So Buddhism says a lot of things.

One is that unhappiness is caused by "craving" i.e. by wanting things to be other than as they are (or by wanting impermanent things to continue)

Another is that unhappiness is caused by various types of "self-view", for example, "I will die" or "I cannot have what I want" etc.

One aspect of "self-view" is "comparison" -- comparing "yourself" to others -- for example, "I have or don't have a job", and, "I don't have as good a job as she has" etc.

The word "humiliation" sounds like it's associated with "pride" -- which, is one of the "fetters", one of the canonical problems. There is one way in which "conceit" or "comparison" can be used wisely or productively, which is to say, "That person (maybe a 'spiritual friend') has attained X (i.e. 'enlightenment') by doing Y (i.e. 'practising the way to enlightenment'). Perhaps I too, by doing Y, can attain X".

I guess the Buddhist path might be something like,

Be moral (ethical) to avoid hurting others
Understand (perhaps by learning Buddhist doctrine on that subject) what kinds of thinking cause unhappiness, then stop doing that

The word "redemption" might not be mainstream Buddhist -- I associate that word with "Christ the Redeemer" i.e. "Jesus dying to save (redeem, buy back, pay a sacrificial price for) Mankind from Sin".

Buddhism is a little more "You're saved by your own efforts" (with due respect, to the three jewels or refuges) -- i.e. it's up to you to learn, up to you to control or not control your mind, and each person is "heir to their own kamma" i.e. it's because of your own intentions/actions that you become happy or unhappy -- go to "heaven" or "the animal word" or become "enlightened".

The fact that you're able to ask this question suggests you're capable -- not too addicted or angry to care, not too confused to even ask, at least have lucid moments.

I don't know your circumstances, but from this distance I might suggest, don't worry too much about "career never started" if you can. Any work you do might be good work, what you volunteer to do as well. The important thing is to do the best you can in the circumstances -- "best" meaning "kind to yourself and others" -- and then be happy, because you're doing the best you can.

I still wonder if all suffering are really from oneself

Canonically it (i.e. mental or psychological suffering) arises from craving, attachment, self-image -- part of which is the idea that there is a "oneself" for it to come from.

you can also be made to feel shame by the community

People might try to shame you, I guess -- there's a sutta SN 7.2 which describes the Buddha's reply to someone trying to "insult" him.

I'm not sure that "shame" is a good way to teach people -- here's a non-Buddhist poem which was semi-famous when I was young:

  CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE
  --Dorothy Law Nolte

  If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
  If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
  If children live with ridicule, they learn to be shy.
  If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
  If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
  If children live with tolerance, they learn to be patient.
  If children live with praise, they learn to appreciate.
  If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
  If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
  If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
  If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and others.
  If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.

It's possible, I don't know, that some people in the community are trying to tell you something worthwhile -- or, maybe they're unkind and trying to shame you -- or maybe you react with shame, when it's not their intention to inflict it -- I don't know.

Perhaps you can't afford to pay too much attention to people who are only negative and not helpful.

I also don't know what they want, maybe they're selfishly trying to sell you something useless -- it's up to you to find wise advice I guess.

isn't there a point where the inner world is not so solipsisitc

Yes and no?

I've met people in whom "suffering", as a result of their "inner world", seemed to me absolutely pathological, and nearly life-long -- and maladaptive i.e. not a "good" response to the current social environment -- like post-traumatic stress.

The whole "self versus society" is complicated, especially when that's seen as "versus" rather than as "cooperating with".

Anyway I think that Buddhism intends to help you become free of negative emotions, like shame (also called "obscurations" in some schools of Buddhism). Perhaps you have to recognise the emotion, and understand how it arises, and remove or avoid or "uproot" the condition[s] in which it arises.

To be fair Buddhism also teaches that "a sense of shame" can be a good thing for a student to have, because it keeps them from doing the wrong things.

A good part of that and a (possibly 'the') basis of Buddhism is ethics -- it's taught that "skilful virtue" (which I think means "doing the right thing well") has a purpose and a result, which is "absence of remorse", from which arises "joy" and so on.

So "absence of remorse" -- having done the best you can, doing the best you can, intending to do the best you can in future -- and not being ashamed of that, not being ashamed because of that.

Note that "ethics" aren't, necessarily, "solipsistic" -- ethics help people coexist, help the person coexist with society. The so-called Threefold Training maybe begins with "Right Speech", which is usefully summarised here -- Right Speech -- which I'd recommend you read ... and then practice i.e. try to speak like that and to listen to "right speech" from other people.


What was Buddha's purpose in constructing The Four Stages of Enlightenment?

The four stages define what the basis of enlightenment is, namely, losing the belief in an inherent self ("stream-entry") ; and, at the same time, further define what full enlightenment is ("arahant"), namely, the complete uprooting of greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, if you or a teacher (guru) still has lust, hatred or selfishness then this means full enlightenment has not been reached.

For example, there are many intellectuals (e.g. Sam Harris) who speak and act to give an impression they are enlightened because they speak theories about "no self". However, if we examine their other views and beliefs, we can work out if they are really enlightened or not.

Or there is a certain chat site where members claim to practise "jhana" yet they also post about their sexual lusts. Since a master of jhana will be at least a once-returner but often a non-returner, any significant lust should not arise in a once-returner or non-returner.

The same applies to us. The four stages are a guide to us of the level of (our) enlightenment. They are not for boasting but for the opposite. They are so we do not overestimate our experience.


Literal translation of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra

Aṣṭasāhasrikā translates to "eight thousand":

aṣṭá -- eight
sahasra -- thousand

Sanskrit Numbers


Would a true Buddhist engage in the No True Scotsman fallacy?

I see The True Scotsman Fallacy as a joking illustration of reification. There is obviously no such thing as THE TRUE Scotsman. It's an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Every Scotsman is different and not all of them even live in Scotland! How can we possibly say that some of them are "true" and some are "fake"?

Similarly, "TRUE Buddhist" is an ill-defined abstraction that has no real-world referent. Believing that True Buddhists actually exist or that someone is a true Buddhist while someone else is not, are two examples of reification.

So to ask "would a true Buddhist engage in The True Scotsman Fallacy" is akin to asking whether a reification would engage in reification. And of course it happens all the time! Someone considering himself a "true Buddhist" (I don't want to name any users here but I can think of a few) is by definition rather prone to engaging into a "no true Buddhist would do or say X, Y, Z" line of argument. Not to say that, even more generally, someone considering himself a sentient being is probably rather likely to have an unconscious predilection for engaging into all types of reifying views that lead to quarrels and arguments.

In fact the entire Buddhist path (according to Mahayana interpretation) can be seen as growing up from naive reification and into the "wisdom" (wisdom or prajna being a short word for "a skillful modus operandi based on special insight into the nature of phenomena with awareness of the rewards of, the dangers of, and the escape from - reification"). In this sense of course, a "true Buddhist" (from streamenterer and above, or from 1st Bhumi and above in Mahayana) would NOT engage into naive reifying definitions like "the true Buddhist" or "the true Scotsman" etc.

Which is why "a true Buddhist" would never ever consider him or her self "a true Buddhist". If this sounds like a paradox, welcome to true Buddhism ;)


Ud 6.9  - Adhipataka Sutta: Like Moths to the Flame
translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki

  “The insects are drawn irresistibly in the dark night to the shining
  lamps, but in their zeal to approach the light they go too far and
  only meet their doom. Humans likewise are drawn to the pleasures of
  the senses, to what is seen and heard, not realizing the dangers
  involved. When we get too close — when we hold on with too much
  attachment — we get burned by suffering. The senses can still be
  enjoyed, as the moth can stay circling the flame, but only when one
  holds the proper distance. This quality of "stepping back" or
  "standing off" from obsession with the senses is something that is
  cultivated with the practice of mindfulness meditation.”


How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception?

It is a topic expounded in:

philosophical texts
classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. grub mtha')

In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how Sankha Kulathantille understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth.

I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (grub mtha') define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's Presentation of Tenets and Geshe Sopa's Cutting Through Appearances. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.

Vaïbashika definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending  that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.

Sautrantika definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.

(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)

Cittamatrin definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.

Madhyamika-Svatantrika definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.

Madhyamika-Prasangika definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.

The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).


In Tibetan Buddhism, a God is merely a sentient being that is subject to suffering. Gods have afflictions such as ignorance, anger, attachment and so forth. They have mistaken consciousnesses, and so forth. It is just a type of rebirth. You yourself could be reborn as a God. A god is empty of being permanent, unitary, independent, self-sufficient substantially existent, and according to some schools of Tenets empty of true existence as well, and to others empty of inherent existence as well.

