation to cease, but crave for it! Really crave for it! Want it! Sooner or later the pleasant mental formation will arise by itself. When it arises, as long as there is craving/attachment, there is also the pleasant mental formation and the feeling is pleasant and awareness is present. This very same pleasure is "being alive".

The wisdom you'll gain by experiencing the above is that awareness consists of many little formations arising and ceasing with high frequency, thus making it seem that consciousness is steady and pleasant. In individuals who don't practice the dhamma, there are so many of these formations, that even if you shut off all your body senses (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind), they would still be arising and ceasing. These formations can be dependent on your body or independent of the body. Impossible is to know exactly. They can come from deep within you. It's like a spider web that has no ends. It's these formations that condition other formations until the center of the web is created: your physical body.

With the death of the body awareness ceases similar to going into a deep samadhi, and craving/attachment "fear of death" is present ... this very same craving/attachment responds/reacts to the many little formations, thus creating new formations and rises the awareness because of the many new formations until a new body is created.

This must be experienced. It's the only way to verify that rebirth occurs after death.

Once you get the above insight, it's simple to follow a logical conclusion:

By wishing/acting/deciding/doing we're doing activities that create formations.

By activities we create subtle senses and come into existence. Then, because of our further activities, we create the senses of our body (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) and we're born.

By gaining knowledge we are changing our current activities and creating new activites.

When we're changing our current activities and creating new ones, we're also changing our first activities that we acted upon that propelled us into this existence.

With the dead of the body our activities on the surface (eye, nose, tongue, ear, body, mind) are destroyed. And what remains? The primary activities that are changed.

Because these primary activities are changed, after death we will come into a new existence that will be changed too.

Thus, there is no death. There is just the changing of awareness from one existence to the other due to activities. This process is constantly happening ... even now in this very same moment. It will happen as long as craving/attachment is present.

Then, the logical way to continue the path towards the ultimate would be: When craving/attachment stops, all activities stop and suffering stops. Thus, the next step is to stop craving/attachment.


As a fellow 'Mahayana' practitioner, I share your great respect for Theravadin buddhism and appreciate your sensitivity to the polemical origins of the term 'Mahayana' (I've used it many times myself, hopefully without causing offense; but try not to ever use the term 'Hinayana'). Because the term 'Mahayana'covers an extraordinary diversity of paths, you may want to just name your specific  tradition if the implication of this general term troubles you.

Another possible approach: 'bodhisattva-yana' is sometimes suggested as a general substitute term. In historical terms (according to Buswell's Encyclopedia of Buddhism), it apparently refers to a development in India that preceded Mahayana. However, it seems that for practical purposes, referring to yourself as a follower of the bodhisattva way would give fellow practitioners in any school of buddhism enough context to understand where you were coming from, without any derogatory implications.


Was Buddhism during the life of the Buddha unique in the history of religion per Huston Smith?

To remedy this apparent discontinuity, I think it is wise to look at how the Buddha taught and what methods we proposed to attaining peace. If he were to propose a viewpoint that focused on the pragmatic path and not the esoteric, that would leave one to believe that there is no points at odds. That is not to say that there is not a Buddhist phenomenology or ontology, but that the Buddha did not propose the investigation as a proper means of attainment.

Regarding the Sutta mentioned by Andrew Skilton:

  Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess."

  Comy.: "He may stay alive completing the life span pertaining to men at the given time. (Sub. Comy.: the maximum life span.) Kappavasesa: 'in excess' (atireka), i.e., more or less above the hundred years said to be the normally highest life expectation."

  Among the numerous meanings of the word kappa, there is, in fact, that of time in general (kala) and not only the duration of an aeon; but the meaning "life span" seems to have been ascribed to it only in this passage. Also, the meaning "in excess" for avasesa (usually "remainder") is unusual.

  The four constituents of psychic power (iddhipada) are concentration due to zeal, energy, purity of mind, and investigation.

Access to Insight note on Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Now, let us look at how the Buddha taught and the overall focus of the teachings.

In the Alagaddūpama Sutta  (MN 22) the Buddha discusses views and will help in the search for your answer. It is much too long to summarize in the post, but it provides an underpinnings of the pragmatic aspects

The Dīghanakha Sutta is another sutta we can look at to see how the Buddha viewed esoteric fixed views:

  “There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. On the occasion when one feels a pleasant feeling, one does not feel either a painful feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a pleasant feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a painful feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling. One feels only a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling on that occasion.

  “A pleasant feeling is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing.

Here we see that the Buddha, focused on what we perceive rather than views about what we perceive. Earlier in the sutta, he discusses some Brahmans view with respect to please: All is pleasing to me, All is not pleasing to me, and 'A part of me is pleasing; a part of me is not pleasing'. The focus here is not a categorical answer of what is and is not pleasure, but how we relate to the pleasure and the nature of the pleasure.

  “Kassapa, the statement, ‘With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pleasure & pain are self-made’: This circles around eternalism [see Appendix Two]. And the statement, ‘With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling’: This circles around annihilationism. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Acela Sutta

The point I'm trying to make is that the Buddha was very thoughtful in how and why he answered questions. He focused on what led to the end of suffering, which was not focusing on the esoteric teachings (in most cases). We see time and time again that he speaks in terms of suffering and the cessation of suffering. Thus I conclude, that there is no disconnect between the two.

This is not a direct answer persay, but I hope this can spur further discussion

References:

Skill in Question: How the Buddha Taught by Thanissaro Bhikku

Buddhist Romanticism by Thanissaro Bhikku


Is there any online serious community of Dhamma practitioners to join?

Facebook: Friday Night Study Group with Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu

Meditation group:
https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/login


What is the oldest text/sutra of the Mahayana tradition?

The oldest existing manuscript clearly identified as Mahāyāna is a birch bark manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sutra or Discourse on Perfect Wisdom consisting of 8000 [Lines]. This manuscript was carbon dated to  47~147 CE. A version of this text was translated into Chinese in 179 CE by Lokakṣema and was amongst the first few Buddhist texts translated into Chinese.

However it's clear that some texts were being composed at quite an early period, perhaps as early as the 2nd Century BCE. One contender for the earliest Mahāyāna text is the Ugraparipṛccha, translated by Jan Nattier as A Few Good Men (2003). It shows a very early stage of Mahāyāna in which monks who dedicated themselves to meditation were known as bodhisatvas and lived alongside Mainstream monks.

