Can a lay person commit sangha-bedha?(five heinous acts) Anantarika-karma

A lay person cannot commit “Sangha Bedha” as it is only when bhikkhus are concerened, but “Sangha Bedha” is not division among bhikkhus, but the fact of the matter is that today every single Bhikkhu commits schism or “Sangha Bedha” knowingly or unknowingly.

The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4). Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

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

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

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

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3
The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …


why the disciples of the buddha introduced the buddism?

(I'll assume the actual question is in the body, not in the title).

Naturally, no one can answer why someone didn't do something but that specific someone (but if you really wanted to know from the Buddha, you wouldn't be asking this here...). But there are practical reasons that could explain.

Writing is not teaching.

While you are writing, you are not doing anything to anyone. Being in a cave for years writing a lot about something, and then having a flood take all your sheets away can render all those years useless.

Writing is not teaching, and it is visible that the Buddha was primarily interested in helping the actual people he actually met and guiding those interested to become masters of the subject, and then, teachers themselves. As any educator can attest, this is the highest form of education.

There wasn't a broad "reading culture" -- though there were written texts -- at that time and place. Thus, there were not many readers.

To be of great value, writing requires an author who knows how to write and many many readers who were trained to read certain language(s). Moreover, writing is taking a chance that not only someone trained to read that language will meet your texts, but also that he will be interested and he/she will understand as it is -- an unreasonable expectation -- since there is no possibility of real dialogue.

Not only that wasn't common as it is today (nor there were any alphabetization goals that I know of), but understanding (and teaching) the dhamma is hard as it is. It is even harder if, before teaching dhamma, one would have to teach how to read. So, it's just a major distraction and the benefits were hardly guaranteed.

Instead he advised people to memorize discourses (real discourses, to real people with real problems) and always welcomed any questions they had -- the suttas are full of FAQs from disciples to disciples, and disciples to the Buddha. That's a real learning setting. And the discourses were texts, though not in written form. Orality, in any case, is not a poor-man's "literacy".


Will Buddhism last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana?

In the Vinaya (monk's rules), it is said (somewhere) the Buddha's teachings would last for 500 years (rather than 5,000 years). Many Buddhists claim this did not come true therefore the Vinaya teaching is false, for example:

  The passages surveyed so far help to set into context the prophecy that because an order of bhikkhunīs had come into existence during the
  lifetime of the Buddha, the duration of the teachings will be
  shortened to 500 years (Cv X.1). Now this prophecy is surprising,
  since once would not expect the Buddha to do something which he knew
  in advance would have such an effect. In fact, the prophecy in the way
  it is recorded in the Vinaya has not come true, as after 2,500 years
  the teaching is still in existence. Even the bhikkhunī order was still
  in existence in India in the 8th century and thus more than a 1,000
  years after the time of the Buddha.

  Bhikkhu Anālayo

Apparently, this was later altered by the scholar Buddhaghosa to 5,000 years (see here).

However, the majority of Buddhists, including Bhikkhu Anālayo, seem to often interpret many Buddhist teachings in a manner contrary to the original spirit of the teachings (such as, originally, the teachings of the Buddha were to be only accepted upon personal verification rather than through mere faith in unknown things). This seems to make an argument the 500 year prophecy actually came true in respect to the mainstream Buddhist religion. This video seems to make such an argument: The True Dhamma Has Disappeared: Thanissaro Bhikkhu

That being said, the Pali scriptures are mostly still pure so they do continue to exist in their purity.

  In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are
  words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent,
  connected with emptiness — will come about.

  Ani Sutta


The Buddha's struggle with the first absorption

Go to https://suttacentral.net/mn and follow the 2nd set of sutta references.

M I 246 is within MN 36.

M III 162 is within MN 128.

The above said, Analayo's ideas about MN 128 are probably wrong. MN 128 is about a certain dilemma of Venerable Anuruddha, who later was renowned for his psychic powers. The certain dilemma or subject matter of MN 128 is 'obhāsañceva sañjānāma dassanañca rūpānaṃ', namely, 'perception of light and seeing of forms'. MN 128 appears to be about the coming to be of a psychic power rather than about the 1st jhana. Here, the Buddha gives an account of his own struggle with what appears to be a naturally occurrence of a physic power (which will not occur with every meditator, such as Venerable Sariputta, who did not have any psychic powers). Therefore, MN 128 does not appear to be about the Buddha's struggle with the first absorption.


If one's inner monologue stops forever, is one necessarily an arahant?

Thoughts are one of the six sense objects; there is no reason to think that they stop when one becomes an arahant. It is quite clear that both the Buddha and arahants did indeed have thoughts after becoming enlightened. E.g.:

  And the knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘Āḷāra Kālāma died seven days ago.’ I thought: ‘Āḷāra Kālāmaʹs loss is a great one. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have understood it quickly.’

  -- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

What does stop forever is uddhacca or restlessness.

  Restlessness (or agitation) has the characteristic of disquietude, like water whipped up by the wind. Its function is to make the mind unsteady, as wind makes a banner ripple. It is manifested as turmoil. Its proximate cause is unwise attention to mental disquiet.

  -- Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

  In the case of the defilements, [false] view and uncertainty are eliminated by
  the first knowledge. Hate is eliminated by the third knowledge. Greed, delusion,
  conceit (pride), mental stiffness, agitation, consciencelessness, and shamelessness are eliminated by the fourth knowledge.

  -- Vism. XXII.65 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The only case in which the inner monologue could possibly stop forever is at the moment of parinibbana, since that is the only event that could be said to be permanent. How else could one understand the word "forever"?

Even if one were to suddenly go without an inner monologue while still alive, there is no reason to infer that the monologue would not start up again; clearly both arahants and Buddhas still have some mental monologue as long as there is still the arising of sankharas.


Can lay people be involved in the weapons business?

First of all, the passage you mention (AN 5.177):

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

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

The tika provides a bit of clarity on this:

  satthavaṇijjā ti āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ katvā vā kāretvā vā kataṃ vā paṭilabhitvā tassa vikkayo.

  "Business in weapons" means, having made instruments used as weapons, or having had them made, or having obtained them already made, the selling of those [instruments].

So, again it appears to be limited to the activities of a merchant. On the other hand, the entire sutta only describes the activities of a merchant (vanijja), so it doesn't actually make allowance for other ways of making money off of weapons manufacture and/or war. It is my guess that this is to be used as a guide on which to judge the morality of more indirect forms of martial employment (similar to manufacturing poison, etc.).

I don't think one should simply draw the line at commerce and say that any other war-based employment is okay. Instead we should ask what is wrong with selling weapons and apply the same principle to other similar activities.

One interesting exemption seems to be related to transportation and care of weapons. The commentary to Dhp 124 tells a story of a woman who cleaned and prepared weapons for her husband to catch and kill animals. She was a sotapanna and the Buddha said she was blameless:

  The monks began to discuss the matter, saying, “So Kukkuṭamitta has a wife, and when she was a mere girl she obtained the Fruit of Conversion; yet she married this hunter and by him had seven sons. Furthermore, during all this time, whenever her husband said to her, ‘Bring me my bow, bring me my arrows, bring me my hunting-knife, bring me my net,’ she obeyed him and gave him what he asked for. And her husband, taking what she had given him, went and took life. Is it possible that those who have obtained the Fruit of Conversion take life?” Just then the Teacher approached and asked, “Monks, what is it that you are sitting here now talking about?” When they told him, he said, “Monks, of course those that have obtained the Fruit of Conversion do not take life. Kukkuṭamitta’s wife did what she did because she was actuated by the thought, ‘I will obey the commands of my husband.’ It never occurred to her to think, ‘He will take what I give him and go hence and take life.’ If a man’s hand be free from wounds, even though he take poison into his hand, yet the poison will not harm him. Precisely so, a man who harbors no thoughts of wrong and who commits no evil, may take down bows and other similar objects and present them to another, and yet be guiltless of sin.” So saying, he joined the connection, and preaching the Law, pronounced the following Stanza,

  124. If in his hand there be no wound,
  A man may carry poison in his hand.
  Poison cannot harm him who is free from wounds.
  No evil befalls him who does no evil.

I think it's easy to see how this is different from actually helping to create weapons, but it does show that, as always, the mind is most important.

As to your final question, this is never a very good defence; it's like a butcher saying he has to kill because he has no other way to make money. While that might mitigate the evil, it doesn't make it categorically different from any other act of murder.

