This is a long-standing mystery, described in many Zen Koans.  Here are two Koans from the Gateless Gate that mentions it:

Kyogen said: "Zen is like a man hanging in a tree by his teeth over a precipice. His hands grasp no branch, his feet rest on no limb, and under the three another person asks him: `Why does Bodhidharma come to China from India?' If the man in tree does not answer, he fails; and if he does answer, he falls and loses his life. Now what shall he do?"
A monk asked Joshu, "With what intention did Bodhidharma come to China?" Joshu answered, "The oak tree in the front garden."

And here are three Koans from the Blue Cliff Record that mention it:

A monk asked Kyorin, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the West?” Kyorin said, “I am tired from sitting for a long time.”
Ryuge asked Suibi, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the west?” Suibi said, “Bring me a chin rest.” Ryuge brought one and gave it to him. Suibi took it and hit him. Ryuge said, “You may hit me as you like. After all there is no meaning to the Patriarch’s coming from the west.” Ryuge also asked Rinzai, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the west?” Rinzai said, “Bring me a sitting cushion.” Ryuge got one and gave it to Rinzai. Rinzai took it and hit him. Ryuge said, “You may hit me as you like. After all there is no meaning to the Patriarch’s coming from the west.”
A monk asked Great Master Ba, “Apart from the Four Phrases, beyond one hundred Negations, please tell me directly, Master, the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from the West.” Master Ba said, “I am tired today, I can’t explain it to you. Go and ask Chizo.” The monk asked Chizo about it. Chizo said, “Why don’t you ask our master?” The monk said, “He told me to ask you.” Chizo said, “I have a headache today, I can’t explain it to you. Go and ask Brother Kai.” The monk asked Brother Kai about it. Kai said, “I don’t understand nothing about that question.” The monk told Great Master Ba about it. Great Master said, “Chizo’s head is white, Kai’s head is black.”


I went to a famous temple in Rosemead and some ancient sacred items (sariras supposedly) were brought out and I blessed my amulet on them. I left the temple literally half an hour after that and on my drive back home had an accient and my car burned down, totalled. :-(

To answer your question, karma and merit is a complicated topic to understand and I don't think anyone will be able to give you a precise answer. One would have to go into the origins of said karma that created this object and those are either infinite as some sutras suggest, incomprehensible (as Buddha avoided the questions about origins of karma), or nil (see Zen master's response to king).

You will have to feel the object yourself. Try feeling with your non-dominant hand which is usually better at perceiving these energies.

This whole enchanting thing and sariras is something that comes from Vajrayana and the newer traditions which the original branches of Buddhism did not advocate, espouse, or uphold.

As much as I believe in crystal energetics and various holistic technologies, I am now wary of "sariras" and know that the highest way to make merit is through appreciation of the Buddha, his teachings, and practice whether it is in the form of another object, ourselves, or others. Try practicing different mantras--THAT is definitely IMO way more powerful than any sarira.


What does the Pali canon say about "death"?

“Paticca Samuppada” is a discourse on the process of birth and death. As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).

The understanding of death &  impermanence is an antidote to desire and ill-will, is an encouragement to our practice of Dhamma, and is a key to understanding the ultimate nature of things, the way things really are.
Remembering death especially is said to be like a friend and a teacher to one, as it acts as a discouragement to excessive desire and ill-will. While death itself is certain, the time of death is uncertain. We can die at any moment. Life is like a candle in the wind, or a bubble of water. At any moment it may be snuffed out. At any moment it may burst. Thus, we ought to practice the Dhamma quickly so that we may not waste this opportunity and this precious human life.

The Buddha once gave a discourse on the impermanence of life at the village named ‘Alavi’. He admonished, 'Practice meditation on death. Reflect mindfully: Uncertain is my life, certain is my death, certainly one day I have to face death.'