Another serious contender is the Śālistamba Sūtra (translation published by N Ross Reat, 1993), which is clearly a little more developed than early Buddhist texts, but not yet a full-blown Mahāyāna text. It may well be considered a kind of "missing link" between the two phases of Buddhism. According to N. Ross Reat, the sutra could date as far back as 200 BCE.

Recently there were two very good articles on the very early Mahāyāna by David Drewes. See his academica.edu page "Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism" Parts I & II.


You know that feeling when you like/love something or someone so much that you feel the pull, you want to have it, you have this sense of string attached to your stomach pulling you to the object you're fond of?

That's what the word "kama" stands for. It's the pulling aspect of love, the "I like what you're doing to me and therefore I want you".

Metta/Maytri has a different meaning. You know, when you are in love with someone, you like everything about them: the way they look, walk, talk, eat - anything. And even their bad habits and mistakes look cute, because you accept the complete person, it is absolute 100% unconditional acceptance. So the word metta stands for this kind of acceptance or tolerance, when you take the person as he or she is, without judgement, without shame for them, you just take them exactly as they are.

So in Buddhism this desire to have someone ("love") is recognized as a problem. While unconditional acceptance ("love") of everyone, including oneself, is a virtue to be cultivated.


Householders, what if just taking A Safe Bet?


I believe I have done bad things in a past life can I fix my curse that causes people to turn against me what kind of Karma is this?

On the contrary, the fact that you came to this site, or even thought about Buddhism and karma means you actually inherited some very good karma from the past lives.
Having dreams about being chased by police means you have some guilt on your mind. Only you can tell what it is, but you must know - and it must be something obvious to you, it always works that way. If you just stop and look at it, you will see it.
People turning against you could mean one of two things: either you are saying careless things or you are in a wrong place. The only way to fix that is to be always real: true to yourself and true to others (without being either harsh or careless, it not easy but can be done).
In short, never regret that you were born. You have the same right to be here as these trees and stars, and just like they don't have to be something else to deserve to be here - you don't need to be someone else to deserve a place in the universe. If you can be always real, honest, and kind, things will work out fine.


How does human will fit with Pratītyasamutpāda?

You have asked a very good question, I remembered if correctly it's in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment Maitreya Bodhisattva asked similar question: 以幻修幻 - how can if phenomenal world is illusory construct and the "I" is also illusory that a practitioner realize the Ultimate Truth? I remember the Buddha answered 以幻修真 - using the illusory to rid the illusion, as if using a wedge to get out another wedge stuck in the hole. Therefore, I think to give some help of your inquiry is to think of: your volition is to get over ignorance by choosing actions of not ignorant... You find that the action that is not ignorant is still an ignorant action... so on and so forth. Until you finally know the action that is not ignorant, that you are enlightened. It could be a long practice, or it could be a sudden realization. A bit like someone doing a difficult math equation, volition discerns the answers are not correct, over and over, that the working out incorrect answers are the footings to finally have the correct answer. Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately. The Sutra has very good analogy full of wisdom far better than I presented here, I just recalled to make an answer in convenience. I hope I didn't misunderstand your question, and I'm not quite familiar with the terms and the Suttas mentioned in the OP.


Are philosophers today misunderstanding 'emptiness' because of a new metaphysics?

Many people in general misunderstand the terminology the Buddha used, including Buddhists & even translators. If these people misunderstand the terminology then what is to be expected of Western philosophers?

About 'being', the Pali scriptures report the Buddha discussed this word at length. For example, in the core doctrine of Dependent Origination, the notion of 'beings' is central to the meaning of the word 'birth' ('jati').

  And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group of beings based on the appearance ('look'; 'features') of aggregates & appropriation of the sense spheres, that is called birth.

The word 'being' ('satta') refers to an internally generated 'view' of 'self' or 'persons' (see Satta Sutta & Vajira Sutta below).

Although 'beings' in these suttas is described as a mental state or mental view, most Buddhists & people regard 'beings' meta-physically, i.e., as an organism.

Similarly, most people & Buddhists regard the word 'birth' ('jati') meta-physically, rather than the meaning in the Indian languages of 'social & self identity' (see Wiki).

As for 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), it is defined as the absence of "self".

In Pali Buddhism, 'being' & 'emptiness' are opposite things however both can exist in the human experience; 'being' arising from ignorance & emptiness discerned by enlightened clear seeing.

Most crucially, the Buddha was not a philosopher but, instead, a 'Spiritual Doctor'. The Buddha had only one sole concern, namely, the ending or curing of suffering.

For the Buddha, the arising of 'being', i.e., the arising of 'ego' or 'self', is the arising of suffering. For example, a new born child has no idea of 'self' but later develops ideas of 'myself' based on cravings for things (such as food, comfort, love, pleasures, etc). These cravings are sufferings thus the manifestation of 'being' is always from the manifestation of suffering (refer to Vajira Sutta below).

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perceptions, mental fabrications &/or consciousness, Radha: when one
  is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  Satta Sutta

~~~

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

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

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

  Vajira Sutta

~~~

  And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into
  an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness
  mind-release.