There is another story in the Jataka (JatA 31) that exemplifies the Buddhist view on this sort of situation. When Magha was reborn as Sakka, king of the angels of the thirty-three, three of his wives were also born in heaven due to their meritorious deeds. His fourth wife was born as a crane, and Sakka admonished her to keep the five precepts, as follows:

  But Highborn, having performed no act of merit, was reborn as a crane
  in a grotto in the forest.

  "There's no sign of Highborn," said Sakka to himself; "I wonder where
  she has been reborn." And as he considered the matter, he discovered
  her whereabouts. So he paid her a visit, and bringing her back with
  him to heaven shewed her the delightful city of the Devas, the Hall of
  Goodness, Thoughtful's Creeper-Grove, and the Tank called Joy. "These
  three," said Sakka, "have been reborn as my handmaidens by reason of
  the good works they did; but you, having done no good work, have been
  reborn in the brute creation. Henceforth keep the Commandments." And
  having exhorted her thus, and confirmed her in the Five Commandments,
  he took her back and let her go free. And thenceforth she did keep the
  Commandments.

  A short time afterwards, being curious to know whether she really was
  able to keep the Commandments, Sakka went and lay down before her in
  the shape of a fish. Thinking the fish was dead, the crane seized it
  by the head. The fish wagged its tail. "Why, I do believe it's alive,"
  said the crane, and let the fish go. "Very good, very good," said
  Sakka; "you will be able to keep the Commandments." And so saying he
  went away.

  Dying as a crane, Highborn was reborn into the family of a potter in
  Benares. Wondering where she had got to, and at last discovering her
  whereabouts, Sakka, disguised as an old man, filled a cart with
  cucumbers of solid gold and sat in the middle of the village, crying,
  "Buy my cucumbers! buy my cucumbers!" Folk came to him and asked for
  them. "I only part with them to such as keep the Commandments," said
  he, "do you keep them?" "We don't know what you mean by your
  'Commandments'; sell us the cucumbers." "No; I don't want money for my
  cucumbers. I give them away,--but only to those that keep the
  Commandments." "Who is this wag?" said the folk as they turned away.
  Hearing of this, Highborn thought to herself that the cucumbers must
  have been brought for her, and accordingly went and asked for some.
  "Do you keep the Commandments, madam?" said he. "Yes, I do," was the
  reply. "It was for you alone that I brought these here," said he, and
  leaving cucumbers, cart and all at her door he departed.

  Continuing all her life long to keep the Commandments, Highborn after
  her death was reborn the daughter of the Asura king Vepacittiya, and
  for her goodness was rewarded with the gift of great beauty. When she
  grew up, her father mustered the Asuras together to give his daughter
  her pick of them for a husband. And Sakka, who had searched and found
  out her whereabouts, donned the shape of an Asura, and came down,
  saying to himself, "If Highborn chooses a husband really after her own
  heart, I shall be he."

  Highborn was arrayed and brought forth to the place of assembly, where
  she was bidden to select a husband after her own heart. Looking round
  and observing Sakka, she was moved by her love for him in a bygone
  existence to choose him for her husband. Sakka carried her off to the
  city of the devas and made her the chief of twenty-five millions of
  dancing-girls. And when his term of life ended, he passed away to fare
  according to his deserts.

A true follower of the Buddha would not kill to save their own life.


Since Mahayana Agama contains parallels in the Pali Cannon I am answering using the Suttas in the Pali Canon which I am more familiar with.

Abiding or contemplating the 3 characteristics [impermanence (anicca),
suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta)] is called abiding in emptiness. [Cula Sunnata Sutta, Maha Sunnata Sutta] The opposite of the 3 characteristics is perversions (vipallasa) [what is impermanent is taken to be permanent; what is painful is taken to be pleasurable; what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and what is impure is taken to be pure]. [Vipallasa Sutta] Hence non empty might mean something is deluded, i.e., conceptual constructions are empty since they breakdown under further scrutiny. Attachment to concepts, review and throughts or being subjected to the perversion is non empty.

Also:

  Verse 11:

  They take untruth for truth; they take truth for untruth; such persons can never arrive at the truth, for they hold wrong views.

  Verse 12:

  They take truth for truth; they take untruth for untruth; such persons arrive at the truth, for they hold right views. At the end of the discourse, many people came to be established in Sotapatti Fruition.

Source: Dhammapada Verses 11 and 12 Sariputtatthera Vatthu

Contrary to the usage on perversion described above someone taking untrue and truth, wrong view as right view, something of low value as valuable can be considered empty in this context and some one taking truth as the truth, ... can be considered non empty in this context.


What are some of the best practices for generating loving kindness?

Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out?

I do not know about Ram Dass hence might not be similar but try:

"A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi
Knowing and Seeing by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw
The Practice of Loving-Kindness


Is Buddhism something that you should study?

At least in the Theravada tradition, it is emphasized that the role of the Buddha (technically the Samyaksambuddha) was to teach and establish the dhamma. And he was also the most qualified person to do it.

The dhamma (teachings) is like a shortcut that we received from the Buddha, which we need to first study and understand. Studying involves understanding the Four Noble Truths, the Three Marks of Existence, and other teachings found in the suttas.

Practice includes the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path includes Right View and Right Intention (which comes in part through studying), as well as Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration and Right Effort (which is meditation and practice). The remaining three are also part of practice.

So, if you do not want to study, but only want to practise meditation, then you are not making use of the "shortcut" teachings of the Buddha and instead want to find enlightenment by yourself.

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

The Tripitakas are rather huge. But a good anthology or selection of suttas can be found in In the Buddha's Words by Bhikku Bodhi. You can find the PDF version here.

If you find studying Buddhism potentially daunting, then these two books should help you get started.


Most of the time in Mahayana (both Vajrayana and Zen) I hear of Four Marks of Existence: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising).

Not sure about past, present and future. Anyone?


Is love a destiny or coincidence in Buddhism?

The Samajivina Sutta, as follows, can hopefully shed some light on this question.

  Once the Blessed One was staying among the Bhaggas in the Deer Park at
  Bhesakala Grove, near Crocodile Haunt. Then early in the morning the
  Blessed One put on his robes and, carrying his bowl and outer robe,
  went to the home of the householder, Nakula's father. On arrival, he
  sat down on a seat made ready. Then Nakula's father & Nakula's mother
  went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat
  to one side. As they were sitting there, Nakula's father said to the
  Blessed One: "Lord, ever since Nakula's mother as a young girl was
  brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not
  conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body.
  We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in
  the life to come."

  And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a
  young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was
  just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even
  in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the
  present life but also in the life to come."

  [The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one
  another not only in the present life but also in the life to come,
  they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in
  virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they
  will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life
  to come."

  Husband & wife, both of them  having conviction,  being responsive,
    being restrained,   living by the Dhamma,   addressing each other   with
  loving words: they benefit in manifold ways.  To them comes bliss.
  Their enemies are dejected    when both are in tune in virtue. Having
  followed the Dhamma here in this world,   both in tune in precepts &
  practices, they delight in the world of the devas, enjoying the
  pleasures they desire.


Is a Ghatika an ideal minimum meditation duration?

You find references in:

Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim
Kamalshila's Stages of Meditation
The Abhidharma.

Je Tsongkhapa. Middle-Length Lam Rim:

  Indicating the length of sessions

  Is there an established length of
  meditation sessions, specified in terms of “The mind is tied to the
  object and placed for just this long?” The major texts such as Śrāvaka
  Levels do not seem to clearly uphold an established length. However,
  in Stages of Meditation III it says:

    Like that, gradually, you should sit for twenty-four minutes, one and
    a half hours, three hours, or as long as you can.

  Apparently this was set forth in the context of the established length
  of meditation sessions for special insight meditation after calm
  abiding has already been accomplished, but in the context of initially
  practicing calm abiding it is evidently similar.

In the Lam Rim bring ba, Philip Quarcoo's footnotes specify:

  Twenty-four minutes is one chu tshod, a unit based on traditional
  Indian time measurement and used in the Abhidharma. It is equivalent
  to one out of 60 parts of a day

  One and a half hours, in Tibetan thun phyed, literally “half a night
  watch.”

  Three hours, in Tibetan thun gcig, literally “one night
  watch”—common measure for a full meditation session.


Which Buddhist Meditation is comparable to Transcendental Meditation?