So, 'a god' is just a name referring to a type of being that experiences pleasant feelings for a very long time, before he dies and gets reborn as... maybe a human, or a preta, or a hell being, or an animal or a god again.

There is also the concept of 'deity' but that is another matter that is related to secret mantra and the four bodies of a buddha. Basically, a deity is an emanation or a supreme emanation body which is not a being.


Is Buddha Nature the original state, i.e. Awareness/ Consciousness without Existence?

OP: Is Buddha Nature Vedanta's opposite of Brahman i.e. Non-Existence, Consciousness, Bliss?

Firstly, what is Tathagatagarbha aka Buddha Nature? Is it the same as or opposite to Vedanta's Brahman?
According to this article:

Tathagatagarbha, or Tathagata-garbha, means "womb" (garbha) of Buddha
(Tathagata). This refers to a Mahayana Buddhist doctrine that Buddha
Nature is within all beings. Because this is so, all beings may
realize enlightenment. Tathagatagarbha often is described as a seed,
embryo or potentiality within each individual to be developed.

And it discusses further:

In the religions of the Buddha's day that were the forerunners of
today's Hinduism, one of the central beliefs as (and is) the doctrine
of atman. Atman means "breath" or "spirit," and it refers to a soul or
individual essence of self. Another is the teaching of Brahman, which
is understood as something like the absolute reality or the ground of
being. In the several traditions of Hinduism, the precise relationship
of atman to Brahman varies, but they could be understood as the small,
individual self and the big, universal self.
However, the Buddha specifically rejected this teaching. The doctrine
of anatman, which he articulated many times, is a direct refutation of
atman.
Through the centuries many have accused the Tathagatagarbha doctrine
of being an attempt to sneak an atman back into Buddhism by another
name.
In this case, the potentiality or Buddha-seed within each being is
compared to atman, and Buddha Nature -- which is sometimes identified
with the dharmakaya -- is compared to Brahman.
You can find many Buddhist teachers speaking of small mind and big
mind, or small self and big self. What they mean may not be exactly
like the atman and Brahman of Vedanta, but it's common for people to
understand them that way. Understanding Tathagatagarbha this way,
however, would violate basic Buddhist teaching.

Another article here tries to point the origins of tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature to the Luminous Mind in the Pali Canon (which according to Theravada Buddhism, is not permanent or eternal, but is dependently arising - see this answer).
It comments in its conclusion:

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the
'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a
principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

... Thus it is
better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing
"profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a
monistic self.

Buddha Nature is said to originate from the concept of the "luminous mind" in Pabhassara Sutta, which is anyway not eternal, not unconditioned and not impermanent (see this answer).
Nirguna Brahman is described in Advaita Vedanta as the substratum of all phenomena in Vivekachudamani 289 and as the material cause of the phenomenal universe in Aparokshanubhuti 45.
So, while Buddha Nature is simply the potential for enlightenment (a principle), it is not the material "essence" of ultimate truth, which Nirguna Brahman is.
So Buddha Nature and Nirguna Brahman are not the same. But they are also not opposite. They simply refer to different concepts. Like oranges and apples - not same, not opposite, just different.

OP:  As awareness/ consciousness is always "on", no matter of what state it's in then surely awareness/ consciousness would still
experience non-existence, akin to our lack of any experience in deep
sleep.

Awareness/ consciousness in Advaita Vedanta is always "on". This is described by Bhagavad Gita 13.14 and Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.11.
However, this is not the case in Buddhism.
The Buddha taught the following, from MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
& aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
Awareness/ consciousness is not always "on" in Buddhism. It depends on the six sensory media.
Also useful, also from MN 38, in which the Buddha makes clear that it is not the SAME consciousness that wanders through one's life:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the
Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
harm & suffering."


What is the difference between an arhat, bodhisattva and a buddha?

According to the Prasangika-Madhyamika Mahayana school of Tenets,

A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He as achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).

In his commentary to Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, Gyaltsab Je says:

  For the Hearer and Solitary Realizer arhat, because they do not meditate on the perfection of wisdom.
  It means that although Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha arhats cultivated the wisdom realizing emptiness, their wisdom is not conjoined with bodhicitta. Therefore, it is not a perfection of wisdom.

Commenting Gyaltsab Je, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  Bodhisattvas, hearers (shravakas) and solitary realizers (pratyeka buddhas) arhats do have realizations of reality, but they do not realize it in the same way as a buddha.

And:

  The Hinayana arhats and bodhisattvas on the three pure grounds, are reborn due to uncontaminated karma that propels them to take birth and their body is a called a mental body.

A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha.

We say that in terms of wisdom, a Hinayana arhat is more powerful than a bodhisattva before the 8th bhumi, because he abandoned afflictive obscurations while the bodhisattva abandons them from the 8th ground.

Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  Having generated spontaneous bodhicitta the bodhisattva has entered the Mahayana path [the path of accumulation] and the cause is great compassion, the concern for all sentient beings. He blocks the two extremes in two ways.

The Lam Rim, Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi,  and Maitreya’s Ornament for Clear Realization  explain well what bodhicitta is, how it is the entry gate to the Mahayana, etc.

A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted.

Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum explains the two bodies of a buddha that can also be divided into three, four, or five.


Why is lust considered as being unskillful?

Imho, unskillful does not mean the same as morally wrong.

If I say something to someone who wasn't really open to hear what I had to say, doesn't make me saying this or that morally wrong. It is, however, unskillful, since the person didn't really pay any attention.

Why is it unskillful?
Because it leads to the habituation of clinging and attachment. If you want to strive for enlightenment, sex and pornography will hinder you on the path. Because of the increase of the addiction, attachment.

If you don't want to develop in a spiritual way, then it's not a question at all.

Skillful, unskillful has more to do with whether it helps you or others, whether it's helpful or a hindrance.

That's what comes to mind.
Hope it helps.


The flame analogy is not logical to me since, to me, a flame must depend on the fuel & wick, similar to how the mind must depend on the physical body & food. Imo, a flame cannot be 'disembodied', just as a mind cannot be disembodied. For example, when sparks spread fire (say in a forest fire), the sparks of fire are attached to some physical matter, such as leaves.

Similarly, the Pali suttas appear to state in many places (such a MN 38, SN 22.53 & SN 12.67) that there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body & sense organs.

I have only read about a dozen or so places in the Pali suttas from around 8,000 suttas that teach about literal reincarnation (eg. AN 3.15, MN 143, MN 50, MN 81, etc). Since these contradict the main teachings, particularly SN 22.79 (which is about 'past dwellings' rather than 'past lives' & states all recollections of the past are not a 'self'), the impression arises these literal reincarnation suttas are later additions rather than the words of the Buddha.

The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth' or 'rebirth'.

The impression of Buddhism I have is, as Buddhism grew in India, the clergy, keen to expand Buddhism, introduced reincarnation teachings (which are very appealing to many people), the most prominent being the Jataka Tales about the Buddha's past lives & similar suttas in the Digha Nikaya.

On face value, my personal view is the core teachings of the Buddha do not include life-to-life physical rebirth.


Does it make any sense to read the four noble truths parallel to the Buddhaghosa's 4 interpretations of the nidanas

Ven. Buddhaghosa himself has said in his book THE PATH OF PURIFICATION (VISUDDHIMAGGA) that 'one's own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas' (DA. 567-68). So far I have not come across such an explanation in the Suttas. So until I come across such an explanation in the Scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya), I’ll have to take it that Ven. Buddhaghosa’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas'.

To understand the Four Noble Truths the 4 'foundations of mindfulness’ is there.  The Satipatthāna is there for this purpose. The realization one gets out of it is the understanding of Paticca Samuppāda (dependent origination or the universal law of cause and effect). That is, the ability of seeing things in life according to cause and effect.

The first step toward the Noble Eightfold Path is for one to become faith-devoted – that all the answers are there in the Suttas. One who accepts this path of Dhamma admits that there is suffering of this Samsara. He accepts there exists a cause and effect. He accepts the fact that one needs to be free from suffering. He also accepts that the Supreme Buddha has freed Himself from suffering and the Dhamma can free us from that suffering. He accepts that the disciples (of the Buddha) will have to follow the Dhamma and that there are disciples who have attained the Arahantship by practicing the Dhamma.