  Mahavedalla Sutta

~~~

  Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.

  And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
  or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
  Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

  The ear is empty...

  The nose is empty...

  The tongue is empty...

  The body is empty...

  The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
  of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that
  the world is empty."

  Suñña Sutta


Metta phrases about safety in ancient and modern times

I don't know if I'm missing something but it sounds like you want to be partial to just the people that you know, the people who are in your area or you think we live in some kind of  utopia for some reason.

I mean, it doesn't sound like you are talking about all of us on Earth 2018.

Have you heard what's going on in  Myanmar lately? No physical injury there to receive your metta? What about  Detroit Michigan? Did you hear how North Korea feeds it's defecting soldiers or punishes it's prisoners? Have you heard what's going on in Afghanistan? Have you heard of the rising threat of World War 3 breaking out? What about all the drought and starvation going on in 3rd world countries? What about all the rioting? What about all the hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, tidal waves and earthquakes? What about global warming?

Besides, people are injured all the time no matter how free the medical benefits are or how advanced the technology is.

Although, with today's medical technology a company has cured hepatitis C...if you can afford $100,000-$300,000. In the USA there is no free health care for all so just having no money can result in unnecessary suffering, death & injury.

What about the physical injury danger police officers, firemen and soldiers go through?

Aren't  prison inmates, gang members, drug dealers, alcoholics, drug abusers, intravenous drug abusers and prostitutes all at high risk for physical injury?

What about football players, race car drivers, stunt doubles and fraternity pledges?

Are you sure we are more safe than the time of the Visuddhimagga?

Even if it is true that  physical injury happens less now, why would physically injury be any less relevant?

Remember also the world's population is far greater than ancient times. Doesn't that make far more people to potentially get physically injured?

I would send metta concerning both physical and mental injury safety.

May all beings be safe from physical injury.

May all beings be safe from mental injury.

-Metta


Is it helpful, how is it possible, to deal with anger by 'accepting' it with equanimity?

In Buddhism, there are many methods to deal with anger.
The method of accepting anger is a method of 'non-conflict'. By fully acknowledging & accepting anger in an open way, you can develop some objectivity towards & independence from the anger (in that it will not control your behaviour) and, importantly, give anger the space to subside.
The method I personally prefer & the method most used by the Buddha before his enlightenment was to wisely reflect (think about) the harm & dangers of anger; in how anger can harm yourself & harm others.
If you are often habitually & uncontrollably angry:
(1) You feel bad about yourself (afterwards).
(2) You become tense & can harm the health of your body & mind.
(3) People may dislike, fear or avoid you.
(4) Important relationships can be harmed, broken & lost.
(5) You can lose your job (employment) & develop a bad reputation.
The scriptures state:

As I abided...a thought of ill will (anger) arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of anger has arisen in me. This leads to my own
affliction (harm), to others’ affliction and to the affliction of
both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties (vexation) and leads
away from peace.‘ When I considered thus…it subsided in me. Whenever a
thought of anger arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away
with it.
Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly
tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check
and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged,
imprisoned, fined or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So
too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation and defilement...
Two Kinds of Thought

If you use the wise reflection method, it is important to focus on the anger rather than on 'yourself'. You must think: "This anger is harmful" (rather than "I am harmful").
The Buddha did not teach the 'self' or 'I' is the ultimate cause of problems & suffering. The Buddha taught 'ignorance' or 'not-knowing' is the ultimate cause of problems.
Therefore, we think/reflect: "Anger is bad & harmful" (and not "I am bad & harmful").


A long time ago in Sri Lanka the Sangha began to divide itself into two sort of specialties of Monks. There were city Monks who lived in monasteries inside the cities and villages, and they specialized in the study of texts and doing ceremonial functions while the forest Monks lived either in monasteries outside of settlements or they wandered from place to place. Such forest monks specialized in meditation. Over time distinct customs grew up with these two specializations, so for example in Thailand, city Monks (with the exception of the Dhammayut monks) wear bright yellow or orange robes while forest monks always wear brown or ochre colored robes.

Over time these customs evolved further, so for example in Thailand for a long time forest Monks also became specialists in using special chants and other kinds of things that are usually thought of as magic.

In the case of Thailand at least the revival came partly as the result of a reform movement that was founded by King Rama IV when he was a monk that focused on improving the standards of the Vinaya. When this movement grew to include forest monks, this reform movement created a lot of dedicated monks who wanted to live the forest monk lifestyle in a much more meditative role rather than the semi-shamanistic role that the forest monks had slipped into, and that became the foundation of what is now the Thai forest tradition today.

In Sri Lanka the revival had a lot to do with the rising sense of anti-colonial sentiment towards the British who controlled Sri Lanka at the time, with Buddhism growing again as a response to Christian missionaries. This Buddhist pushback started when the Monk Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera began putting out pamphlets refuting Christian missionary literature, and this gave way to a series of debates which culminated in the city of Panadura, and it was the Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera who won the series of debates.

This sparked the Buddhist revival movement and it was at that point the Theosophical society lent support, and meditation became more common as serious study of texts became more common.

As for Burma, I think the meditative side of revival there is largely the result of the Ledi Sayadaw's influence. He was a major scholar (In Burma, scholar monks are usually more influential) who learned meditation from someone (no one really knows who) from the hills in the Sagaing region, and he popularized that style of meditation through his teaching and scholarly writings.


UUU (btw. good to use simply given and more comfortable to use such names, it gives the questioner and answerer more seriousity, who would sacrify normaly to a UUU and have not certain discomfort with it?) and who ever also seriously interested, here in short but selfexpanding if going deeper, answers to the single questions:

Did the Buddha teach some measure of "Engaged Buddhism", to maybe more of a lay person audience?

In regard of being a perfect disciple, he praised people who teach and also act according the Dhamma most. But one is also fine in just carrying about himself, since the Buddha knew that circumstances and possibilities of being are different and had no illusion of creating a "good" and peaceful Samsara.

  Sikkha Sutta: Trainings

  This sutta is one of a series explaining AN 4.95, which rates individuals of four types. The lowest is the one who doesn't practice for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. Higher than this is the person who doesn't practice for his own benefit, but does practice for the benefit of others. Higher still is the person who practices for his own benefit, but not for the benefit of others. Highest of all is the person who practices both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others. Thus, as explained in this sutta, it is best if you not only follow the precepts but can also get others to follow them as well.

In regard to a layman's relations he gave advice to be secure in all directions: Sigala- sutta, The Layperson's Code of Discipline