What is TM (Transcendental Meditation)

Being a Buddhist, I only have a cursory familiarity with TM, but here it is. A TM practitioner is instructed to sit regularly, at least 15 minutes every morning, or more. Meditation is presented as joyful, easy, resting activity that does not require much effort. Instead of suppressing thoughts or holding uninterrupted attention on breath etc., the practitioner is instructed to let their mind expand in its natural state. This is a state of open unfettered unperplexed awareness, like your mind on a day when you have enough time that you don't have to rush and can instead allow yourself to "gather your thoughts". As the mind expands, all kinds of memories and thoughts start bubbling up into scope. At this point the meditator is instructed to use their personal mantra, especially selected to match their personal predispositions (this part sounds like upaya to me). After reciting the mantra several times until the thoughts calm down, the TM meditator can stop using the mantra, and let their mind expand naturally. This combination of letting the mind expand while not letting it wander is said to be the core principle of TM. Two other unique elements are the joyful & resting mood that the TM meditator learns to associate with meditation, and the use of mantra.

What Buddhist meditation is similar to TM

I'm not aware of any Buddhist meditation that would combine the same exact elements in the same way as TM. However, all elements of TM are found in Buddhist meditation techniques:

The joyful and resting mood is like in satipatthana, like in 2nd jhana.
Letting the mind expand in its natural state is like zazen, like Mahamudra meditation.
Coming back when thoughts arise is like the labeling ("thoughts!") technique in beginner's samatha meditation.
Using mantra is like in mantra meditation.

So to me, TM sounds like a peculiar combination of techniques usually associated with beginner's meditation (using the mantra, coming back from thoughts), with intermediate-level technique of generating the joyful mood, plus a technique that firmly belongs at advanced meditation levels -- letting the mind expand in its natural state.


What is your Dhamma?

One cannot really have ones "own" Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless and impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone.

Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered..

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


How do experienced Buddhists preserve their equanimity and well-being in unfavourable circumstances?

Would you consider suicide as a solution?

A big NO...., suicide is not a solution, it creates more problems.

  Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive

Buddhism teaches us consequences for our each action,

For example if you hate someone, that person won't even know that you've hated him/her unless you told, but if you hating someone else and it isn't hurt them or do bad for them, it's really bad for the person who hate. Because hater's mind is impure, and it count as bad Karma.

When you collect bad Karma for long time, and suddenly die, while do the another bad Karma, there's high probability of being reincarnate in one of Four Hell(Animals, Pretha, Asura, Hell). And that's the danger of reincarnation. And those four places has lot more Pain, Suffering than human world, it's unimaginable.

" Imagine while four muscular guys hold your hands and legs and another two of'em rip your body apart with a saw, and no way to survive, And advice for the person who getting hurt is not to hate those six guys, being nice them. " And this is a allegory for Meththa.

So if someone think those accordingly and believe that's it truth, no one would do any bad things, And i think that is the best Motive for the survival of such situations.(If you follow and believe Lord Buddha).

I hope this would help.


Lokavipatti Sutta on the eight worldly winds:

  Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

  "For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?"

  "..the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person..he welcomes the arisen gain and rebels against the arisen loss. He welcomes the arisen status and rebels against the arisen disgrace. He welcomes the arisen praise and rebels against the arisen censure. He welcomes the arisen pleasure and rebels against the arisen pain. As he is thus engaged in welcoming & rebelling, he is not released from birth, aging, or death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, or despairs. He is not released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  "..the disciple of the Noble ones does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  "This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person."

I suppose before we gain enlightenment equipoise or equanimity would be the appropriate response, then again use Upaya-kaushalya (skilful means), if you have the wisdom


How to balance samatha and vipassana practice?

When meditating from person to person and even from session to session the following can happen:

insight develops before calmness
calmness before insight
neither calm nor insight
both calm and insight

Calmness and insight should be balanced through personal effect and also you should seek guidance on balancing both. [(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 1 - 3]

Also it is helpful if the calmness is developed through concentrating on one of the Satipatthana [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta] as the object of meditation is not tainted by a Vipallasa [for more on Vipallasa see: Vipallasa Sutta].


Why sukha (third Jhana) is more refine than pīti (second Jhana)?

Lesser khandha = Stable mind state = Better happiness.

Vitakka, vicāra, pīti, and sukkha are acceleration of consciousness to access jhāna. the practitioner need them to develop jhāna-consciousness, until he turn to be professor in each jhāna. After that they become an obstruction of jhāna's stability.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.


Is there a tremendous decrease in suffering at stream-entry?

You quoted the Nakhasikha Sutta which states that suffering that remains for a person who has attained stream entry is like dirt under the fingernail, compared to suffering remaining for an ordinary worldling which is equivalent to the great earth.
For e.g. a person's immediate family members all die due to an unfortunate accident. This person may become very depressed and stay depressed for a long time, if he is an ordinary worldling. He would experience sadness (aversion) and delusion - two of the three poisons.
A stream enterer would still become depressed, but then he will quickly come to his senses and remember the teachings of the Buddha, that all is impermanent.
He is aware that his sorrow is caused by clinging to the idea that the deceased family members belong to him (the self, an idea conjured by the mind).
He understands how the idea of the self arises, due to dependent origination. He understands how dependent origination works.
He also understands that the notion of persons and family members are all reification/ objectification-classification/ concept proliferation (papanca), just like the idea of the self.
The stream enterer would be able to let go a lot sooner than the ordinary worldling.
The ordinary worldling may get stuck in mental loops that amplify sadness and delusion. The stream enterer experiences sadness but has the wisdom to not get stuck in mental loops.
In comparison, an arahant will not suffer at all, because he has completely uprooted ignorance through wisdom. For the stream enterer, ignorance is still there, but it has been reduced greatly by wisdom.
The stream enterer still has craving and clinging, but now he has attained sufficient wisdom to understand them and how they work. In comparison, an arahant has completely destroyed craving and clinging.
Reduction of suffering for a stream enterer doesn't mean that negative events or painful sensations do not happen anymore. It simply means that the stream enterer does not suffer from them very much, compared to the ordinary worldling. His ability to endure them has increased tremendously.


Right Efforts is about removing unwholesome states and cultivating wholesome states. Right Concentration deals with developing the Jhana as a means to displace certain subset of unwholesome states. Jhana is a wholesome state hence arousing Jhana can be viewed as applying efforts to abandon the 5 hindrances. This done through developing the Jhana factors. A mind with the Jhana factors aroused is wholesome.

In short:

Abandoning hindrances and developing the Jhanas, Right Concentration, is a subset of Right Efforts hence the similarity
Right Effort deals with abandoning all unwholesome states and developing wholesome states, while Right Concentration deals with developing the Jahan, hence the difference

Right Effort

  (6) And what, bhikshus, is right effort?
  Here, bhikshus, a monk
  brings forth the desire for the non-arising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort,
  rouses energy, applies his mind, and strives;

  he brings forth the desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort,
  rouses energy, applies his mind, and strives;

  he brings forth the desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states; he makes an effort, rouses
  energy, applies his mind, and strives;

  he brings forth the desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their non-decay,
  increase, growth and fulfillment by cultivation; he makes an effort, rouses energy, applies his mind, and
  strives.

  This, bhikshus, is called right effort.

Right Concentration

  And what, bhikshus, is right samadhi [concentration]?
  Here, bhikshus,

  (1) a monk, detached from sensual pleasures, detached from unwholesome mental states,
  enters and remains in the first dhyana,
  accompanied by initial application and sustained application,
  accompanied by zest and happiness, born of detachment [ie born of samadhi].

  (2) With the stilling of initial application and sustained application,
  by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind,
  he enters and remains in the second dhyana,
  free from initial application and sustained application,
  accompanied by zest and happiness born of samadhi.

  (3) With the fading away of zest, he remains equanimous,
  mindful and clearly knowing,
  and experiences happiness with the body,
  he enters and remains in the third dhyana,
  of which the noble ones declare,
  ‘Happily he dwells in equanimity and mindfulness.’

  (4) With the abandoning of pleasure and pain—
  and with the earlier disappearance of joy and grief—
  he enters and abides in the fourth dhyana,
  that is neither pleasant nor painful,
  with a mindfulness fully purified by equanimity.
  This, bhikshus, is called right samadhi.

(Magga) Vibhaṅga Sutta also in Sacca Vibhanga Sutta


What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity?