In one who comes to these notions, an internal spiritual faculty will be formed. It is a faculty that operates within the mind. This person will come to the Noble Eightfold Path, as this person has accepted the Supreme Buddha, His Dhamma, and His disciple monks wholeheartedly. It is this person who will begin to study the scriptures in earnest. Only then he/she will begin to realize the Paticca Samuppāda gradually.


Is equanimity more sublime that an excellent act?

'Equanimity' is the last of the four brahmavihara (metta, karuna, mudita & upekkha) & is practised together with the other brahmavihara. For example, if there is good-will (metta) & the wish to help (karuna) but no possibility to help then equanimity (upekkha) is practised.

Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as practising equanimity as an alternative to performing a beneficial act. Equanimity is only practised when a beneficial action cannot be performed due to another person not capable or not willing to change or benefit.

For example, AN 4.100 says speaking praise &/or blame in the right situation is more advanced & exalted than equanimity. However, as said, the situation must be the right appropriate situation. For example, preaching & proselytizing dhamma when not asked & to people who don't want to listen is not a "right situation" to perform unwanted "beneficial acts". AN 9.5 says Dhamma, as a gift of benevolence, is only taught to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.


What is the minimum I need to do to advance?

While heavily focused on by western practitioners - meditation is only one aspect towards the cultivation of the mind. If unsupported by the right morality and faith, your mind will be too troubled and unfocused to concentrate on the object of your meditation. In the case of Anapanasati and Vipassana, your object is your breath - but even as you're practicing under Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings, you probably notice that you start off focusing on your breath and noting phenomenons as they arise, but somewhere down the line you realize you've been swept away by a stream of consciousness. Only after the arising of many thoughts, do you even realize this has happened and you try to steer your concentration back to your main object and start once more with the noting. Before you're swept away again...

Thus even if you are able to sit there for a long period of time with the initial intention of practicing meditation, it is difficult to advance.

The keeping of the 5 precepts is a good place to start. But perhaps by investigating the conditioned reality brought forth by the 5 precepts, you can realize for yourself their effects on morality and their qualities of non doubt, non remorse, and arouse sufficient investigative faith to progress.


Is the Alayavijnana momentary?And is it shared in Yogacara?

Re. the momentariness of the Alayavijnana, the Lankavatara Sutra says:
“Mahāmati, the ālaya-consciousness, which is known as “the tathāgata heart,” is momentary in its being associated with mentation as well as the latent tendencies of the active consciousnesses [but] it is nonmomentary [in its being associated] with the uncontaminated latent tendencies.”
In verse Stiramathi's commentary to I.16 the Mahayanasamgraha, he says that the Alayavijnana is momentary - else the latent tendecies would not be momentary.
In note 144 of Volume Two of A Compendium of the Mahayana, Karl Brunnhölzl writes: “The Pañcaskandhabhāṣya (D4068, fols. 100b.3–101a.3) comments on Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra V.7 as follows. Since the ālaya-consciousness appropriates bodies in one life after another and knows its own object, it is given the name “appropriating consciousness.” It is profound because ordinary beings do not understand it, and it is subtle because noble śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not understand it. Or, it is profound because it is the sphere of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and it is subtle because it is not the sphere of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Since it functions as the support of the seeds of all afflicted phenomena, the verse says, “with all [its] seeds.” In answer to wondering whether this ālaya-consciousness is permanent or impermanent, the verse says, “flows like the stream of a river.” A river flows as a momentary stream by carrying wood, stones, and so on, with it. Likewise, the ālaya-consciousness operates uninterruptedly in saṃsāra as a momentary stream by being associated with the five omnipresent mental factors. Therefore, since it is impermanent, the verse says, “flows like a river.”
Vasubandhu utilizes the river metaphor again in the Trimsatika, when he says in verse 4 that the alaya consciousness "always evolves like a flowing stream,
And is abandoned in the state of arhat."
As for whether the ground consciousness is 'shared' Maitreya/Asanga (and their commentators) deal with that question in the Dharmadharmatavibanga:
What appear to be outer, perceivable in common,
Are perceiving awareness; they are not referents
Existing as something extrinsic to consciousness,
Because they are only experienced as common.
The counterpart is the one in which what is perceived
Is not shared in common. Here awareness’ referent
Is the minds and so on associated with others.
These do not comprise an object of mutual exchange
For perceiving awareness not resting nor resting poised,
Because, for those not resting in equipoise,
It is but their own conceptions that appear;
And because, for those who are resting in equipoise,
It is its faithful reflection that appears
As the object encountered during samadhi absorption.
Finally, both Dharmakirti and Ratnakirti also address the iussue of other minds. You can read their views here --
Buddhist idealism and the problem of other minds by Roy Perret

This essay is concerned with Indian Yogācāra philosophers’ treatment of the problem of other minds in the face of a threatened collapse into solipsism suggested by Vasubandhu’s epistemological argument for idealism.


Has the law of karma evolved/is it evolving?

AFAIK, changing is probably the only thing common to both Buddhism and Darwin's theory of evolution. The law of Karma is an important teaching in Buddhism that explains a certain causes and effect process.

The Buddha Dhamma is called Akaliko for 2 reasons:

Gives effect immediately
True for all three times (past, present and future)

But we must not confuse Buddha Dhamma with the word 'Dhamma' used in "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta". Here the word 'Dhamma' means phenomena. All phenomena except Nibbana are conditioned and subjected to change. Buddha Dhamma is the teachings of those phenomena and their behavior. That is true for all times.

Science keep changing as it is based on hypothesis. Buddha Dhamma does not change as it is based on direct knowledge.

If the required causes are present, the effect will come to past. Regarding the teaching of Karma, time itself is part of the equation. Read about Kala Sampatti & Kala Vipatti


Is it the EARTH only Place that can give birth to a Buddha?

The plane humans live on, is the lowest of the higher realms of existence where one has the ability to comprehend the Dhamma. The Ābhāsvara worlds form the upper limits of existence. The scriptures talk about four tiers of existence or planes of consciousness. At the lowest level are the realms of Hell, and the worlds of Animal, hungry ghosts, & Asura / Titans. Above our world of Humans, there are the seven worlds of desire (Kama-lokas / Kamavacara). Above them are sixteen worlds of forms known as Ripa-lokas / Rupavacara. Above them are the four formless worlds (Arupa-lokas / Arupavacara).
Even on Earth, Buddhas are ALWAYS born in the middle kingdom. The following is what Buddha said of this region:

"Even if one escapes from the evil creations, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a human being. Even if one is born as a human, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a man and not a woman. Even if one is born as a man, it is one's rare fortune to be perfected in all the six senses. Even if he is perfected in all the six senses, it is his rare fortune to be born in the middle kingdom. Even if he is born in the middle kingdom, it is rare fortune to be born in the time of a Buddha. Even if he is born in the time of a Buddha, it is rare fortunate to see the Enlightened One. Even if he is able to see the Enlightened One, it is his rare fortune to have his heart awakened in faith. Even if he has faith, it is his rare fortune to awaken the heart of wisdom. Even if he awakens the heart of wisdom, it is his rare fortune to realise a spiritual state which is above discipline and attainment."

A Buddha’s  birth, His Supreme Buddha-hood, His first Dhamma discourse, and His pass away (Parinibbāna) - all happen within this Middle Kingdom. We know of these details because of Buddha’s Ten Extra Ordinary Powers. One of the ten powers is that a Buddha is…

capable of seeing how He spent His past lives in many ways. He has the capability to remember His past lives in terms of one life, two lives, three lives, four lives, five lives, ten lives, twenty lives, thirty lives, forty lives, fifty lives, hundred lives, thousand lives, or even hundred thousand lives. In fact, He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa.
He is capable of remembering all the past lives with all related information in a manner as follows: “I lived in that particular place, in that name, and in that family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place. I got that particular name in that life. I had this family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place.”


Strangely there is a site about this. Check out Buddhism for Vampires. Like Orion says in her comments the tantric beings Vetala could be thought of as vampires or zombies. Certainly they seems to do a lot of hanging around in burial grounds and a bit of drinking of blood. If it looks like a vampire, drinks blood like a vampire then perhaps it is a vampire.


What happens to the five aggregates after death?

1. Do they stay together, and cause birth of a one specific person (which can be called rebirth), or do they separate?

Even when you are alive, the 5 skandhas arise together in every experience. So when you ask "do they stay together", you are asking if the experience stays. No! The experience disappears immediately. There's no staying. The skandhas in this experience are not the same as the skandhas in the next.