In regard of community duties and engagements, he set out rules only for the Sangha of Monks and mostly very voluntary to take on. Most is a matter of duties in relation between teacher and disciples: Cv 8: Vatta Khandaka — Collection of Duties but even in teaching Dhamma by monks the prefix "I a monk wishes..." is always present, so it was of most interest for him, that people strive for their own liberation also for monks. Yet not to speak of his non-encouragement in getting additional burdened for laypeople how have already enought duties out of their dependency and dealing in society by themselves.

Did the Buddha ever teach "Engaged Buddhism" to the Bhikkhus?

No at all, not in the way it is generally understood.  A Bhikkhu is not asked to help in any way with outwardly things but more over, out of good reason, limited and "discouraged" to help in usually wordily ways, since it would make the path for liberation invisible for many in that way.

Making a living provide a favor for supporter in giving wordily help and assistance like sadly many popular monks do, the Buddha called "animal art" and such is a heavy offence and corruption. How ever, in some cases Bhikkhus are allowed to give also help in frame of food, cloth, shelter and medicine if having or ask for such, but that is restricted to people like father and mother or people near the Sangha and training. (See also under politic and taking side below.)

Even in regard of being engaged in helping by teaching the Dhamma, there are cases where the Buddha called those who have not gained something lasting for themselves, called Bikkhus "worthless monk" to provoke to do the real desk fist: The Story of Thera Potthila

He encouraged sometimes disciples of him, who have reached at minimum Streamwinning, e.g. Noble Ones, to teach the Dhamma for release of engagement, liberation, if willing and able. A encouragement given to his disciples who have all already gained path and fruits or even liberation, which is often "misused" by so called "Dammaduta"-monks, monks who teach or even missionaries engaged in improper ways putting often Vinaya on the second place for doing so.

He also mentioned that it is good to approach and rebuke sectarians from time to time, like the householder Anathapindika once did and of course always praised the gift of Dhamma.

Not and nowhere it will ever accrue as a duty to "rescue" others, at least because it's not possible. Those with less dust in the eyes how ever, have all possibilities to follow and receive support.

What Buddhist scriptures support Engaged Buddhist teachings?

Some, or better most, take certain rebirth stories as indirect encouragement, but the Buddha did not teach to follow his non-perfect history but provided the best way for one self and all others with the engagement in the Noble Eightfold path.
All scripts supporting such are later and defiled developments of those not seeing benefit of ending engagement in a wheel of causing suffering for one self and all others.

Is it proper for a Bhikkhu to be political in anyway in the world or in the monastery?

Not at all. It's either corruption, meaning that one maintains his livelihood and supporters with such and taking side, a heavy offence: Saṅghādisesa 13, or it is simlpy strong wrong view of a Bhikkhu, not understanding the aim and purpose of the holly life. Everybody is goid advised a avoid political involved monks and those monks taking on side, which ever side it might be. Such a person, a person with wrong view, is no admirable friend or teacher for a good and also not a place for having much benefit of ones gifts.

Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism?

Yes, he likes you to be full engaged in the best you can do for you self and all other being, in accessing and walking the Noble Eightful Path with your actions in mind, speech and bodily deeds and he does not like you to just talk about it and think how it would be but to put it into action as your whole life's purpose if ever possible and willing to do something beneficial for your self and all others.

Having abounded engagement but fully being engaged in his path, you become a real hero and not another fool not seeing the arrow placed in the own heart.

If having additional question, feel being given to ask also here, since it allows more independence of engagement in the world and its aims.

Since this a good lesson for those with eyes and the strong impermanence of comments, Atma likes to add a short discussion from another good and proper answer in words.

  Maybe worthy to add the "duties" of engagement of them: The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways: (i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good, (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state. http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara_en.html if liking to add
  – Samana Johann 2 hours ago
  You have read this teaching incorrectly. The teachings states: "thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder ". In other words, the householder first shows faith in the monk. I have no faith in you, for example, therefore it is sinful & a transgression of you to try to teach me. Regards
  – Dhammadhatu 2 hours ago
  Not sinful & transgressing Dhammaduta and good that you understood the teaching rightly, but called dukkhata and so not encouraged by the Buddha for his disciples to engage and of course it bears the danger of making disrespect in regard of the three juwels usual. So it seems two worlds, that of right and wrong view do not easy come together if not making sacrify at first place in faith. And as told, it's for the sake of those able to be healed that those who are lost also receive Dhamma. May it be an emergency hint.
  – Samana Johann 14 mins ago
  It's all a good sample for many think about "engaged Buddhism" here, so Atma hopes you can provide enough generosity to do not delete the more subtil teachings for low wordily sake as Dhammadhatu usually does, calling it "emptiness. Mudita in advanced.
  – Samana Johann 9 mins ago
  "Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done." Ditthi Sutta: Views Some sad "good that the teacher(s) are gone, now we can do as we like", some others simply knew that they had receiced a lot of goodness and walked without correcting the lost on in the foodsteps of gratitude.
  – Samana Johann 4 mins ago

At the end, as a person who actually gave up all wealth, pleasure and gain to sacrifice all gifts to engage for the welfare of the "poor", meaning not only talk around, likes to share a usual proof of the Buddha before he gave leave to monks desiring getting dhammically engaged, usually not expected to live further for a long: Punna Sutta: An Punna (Puñña, one having merits)

So when you are really already in the position of Punna, and really able to bear all this and able to live exclusively on the goodness of others without calling for rights and demanding this or that: Go on and sacrifice that what you have righteously made to your own and share the accumulations you have gained being really your on and gifts. Be a great field of merits in this world so empty of possibilities for many.

Anumodana!

You may find a maybe extended version as well as given space for discussion and further question, dedicated for the Sangha and their follower her. Fell given with strings only pulling torward Nibbana:

[Q&A] Did the Buddha teach Engaged Buddhism?

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.
There might be parts that have been edited by others. The fact of not reconstructing it does not mean to approve such by the author if not mentioned in a visible way. Sadhu for editing spellings and layout, Nyom Chris.)


Goal of liberation in yoga/meditation - Isn't it Boring?

In Buddhism, Nibbana refers to liberation from suffering (dukkha). It is also referred to as the highest bliss (nibbanam paramam sukham) in Dhp 204. The word sukha is translated in this context as bliss, but in other contexts, also as happiness.

Boredom is a type of suffering. An enlightened person is free from this type of suffering too.

We have 3 types of feelings - pleasant feelings (usually associated with sensual enjoyment), painful feelings (usually associated with aversion) and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings (usually associated with boredom and confusion). Feelings here include forms with eyes, sound with ears, odor with nose, taste with tongue, touch with body and ideas with mind.

When an unenlightened person experiences neither-pleasant-nor-painful (or neutral) feelings, he may experience boredom. But when an enlightened person experiences neutral feelings, he experiences bliss.

So, is unending happiness or bliss a source of boredom? Not for the enlightened one.

What causes boredom?

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings (tanha) would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction. No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction.

The first noble truth states that there is suffering.

The second noble truth states that the cause of suffering is craving. This includes the suffering of boredom too.