It's good to get aware of issues of different kind of equanimity not only because most modern, especially lay teacher, even whole "schools" actually teach the dangerous "household-equanimity". The differernt is btw. actually drawn out in the notes and also in the translators intoduction of the sutta:

A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.

A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

Ordinary equanimity is based on gross ignorance/moha.
The two illustrations here might also provide for an understanding:
Ignoring the truth & Bhaṅgañāņa and bhayañāņa.
Some "provoking" questions for an understanding in this regard may be also found here: Freed of Fivefold Fear.
Typical outwardly indicators for people dwelling in household-equanimity is total lack in basics like gratitude, goodness, generosity and virtue. Once such states a reached, people are merely hopless lost which is one reason the Buddha often nearly "fighted" against teachers leading in such directions while other teachings, even if not much of benefit have been merely tolerated as current wishes for certain destinies of others.
The immense danger of giving rise to firm household-equanimity is also the reason why in Bodhisatta-vehicles the teaching of emptiness of immature people is a grave fault and breach of the root vows, knowing that they are walking on a tiny edge and althought propably even understood as encouragement to act wrong.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]


What are the attitudes of the schools to the experience of physical pain during sitting meditation?

Pain is obviously related to physical posture; obviously related to the mobility of an individual's body & joints. Therefore, some individuals without any samadhi (meditative development) can sit for long periods while other individuals (who might have better samadhi) cannot sit as long without experiencing pain.

For example, in the West, are often found slender naturally flexible women leading hatha yoga classes, who display no evidence of spiritual development (e.g., they are emotionally unbalanced, addicted to cigarettes, etc).

Imo, the above shows there is no relevance or correlation between physical posture/pain and meditative development. If it was otherwise, a naturally physically flexible person would either be advantaged or disadvantaged compared to another person.

When samadhi (concentration) is genuinely developed (absorption into breathing, jhana, etc), awareness of pain disappears from consciousness, even though the legs themselves may become very stiff & very painful. A samadhi practitioner may sit for a few hours without consciously experiencing pain then, after emerging from samadhi, will struggle to stand up & walk.

This is why I am not aware of any instructions in the Pali teachings about meditation & physical pain. In fact, the very essence of the Middle-Way is the development of jhana (with rapture, happiness & equanimity) which is contrary to those Theravada schools (Goenka; Mahasi, etc) that teach meditation on pain.

Since the ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is to develop a bliss (samatha) that liberates an individual from reliance on sensuality & then insight (vipassana) that liberates a individual from attachment, self-view & suffering, it is obvious meditation on pain is not directly relevant to the Buddhist path.

When I was young, I practised meditation very intensively and developed some capacity to be non-attached. Then at a later time, my body suffered an injury & a lengthy rehabilitation that was very painful at times. I required no additional training in non-attachment to deal with my injury & rehabilitation. The non-attachment developed in my painless meditation, when I was younger, was more than sufficient.

It may sound like a paradox but non-attachment & dispassion towards rapture (piti) is said by some to be much more effective at dealing with pain that direct meditation on pain itself. This is probably why the Buddha encouraged the development of non-attachment & egolessness (rather than meditation on pain itself).


Did the Buddha speak Pali? Are the suttas his word verbatim?

The Buddha likely spoke in several dialects that were quite similar to Pali. He was immensely well traveled for his time, so in his travels he likely adopted the native dialect to be better understood by the locals. His words were only a small part of his teaching - his enlightened presence and conduct were likely better vessels of his teaching.

The Pali canon is a consolidation of his talks, created only after his death. The content is very likely the same, but the rendition is only as Ananda and other disciples remembered him. The standardized repetitive form was created as an aid to rote memorization and oral rendition. There was certainly doubt in their minds as they set down the teachings that they'd not be able to replicate the vastness of the Buddha's being in mere words, but all the same they resolved to make a sincere effort, and the Canon that emerged was a result of seven months of deliberation.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Buddhist_council

Pali (Pāli) is a Prakrit native to the Indian subcontinent. It is widely studied because it is the language of many of the earliest extant literature of Buddhism as collected in the Pāli Canon or Tipiṭaka and is the sacred language of Theravada Buddhism.
Many Theravada sources refer to the Pāli language as "Magadhan" or the "language of Magadha". This identification first appears in the commentaries, and may have been an attempt by Buddhists to associate themselves more closely with the Maurya Empire. The Buddha taught in Magadha, but the four most important places in his life are all outside of it. It is likely that he taught in several closely related dialects of Middle Indo-Aryan, which had a high degree of mutual intelligibility. There is no attested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan with all the features of Pāli. Pāli has some commonalities with both the western Ashokan Edicts at Girnar in Saurashtra, and the Central-Western Prakrit found in the eastern Hathigumpha inscription.
Whatever the relationship of the Buddha's speech to Pāli, the Canon was eventually transcribed and preserved entirely in it, while the commentarial tradition that accompanied it (according to the information provided byBuddhaghosa) was translated into Sinhaleseand preserved in local languages for several generations. In Sri Lanka, Pāli is thought to have entered into a period of decline ending around the 4th or 5th century (as Sanskrit rose in prominence, and simultaneously, as Buddhism's adherents became a smaller portion of the subcontinent), but ultimately survived. The work of Buddhaghosa was largely responsible for its reemergence as an important scholarly language in Buddhist thought. The Visuddhimagga, and the other commentaries that Buddhaghosa compiled, codified and condensed the Sinhalesecommentarial tradition that had been preserved and expanded in Sri Lanka since the 3rd century BCE.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali
See also,  http://www.vridhamma.org/Pali-Overview-94-Seminar


What is the difference between Karma and Sanskara

Saṅkhāra refer to all conditioned phenomena. That means everything else apart from Nibbana. Karma refers to volitional acts which is only a subset of Saṅkhāra. All Saṅkhāras come under the first noble truth, i.e. Dukkha. All Saṅkhāras are impermanent. All Saṅkhāras are non-self.


There is a solution given in Buddhism for the exact matter.

I think you may have heard about the meditation called "Maithree / Meththa" (Metta). There is a certain variation of that to prevent such hate.

So the solution is simple: do this meditation, specially targeting this person and the memory that you are trying to get rid of.

After doing it for about 10 minutes move to the following way of focusing without stopping your meditation.
The next step is to focus on bad effects of anger and hate:

How it effect badly to the path
How it gives you births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin your appearance in next lives
How it could reverse you accomplishments in meditation
How you will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)
And so on....

You should also add these:

How that person's anger and bad words would affect badly to his path
How it could give him births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin his appearance in next lives
How it could reverse his accomplishments in meditation
How his will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)

This is done to get your mind to feel sorry for him and pity him.

(The very second your mind comes to this phase it will no longer have anger for the incident or the person that made you angry).

Now you should focus on how your thought are generated and how they were generated in that moment.
Try to recite these with your mind:

What I hear does not contain anger or hate: I make it in my own mind
If I hear something i like i start to like it,and i start to like
that person who said it
If I hear something i do not like i start to hate it,and i start to
hate that person who said it
So this hate and love is also a product of my thoughts, nothing in the
world ever made me love or hate anything.
So like this every feeling I have is a bundle of thoughts,mind's
creations
Everything that made me happy and sad has always been a thought in my
mind
But without seeing this I was foolishly blaming others for my anger
There is a functioning body and a thinking mind
I looked everywhere there was no "Me", only thoughts
But I thought there is someone called "Me"
It was this mind that made this reality and all the feelings I have
felt
I am not the only one who is fooled by this, everyone is!
If there is no "Me", then there is no "Him" or "Her"
Only bodies and minds that made them work
It is foolish to have a grudge with anyone
I give up this anger, there is no point carrying this foolish burden.

I guarantee you in one sitting you will be a different person. This
   would take about 15 minutes. If that is too long do the two parts
   separately (don't leave too much time in the middle). I have done this
   and it is instant in giving results.


Svabhāva stands for inherent existence.

From an early Madhyamika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising:

Causal dependence
Dependence on parts

While impermanent phenomena depend on both causes and parts, permanent phenomena do not depend on causes and conditions but they do depend on parts. For instance, a chair is impermanent and depends on causes (if it is made of wood, wood is a substantial cause, etc) and depends on its parts (the legs, etc). Permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness, cessations, etc. depend on parts. For instance, emptiness is emptiness of something on which it depends (not causally, but in terms of part). Therefore, even emptiness, a permanent phenomena, is empty of inherent existence because it is a dependent-arising.