2. If they separate, do they separate just into 5, or does each aggregate split into smaller parts?

The 5 skandhas are grouped into 2 categories. Nāma (mental) and Rūpa (physical). Rūpa contains only the 1st skanda and the Nāma contains the remaining 4.
Usually only Rūpa can arise independently, e.g.: a log, stone, corpse etc.
Nāma always needs to arise in association with Rūpa except in Arupa Brahma Realms. But again, when you ask "if they separate", you are making the assumption that there's something fixed lasting for a certain time period. It doesn't work that way. A single experience can contain a maximum of 17 thought moments. 1 Rūpa unit lasts only for 17 thought moments and there's no example in nature to compare to the time 1 thought moment lasts but to the lifespan of another thought moment.

The mind at the time of death

  When a person is about to die the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment and passes away. The interruption is caused by an object which presents itself to the mind-door. As a result of this a mind-door-adverting citta arises. This is followed by five javana thought moments which are weak, lack reproductive power, and serve only to determine the nature of rebirth consciousness. The javanas may or may not be followed by two registering thought moments (tadaalambana). After this comes the death consciousness (cuti citta), which is identical in constitution and object to the bhava"nga citta. The cuti citta merely serves the function of signaling the end of life. It is important to appreciate the difference between the cuti citta and the javanas that precede it. The cuti citta is the end of the bhava"nga flow of an existence and does not determine the nature of rebirth. The javanas that occur just before the cuti citta arises form a kammic process and determine the nature of the rebirth consciousness.

3. If they separate, do they cause births of many different persons?

There's no separation. When a person dies, the Nāma doesn't appear in the body anymore. Only Rūpa caused due to reasons other than Nāma continue to appear. There's only one Patisandi citta. So the death of a being does not result in multiple births.

  we can conclude that four of the aggregates (sensation, perception,
  mental formations and consciousness) stay together and cause a new
  birth of one specific person, while the remaining aggregate (rūpa,
  matter) separates and splits into parts.

Again, there's no staying. They appear together and disappear instantly. Nāma does not go from this life to the next. The first citta of the next life is a result of the Javana cittas that occur just before the cuti citta.

  I have the illusion that I'm the same person as a moment ago, even
  though my body, my feelings, etc. have changed. Does this illusion
  continue after death?

Ignorance or Moha is a cetasika. The cetasikas are the mental factors or concomitants that arise and perish together with consciousness (citta), sharing its object and basis. Cetasikas don't appear independently from the cittas. So there's nothing going from this moment to the next. But that doesn't mean the next citta cannot have an ignorance cetasika.

  I watched Yuttadhammo's video about rebirth and understood that
  Buddhists believe in perceived continuity of the consciousness after
  death.

Venerable Yuttadhammo is talking about the continuity of experiencing. He's not implying a panchaskanda going from this life to the next or from this moment to the next.


Any advice on leg numbing during sitting?

I feel your pain!  That was a huge problem for me for years!  There is a cure, thankfully.  There is some trial and error involved, but if you persist, you'll figure it out.  First, some background.  What you are experiencing usually has to do with how your butt is making contact with the cushion.  There is a big nerve center in either of your two butt cheeks.  They are located just slightly below where the bone pokes out.  When you press on that place for long periods of time, it causes the "pins and needles" feeling.  In fact, your entire leg will usually go numb first - the tingly feeling is the nerve "waking" back up.

There are a couple of ways to overcome this problem.  The take away from any of these methods is that you want to take pressure off that area:

One way people do it is by using a higher cushion.  The idea here is that if you are off the ground a bit more, you are less likely to sink back and onto that nerve center.  You also create a natural incline with your legs.  Your thighs slope up to meet your hips.  Of course, while this will help relieve the nerve pressure in your butt, it will also eventually result in knee pain as your legs are taking more of your weight.  I tried this for a while by stacking two cushions sort of like this  ->  o\  (if that graphic makes any sense).
Another way is to lean back a bit.  Actually, you should be doing this anyway (it helps eliminate back pain as you are less likely to lean forward).  Leaning back helps shift the weight more onto your coccyx.  You are going to feel a little weird at first - almost like you are falling backwards.  I think this is because there is a tendency for your chin to raise.  Just make sure you are keeping your neck straight.
The method that worked for me had to do with how I was setting up on the cushion.  A lot of people plop down right in the middle of the zafu.  This is a bad idea.  You are throwing all of your weight down right on those nerves.  Personally, I set up right at the very edge of the zafu with just my coccyx coming down on the cushion.  Those bothersome nerve centers don't even make contact with the cushion at all.  I also incorporate points 1 & 2.  My cushion is a little higher (maybe about five inches) and I do lean back just a bit to keep my weight coming straight down into the cushion.

Hope this helps!  I know how annoying it can be!!!


Is it possible to use meditation to gain Self control?

Self control of gained through mastery over the mind, i.e., developing Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path.

The lack of mastery over the mind would lead to you losing the sense of time when doing this activity. One thing you can do is be aware you are are doing this and the sensation that watching videos bring. It is the feeling and sensation of excitement and the intellectual stimulation documentaries bring which keeps you doing what you are doing. If you get less attached to this you find it easy to switch to another task. So be mindful if what you are watching is perceived as or evaluate as positive (intellectually stimulating, interesting, keeping you in suspense to know more, etc.), negative or neutral and the sensations that follow which are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, maintaining utmost equanimity, and being aware of the arising and passing of what is felt (the particular sensation / feeling that is felt). [Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Pahāna Sutta]

In addition to the above, at a more mundane level, it would be helpful the be mindful of the time as well by having a clock placed near the screen which can help you keep track of time.


And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration?

When doing breath meditation your mind is relatively more passive where you watch the breath. When doing the four immeasurables your mind is more active contemplating.

Therefore you can maintain your concentration and blocks out distraction as you refocus on different being.

  I'm especially curious of this subjectivity aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition? More specifically, how would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

This knowledge is only available to the Buddha. But through trial and error, one may find practices hard and some more easy and fruitful.

    The Tathagatha Buddha has realized in the exact way how a person’s abilities develop, how they deteriorate, and accordingly their potential to realize the Dhamma. This is His Sixth power.

Source: The Supreme Buddha with His Ten Powers

Also one can use the following as a guide:

    The Pali commentaries further provide guidelines for suggesting meditation subjects based on one's general temperament:

    Greedy: the ten foulness meditations; or, body contemplation.
    Hating: the four brahma-viharas; or, the four color kasinas.
    Deluded: mindfulness of breath.
    Faithful: the first six recollections.
    Intelligent: recollection of marana or Nibbana; the perception of disgust of food; or, the analysis of the four elements.
    Speculative: mindfulness of breath.

    The six non-color kasinas and the four formless states are suitable for all temperaments.

Kammaṭṭhāna

  How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

The dhamma preached by the Buddha does not need anything to be added or taken out. (Svakkhato) Therefore, there is nothing peripheral of not important.


There are cases when someone gets obsessed, this is known as the Dharma fever. In my lineage this is not considered too bad. Many folks coming into Buddhism have preexisting aversion to this world. Generally speaking, my Buddhism is Buddhism of love and acceptance - if someone is in a difficult life situation and lost balance, or even never had it because that's how their life turned out, we see that with the maximum warmth and try to make the best out of the situation. In Varjrayana everything is energy, even the energy of confusion, so we try to use all that. I personally hate silent, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive treatment of confusion. If someone is completely off base, they need love and acceptance, not judgment.

The cases when someone gets arrogant and/or righteous are not tolerated well. Ego is the enemy of enlightenment, so spiritual snobbery has to be persecuted.

I've never heard of true madness, but losing a sense of boundaries is standard. This is where the personal presence of teacher and sangha comes in handy. Someone has to stop you when your head starts spinning, slap you on the face, bring back to the ground and give a hug. I miss my last teacher for that.


how to aware of Dukkha ( "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness")

Dukkha is a state in which our expectations differ from the actual state of the world; it's often tied in with a perverse sense of permanence. For instance, it's fairly common for people to assume that their favorite sports team are 'winners'. That produces dukkha when the team loses (because losing violates expectations), and it produces dukkha when the team wins (because winning amplifies the expectation that the team will always win).

Tanhā is a stubborn demand that our expectations must become real; it's usually translated as 'craving,' but... We often see that in super-fans, for instance, who somehow have become so attached to the fortunes of their team that much of their emotional life revolves around it.