The third noble truth states that with the cessation of craving, comes the cessation of suffering. This includes the cessation of boredom too.

The fourth noble truth shows the path to end suffering, which is the noble eightfold path.

This answer may also be helpful.


Anapanasati - are the 16 considered progressive sequence of steps?

Try not to overthink it. There is a clear path of progressive steps or progress, yes, but for each meditator it varies somewhat as they each have varied conditions. We don't control what arises, so we can't expect to watch it unfold like a textbook.

The stages or steps occur naturally, without us having to force or think about it, as long as you are doing the one basic thing correctly: observe with wise attention whatever arises, without judgement.

You'll notice each grouping of steps follows a pattern of prescriptive action - this pattern of treatment is the important thing. Apply this pattern to whatever arises, and the Path will unfold before you, eventually without "effort". At first we start with the coarse, and naturally go sublter and subtler as our minds get more still and concentrated. The next thing to contemplate will be waiting for you, and arise on its own. Don't try to seek out an expected experience. Just observe whatever it is as it arises, watch it as it disappears, relaxed, without clinging. Its shockingly simple when it finally clicks. No need to wonder if you're at stage 13 or should I now contemplate the next thing on the to-do list or anything like that, that will just stir your mind up.

The breath is simply our home base, something we can always return to if we wander. Sticking with the breath trains our focus, trains our concentration, trains our resistance, trains us to not cling or push away. It is important to remember that the training of these skills are the key, not what object you use.

Master the method, and the Royal Road to Nibbana will appear. Good luck. May we all become truly free.


What are the texts which say or imply what the Buddha looked like?

The Marks of a Great Man
Lakkhaṇasutta

===========

The Buddha said this:
Bhagavā etadavoca:

“There are thirty-two marks of a great man. A great man who possesses these has only two possible destinies, no other.
“Dvattiṃsimāni, bhikkhave, mahāpurisassa mahāpurisalakkhaṇāni, yehi samannāgatassa mahāpurisassa dveva gatiyo bhavanti anaññā.

https://suttacentral.net/dn30/en/sujato

Further discussion.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=28550&hilit=Buddha+look+like


Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible?

I don't understand the question. I just try to help. I write this answer by my guess the question's meaning.

The past (vanished) moment does not "upload" anything to the moment which it affects. It just causes its effect to arise. However, the effects are able to arise as the same habit, e.g. same object and same feeling, because of Upanissaya Paccaya.

The vanished moment is hypochondria. It cannot pass or upload anything to the future, although it still is able to cause new moment effects.

For example, I can smile when I thinking of my dead sister however she vanished and doesn't upload anything to me, she just causes me to smile.


The traditional Mahayana formula is that "Samsara is Nirvana". This is explained in depth in Madhyamaka literature. Here is one quote from Jay Garfield commentary on his translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

  It is [possible] to grasp after nirvana – to reify it as a state and to crave it as a phenomenon inherently different from samsara and as highly desirable since it is indeed characterized as liberation from suffering. But this grasping onto the end of grasping is itself a grasping and so precludes the attainment of nirvana. Nirvana requires, according to Nagarjuna, a complete cessation of grasping, including that onto nirvana itself. While that might seem paradoxical, it is not: To grasp onto something in this sense requires, inter alia, that one reify it. By refusing to reify liberation, in virtue of seeing it as the correlative of bondage, which itself is not inherently existent, it is possible to pursue the path to liberation without creating at the same time a huge obstacle on that path – the root delusion with regard to nirvana itself.

And from Master Dogen's Genjokoan:

  When everything is buddha-dharma, there are Samsara and Nirvana, Path, birth and death, Buddhas and sentient beings. When myriad things are without self, there is no Samsara, no Nirvana, no Buddha, no sentient beings, no birth and no death.


The first thing to resolving your confusion is to understand what Madhyamakas mean when they start talking about "absolute truth" vs regular ordinary truth. And in these contexts Madhyamakas regard "absolute truth" as that which is arrived at when you go looking for the absolute i.e., when you start analyzing with logic and reason what is the absolute nature of things. It doesn't matter if the things you are looking for are persons, chariots, chairs, headaches, etc. If you take any of these things and then ask the questions, "What is the absolute nature of these things? How do these things exist? How do they arise? How do they cease?" and try to find answers by analyzing using logic and reason, whatever conclusion you come to about these questions after thorough analysis, that is what is regarded as the absolute truth. Absolute truth and Ultimate truth here refer to the same thing.
This is the procedure that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and the Madhyamaka sages layout in their famous treatises and commentaries. They begin with a thing and ask how does it arise? How does it come into being? How does it cease? And then the claim is made (using logic and reason) that if these things truly arise, then they must arise in one of four ways:

They could arise from self
They could arise from other
They could arise from self+other
They could arise from neither

Those four exhaust all the possible ways in which something could truly arise. Then they look at each of these four ways and ponder if any of them are sufficient and make logical sense. When analyzing thoroughly with logic and reason it is found that NONE of those four work out. They all lead to some logical fallacy, inconsistency, circular reasoning or absurdity. The result of looking for the absolute truth in how these things truly arise is nothing. They do not arise in any of those four ways, yet those four ways exhaust the ways in which things can truly arise. When you analyze thoroughly how things arise you come up empty.
It is this very fact, that you come up empty when trying to analyze how things truly exist with logic and reason, that is then labeled: "the absolute truth."

Now, some people grow very upset with this. They look at the above and say, "if that is true then nothing exists!" which is nihilism. It simply isn't true that nothing exists. But that truth, that things exist, is a conventional one and not an absolute one. When you go looking for the absolute truth about how things exist you find nothing.

There is conventional truth. Which is not based on logic and
reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover the absolute
nature of things.
There is the absolute/ultimate truth. This is what you arrive at when using
logic and reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover
the absolute nature of things. And the result is empty. None of the
four ways in which things might truly exist can be found.

These are the two truths.
Let me know if this helps! If you wish I can provide references and citations from Sutra, Nagarjuna's treatise and the commentaries. Let me know if you want any of these things or if they would be helpful.

"Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the "absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?"
Now to apply the above to your question. According to the absolute truth when one of these Mahayana Buddhists, who has realized the absolute nature of things, perceives the headache they understand that that headache does not truly exist. They realize this because they have gone looking, again and again, for a truly existing headache using logic and reason and have come up empty again and again. They have analyzed it to exhaustion looking for a truly existent headache and can not find one. It exists merely by convention and being labeled. There is no truly existing headache that can be found. Which isn't to say the headache does not exist. It exists conventionally. That is all.


Why did Tsongkhapa list guru devotion first in his Lamrim while Atisha did not?

Very good question. This is a quote by Lama Zopa Rinpoche that seems to cover this point.

  Lama Tsongkhapa asked Manjushri, “What is the way to achieve quick
  realizations of the path to enlightenment?” Manjushri answered, “To
  purify the mind of the obstacles to realizations and to collect the
  necessary conditions, the merit, to collect extensive merit, that’s