From a Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising. The third level is the most subtle:

Dependence on name.

We say that the meaning of something being empty of svabhāva is that, if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it. Now, if you ask yourself "is the chair its legs... is it the material it's made of... etc" you will find that the chair is merely labeled upon these without being any of these. We say that it is "merely labeled".

This presentation is incomplete and cartoonish because there are various Madhyamika [sub]schools, some for which inherent existence and true existence are synonymous, some not.


Do monks not have responsibility towards parents and family?

Responsibility in Theravada Buddhism falls into two categories - practical and absolute. In an absolute sense, we only have two responsibilities:

“bhante, imasmiṃ sāsane kati dhurānī”ti?
"Bhante, in this religion, how many duties are there?"
“ganthadhuraṃ, vipassanādhuranti dveyeva dhurāni bhikkhū”ti.
"The duty of study and the duty of insight. These are the only two duties, bhikkhu."
-- Dhp-A 1

In a practical sense, a lay person has duties towards six groups of people:

"And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters?
"The following should be looked upon as the six quarters. The parents should be looked upon as the East, teachers as the South, wife and children as the West, friends and associates as the North, servants and employees as the Nadir, ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith.
-- DN 31 (Narada, trans)

These are considered practical responsibilities, because obvious practical problems arise when a lay person fails to fulfil them.
Generally speaking, a monk need concern him or herself with practical responsibilities towards fellow monastics (including teachers and preceptors) and lay disciples.
That being said, a monk may at times find him or herself in a position of needing to fulfil practical responsibilities to one's parents; if they are sick, destitute, etc. To this end, there are disciplinary exceptions across the board for taking care of one's parents, including in regards to giving medical treatment and food, visiting during the rains retreat, etc.
This would seem to suggest an obviously practical encouragement for monks to care for their parents as appropriate / necessary.


How to wake up properly after a nights sleep?

One simple way to setup your mind in the morning is to re-take the refuge vow and/or the five precepts. Or, if you are a Mahayana practitioner, recite the Bodhisattva vow.

Here is another consideration though: as one of my teachers said, "the morning begins in the evening". Your morning mind is continuation of the tendencies you have setup in the evening. So if you go to bed with a clear mind and pure heart of simplicity, chances are, you will wake up clean and bright. The state of mind during the day matters too. If we argue, or get obsessed, or blame ourselves during the day, these thoughts and moods tend to come back during the night.

In the evening, there is a number of ways to prepare your mind for a good night. In my opinion, meditation should be done earlier in the evening, before the sunset. After sunset, having a silent walk helps. What I personally do after that, is read a Buddhist book in bed. This only works if your practice is going well though, otherwise you may get a sense of guilt when comparing the high ideals with your actual state.


What interaction did the Buddha have with his family after leaving?

Apart from Dhammadhatu's answer regarding the Buddha's son Rahula becoming a monk, there are also other interactions with his family, like the founding of the order of nuns due to the insistence of his aunt and foster mother, Maha Pajapati Gotami, who became the first nun.

Also, his wife, Yasodhara later became a nun and his half-sister Sundari Nanda also became a nun.

And, not to forget one of the Buddha's most well known disciples and personal attendant, Ven. Ananda who is also his cousin.

While his father, King Suddhodana did not become a monk, he too had some interaction with the Buddha, when his grandson Rahula became a monk, leading to the new rule being created, that nobody would be ordained without their parents' permission.

  When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.


The Four Nutriments: what do the metaphors in SN 12.63 mean?

The Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are true for the worldlings who have craving (tanha) and greed (lobha) or aversion / revulsion (dosa), caused by ignorance (moha).  Tanha, lobha, dosa, moha provides nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence.

The worldlings have  five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas).  In the case of Arahants – the awakened ones - there is no craving. They have rooted out the “I concept”.  They have fully realized five groups of existence and the five grasping groups of existence (Panncakkhandha and panca upadanakkhandha) .  Arahants have only the five aggregates in detachment  (Anupadana).  Upadana means ‘grasping’ and Anupadana means ‘non-grasping’ or letting go.While Upadana leads to Samsara, Anupadana leads to Nibbana.

To put it in another way, (for better understanding), after the elimination of all defilements an arahant lives in society without Upadana or Attachment to any thing in the world. He does not have the five grasping groups (pancaupadanakkhandha) but only five groups,aggregates (Pancakkhandha), namely, rupa (body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (volitional formation), and vinnana (consciousness).  His consciousness is ‘translucent’ (for wont of a better word) as no food is provided. In this he is immeasurable - is like the Buddha. All measurement is from a here to a there, with in-betweens. In the Buddha, there is neither a here nor a there nor any in-between. He is thus immeasurable. See Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya - Ud 1.10

  “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there’s no you in that. When there’s no you in that, there’s no you there. When there’s no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.” (Ud I.l0)...

An arahant is sustained by ONLY the physical food that does not create upadana. He does not have the other three ‘mental’ foods as he has rooted out the “I concept”.  He is free from attavada upadana by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). So if there is no nutriment  consciousness, an Arahants  consciousness is mere presence.  Since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. The Buddha has stated that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. In an Arahant, Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) ceases.  Which means Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness) too ceases.


Its two laws with two paths (MN 117). Standard Theravada. Dhammaniyama vs kammaniyama.
Kamma niyama is a general rather than absolute law. Do good, get good. Do bad, get bad. But there can also be do good, get bad and do bad, get good (MN 136).
For example, you are a perfect husband & father but your wife & children die in a car accident, from which you suffer greatly, even become suicidal. Here, you do good but reap bad.
Or you ignorantly perform a bad deed, such as get a girlfriend, without commitment. Eventually, she falls in love with you but you are not interested in getting married and you break her heart. You learn such heedless Cultural Marxist relationships are wrong & Satanic. You give up this Cultural Marxist sexual misconduct, enter the stream and become an Arahant. You do bad but get good.
MN 117 says the general kamma law includes attachment/acquisition (upadhi). In other words, ordinary kamma law is about "I do good, I get good. I do bad, I get bad". Since 'self-view' is always part of ordinary kamma law, suffering will always be inevitable in ordinary kamma law, even when only good is done. Eventually, suffering will come to the most good person who has not realised the Four Noble Truths (SN 56.102).
For example, you spend your whole life believe in good reincarnation or Eternal Life with Jesus for doing good. But when you are actually dying, you start to have doubts these beliefs are true. You die in fear & confusion. Your widow wife stops believing in god and loses her mind. Note: I have witnessed this with the most devout Christian couple I have ever seen, where their son is a mystic.
Dhamma Niyama is the absolute Dhamma Law of Dependent Origination (SN 12.20), as follows:

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles, specific conditionality.
Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.
SN 12.20

Whenever there is attachment & becoming, there will always be suffering.
In addition, the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are also Dhamma Nikaya (AN 3.136).

The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law or niyama. They are:

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

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

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

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

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

Laws of nature.


Most Buddhists believe in some form of "higher" being; brahmas, devas, etc. It is not an orthodox Buddhist practice to pray to these deities, but people are people. Ordinary Buddhists from most, if not all, traditions, tend to succumb to the allure of prayer and supplication; most monasteries are now called "temples", monks are often called "priests", statues of Ganesha and other mythical gods are popular in these places. Some Sri Lankan monasteries actually have dedicated areas for deity worship.

How can they? Well, Buddhism doesn't demand complete adherence to Buddhist principles. I recently taught meditation at a Catholic college to priests and they seemed to gain benefit from it; one of them is planning on coming to do an intensive meditation course with me. So, the question of whether it is "allowed" doesn't really apply. Deity-worship is not recommended, since it promotes delusion and dependency, both of which are antithetical to Buddhism practice. Someone who clings to external support, real or imaginary, will not likely take full responsibility for their future, most likely becoming complacent and clinging to positive experiences as divine intervention (and therefore worth clinging to).

Does it contradict the theory of karma? Yes, and more importantly it goes against observations; praying to gods doesn't produce any observable change except in the mind of the believer. That in and of itself might be reason to promote prayer, since faith can have beneficial, uplifting effects on the mind, if it weren't misplaced and therefore promoting delusion and clinging as well.

So, it is allowed simply because we don't disallow things (except for monks who have strict rules - a monk who encourages theistic worship should be subject to reprimand, I think), but it is (or should be) discouraged because of its relationship to delusion and clinging.