All we need to do to be aware of dukkha is to notice when we are discontent with the way things are. If we feel a sour/angry/pissy/grumpy/churlish attitude rising, it's because (somewhere in our head) we expected A from the world and got B. If we feel a pleased/smug/superior/sanctimonious attitude rising, it's because the world momentarily aligned with our expectations, and we damned well think it should do it more often. Tanhā is a bit more difficult to recognize because tanhā usually involves a a self-righteous sense that our expectations are 'real' and the actual state of the world is 'false'; we are so committed to the way things should be that we lose connection to the world as-it-is entirely.

Ridding ourselves of dukkha is advanced practice; it's extraordinarily difficult to live without expectations, and I'm not certain it's realistic or healthy outside of monastic life. Ridding ourselves of tanhā is valid and valuable for all of us, though.


Is there a list of things to abandon before abandoning craving?

The mind can crave so many things. It's quite creative. You can see this creativity happen in the evolution of the Vinaya over time, as it has had to handle the rather bizarre cravings and loopholes that arise.

Given that delight is the root of suffering, you may notice the glow of delight and its relationship with cravings to be, cravings that are or cravings that were.

Consider greed, hate and delusion. One can see greed originating in delight. One can see hate as delight in rage. And one can also consider the role of delight in ignorance to be the seed of delusion (just a little bit won't hurt).

And one might consider that having a concrete, comprehensive list of cravings might suffice (e.g., the Vinaya). Yet any such list would still be incomplete. Mara is quite tricky. In mathematics, we can count. However we cannot enumerate the irrational numbers--there are just too many, and certainly an infinity in between. However, we can see delight.

Is there not delight here?

  Monks, cultivated in what way does the perception of impermanence, being cultivated, much cultivated, enable abandoning all craving for sensual pleasures, craving for form, craving for the formless, restlessness, conceit, and ignorance


How is Cakkhupālattheravatthu pronounced exactly?

In the video "Dhammapada Verse One: Mind Precedes All Things", by Ven. Yuttadhammo, the pronunciation can be heard at 5:21 min. into the video.


Here is an answer that is based on my study and meditation. It is not citing any official sources and trying to stay away from technical explanation in favor of real-life examples.

-- What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day, you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that person. That's dukkha.

Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you will see him or her again. That's upadana.

-- Upadana Paccaya Bhava

The way it works, in my understanding, is like this: the moment you start thinking about going to that location to meet that person, you start thinking about future. In that imaginary future, there is you ("I") that you imagine will experience the pleasant moment of seeing the pretty person again. When you do that you create a sense of identity that spans a period of time from a point in the past to a point in the future. It's like you subconsciously say to yourself: "First I was here, without that person", "Then I will do A,B,C according to my plan", "Then I will be there - with that person", "Then I will enjoy". This personal ego-centric goal-making, projecting, and planning (in my opinion) is what causes Bhava - "becoming" or "individuating" or "identifying".

-- there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

Same way as in the above. In case of kama-upadana you keep thinking about pleasant sensations, your thinking and action is permeated by craving to a pleasant sensation - that's kama-upadana. For example you keep getting a flash of kissing the person (tanha) and you start fantasizing about the circumstances under which you two would be kissing (upadana).

In case of bhava-upadana you keep obsessing about being in a certain position, living in a certain way, having something in your possession. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to attain something. For example, you keep fantasizing about having married the person and how you two would be living together, what that would look like.

In case of vibhava-upadana you keep obsessing about something in your life now that you want to get rid of. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to get rid of something. For example, you keep thinking about your extra weight, how bad it makes you look, and how much nicer it would be to get rid of it.


Why did physical representations of the Buddha only start to appear a few centuries after his death?

It seems that recent scholarship on Buddhism, at least outside the field of art history, has tended to downplay this change.  Donald Lopez has written, in a chapter called “The Idol” in his From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha (pp.37-8):

Art historians have observed this absence [of early Buddha images] and inferred that the Buddha, or his immediate followers, had forbidden the making or worship of his image.  And they have speculated that the practice of representing the Buddha in human form – which, depending on one’s perspective, might be termed the making of images or the making of idols – had, in fact, been introduced from abroad – from the West, specifically by Greeks in the region of Gandhara (in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan).
This view that the Buddha prohibited the worship of his form is consistent with the later nineteenth- and early twentieth-century view of the Buddha as a rationalist who never would have condoned idol worship; the practice could have entered his tradition only from abroad as a concession to the masses in the centuries after his passage into nirvana.  We might note as well that a century after this aniconism theory was proposed, no proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found; such prescriptions become prevalent in some of the Mahāyana sutras that date from the first centuries of the Common Era.  The so-called aniconism debate has persisted, though[.]

And in the introduction to an edited volume on a related issue, Embodying the Dharma:  Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia (pp. 10-11), Kevin Trainor writes:

In some respects, we can see a parallel between the theory that sangha members were explicitly prohibited from participation in the relic cult and the widely accepted hypothesis that there was for centuries a prohibition against representing the body of the Buddha in paintings and images, what is generally called the “aniconic” period in early Buddhism.  Here again part of the evidence is negative:  no images survive from the first several centuries of the Buddhist movement.  This, coupled with early representations that depict the Buddha’s physical presence through symbols such as a royal umbrella or his throne of enlightenment, led to the widely accepted assertion that early Buddhist were prohibited from representing his bodily form out of respect for his nirvanic status.  As with the dubious assertion that early Buddhist monks and nuns were initially prohibited from participating in relic veneration, however, the theory of an aniconic period is driven more by presumed doctrinal ideals than by compelling material evidence.  Indeed, when the centrality of the practice of relic veneration during this period is taken into account, the existence of a prohibition against representing his physical body seems even less likely.

The portion of Lopez’s text that I have highlighted suggests that the answer to the second question is no:  the making of images was neither forbidden nor explicitly called for at first.  Trainor (in the highlighted sections) implies that “negative evidence” and assumptions colored by an implicit bias against “superstition” and “idolatry” are a weak foundation for any theory.  Still, it seems to me that that since we don’t have any early images, no definitive refutation of the aniconic view is possible.
Both Lopez and Trainor cite another study which would be worth consulting:  Klemens Karlsson, Face to Face with the Absent Buddha:  The Formation of Buddhist Aniconic Art (Uppsala, Sweden:  Uppsala University Library, 1999).


You can read some advice given by the Buddha in DN16 in the section entitled "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare". There are many items listed like organizing and dispersing assemblies peacefully, living according to established rules, honoring the elders, protecting women, protecting Arahats etc.

You can also read "The Edicts of King Asoka" translated by Ven. Dhammika. For e.g. this verse from The Fourteen Rock Edicts:

  I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and
  great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if
  military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and
  light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest
  by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May
  all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this
  world and the next.

Regarding enforcing laws, King Asoka's Kalinga Rock Edicts state:

  Beloved-of-the-Gods says that the Mahamatras of Tosali who are judicial officers in the city are to be told this: I wish to see that
  everything I consider to be proper is carried out in the right way.
  And I consider instructing you to be the best way of accomplishing
  this. I have placed you over many thousands of people that you may win
  the people's affection.

  All men are my children. What I desire for my own children, and I desire their welfare and happiness both in this world and the next,
  that I desire for all men. You do not understand to what extent I
  desire this, and if some of you do understand, you do not understand
  the full extent of my desire.

  You must attend to this matter. While being completely law-abiding,
  some people are imprisoned, treated harshly and even killed without
  cause so that many people suffer. Therefore your aim should be to
  act with impartiality. It is because of these things — envy, anger,
  cruelty, hate, indifference, laziness or tiredness — that such a thing
  does not happen. Therefore your aim should be: "May these things not
  be in me." And the root of this is non-anger and patience. Those who
  are bored with the administration of justice will not be promoted;
  (those who are not) will move upwards and be promoted. Whoever among
  you understands this should say to his colleagues: "See that you do
  your duty properly. Such and such are Beloved-of-the-Gods'
  instructions." Great fruit will result from doing your duty, while
  failing in it will result in gaining neither heaven nor the king's
  pleasure. Failure in duty on your part will not please me. But done
  properly, it will win you heaven and you will be discharging your
  debts to me. ....

  This edict has been written for the following purpose: that the judicial officers of the city may strive to do their duty and that the
  people under them might not suffer unjust imprisonment or harsh
  treatment. To achieve this, I will send out Mahamatras every five
  years who are not harsh or cruel, but who are merciful and who can
  ascertain if the judicial officers have understood my purpose and are
  acting according to my instructions. Similarly, from Ujjayini, the
  prince will send similar persons with the same purpose without
  allowing three years to elapse. Likewise from Takhasila also. When
  these Mahamatras go on tours of inspection each year, then without
  neglecting their normal duties, they will ascertain if judicial
  officers are acting according to the king's instructions.