The Buddha also exhorted his listeners to be always mindful and to strive to perceive the true nature of life. He also said, 'As one who is armed with a stick or spear is prepared to meet an enemy and some other poisonous and dangerous animals, so also, one who is ever mindful of death should face death mindfully. He will then leave this world for a good destination. – “Blind is this world. Few are those who clearly see. As few birds escape from a net, few go to a blissful state.” '

In many a suttas it is shown that beings in the un-ending Samsara (cycle of birth-and-death) are bound to eye as ‘me’ (considering eye as ‘me’). In a similar manner, beings are bound to ear as ‘me’, nose as ‘me’, tongue as ‘me’, body as ‘me’, and mind as ‘me’.

As long as they are bound to all these faculties, they are actually bound to Māra. In order for one to free from this bond of Māra, one needs to investigate the notion of ‘me’ about each faculty (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) separately.

We should see that there is nothing permanent in rūpa (figure), vēdanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sanskāra (intention; volitional effort), and Viññāna (consciousness). But, we are bound to these five groups of clinging because of the thought of ‘me’. That binding results in a birth. That binding results in our death. That binding results in getting another life (birth) after our deaths.


Is there a thought in Buddhism which stand for the thinker itself as a thought?

Perhaps you're thinking of various words which are translated as "mind" or "consciousness".

I think it's said that the mind is aware of thoughts -- or if not "mind" then "consciousness of mental activity" ... in the same way that "eye consciousness" is aware of sights, and "ear consciousness" is of sounds.

Western philosophy has theories like "I think, therefore I am"; but I think that Buddhist doctrine includes statements such as, "I am not these thoughts, these thoughts are not mine, and are not me."

Because you're constantly aware of them, though (in the same way that a dog who is tied to a post will be constantly aware of the post), you might be inclined to view them as "me".

Or the word you're asking for may be "self-view" or "identity-view", which is a view (or thought) that the "self" exists. Or if it's not a fixed/permanent view, it might be called "pride" or "conceit". See ...

What are examples of identity-view? and
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

... for some further answers about these topics.


Looking for a reference about the significance of The Buddha being a teacher

No idea who the author you are talking about is, but what he/she's referring to is a samyaksambuddha.  It's canonical at least from a Mahayana perspective.  A samyaksambuddha is a once in a kalpa being.  He (and it's always been a "he" in this world system) is a Buddha without karmic remainder.  He is fully awakened in terms of his own existential obstacles and his investigation into reality.  He's also perfected all of the paramitas, mastered all of the dhyanas, and so on and so forth.  And yes, like you indicate his ability to teach is of paramount importance.
All being a lowercase "buddha" means is someone who has awakened.  If you want to bring the Theravada into this, a buddha is anyone from a sotapanna to an arhat.  The title capital B Buddha explicitly refers to someone who is a perfected Bodhisattva who has mastered all aspects of the path.  He is the person who restarts the sasana after it has been lost.


What are the differences between the three types of becoming?

I think the passage you're asking about (in the Access to Insight translation of DN 15) is this:

  "'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

I think that's a summary of the previous paragraph, i.e.:

  If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

I.e. the types of becoming correspond to birth in the various planes of existence.

Dharmafarer's introduction to the Bhava Sutta describes them as follows:

  Another interesting feature of the two discourses is their treatment of the
  three realms as “low” (hīna dhātu), “middling” (majjhima dhātu), and “subtle” (paṇīta dhātu), that is,
  the sense-world, the form world, and the formless world, respectively.

  The “lowly” sense-realm (kāma,dhātu) [§1b] is the realm of beings dependent on some form of physical
  senses, and is the lowest of the three existential spheres. It comprises the human world, the subhuman
  realms (the hells, the animal kingdom, and the ghost realm of the departed), and the six lower heavens.6
  It
  is said to be “low” (hīna) because the beings there are dependent on the physical senses and the mind.

  The “middling” form realm (rūpa,dhātu) [§2] is the realm of blissful dhyanic existence of radiant
  fine-materiality,7 whose beings still have the faculties of seeing and hearing, but which along with the
  other physical senses are temporarily suspended in the four dhyanas.8 The beings of such realms are called
  brahmas (brahmā), or “high gods,” who normally have almost nothing to do with the sense world,
  since they are absorbed in their celestial dhyanic bliss. When they do appear in the sense-world, they
  apparently have to emerge from their dhyanic state.9

  The “subtle” formless realm (arūpa,dhātu) [§3] comprises of beings of pure energy, that is, without
  any physical form whatsoever.10 They exist only as varying refined states of the four mental aggregates
  (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness). These beings have no contact with the sense-world
  whatsoever.11


Buddhist philosophy of anatta challenges the notion of "entities" - objects with identity, independent of the rest of the world and observer.