Incidentally, to show how tolerant the Buddha was, in the Ratana Sutta he says:

  O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html


How is the Concept of Consciousness in Psychology Related to the parallel Buddhism concepts?

"Consciousness" is a word or concept which is not well-defined, for example:

  Pholosophy of mind

    Philosophers have used the term 'consciousness' for four main topics: etc.

    Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is

  Scientific study

  Measurement

    Experimental research on consciousness presents special difficulties, due to the lack of a universally accepted operational definition.

  Biological function and evolution

    Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether or not consciousness has any survival value. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (etc.)

  Medical aspects

    Whereas the philosophical approach to consciousness focuses on its fundamental nature and its contents, the medical approach focuses on the amount of consciousness a person has: in medicine, consciousness is assessed as a "level" ranging from coma and brain death at the low end, to full alertness and purposeful responsiveness at the high end.

  Stream of consciousness

    In the west, the primary impact of the idea has been on literature rather than science etc.

IMO "modern psychology" will describe consciousness as an "emergent" property: for example, a home is not a brick; nor is a home two bricks; but with enough bricks put together in the right way you can construct a house.

I think that "consciousness" does exist in (at least some) Buddhist metaphysics, which calls it "sentience":

  Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.

Because it's such a broad (not well-defined) concept I think the question is too broad to be answered in more detail.


Views of world during insight meditation

It's a moment by moment view of our own individual experience. You know the workings of your imediate experience more and more the more you practice seeing reality as it is. Seeing reality as it is means putting more focus on whatever you're aware of on purpose, in your own experiencial reality, moment by moment. This is basically insight meditation or mindfulness.

When you understand your own world of experience then you know the rest of the world because it all works fundamentally the same. Approached another way, your experience is the world for you as my experience is my world for me.-Metta


What is the doctrinal justification for Shaolin martial arts?

SN35.88:13.1: “But if they do stab you with a knife, what will you think of them then?”
SN35.88:14.1: “If they stab me with a knife, I’ll think:
SN35.88:14.2: ‘These people of Sunāparanta are gracious, truly gracious, since they don’t take my life with a sharp knife.’
SN35.88:14.3: That’s what I’ll think, Blessed One.

I studied Rinzai Zen under Tanouye Roshi. Although not Shaolin, the Chozen-Ji temple is aligned with Zen/Chan and the martial arts. As Tanouye Roshi explained, Zen improved a warrior's skill with its equanimity in the face of death. A doctrinal quote for that equanimity is given above.
Paradoxically, a warrior's livelihood is about killing, which is definitely NOT Buddhist doctrine:

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

So why then did I study Zen and the martial arts?
I studied Zen and the martial arts to understand how NOT to kill. Musashi, that great warrior, became a farmer. Like Musashi, Tanouye Roshi was a master of the sword and his doctrine was to give the world fearlessness as his greatest gift. Tanouye Roshi was also one of the gentlest, kindest persons I have ever met. He taught me how to put down the sword.

MN86:5.9: “I’ve stopped, Aṅgulimāla—now you stop.”

And finally:

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

I'll let you look that up...


Meditating on Public Transport
Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?

Proper practice revolves around an integration of mindfulness meditation into daily life. Sitting (cushion) meditation practice is meant to develop mindfulness to such a degree that it can be transferred into daily life and ultimately into constant mindfulness until one can ultimately become free from Samsara. Walking meditation is another great way of bridging ones practice into daily life.
Meditation in gradually noisier environments will be challenging but that's the idea. If one only practices at home but can't use the practice outside of ones sitting practice, then it's not beneficial.
It's beneficial to meditate everywhere and all the time.
As an example; when I have patient consultation, I'm mindful of my abdomen rising and falling with each breath, the feeling of my lips moving when talking, the sound of my own voice, the seeing that goes on when seeing a patient, the feeling of pressure from sitting on a chair, the sound of birds chirping outside etc. One object at a time.
Even though it might be difficult to practice in public transport it should be done and with time it will become effortless. Don't worry about the quality it will become refined with practice. It's like learning to shoot a bow. With time and consistent practice one will finetune the movements, reduce energy consumption and eventually be able to do it effortlessly. It's the same with meditation practice in noisy environments.
At some point the mind will begin to incline towards being mindful due to the purity and simplicity of being in the present moment. When that happens there will be a strong momentum driving the mind towards mindfulness and away from unmindfulness. At that point it begins to become effortless. One does not have to apply and direct (vitakka and vichara) the mind anymore.

Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?

No, never. It will build, develop, cultivate and add to "general meditation practice".
A doctor who specializes in a field will be good but a doctor who specializes in several fields will be even better.
A fighter who specializes in one school of martial arts will be good. A fighter who specializes in several schools of martial arts will be even better.


Citta is the emotional mind-heart. When defilement of greed, hatred & delusion cease, the citta is pure, luminous & liberated (as explained in the Pabhassara Sutta).


What is this tile and what do its symbols depict?

What scenes are depicted?

On the side with text:

The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha was born.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining.

Lumbini, The birth place of Lord Buddha

Bodh Gaya, The place where Lord Buddha attained enlightenment

Saranath (Isipatana), The place where Lord Buddha preached his first dhamma sermon - Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, SN 56.11

Kushinagar (Upavattana Sal Grove), The place where Lord Buddha attained parinibbana

~ Source of images: The Life of the Buddha in Pictures

On the other side:

A statue of Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha in Samadhi (Dhyana) mudra (hand gesture) was carved on this side of the tile. By the appearance of the halo, I suggest that it must have been influenced by Mathura school of art. A similar halo can be seen in the famous Buddha statue at Saranath museum which was carved during Gupta dynasty.

  The meaning of the text?

I cannot be sure about the text. But, by examining the appearance of the script, it should be related to one of the Indo-Aryan languages.

  What this tile is called?

I have seen different small Buddha statues and carvings were placed inside vehicles and carried with themselves by the Buddhists in my country. But I have never seen this kind of tile in my country. So I cannot give it a name.

  What the function of the tile is?

You've mentioned that the tile is roughly as broad as your thumb. So it must have been carved in order to take with oneself wherever he/she goes.

  “Ānanda, there are these four places that merit being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merit his feelings of urgency & dismay [saṁvega]. Which four? ‘Here the Tathāgata was born’ is a place that merits being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merits his feelings of urgency & dismay. ‘Here the Tathāgata awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening’.… ‘Here the Tathāgata set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma’.… ‘Here the Tathāgata totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining’ is a place that merits being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merits his feelings of urgency & dismay. These are the four places that merit being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merit his feelings of urgency & dismay. They will come out of conviction, Ānanda—monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers—to the spots where ‘Here the Tathāgata was born,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining.’ And anyone who dies while making a pilgrimage to these shrines with a bright, confident mind will—on the break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.”

~ Cited from: Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, Deega Nikaya, Tipitaka (DN 16.5)

According to the above sutta, the four places carved on the tile are very important and sacred to the Buddhists. A devotee can keep this tile with himself/herself in order to frequently remember the places that merit his/her feelings of urgency and dismay.


(this is less Buddhism than a demonstration that actions within the empirical world do not suit Essential concepts like 'good' and 'evil'.. though to me this flows from the Buddha's analysis!)

Moral system 1: Killing = Evil (100%).

You wake up and find yourself faced with two option (you are placed in this position by a third actor).

Option A, kill 1 person.

Option B, 100 people are killed (by that third actor).

Knowing that 'Killing = Evil', you choose option B (within that 100%, the non-relational, there can be no justification for choosing A).. In that you do not personally pull the trigger, you are not the 'efficient cause'. You have done no wrong (within your moral system).

Moral system 2: No killing > less killing > more killing.

Logically, B is never reasonable.

An essential moral construct like 'good' or 'evil' will agree with a relational moral construct in all scenarios, other than the one where it is compared to itself. As such, it is simply inefficient. No need for opposites in their essential form!

"Treat this as this, not this as that or that as this" As the Buddha said. (in other words, not 'This=This'.. given evidence from empirical experience, the law of identity is flawed!)

Now how this fits in within the Buddhist world view, whether you can put it down to past karma for finding yourself in such a position.. how to square that you are damned either way is the more interesting question! :D


How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?