King Asoka's Seven Pillar Edicts talk about the hearing of petitions and the administration of justice:

  Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus: This Dhamma edict was written
  twenty-six years after my coronation. My Rajjukas are working among
  the people, among many hundreds of thousands of people. The hearing of
  petitions and the administration of justice has been left to them so
  that they can do their duties confidently and fearlessly and so that
  they can work for the welfare, happiness and benefit of the people in
  the country. But they should remember what causes happiness and
  sorrow, and being themselves devoted to Dhamma, they should encourage
  the people in the country (to do the same), that they may attain
  happiness in this world and the next. These Rajjukas are eager to
  serve me. They also obey other officers who know my desires, who
  instruct the Rajjukas so that they can please me. Just as a person
  feels confident having entrusted his child to an expert nurse
  thinking: "The nurse will keep my child well," even so, the Rajjukas
  have been appointed by me for the welfare and happiness of the people
  in the country.

  The hearing of petitions and the administration of justice have been
  left to the Rajjukas so that they can do their duties unperturbed,
  fearlessly and confidently. It is my desire that there should be
  uniformity in law and uniformity in sentencing. I even go this far, to
  grant a three-day stay for those in prison who have been tried and
  sentenced to death. During this time their relatives can make appeals
  to have the prisoners' lives spared. If there is none to appeal on
  their behalf, the prisoners can give gifts in order to make merit for
  the next world, or observe fasts. Indeed, it is my wish that in this
  way, even if a prisoner's time is limited, he can prepare for the next
  world, and that people's Dhamma practice, self-control and generosity
  may grow.


Should I consider multitasking while listening to audiobooks? Is it a danger to mindfulness?

In my experience, though I'd hardly call myself a mindfulness expert, I don't feel audiobooks and the small level of multitasking they allow me to take on really negatively affect my mindfulness.

I guess, truly, the challenge is to resist the temptation to multi task or listen to books when you SHOULD be being mindful.  I suppose everyone's mileage varies, but I became an avid audiobook listener before beginning my mindfulness practice.

Mostly I listen to these while driving or if I'm doing some menial tasks like cleaning.  These aren't exactly places and times I find myself practicing really being present anyway.

Just my 2 cents.  Hope it helps someone. :)


Difference between the Scientific Law of Causality and the Buddhist Law of Conditionality

Science deals with the physically measurable. Buddhist teachings focus on the end of suffering. Both discuss causality, but in different ways.
The scientific method emphasizes reproducibility of results for a given hypothesis. In schools we can all drop large and small weights to observe they fall at the same speed. However, we have to be very very careful about using words such as "scientific law of causality". We have to be careful because scientific hypotheses change. In particular, Newton asserted that gravity is a force. Modern science asserts instead that mass bends space-time in such a way that falling objects move at the same rate. So there is no law of causality. Science is a simply a body of hypotheses that are verifiable under specified conditions. As we learn more, our hypotheses change. For example we still haven't figured out dark matter and dark energy. Science is our current best guess for the physically measurable.
In contrast, the Buddha taught about suffering, its origin and its end. With regard to suffering, the Buddha also discusses causality and views (i.e., hypotheses). Here, he discusses bad kamma arising out of bad actions.

MN60:24.7: So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct.
MN60:24.8: And that is how wrong view gives rise to these many bad, unskillful qualities—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
MN60:25.1: A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
MN60:25.2: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe.
MN60:25.3: And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Science relies on the reproducibility of physical measurement. Buddhism relies on the reproducibility of subjective measurement of suffering. Both science and Buddhism assert reproducibility of experience. However, science is not really concerned with the end of suffering. And Buddhism isn't really concerned with the rate of falling objects.


Animals: why did the Buddha remain silent?

This is mere speculations from me, but turning down meat was probably not a viable option during buddhas lifetime, for the sake of survival. A layperson would likely run the risk of starvation without meat, and making vegetarianism a decree could possibly put a lot of peoples health at jeopardy.

Again, i am guessing now, but my point is that we can probably only understand a set of beliefs by understanding the context of that time. It could explain the "why" of buddhist ethics. (We could for instance compare this to the muslim decree on abstaining from eating pork, which at least partially is assumed to be for health reasons to my understanding).

You also seem to ask what ethics regarding vegetarianism should be in order to be consistent, which is a bit different than the question why.

Your argument regarding today's meat industry seems anachronistic, since the premises of meat production in those times was presumably a lot different than the large scale meat industrialization of our times.

In summary, the choice of eating meat is likely more feasible today, and therefore the ethical aspects of that choice becomes more salient, compared to buddhas time. Back then, it's possible that the ethical conundrum could be sufficiently solved by deriving karma from our intentions.

Applying this ethic in todays world, with the meat industry that goes with it may make a much stronger and convincing case for vegetarianism, compared to buddhas time.


In terms of reliability of understanding reality, how does the scientific method compare with Buddhist insight practice?

The main focus of this question is on "understanding reality", which is the domain of science. So, the first question is whether Buddhist insight meditation practice even qualifies as a science (i.e. a means of understanding reality).
From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

So, the criteria for calling something science (at least by Wikipedia standards) are:

it is systematic
it builds and organizes knowledge
it relies on testable explanations and predictions as a basis for knowledge
it takes the universe as its frame of reference
it can be rationally explained and reliably applied

Buddhist insight practice fits all of these criteria; insight meditation is entirely systematic, it builds and organizes knowledge (more on knowledge later), its explanations and predictions are testable, it takes the universe (from a phenomenological POV) as its frame of reference, and it can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
So, Buddhist insight practice can at least be considered scientific.
Rather than focus on "which is better" (and get close-voted again), maybe we can agree to compare the two systems of "investigation into the nature of reality" objectively:
Approach
Buddhist insight takes as its paradigm a form of phenomenology or phenomenography, wherein:

there is only one world, one that is ours, and one that people experience in many different ways
Wikipedia

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of so-called "subjective" reality, i.e. one's own realm of phenomenological experience.
The modern scientific method, on the other hand, generally takes a stance of philosophical materialism, wherein:

matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of impersonal material qualities from an "objective" (i.e. impersonal) point of view.
Reliability
Here's where the controversy arises, so hopefully we can avoid it to some extent by comparing the individual claims of reliability (somewhat) objectively and leaving the reader up to their own conclusions.
Material science relies upon quantity and quality of empirical data that is independent of an individual frame of reference (i.e. it must be reproducible in all circumstances, not affected by experimenter or subject bias). The certainty of its claims are therefore dependent on the perceived likelihood of the objectivity of the data supporting them. For all intents and purposes, this provides a fairly good understanding of the nature of reality; the ability to build upon and modify prior understanding has allowed for incredible breakthroughs in our ability to interact with the material world.
The potential downside to this reliance on impersonal data is that it can and often has led to dogmatic refusal to accept new methodology or even evidence (e.g. Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics).
It also has as a limitation its own ability to perceive the universe as a whole (so far, for example, it can't).  This sort of limitation is what Rupert Sheldrake gets at in his discussion of scientific dogmas. He lists ten dogmas currently held by the modern scientific community that may very well turn out to be false:

That nature is mechanical.
That matter is unconscious.
The laws of nature are fixed.
The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
That nature is purposeless.
Biological inheritance is material.
That memories are stored as material traces.
The mind is in the brain.
Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2012/8/Biologist-Rupert-Sheldrake-Explains-the-Ten-Dogmas-Holding-Science-Back
The point here is that the modern scientific method has led us to many of these dogmas through its locality - i.e. it can't say anything about the universe as a whole, except by inference, which may and often is proven wrong as new evidence is found.
A third point is that the modern scientific method tends to confuse data with truth and thus discard data that doesn't fit with a theory as statistical errors, etc. This is very well-documented (if somewhat outdatedly so) in The Book of the Damned, written in 1919. The author points out quite well the difference between what is commonly held as scientific knowledge and what is absolutely true, saying:

It is our expression that the flux between that which isn't and that which won't be, or the state that is commonly and absurdly called "existence," is a rhythm of heavens and hells: that the damned won't stay damned; that salvation only precedes perdition. The inference is that some day our accursed tatterdemalions will be sleek angels. Then the sub-inference is that some later day, back they'll go whence they came.