  one thing. The other one is one-pointedly making requests to the
  guru,” that means with devotion. The third one is meditating on the
  path.

Thus it may have been under Manjushri's guidance that Je Tsongkhapa adopted this order.

You are of course right about the order in which the Lamrim points are presented is different in the various Lamrims. While Jowo Je Atisha used Bodhichitta as the first step on the path, Gampopa in his "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" begins with Buddha Nature. While Patrul Rinpoche begins "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" with the precious human life.

Atisha begins his Lamrim after explaining the three scopes with the following verse:

For these excellent beings
Who aspire to supreme enlightenment,
I shall explain the perfect method
Taught by my spiritual masters.

Thus the Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment is primarily addressed to Mahayana practitioners and thus generating the Spirit of Enlightenment is the first step he presents.

Gampopa has a very interesting presentation in "Jewel Ornament of Liberation". Buddha Nature is the primary cause, the precious human life is the working basis while reliance on a spiritual master is the contributory cause.

Patrul Rinpoche's combines 'Reliance on a Spiritual Master' together with generating the spirit of enlightenment and development of Bodhichitta. One of my teachers has explained that the above are three levels of refuge and Patrul Rinpoche uses it as the preliminaries before the introduction of Mahamudra, Chod and Transference teachings.

Since the Lamrim Chenmo is a sutric text it does not go into the tantra except towards the end where Je Tsongkhapa mentions that the disciple has to practice the teachings of the Vajrayana before undertaking the four methods of gathering disciples. However the Vajrayana is a part of the entire path and thus from Je Tsongkhapa's point of view the preliminaries should include guru devotion.

This is explained further in Panchen Chyoki Gyaltsen's 'Easy Path' where each section is divided into the preliminary, the actual meditation session and time in between sessions. This format is adopted by Kyabje Pabonka Rinpoche as well in 'Liberation in you Hands'. In the preliminary, is the primary practice of Guru Yoga and supplication which helps you understand the meditation topic better.

Thus in the Gelug Lamrims following Tsongkhapa the importance on the Reliance on the Spiritual Master being the root of the path is emphasised. This can be best explained by the benefits of relying upon a spiritual master as found in the Precious Master's Instructions Outline to the Lamrim.

The eight benefits of relying on spiritual masters:
* Coming closer to achieving Buddhahood
* Pleasing all conquerors
* Being invulnerable to demons and misleading friends
* The automatic reduction of disturbing mental factors and incorrect behaviour
* The increase of all grounds, paths and realisations
* Never being deprived of a teacher in all future lives
* Not falling into lower rebirths
* Effortlessly achieving all temporary and ultimate goals


What happens to my body when I breathe out?

There are a few mental cultivation techniques which involve breathing. E.g. there is Paranayama which pre-dates Buddhism. Here you do try to regulate the breath.

In Anapana there is no regulation of the breath. Hence you do not breath out and try to rain in that state. (It is also suggested that one breathes out and remains in this state for a moment, to feel the emptiness.) During the natural cause of calming the breath (bodily fabrications) your breath becomes calm and stops. You should not force it through actively focusing on the breath (without your mind wavering to other subjects) helps towards this.

Breathing does have feeling associated feelings tied to the body.

expansion and contraction
oxygenating feeling / pertaining the corporal structure - when you are a reasonable level of tranquillity with all other bodily feelings subsiding, the bodily feeling in the in breath is slightly different from the feeling you have on the out breath. / 4 elements.
contact / touch - feelings and / or 4 elements

In addition your breath becomes shallow and stops after a while as you go deeper into meditation. This happens when you calm the bodily fabrications (relaxing the bodily function) as the breath is the body conditioner. Relaxation of your breath through focus on the breath and breath alone relaxes your body and vice versa. The way to calm the body is to look at all bodily sensation scanning from head to the toes and back again with no reaction to the sensations. This progressively changes the sensation until you get Piti followed by Passadhi followed by Samadhi (The Upanisā Sutta, The Das’uttara Sutta, etc.). This also calms you breath.

Physiological is that breath meditation:

calms your breath if you practice correctly
calms your body and releases tension if you practice correctly
makes your bodily feelings more pleasant and tranquil


What are "Supernatural mental abilities" in relation to Buddhism?

The question is slightly broad and asks about several different facets.  I'm going to focus on "Do monks or others actively practice them?"  The answer to this is "yes, some do."

There are a variety of beliefs and practices in a wide array of different Buddhist traditions which could be considered to be "Supernatural" in some way, shape, or form. They could also be considered wholly "natural" depending on your point of view of the mechanics behind what is happening.

There are practices such as tummo which have received some amount of study that allow for increasing the core body temperature.  This may or may not count as "supernatural" but it would certainly seem that way to an outside observer with no experience in the practice.

There is a belief among some practitioners of certain sects that there is a literal rainbow body phenomena wherein the body releases light and, sometimes, shrinks (my source on this is a conversation with a monk, if someone knows of something written down I'd be interested).  It is believed that this can be attained through the practice of dzogchen.

Information on belief in various forms of an "energy body" or "subtle body" are everywhere in various Buddhist traditions.

There's a practice called dream yoga which includes something that could very well be considered "astral travel," though it is notoriously difficult to take a classification system derived from one system and apply it to another, so whether you count it as "astral," "illusory," or "supernatural" or just something related to what others call that may be tricky. These practices certainly have been used historically for divination (as described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche), among other purposes.

This isn't even getting into the phenomena of emanations and other such beliefs.

Basically: There are certainly beliefs and practices, engaged in by both monks and non-monks, that can be interpreted this way.


The negative affects on studies and overcoming them:

Distraction when you study means you cannot learn something properly - meditation can help keep focus.
Memory may lapse if you are scatter-brained - when doing exams you might not be able to recall something. Focus by meditation will help you remember things.
Time spent on studies - by pursuing other pleasure activities you lose time for studies. Meditation helps by taming your senses so you can study more.


Where can one find guidance from a teacher next year in 2018?

Best and proper way is to approach and ask personal, after having spend a good time next him and have observed his virtues, Nyom Lowbrown.

It's in dependency of assossiation with admirable friends, that one gaines right view. Of course the condition to meet such is a matter of upanissayapaccayena (strong condition causes) and not possible to buy and demand.

So keep always in mind: Better to Give than to Consume. Having not the right attitude and behaviour, one, like many and most, would just meet poor business in Dhamma and Juwel-thieves of many kinds.

People who are really into Dhamma have neither dates nor calenders, but always open doors for those seeing them and having the condition to enter. For those always right in front and near. Someone demand, consume... no way to meet, enter and learn, or being haunted by spirits when enter without a clean and honest mind.

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


Is the attempt to understand others a form of value judgement?

This is one of the interesting aspects of Buddhism, that in its ideal form it doesn't allow prejudice (valid or otherwise) to interfere with the teaching. The Buddha taught people of all sorts, good and bad.