Nanamoli/Bodhi in their Majjhima Nikaya translation (4th ed) writes the following note associated with "experiencing the whole body" as present in the Sathipattana Sutta:

The Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha explains "experiencing the whole body" (sabbakaya patisamvedi) as signifying that the meditator becomes aware of each in-breath and out-breath through its three phases of beginning, middle and end. In the first edition I followed this explanation and added in brackets "of breath" after "whole body". In retrospect, however, this interpretation seems forced, and I now prefer to take the phrase quite literaly. It is also difficult to see how patisamvedi could mean "is aware of", as it is based on a verb "to experience".

Here is what Thanissaro Bihkkhu wrote on a footnote for the Anapanasati Sutta:

The commentaries insist that "body" here means the breath, but this is unlikely in this context, for the next step — without further explanation — refers to the breath as "bodily fabrication." If the Buddha were using two different terms to refer to the breath in such close proximity, he would have been careful to signal that he was redefining his terms (as he does below, when explaining that the first four steps in breath meditation correspond to the practice of focusing on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference). The step of breathing in and out sensitive to the entire body relates to the many similes in the suttas depicting jhana as a state of whole-body awareness (see MN 119).

In The Experience of Samadhi, Richard Shankman interviews Ajaan Thanissaro:

RS: In the Satipatthana Sutta, the anapanasati Sutta and the Kayagatasati Sutta, one is instructed to breath in and out, experiencing the whole body. Some interpret that it is talking about experiencing the whole physical body breathing, while others say it means staying with the whole duration of the breath but the focus can be at any point.
AT: It's the whole body.
RS: Does it matter?
AT: One of the drawbacks of concentration that's too one-pointed is that you're blocking out many areas of your experience which means that a lot of things can hide away in the areas you're blocking out. If, however, you develop more of a 360-degree awareness of the body, you're more likely to be conscious of more peripheral events in the mind. Also, if awareness is a whole-body awareness, it's a lot easier to maintain the state of concentration as you open your eyes and move around. [...]. If you only have one point that you are totally focused on, then as soon as you move from that point, your concentration is destroyed. But if you've got the whole body as your framework and you're constantly mindful of this framework, events can come through and go out, leaving the framework undisturbed.

Bhante Gunaratana, on his interview:

The Buddha has said that breath alone is one of the bodies. What do we have in a body? We have four elements: earth, air, water, fire. This is what we find in the breath. And therefore, the breath alone is fully qualified to be called a body, the breath body.
Therefore, if one practices the first tetrad, that individual has practiced mindfulness of the body just by practicing mindfulness of the breath. Some people ignore this particular sentence where the Buddha says the breath is a body, and they give their own interpretation.

Ajhan Brahmavamso, on his interview:

The word kaya  in Pali is well translated by the English word "body". We have a physical body, but also have a body of evidence, a body of experience, and these are all immaterial "bodies". We use the word "physical body" just to make sure we  know what body we are talking about. kaya, just like the word "body", means an accumulation of things, a conglomerate, a group of things.
Pervading the "kaya" with the jhana factors means that the experence of bliss pervades the whole "mental body" throughout the jhana. It does not mean experiencing the jhana with the physical body. That is a misunderstanding of the use of the word kaya in Pali. It is quite clear that in jhanas you cannot feel anything to do with the body (*).

In the same book, Richard Shankman devotes an appendix titled "Does it matter where you watch the breath?", making further considerations.
Also, Shaila Catherine, in her Focused and Fearless, seems to teach that step as focusing on the breath "as an object", rather than focusing on the specific sensation of in and out breath. Its hard to say from what lineage she got this, as she trained with monks from many different schools (maybe Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw?).
Ajahn Brahm, also wrote on this matter:

The third step is called in Pali sabba-kaya-patisamvedi, experiencing the whole process of breathing. A minority of teachers mistake the Pali term kaya to mean your physical body and so wrongly assume that now you are meant to direct your attention onto all the sensations in the whole of your physical body. This is an error. The Buddha clearly stated in the Anapanasati Sutta that he regarded  the process of breathing as "a certain body (kaya) among the bodies". Moreover, the direction of the first twelve steps of anapanasati is toward simplifying the object of awareness, not making it more complex. thus, this third step is where your mindfulness increases its agility sufficient to observe every sensation involved in the process of breathing.
-- Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond - A meditator's handbook

On a related issue, Joseph Goldstein notes in his book:

At this point in the sutta, there is an interesting change of language. As Analayo points out, in the first two exercises, the Buddha uses the verb "to know": breathing in, one knows one is breathing in, etc. But in the next two exercises of mindfulness of the breath, the Buddha uses the verb "to train". [...] This shift of language [...] suggests an increasing level of intentionality in our practice as we broaden our awareness from the breath to the whole body.
-- Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening

And then he goes on to summarize  the conflicting views of "whole body", but doesn't really take any position, just sees them as useful alternatives.
Finally, Analayo writes on his PhD-thesis-turned-book on the Satipatthana sutta:

The third and fourth steps of mindfulness of breathing, alike in both the Anapanasati Sutta and the Satipatthana Sutta, are concerned with experiencing the "whole body" (sabbakaya) and with calming the "bodily formation" (kayasaukhara). In the present context, the "whole body" can be taken literally to refer to the whole physical body. Understood in this way, the instruction points to a broadening of awareness, a shift from the breath alone to its effect on the en tire body. According to the commentaries, however, the "whole body" should be understood to refer, more figuratively, to the "body" of the breath. By understanding the "whole body" as the whole breath-body the  instruction then indicates full awareness of the beginning, middle, and end stages of each breath. This interpretation can claim support from the same Anapanasati Sutta, since the Buddha here identified the breath as a "body" (kaya) among bodies. An argument against this interpretation, however, could be that the cultivation of full awareness of the length of the breath was the task of the previous two steps, knowing a long or a short breath, which already required the meditator to be aware of each breath from beginning to end. One would therefore expect this next step in the progression to introduce a distinctly new feature for contemplation, such as, for example, a shift of awareness to include the whole physical body.
-- Satipaṭṭhāna, the Direct Path to Realization

(*) Other interviews present conflicting declarations with that assertion made by Ajhan Brahmavamso.

Edit: included texts by Ajahan Braham, Shaila Catherine and Joseph Goldstein


Does chanting have a practical and exclusive benefit?

It is an antidote for the Hindrance of Sloth and Torpor

  (3) RECITATION. If, Moggallāna, that drowsiness still would not go away, then, Moggallāna, you
  should recite in detail a teaching that you have learned.

  It is possible that when you do so, that drowsiness
  would go away.

Pacalā Sutta

It starting point to builds concentration also take you to the final goal of liberation.

  he himself recites the Dharma in detail to others, just as he has heard it, just as he has mastered
  it in theory.

  Bhikshus, just as the monk recites the Dharma to others, he knows the goal and he knows the
  Dharma,
  he knows the goal and he knows the Dharma.

  Knowing the goal and knowing the Dharma,

  gladness arises in him;

  because of gladness, zest arises;

  because of zest, the body becomes tranquil;

  when the body is tranquil, he feels happy;

  a happy mind becomes concentrated.

  This, bhikshus, is the third ground for liberation where the unliberated mind of a monk, dwelling
  heedful and exertive, finds liberation;
  or where the mental influxes, not wholly destroyed, become wholly destroyed, where the unattained
  unsurpassed safety from the yoke is attained.

Vimutt’āyatana Sutta


For a 30 minute session, my recommendation is to continue to merely watch the hazy thought process (as long as there is not sleeping). Hopefully, after a while, the haziness will clear, like dawn fog clears eventually as the sun rises.


Object-based Meditation Versus Objectless Meditation

QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Consequences might be that unity of mind cannot happen since there is no object to focus attention on, meaning e.g. Vitakka and Vichara, cannot happen.

Insight-meditationally speaking, without an object to attend to, I don't see how insights could arise.

  QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

It might block the (seven) Enlighenment Factors from arising.


The quiet mind is ideal but not a forced quiet mind. It is only the quiet of jhana that is ideal. If jhana is too difficult,  and unlikely for us, then best not to waste time and practice momentary samadhi instead by becoming aware of the busy, unclear mind when it arises. If there is an urge to fight it or if there is disliking it, be aware there is disliking. Mindfulness impartial to the defilement, the defilement is automatically abandoned, disappears for that moment. Train this way for those who aren't clearing the mind correctly or easily.


Why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?