By damned, he means facts that have been ignored because they don't fit with contemporary scientific theory.
Again, practically speaking, the potential non-universality of modern scientific knowledge is inconsequential; for all practical purposes, it works.
Buddhist insight knowledge, on the other hand, is in a sense terribly "impractical", since it can only ever be "known" by the individual. As the Buddha said, the dhamma is "paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi" - to be realized by the wise for themselves.
It is also obviously unable to say anything about impersonal phenomena, since such entities are outside of its realm of observation and thus considered mental concepts.
On the other hand, it claims to provide a certainty of knowledge that material science does not (material scientists consider such certainty meaningless, since their frame of reference is impersonal). For example:

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five? Here, monks, a monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the mind as liberated. When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.
AN. 5.95 Akuppa Sutta

So, from a Buddhist point of view, insight meditation is preferable in the sense that it is not subject to alteration. The reason for this is it is also considered to be universal (from a point of view of one's own experience) - i.e., it is understood to be applicable to all entities in the universe (one's own universe of experience).
As someone pointed out in the earlier question, the two types of investigation are fairly non-competitive; material science focuses on material, Buddhist mental science focuses on the mind. The former is more useful for conventional purposes like curing disease and blowing stuff up. The latter is only useful for limited purposes like freeing oneself of all suffering.


Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

This article, Four Dharma Seals, says:

  As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.

From that I get the impression that,

The tilakkhaṇa is the earliest doctrine (in the Pali canon)
Later someone added nirvana to that list (making the four Dharma seals)
Then, someone decided that if nirvana is in that list, then dukkha isn't permanent/inevitable, and so they removed dukkha from the list.


Sutta Reference - Sound and musical instruments metaphors in the Suttas

This is a partial index of the similes and metaphors that appear in the suttas available at Access to Insight (/ZzE). Only the imagery that illustrates points of Dhamma is included here; imagery that serves primarily a literary or narrative function is not included (e.g., Ambapali's description of her long-lost youthful beauty). The subject of each image is given in the braces {}. The tilde (~) stands for the head-word in a given entry... Index of Similes

Tuning a stringed instrument:
{right effort} AN 6.55

Meta-ontopic-Drum:

  "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." - Ani Sutta: The Peg/Drum

In reagard of the meaning behind in proper context:

Painting of a woman or man:
{not-self} SN 22.100; {nutriment} SN 12.64

May it be of the origins use for you, Fabien


Yes and no in the case of infallibility.

Infallible - what ever they do their actions do not created new conditioning. The actions are not based on the 3 unwholesome roots.

Fallible - though the actions are not based on unwholesome volition, they may not always be the optimal or best cause of action. Their infallibility is based on the fact they are never wrongly motivated, though the outcome of any action may not always have the desired or optimal results and also some action can be done differently to make a bigger impact.

They know the cause and effect regarding the mind and matter process hence understanding enough about the cause of misery and the elimination of misery.


If I can't tell if I'm lying to myself because I am yet to gain insight or clarity, am I truly lying?

I think Christ or one of his disciples said

  we are all sinners in the eyes of God.

While what I will suggest here isn't the TRUTH, it's a possible place to stand.  The ego tends to think it has improved when gaining insight into one's own self-deception.  And this is valid - if there were no short term accomplishments in a spiritual path, it would be a difficult path indeed.

However, it's this very sort of of short term gain that can inhibit spiritual growth.  We are prone to gain a greater sense of self-importance when proud or attached to our insights.  Yesterday's insight is today's ego trip.

My point is that given we are all - when measured against the background of who we really are - quite small; I think it would be safe to assume that yes - you were lying with no caveats.

That said, you are not now condemned eternally for your self deception, but it may be that you now feel obligated to make something right - to clean up actions you have taken in the past.

Taking it too an extreme example - I killed your dog yesterday, because I thought dogs were wicked.  Today, I realized that I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and as such, I now know that dogs are not wicked.

It doesn't follow that I didn't kill your dog.  I still did, and even though my reasons for doing so were based upon faulty assumptions - there are a whole slew of consequences that flow from my action.

But perhaps most importantly is the label you have attached to what happened.  We as humans unfailingly deceive nearly every time we open our mouth.  When I say to my wife, "You make me so mad", that is a lie.  She didn't make me mad - I had a reaction to something and chose to blame her.  Variations on this abound.

So - a question - what do you care if your statement was a lie or not?  Telling the truth won't make you a good person; nor lying a bad.  What matters is not how you choose to view what you said - what matters is what you might now need to do because of what you said.  If there were consequences that you can in some way be responsible for and if need be, clean up, then it would be wise to do so.


how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there? what are all the practices that are "great fruit, great benefit"?

Since the first question was answered superbly by DD, I'll try to answer the second one:

In essence, everything the Buddha taught is to be done again & again, ad nauseam, so that it's "of great fruit, of great benefit", otherwise he'd not have taught it. The Noble Eightfold Path is often also called The Threefold Training.

AN 7.46 is basically the short answer to your question

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html


Which of the following statements about Nibbana/Nirvana are true?

Nibbana is actually best understood as the cessation of suffering. The lakkhanadicatuka for nibbana is as follows (minus proximate cause because it is uncaused):

  It has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort.  It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-
  diversification.

  -- Path Of Purification XVI.66

The relationship between nibbana and the defilements is not direct; it is the noble path that destroys the defilements, not nibbana itself. Even though the suttas say that nibbana is destruction, this is not technically true:

  69.[Q. 5] But is not Nibbāna destruction, because of the passage beginning,“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate
  … of delusion … is Nibbāna]?” (S  IV 251).

  [A.] That is not so, because
  it would follow that Arahantship also was meredestruction. For that
  too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is
  the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
  IV 252).

  -- Path Of Purification XVI.69

The point is that nibbana itself is not destruction, but the attainment of nibbana (and arahantship) brings about the destruction of the defilements.

So A), B), and D) are technically incorrect.

As for C), E), and F), nibbana is an existing reality, but it is not subjected to anything, even the mind. The mind takes nibbana as an object during an experience of cessation, but this too has nothing directly to do with the defilements, which have been abandoned from the first moment of cessation (path consciousness). Therefore, if I am understanding these three statements correctly, they too are not correct.


Gautama never described an origin. Whether existence had a beginning or end was never defined. Some traditions have taken to saying "beginningless." So if mindstreams have a beginning, the Buddha never said so. The asker was either told that the answer was irrelevant to liberation (hence not worth answering) or that the question did not apply.

The Pali canon relies on dependent origination for explaining where minds come from, but does not describe mindstreams themselves. Later commentators, such as Asanga and and Vasubandhu of the Yogacara school of thought would expound on additional layers of conciousness. From my experience, most talk of mindstreams take their source as the alaya-vijnana; itself a term that has been mentioned by some contemporary Theravadin monks (Ajahn Geoff and Ajahn Sujato).

I believe the orthodox Theravada response would be the parable of the poison arrow, and Mahayana responses would depend on the proclivities of the instructor. A Yogacarin would describe the features of the alaya-vijnana and a Madhyamika (in a Tibetan tradition) would conclude that mindstreams simply are (in conventional terms at least; illusory "like a city of gandharvas" in an ultimate sense).

There is no set "Buddhist" answer here, unfortunately.


I Seem to have Developed the Faculty of Introspection But Not Mindfulness (Contact)

I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it.

Many beginners have this problem. There are couple of solution:

Breath Meditation

When doing breath meditation when starting be aware of your surrounding like the sounds, touch of your shirt or air touching your body. Do this for a few minutes only. When doing breath meditation and you realise your mind has gone to a sound realise that and then stay with the sound and your breath for a short while and then bring it back. If this has caused any through proliferation and other sensations in the body look at them for a short while. These sensation can trigger other distractions so realise their presence and ensure equanimity towards them (if not already not their develop it). If there is a pleasant smell you might have delight in it and this might be turning up other memories which intern triggers other thoughts and memories in associating with the sensation, what you recognise this as and your mental reaction.

Awareness

in developing awareness it might be worth while to try to switch from object to object. You can try systematically scanning your body.

  However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not of an object.

In Buddhist meditation your object should be a wholesome object. So see that you are concentrated on. Concentration by definition (in some traditions) your mind being in one object when there is many.

  I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it.

Looking at the object is perhaps the same as staying with the object.

  I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better.

This is very difficult to see consciousness arising from contact. These can only be seen if at all at very later stages of the practice. So don't worry about it.

Basically progress is: object > contact > conciousness > Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering of each of the sense door

Try to catch the train at the stage of Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering


How can Nama-rupa of Dependent Arising be same as Five Aggregates?

Due to past fabrication resulting from past experiences is instruments in creating the current conciousness. As conciousness cannot exist without a body this creates current body with each of the relevant sense faculties associated with the different consciousness.