Instead, here is an alternative: try and see the world as a connected network of causation, with a system of nominal entities overlaid on top. In other words, consider that entity is a construct of the mind. (This simplifies things a bit, as the network of causation is a concept as well, and even the mind itself is dependently co-determined by its objects - for those Madhyamaka nitpickers - but stay with me). What's important is to understand that the real world is not discrete. Discreteness is mind-made.

If we extend this from spatial to temporal relationships, we can see that event is a temporal counterpart of an entity. Indeed, event is something that has a definite identity, beginning, life span, and end. Exactly like an object. In our mind event is separated from its context, from the rest of the stuff going on before, in parallel with, and after.

But in actuality, that's never the case. Objects and events don't exist by themselves. At first approximation we can say they arise from causes and conditions - so when those conditions and causes come together, thereby is an object or event. And when some of those conditions and causes fall apart (the necessary ones) - the object or event is no longer.

If we look more carefully though, we will notice that causes and conditions don't live in isolation either - they are infinitely forking and joining, infinitely interacting. So it is the mind that picks a subset of causes and conditions to focus on and label; the mind assembles an object that would satisfy mind's predispositions. Similarly, the mind assembles an event, assigns it with identity, and cognizes its beginning, span, and ending.

So it's not that events don't exist because everything lasts only an instant. Events don't exist because they are discrete constructs, overlaid on the (analogue?) fabric of reality.

The experience of any (assembled!) entity or event is necessarily subject to beginning and ending, subject to impermanence. Because an assembled object cannot exist once its constituents fall apart. What you call "now" is itself an assembled entity. It depends on a number of conditions coming together in a certain way. When those conditions following their natural courses fall apart, that particular "now" is no longer, and a new "now" is assembled.

Because we ourselves delineate the entities/events, we can choose the level of granularity to apply. We can designate big objects (systems of components) and big events (massive events) - or we can observe at the small scale. (Check out "Hierarchy Theory" by Valerie Ahl for a modern treatment of this thought.) So is with observation of present, it is up to us to decide when the given present has begun and when it has ended. Ground reality is analogue, not discrete. (Technically speaking, both analogue and discrete are two sides of the same coin, two truths are really one and the same truth.) "Now" is not instantaneous nor an interval. It's a nominal designation.

All experienced phenomena are mere products of conceptualization, merely nominal entities without any ultimate existence. Therefore sentient existence necessarily involves suffering that comes from mismatch between the concept and reality.

The mistake we make by default is to assume that experienced reality is made of stable entities. Then we build expectations around this assumption, and then we suffer. So once we know the trick, we can see through it. But because the nature of mind is to fabricate experience, it keeps doing it whether we want it or not. Not just fabricate, but use these fabrications as foundations for its interpretation and decision-making activity. There is simply no other way to operate. So all our experience and behavior is necessarily based on layers upon layers of fabricated quasi-stable virtual structures. Which means suffering will inevitably sneak in here and there. But at least now we can include the above in our working model of reality, and account for the non-substantiality in our interpretation and decision-making activity. So even when we have to walk on illusions, we know what we are doing, and are ready to deal with it once they collapse. It may still be painful when it happens, but we will have expected it, and will minimize the damage as much as we can. This is the extent to which there is an escape from suffering.


If I am not the skandhas, then what entity/group of entities am I being responsible for by being a good person?

Buddhist concept of not self is always difficult to translate. It generally means:

There is no core or soul
You have no absolute control over your aggregates or the world at large

Also when you have the perception of self you have a yard stick which you use to measure other people, their actions, standing, wealth, etc. with respect to you. This creates misery. If you drop the yard stick then you get out of misery.

Having said this though there is no lasting entity as you there is a mind matter process. What ever you do becomes fabrications which at that point influence the process and also has a "loop back" at different times.