Yes puthujjanas crave intellectualism, building fantasies, speculating, building a system of thoughts, classifying ideas, creating ideas, searching for definitions, and they always invent a story where they are good people for spending their day doing philosophy. Always claiming that their speculation ''makes things clearer''. It is completely normal.

And, when they hear that the only good use of mano in the dhamma is to judge the thoughts and sanna and vedanna, and select only the good ones, in order to purify mano to the point where mano has piti, just before the jhanas,  they get disappointed to see that they are not as righteous, with respect to the dhamma, as they thought they where in their intellectual bubble.

Then, like you said, some puthujjanas even manage to say that dukkha can be good. They try to salvage dukkha, because that's all they have in their life. It's like some people claiming that pain has meaning, pain can be useful, creates a person because it would strengthen a person and the person would learn something valuable from pain.

The whole point of the buddha is that there is nothing behind dukkha. Dukkha is just dukkha and is never ever worth it. There is no deep meaning with dukkha. There is no hidden purpose tied to dukkha. Dukkha is purely meaningless. There is no exploration of dukkha that is worth it. But puthujjanas manage to fall in love with their aggregates, and then they claim that dukkha can be skillful. This unconditional love, the clinging to this love by the puthujjanas is pure insanity.


Possibility of nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

I think that nibbana is defined as the end of suffering -- which occurs with the end of craving (as defined by the noble truths).

The end of craving happens (permanently) when the various causes of craving up uprooted -- the causes of craving include e.g. anusaya and asava and so on.

This uprooting can be permanent in the same way that when a palm tree is cut then it won't grow again.

Conversely, Samsara is a cycle of existence -- the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the 12 nidanas) says that cycle (including further birth) is conditioned by craving -- and so does this description:

  “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.


Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan?

Probably because he was told so and never started to investigate the real origin of things? Even today there are many Sinhalese people claiming the origin in the country they live. One may find such similar thoughts in all other countries and one also may find Jesus with balck skin or Chinese eyes in other countries. That's the nature and requirement for all -isms and -ists: Strong Self-identification.

Dhamma and means for liberation should not be dig up be focus on objectification (pacanca) although it is usually refined identification what gives one rise toward interest and can be used of course also strategical wise "What, if I let go of it, would lead to my long term happiness?", thought of "who ever defines one self, limits and suffers with it", especially if not something leading to go beyond.

If Marco Polo ever had met the good Dhamma, real "Buddists", he would not have returned. So it's probably good to investigate travelers who found the way that leads to rest.

  “Is it possible, lord, by traveling, to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”

  “I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” Rohitassa Sutta

{Note that this has not been given to keep one on wandering on by trade, exchange, stacks, or use it for such, but for liberation}

To answer a further argument, actually not leading to liberation at all:

"Well, Marco Polo visited India and China along the way too. If he found Buddha existed in India then he would have mentioned it that way instead."

Why should he have traveled around and possible ask everywhere the same question, everybody he meets? If one lives amoung people with a certain believe, then one might be missinformed, since not knowing. As the Dhamma is about seeing your self (to gain liberation), what is not possible of thing which have already decayed (history), it does not support the feed the attention on improper means but to come there where reality happens and why. Once again in other words:

  “Is it possible, lord, by researching, to know or see or reach the Buddha or Dhamma, where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”

  “I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by research to know or see or reach the Buddha or the Dhamma where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without researching after the Buddha and the Dhamma. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is The Buddha and the Dhamma, the the origination of The Buddha and the Dhamma, the cessation of the Buddha and the Dhamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of The Buddha and the Dhamma.”

In regard of places, as the Buddha told, there is no place to be found in the world which is not actually a cementery, and ther is not a singe moment in the world in which no aging, sickness and death takes place. So what does one cling on here? Be wise. Don't waste your time, what ever might have been does not matter on the fact, that a raw possibility to be born as human, possible not stupid (?) and meeting the Dhamma, might be wasted away!


Does using a pdf for sale for free violate the 2nd precept?

The 2nd precept states:

"2.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given."

In order to break the precept 5 factors must be fulfilled.

Conditions that Break the Precept
The five factors of the second precept are:

para-parigga-hitam -- article(s) with a concerned owner.

para-parigga-hita-sannita -- one knows there is a concerned owner.

theyya-cittam -- the intention to steal.

upakkamo -- the effort to steal.

tena haranam -- the article(s) is (are) stolen through that effort.

All of the above factors must be fulfilled in order to break the precept. So if you can answer no to one or more of them you didn't break the precept.


In Dependent Co-Arising, is Dukkha a Sankhara, a Vedana, both, or none?

Plenty of other things than vedana are dukkha, so you cannot say that dukkha is just vedana.

The buddha says that whatever is anicca is dukkha, so the way to find dukkha is to find something anicca, and all the stuff in Dependent Co-Arising are anicca.

the buddha says that this is to be known about dukkha:

  "'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play
  should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result
  of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known.
  The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.'
  Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

  Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
  the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
  getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
  clinging-aggregates are stress.

  "And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the
  cause by which stress comes into play.

  "And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor,
  slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in
  stress.

  "And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a
  person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns,
  laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with
  pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or
  two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either
  in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress.

  "And what is the cessation of stress? From the cessation of craving is
  the cessation of stress; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress.

  "Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress in this way,
  the cause by which stress comes into play in this way, the diversity
  of stress in this way, the result of stress in this way, the cessation
  of stress in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation
  of stress in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as
  the cessation of stress.

  "'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play...
  The diversity in stress... The result of stress... The cessation of
  stress... The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be
  known.' Thus it was said, and in reference to this was it said.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

As usual dukkha arises from craving   and ceases from the cessation from craving like that

  “One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and
  delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not
  attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and
  delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves
  for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha
  will not attain liberation from dukkha.

https://suttacentral.net/sa7/en/analayo

If you want to find dukkha, just make craving arise and puthujjanas already crave and delight so it won't be hard to find dukkha.

So when there is no delight, this happens

  "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing,
  charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not
  relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, then in him —
  not relishing them, not welcoming them, not remaining fastened to them
  — there arises no delight. From the cessation of delight, I tell you,
  comes the cessation of suffering and stress. {By this means, Punna,
  you are not far from this doctrine and discipline."

  At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: “You should rightly
  examine the eye as impermanent. One who examines it like this is
  called ‘with right view’. Because of rightly contemplating it,
  disenchantment arises. Because of the arising of disenchantment, one
  is free from delight and free from lust. Because of being free from
  delight and lust, I say the mind is rightly liberated.

  “In the same way [one should rightly examine] the ear … the nose … the
  tongue … the body … the mind … [up to] … one is free from delight and
  free from lust. Monks, because of being free from delight and lust, I
  say the mind is rightly liberated.

https://suttacentral.net/sa188/en/analayo

And the way to not have delight is this:

  “In the same way you should give right attention to feeling …
  perception … formations … consciousness, contemplating consciousness
  as impermanent, knowing it as it really is. Why is that? One who gives
  right attention to consciousness, who contemplates consciousness as
  impermanent and knows it as it really is, will eradicate desire and
  lust in regard to consciousness. One who eradicates desire and lust in
  regard to consciousness, I say, liberates the mind.

https://suttacentral.net/sa2/en/analayo

which is done with ''diligence''

  “To a type of monks like this I say that they [should] cultivate
  diligence. Why is that? As such a monk trains in the faculties and
  delights the mind accordingly, is endowed with the necessities of
  life, and associates with good friends, he will soon attain the
  destruction of the influxes, the influx-free liberation of the mind
  and liberation by wisdom, knowing here and now for himself and
  realizing that: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has
  been established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know
  that there will be no receiving of any further existence.’

  “Why is that? In relation to forms cognized by the eye which he could
  crave for with delight and become defiled by attachment, on having
  seen them that monk does not delight in them, does not praise them, is
  not defiled by them, and is not established in the bondage of
  attachment. As he does not delight in them, not praise them, is not
  defiled by them, and is not established in [the bondage of]
  attachment, he diligently progresses in the appeasing of body and
  mind.

  “With the mind fully established in peace without forgetfulness,
  always concentrated and single-minded, with boundless joy in the
  Dharma, but still attaining the foremost concentrative attainment, he
  will certainly not regress by following a form with the eye. In
  relation to [sounds cognized by] the ear … [odours cognized by] the
  nose … [flavours cognized by] the tongue … [tangibles cognized by] the
  body … mind-objects cognized by the mind it is also like this.”

https://suttacentral.net/sa212/en/analayo