The faculties in the current body which come in contact with external objects. The conciousness experiences and identifies the external objects based on the sensation of the touch these and our perception reacts with like, dislike and neutral metal action.

These current reaction creates more fabrication which keeps the above cycle going in the future. The reaction is that of our perception classifying sensations into pleasing, unpleasant and neutral sensations of which we want more or less.

The 5 Aggregates is the same as Nama Rupa. Different parts of the aggregates appear in different places in DO to illustrate the above cycle base on which aggregate is in active in the relevant part of the process. DO is not always depicted in the 12 link form; for further details see Dependent Arising by Piya Tan.


What is meant by pursuing gain with gain?

My first thought was that it meant usury, but apparently Buddhagosa defines it as,

  'Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain? Seeking, seeking for,
  seeking out, going in search of, searching for, searching out material
  goods by means of material goods, such as carrying there goods that
  have been got from here, or carrying here goods that have been got from
  there, by one bent on gain, honour and renown, by one of evil wishes,
  a prey to wishes—this is called pursuing gain with gain' (Vbh. 352-
  53).

... which I think implies being a merchant (buying here and selling there), or more generally capitalism.

Note that that sutta is addressed to monks.


How to deal with body pain during meditation?

In principle, many contemplations that are part of satipatthana don't require our bodies to be still. In fact, a good portion of it are "24/7" practices to be developed whatever we are doing wherever we are.

On the other hand, all of these practices are immensely helped by concentration1  -- thus, the satipatthana sutta opens with concentration practice (calming of the breath). And some, I think, are particularly hard to do (that is, severely limited) without some degree of concentration. And concentration is hard (or seemly impossible) to develop in the presence of significant body discomfort.

Therefore, ideally, it's quite important to have a practice without discomfort. And here it's important to remember that, ultimately, the body form has little to do with the actual work: what is important is not the form, but if the posture (whatever it is) enables the practice.

There is the possibility that the pain from sitting in a certain posture is temporary and will not be an obstacle after a while. But there is the possibility that every sitting will be unbearable after a few minutes or a an hour or two (I meditate for over 15 years, and still can't sit cross legged for more than 30 minutes without discomfort, let alone ~2 hours -- which I've done twice in the past, enduring excruciating pain).

For this last case, if your sitting is of 20 minutes, 1 hour or 4+ hours, I think the best long term solution for practicing is to find out a posture where your body can be still and rest comfortably for the desired period while your mind is alert. Finding out a solution may involve trying out cushions and leg positions, exercises, or entirely different alternatives (e.g meditating laid down or in a chair).

1 a.k.a: tranquility, samatha, samadhi, jhana practice.


Is Anapanasati a complete path? Does it, by itself, lead to nirvana?

Initially the Bodhisattva was practicing a form of Pranayama in the form of holding or controlling one's breath. [Deva Sangarava Sutta, Maha Saccaka Sutta]

The Breath meditation practiced later was was observation of phenomena. Each 4 Sathipattana is covered in sets of 4 Tetrad with a total of 16 steps. Also it is the complete path. The 16 steps can be found in Anapanasati Sutta and Anapanasati


Being a monstery monk while training in career online?

I think it is best to ask the monastery, instead on Stack Exchange.

IMHO, may I comment on a few things:

What is one's motivation to become a monastery monk?

Monks are messianic individuals who wish to vigorously study Buddha's teachings hoping one day to attain the highest level of wisdom to be able to deliver all beings from suffering.

Responsibility

Buddhist monks receive offerings from faithful lay people, seeking answers to solving their problems. These offerings are precious and sincere, and one should not take these offerings lightly.

There is a Chinese saying that loosely translates as: "A lay person offers a grain of rice, such offering is as heavy as Mount Sumeru, if one doesn't attain enlightenment in this life, repay wearing your hide and horn in your next life."

Monks do not only teach people, even Devas respect and learn from highly accomplished masters.

Ksitigarbha Sutra depicted the dire consequence of stealing from monasteries, which results in millions of aeons of endless torment in the deepest pits of Avici. This is because Buddhist monasteries are essential establishments to facilitate Buddhist teaching, they contain offerings from realms in all 10 directions, from beings desperately yearning to liberate from the eternal agonies of Samsara.

A monastic life isn't necessary to attain enlightenment. In today's society lays are more likely to accomplish because today's monks have more complicated problems to help lays to solve. Furthermore, leading a monastic lifestyle isn't enough, one needs to embrace the purpose of monastic life at heart, and let go of worldly attachments and eventually leave Samsara.

Turn challenges into opportunities

Buddhists do not ask Buddha to alleviate our lives' problems. We brave hardship. We do not cut off our problems from our lives, we turn challenges into opportunities to better ourselves, turn anxiety and stress into Bodhi, and gratefully thank life when it gives us lemons.

In closing, please do not take my words as criticisms. I genuinely thank you for this interesting question that allows me to contemplate on my practice and write out this submission to help bring more clarity to my thinking. If there is anything I could improve on please do not hesitate to share your feedback.


I have seen many effects of meditation on sleep. Similarly to you, before and after sleep.

I have had times when my need for sleep is vastly reduced, and I've had times when I don't want to do anything but sleep.

It seems meditation can release stuff. Sometimes it seems to release a kind of 'repressed tiredness' that just needs time to get out. Sometime it releases energy that means sleep need is reduced.

As I've said on another post, what would it be like if, when you wake from sleep with troubled thoughts, you take the time to turn towards those thoughts, and importantly the feelings that go with them, with kindness, gentleness and care? The troubledness, in my experience, is just something in me asking for attention. Wonders can happen when you pay less attention to the rational content of the thoughts, and more attention to the emotional content.


What sutta refers to 'emptiness in small space'?

I have never read a Sutta talking about emptiness in terms of a gap or a small space, and to my knowledge the Suttas don't explicitly talk about what happens between individual consciousnesses (although the commentaries on the Suttas do interpret certain passages as referring to it).

Within the Theravada Abhidhamma, this issue is taken up more explicitly. According to the Abhidhamma, between individual consciousnesses there is another type of mind-state called the Bhavanga-citta. The Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his book A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma explains the Bhavanga quite succinctly as follows on page 106:

  (2) Life-continuum (bhavanga):  The word bhavanga means “factor (anga)
  of  existence (bhava),” that is, “the indispensable condition of
  existence.”  Bhavanga is the  function of consciousness by which the
  continuity of the individual is preserved through  the duration of any
  single existence, from conception to death.  After the paṭisandhicitta
  has arisen and fallen away, it is then followed by the bhavangacitta,
  which is a resultant  consciousness  of  the  same  type  as  the
  paṭisandhicitta  but  which  performs  a  different  function,
  namely,  the  function  of  preserving  the  continuity  of
  individual  existence.
  Bhavangacittas  arise  and  pass  away  every  moment  during  life  whenever  there  is  no  active cognitive process taking place.  This
  type of consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but
  it also occurs momentarily during waking life countless times  between
  occasions of active cognition.  When an object impinges on a sense
  door, the bhavanga is arrested, and an active  cognitive process
  ensues for the purpose of cognizing the object.  Immediately after the
  cognitive process is completed, again the bhavanga supervenes and
  continues until the  next cognitive process arises.  Arising and
  perishing at every moment during this passive  phase of consciousness,
  the bhavanga flows on like a stream (sota), without remaining  static
  for two consecutive moments.

(Emphasis added)


Yes, and it's good to compare it to that quoted story, as many think that for a "higher, nobler" aim, doing wrong is ok. Or out of duties, like moderators and "responsible" often think.

Not only doing by oneself, but also order by words or sign and mental approve (which is the heaviest) are the doors of action (kamma).

Not even the judge, but also those who install such as death sentence inlaws, order death sentence, or mental agree face the results of the kamma of killing. So one should be careful also when voting or watch news of "bad-mens-hunts".

Always good to address here is the Dhanañjani Sutta in regard of duties.

  "What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

  "No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

Is it right livelihood?

Ordering death is no right livelihood, spoken in regard of the main question.

"But": There is nothing total wrong which the work as judge, althought surely not very conductive for the practice. Remember the devoted King who gave up judging and passed it to his servants, having faced than "noble" people are capable to lie for sensual pleasure.

The work as someone who orders the physical harm or even depriving from life, or depriving of own, is of cause wrong livelihood, at least at the moment he makes use of the power for such. So it might depend much on the law he has to execute itself as well.

Same as doing soldier is not perse wrong, but only if not firm abstaining from killing.

(Note, not given for trade, exchange, stacks and notorious doubter by for those after firm stand upwardly and toward liberation)