Does using or watching YouTube break a bhikkhu's rules?

It is my personal experience that frequent games, movies, TV, YouTube, smart phone use and browsing definitely reduce one's mindfulness.

This is a  fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed? The nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.

Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads long pieces of text voluntarily and people find even Twitter too difficult to concentrate on.

The nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace. It reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.

YouTube itself is just a tool, it is neither good nor bad, it is the nature of the mind that watches YouTube that is the determining factor. There are a good many dhamma talks on YouTube for example.


Why can't a Buddha's power just save us already? Like Jesus

If you are "a faithful believer in Buddha's teachings" you have missed his point entirely.

You should not believe a single thing. Instead, your own experience should lead you to your own conclusions.

This is what Buddha left behind. Techniques for waking up, so that you may dissolve into pure experience, as did he and countless others.

Only you can save yourself.


The state described is basic samadhi ('concentration'; 'collectedness'), which ideally is to be maintained & developed when meditating. MN 19 describes about how the Buddha-To-Be developed samadhi, in the following manner:

I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it...So that my mind was not strained. Tireless energy was aroused in me and unremitting mindfulness was established, my body was tranquil and untroubled, my mind concentrated and unified. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained mind, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
MN 19


How and when did the name "Buddhism" appear?

I'm not an expert, but here's what I found this evening: the article  SCHOPENHAUER AND BUDDHISM by Peter Abelson says,

  When  the tenets  of Buddhism  became  known  in Europe  during  the third and fourth  decade  of the nineteenth   century

... and says that Schopenhauer referenced work by Isaak Jacob  Schmidt.

Wikipedia's article for Isaac Jacob Schmidt says that one of his publications was titled,

  Über die Verwandtschaft der gnostisch-theosophischen Lehren mit den Religions-Systemen des Orients, vorzüglich des Buddhaismus, Leipzig 1828

And this book Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West quotes Isaac Schmidt as saying,

So according to Isaac Jacob Schmidt,

  The peoples of that faith call themselves followers of the teachings of the Buddha.

According to Wikipedia he was living in Russia and studying Mongolian and Tibetan history.

  His scientific work became noted after the publication of a work on the history of Mongols and Tibetans in 1824. ... Until his death in 1847, Schmidt published a multitude of works on Mongolian and Tibetan studies


The "working-ground" (kammatthana) of the five hindrances

There is not much to say about it, the sutta named Subhasutta (numbered MN 99) has plenty of times the word kammatthana -- also translated "occupation" in this translation.

Here is the definition from the famous ATI glossary:

  kammatthana Literally, "basis of work" or "place of work". The word
  refers to the "occupation" of a meditating monk: namely, the
  contemplation of certain meditation themes by which the forces of
  defilement (kilesa), craving (tanha), and ignorance (avijja) may be
  uprooted from the mind. In the ordination procedure, every new monk is
  taught five basic kammatthana that form the basis for contemplation of
  the body: hair of the head (kesa), hair of the body (loma), nails
  (nakha), teeth (danta), and skin (taco). By extension, the kammatthana
  include all the forty classical meditation themes. Although every
  meditator may be said to engage in kammatthana, the term is most often
  used to identify the particular Thai forest tradition lineage that was
  founded by Phra Ajaan Mun and Phra Ajaan Sao.

Anyway, the end of your question is more important -- i.e. you asked:

  More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during
  a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should
  make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground)
  should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances,
  then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does
  not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it
  fades? Or how should we deal them?

Dividing your life into two parts, "trying to to get the citta into samadhi" and "not trying to get the citta into samadhi" is not a good idea, even for people who are not bikkhus (mnks). What you can do in daily life is sati sampajanna (clear and constant awareness), like when you walk, when you eat and so on -- but getting citta (mind) into the samma samadhi (right concentration) needs seclusion, which is exactly what samma samadhi is.

So first a bit of vocabulary...

For the buddha, "living in the present" means having the citta (mind) in samadhi (concentration) of the first jhana (or higher) as expressed here, and it turns out that "the here and now" is always pleasant,

so,

the citta is in the samadhi of the first jhana = living in the pleasing here and now
the citta is not in the samadhi of any jhana = not living in the present moment.