"Brethren, the omniscient Buddha whose wisdom is vast, ready, swift, sharp, crushing heretical doctrines, after having converted, by the power of his own knowledge, the Brahmins Kūṭadanta and the rest, the ascetics Sabhiya and the rest, the thieves Aṅgulimāla &c., the yakkhas Āḷavaka &c., the gods Sakka and the rest, and the Brahmins Baka &c., made them humble, and ordained a vast multitude as ascetics and established them in the fruition of the paths of sanctification."
-- Jāt 542 (Cowell, trans)

The only distinction he seems to have made when deciding who to teach is between worthwhile and pointless.

Now the Blessed One thought: 'To whom shall I preach the doctrine first? Who will understand this doctrine easily?'
Mv 1.6 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Since Buddhism teaches the overcoming of partiality, the first thing one should accomplish when trying to come to terms with other people's behaviour is to free oneself from sadness or anger at the bad deeds of others.

Whether that venerable one dwells in the Sangha or alone, while some there are well behaved and some are ill behaved and some there teach a group, while some here are seen concerned about material things and some are unsullied by material things, still that venerable one does not despise anyone because of that.
-- MN 47 (Bodhi, trans)

Having said and quoted all this, on to your questions:
1. Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional?
There is no reason to single out such behaviours. But the question of whether one should ever attempt to understand the behaviours of others is more interesting. The goal of Buddhism is ostensibly the attainment of freedom from suffering. Insofar as understanding the behaviours of others leads to freedom from suffering, it should be pursued.
Certainly, understanding others is considered useful in understanding oneself; it is also useful in helping others to understand themselves, as you can then provide advice and point out (tactfully) facets the other person may be missing about their situation.
2. If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual?
Buddhism doesn't recognize the existence of an individual in ultimate reality. Hence, taking the present for what it is. This helps immensely in interpersonal relations, as one need not bear grudges or prejudge others based on their past. Since beings are fluid and dynamic, the best way to approach others is with an open mind, ready to take them at face value in the present moment.
3. If i did understand, is it a form of value judgement?
In Buddhism, we tend to think more in terms of partiality than judgement. Judging whether something is good or evil can be wisdom based; partiality is always based on delusion (or more directly, one of four: desire, anger, delusion, or fear - the four agati). So, understanding whether someone's actions are good or bad is useful; liking or disliking them is harmful.
4. If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement?
I guess you mean is it a form of e.g. aversion if you reject the impulse to understand others? If so, then for sure it can be; it all depends on one's mindset. In general, the Buddha was critical of those who refuse to help others:

‘In the same way, Lohicca, if anyone should say: “Suppose an ascetic or Brahmin were to discover some good doctrine and thought he ought not to declare it to anyone else, for what can one man do for another?” he would be a source of danger to those young men of good family who, following the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathāgata, attain to such excellent distinction as to realise the fruit of Stream-Entry, of Once-Returning, of Non-Returning, of Arahantship — and to all who ripen the seeds of a rebirth in the deva-world. Being a source of danger to them, he is uncompassionate, and his heart is grounded in hostility, and that constitutes wrong view, which leads to ... hell or an animal rebirth.
-- DN 12 (Walshe, trans)

but this doesn't mean one need go out of one's way to try and figure others out, just that one should help others as appropriate. And of course, in order to help, one must understand.

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
-- Dhp 158 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

In summary, understand others is useful in that it gives the potential to help oneself and others. It is partiality that is problematic, as well as obsession with others to the extent that one forgets oneself.


Specific sutta in the Tipitaka: Where did the Buddha compare leaves in the forest to his knowledge?

You are probably after the Simsapa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html


What can go wrong in Mindfulness Therapy as used in Clinics?

This is a real phenomenon and it is discussed in the Visuddhimagga and the writings of the Mahasi Sayadaw. Some of the stages of insight knowledge can potentially manifest themselves in this kind of way. I think for most people these stages are relatively easy, but I suppose for some they could be much more difficult. Just from my own practice I can say that these particular knowledges can be very mild

It really is just the result of seeing impermanence on a direct level. When one has a lot of attachments this is not a fun experience because one is holding onto things while at the same time seeing the suffering involved in clinging. The answer to this is that one needs to accept that this is part of the practice and a part of giving up attachment, and continue to practice. Eventually one will let go and move on and progress.

This is actually one of the reasons why I personally have reservations about practicing mindfulness meditation in a purely secular context. The teacher probably won't know about this and without understanding general Buddhist doctrine it isn't possible to understand how to move on.


What is/are the cause/s of becoming "perceiveless", an unconsciouse-being?

SN 23.2 defines "a being" ("satta") as strong clinging to one or more of the five aggregates. One the meanings of the word "satta" is "clinging". To cling requires a mind. Therefore, it appears there can be no such thing as an unconscious "being".

In my search, I only found the term asaññasattā in AN 9.24 plus the DN and, in the sequence of the teaching, appears related to the 4th jhana. The 4th jhana is obviously not "unconscious". It follows it appears the term "asaññasattā" needs to be examined carefully, for what it really means. The impression is "asaññasattā" means not having any salient perception because the mind only has equanimity as its object. It appears "asaññasattā" does not mean "unconscious".

Regardless, these types of teachings found in the Anguttara Nikaya & Digha Nikaya are often suspicious and, imo, best ignored.


Is violence or destruction ever correct?

The Buddha warned against anger and his warning is quite precise:

  SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”

  SN1.71:3.1: “When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease. When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow.  O deity, anger has a poisoned root and a honey tip.  The noble ones praise its killing,  for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”

And even if all those around us may be cruel, the Buddha says quite directly:

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

Yet even if we did the above and returned justice for injustice, kindness for cruelty, that would be incomplete. It would be incomplete because it would only benefit ourselves.

  AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four?

  AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others...

  AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

  AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Here again the Buddha teaches:

  AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is
  the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

From these words we can understand that we might be able to help others rebel against suffering. We can share the Noble Eightfold Path with those who will listen.

  AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.

That might be the ultimate rebellion. The rebellion against suffering.


Bodhidharma is the legendary founder of Zen in China. He is said to have arrived in China about 520 CE. (Buddhism had by then been known in China for about 400 years.) He was soon summoned to the emperor, who had questions for him.

  "I have endowed hundreds of temples and monasteries, and endorsed the ordination of thousands of monks and nuns; what is my merit?" -- the emperor asked.

  Bodhidharma, usually depicted as a scowling, hooded, bearded figure, shot back: "There is no merit."

  "What then is the main principle of the Holy Teaching?" the emperor asked.

  "Open, empty, nothing holy!" (廓然無聖) replied Bodhidharma.


Trouble understanding the notion of interconnectedness

"Interconnectedness" in Buddhism arises from the principle of "dependent origination". Dependent origination is an alternate way of viewing cause-and-effect relationships. Rather than saying "A causes B", (that is, one fixed object or idea leads to another fixed object or idea), it says instead:

"B arises and is supported in dependence on A, so that if A passes away, B also passes away".

That then extends to the fact that A also depends on supporting conditions, and those supporting conditions also depend on other supporting conditions, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Nothing exists independent of supporting conditions that allow it to continue existing.

So your "being" exists dependent not only on other beings, but on a whole mess of other conditions (such as the composition of your body, the environment...) and all those things also have infinitely long chains of dependence. As a result, everything is in flux and nothing has a completely self-referential, independent existence.

(This, by the way, is the source of a common misconception that Buddhism teaches that "nothing exists" or "nothing is real". It does teach that nothing exists absolutely, but things most definitely do exist in relation to their supporting conditions, which is why you should still look both ways before crossing the street :) )

You can take this on a very empirical and non-mystical level. But through practices like vipassana where you start to get a felt sense of the constant flux, the constant creation/destruction of your own experience rooted in ever-changing conditions, welllll... you could start to feel that there's something mystical (or at least, indescribably big!) about it.

Editing to add something more to the point of your question: Practice also brings ever-widening insights into the way that you impact others and the way they impact you, which aren't necessarily "mystical", but they are subtle, and call into question the boundaries of your personality. It's more mundane than "I am one with the universe"; but it's richer than "stuff happens". Somewhere between the two :)


Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?

Chanda is acceptation to do something to an object. However, it is not decision (adhimokkha), or attachment (taṇhā). In vinaya pitaka, it often use as "agreement" (i.e.).

There are:

Unwholesome chanda

Unwholesome chanda without tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with sensual tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with becoming tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with unbecoming tanṇhā

Resultant chanda

Lokiya resultant chanda
Lokutara resultant chanda

Ineffective action chanda

Ineffective action chanda of sekkha (puthujana and 3 noble one)
Ineffective action chanda of asekkha (arahanta)

Wholesome chanda

Lokiya wholesome chanda
Lokutara wholesome chanda

See Conation in Sangaha chapter 2.


If you can spare some money, by all mean please continue to donate to charity. Imagine you were a starving child in some war-torn country, getting a hot meal won't help you attaining enlightenment but it does help relieving a horrible kind of suffering: starvation!
Then one can always start with him/herself. Observing the Five Precepts whole-heartedly itself would generate tremendous amount of merits according to AN 8.39:

..."Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit...

Finally, one can share the Dhamma to others if the conditions are appropriate according to MN 58:

...In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them...


You are beginning to notice the natural behaviors that we all carry out. This is a great thing as most people don't even take a moment to understand their behavior or how/why it functions that way.
As you are noticing like this, all kinds of weird side effects may start arising, as you are really shaking the foundation of the way you perceive the world. Fear for others may arise, sadness for others may arise, meaninglessness of the world may arise, great purpose for the world may arise, all kinds of things may arise because of this new noticing on behavior of others & workings of the world.
What you are experiencing is a normal phase of investigating the spectrum of behaviors. Keep investigating and don't give too much importance to the fear or other feelings that arise from it (otherwise you may feed & strengthen those feelings).
As you keep investigating, you will begin to understand why people play out these behaviors and you will begin to understand why this fear arises in you as a response. As your understanding of these things deepens, it will help you through this phase and eventually it will pass. What you'll be left with is better understanding of peoples behaviors, which parts of them are conducive to their long term happiness, which ones aren't, which ones you should support in them or not and which ones you should "play along with".
If you understand why we all "play out" these behaviors, then it no longer appears as "playing out" because you understand why you are doing it and it's purpose. For example:
"If I don't greet this person I just met kindly and go through the normal interactions they might expect, they may get upset and that would unnecessarily increase their pain/suffering, so better that I help them avoid that pain."
With this kind of understanding in your interactions, the feelings of disingenuousness should fade away.
Keep up this process and you naturally will come to love the world and everything in it. Understanding is love.
Additionally, I recommend meditating on the four Divine Abodes and trying to encompass those attitudes when interacting with others, this may be of great help.


This particular tradition of practice is actually not based on Vajrayana practice, but is more of a mixture of traditional Theravada meditation with Hindu Tantra, not Buddhist Tantra, so there isn't any deity yoga, but is instead based on generating a nimitta made of light and then moving it around within one's body.


My teacher always insisted, there's no conflict between Buddhism and the rational world, no conflict between Buddhism and the scientific method. He said, one can be saint and a successful businessman. The Buddhism's teaching on karma, emotional intelligence, and the nature of phenomena, are all continuation of the rational approach we know from western discourse.

The only difference I know of is in the goal. The implied goal of mainstream culture these days is what's known as success: personal and professional realization. The goal of Buddhism, in Theravada school is the peace of Nirvana and in Mahayana school is the endless service to the world and people. And yet, my teacher said, you can have it all: peace, service, and realization.

The only choice we have, he said, is to try and achieve something greater, and what can be greater than spiritual realization? The other alternative, the life of mediocrity, is not a serious choice.


There needs to be some caution/qualifications when discussing arahants just as there should be when discussing the Buddha. SN 44.1 discusses this caution and it applies to arahants as well.

  "so too, great king, that form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him has been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising. The tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of form; he is deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean."

In SN 35.135:

  I do not say of those bhikkhus who are arahants . . . that they still have work to do with diligence in regard to the six bases for contact. Why is that? They have done their work with diligence; they are incapable of being negligent.

There is one other teaching that I know of regarding what arahants do but I can't find it right now. In it the Buddha says that arahants continue to dwell with the 4 mindfulness established. Maybe someone else can find that reference?


Dependent Origination, 'here-&-now' & 11th & 12th link

In the quote above I cannot see any 'self-views' are subject to aging
  & death.

The quote about 'aging-&-death' only includes one word in common with the definition of 'birth' ('jati'). This one common word is "beings" or "satta". A "satta" is literally defined in the suttas as a "self-view", as follows:

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
  be 'a being'? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there (visatta), one is said to be 'a
  being.'... Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling...
  perception... fabrications... consciousness... when one is caught up
  there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' SN 23.2

  visatta: adjective: strongly attached; entangled.

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

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

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

  SN 5.10

This answer to the question is not 'atheist' & 'secular'. It is what the Buddha literally taught.


Unless you are up there with the stream entrants, the deepest principles aren't self explanatory. One must want to experience them within Samsara to transcend Samsara.

Personally, I wouldn't follow Buddhism nessasarily, I'd follow the Buddha's core teaching that was repeated again and again from all angles of interpretation.