The buddha also says that it is easy for puthujjanas (wordly people -- who probably have some incorrect views e.g. about the doctrine) to confuse the samadhi of the jhanas with Sallekha (meaning "effacement").

The puthujjanas, who say that "watching thoughts come and go" is "living in the present moment", say that because watching sensuality is all they know -- and they do not know how to experience something else than sensuality. Those puthujjanas are full of thoughts 24/7, so they say that when they watch thoughts they "watch reality".

What the puthujjanas who invented dry meditation (i.e. "meditation without concentration") do is, at best (and it is really at best), is sampajanna (clear awareness) -- since they do not have sati (mindfulness or awareness or concentration), it's not really sati·sampajanna (concentrated or continuous clear awareness):

  "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where
  feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist,
  known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise,
  known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to
  him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This
  is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued,
  leads to mindfulness & alertness.

meaning they watch vedana-sanna (feelings and perceptions), and thoughts come and go, and they try to pass that as yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing r insight).

  "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where
  a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the
  five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such
  its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such
  their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such
  its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that,
  when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

There are even toxic puthujjanas who hype the "acceptance of any experience", "embrace the present moment" (which is, for those people, watching thoughts and sensations). Those puthujjanas fail to see that there are meritorious vedana-sanna, meritorious thoughts -- and conversely demeritorious vedanna-sanna, demeritorious thoughts -- and that letting demeritorious experience arise is very bad.

Sati·sampajanna is what people today call "mindfulness". It is good at preventing future lusts arise (or at least preventing them from becoming established), it is "what guards the senses" (see here and here -- but to suspend the bad feelings, you must get the citta into samadhi of at least first jhana, precisely because the vedanna-sanna of this samadhi is the meritorious vedana-sanna.

And to get the citta into samadhi, you have to memorize and put into practice right view and right intention, so first being physically secluded from other humans for a few hours or days -- then it is mano (mind) which has piti (joy associated with concentrative absorption) and the kaya (body) has passambhati (calm) then sukhaṃ vediyati (experienced ease), and the citta (mind) has sukhha (well-earned ease) then samadhi (concentration).

THe  buddha explains how he got right samadhi here and here (renunciation) -- and there's a
a page with a few quotes on nekhamma (renunciation) here.

Once he had right samadhi, the citta could know how kamma-jati (karma and birth) and dukkha (misfortune, dissatisfaction) works.
So like the buddha said, sati·sampajanna is what he did first, judging his thoughts and classifying them into two (i.e. "meritorious" and "demeritorious"), destroying the bad thoughts with seeing the danger of bad thoughts, but it is precisely this sati·sampajanna (=situational wisdom, that is: In each moment one calls to mind whatever is necessary to master the given task ) which is transformed into samma samadhi. So do not divide your life into "meditation" and "non meditation". Later on, this samma smadhi is used to turn the citta towards āloka·saññaṃ manasi karoti (perception of light) and yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing).


Shinshu Buddhism also refers to this
http://amida-ji-retreat-temple-romania.blogspot.com/2011/12/alaya-storehouse-consciousness-and.html

  The alaya consciousness or storehouse consciousness is the place where
  all the actions and experiences in this life and the previous lives
  generated by the seven consciousnesses are stored as karma, being the
  only consciousness which comes along with every birth. This
  consciousness influences at the same time the workings of the other
  seven consciousnesses.

  We take this alaya consciousness with us in all our births in the
  various realms of existence. It contains the seeds of various types of
  karma, and it is the storehouse of the habitual evil karmic tendencies
  that we have cultivated for eons. Because of the karmic seeds
  contained in the alaya consciousness one may die a premature death, be
  stricken with unexpected disease or inexplicable misfortune, overcome
  by strong desires, aversions and obsessions, can think and do things
  that one should never even imagine, etc. So strong is the influence of
  the alaya consciousness. .. When Shinran is recorded as saying in
  chapter 13th of Tannisho: “a person may not wish to harm anyone and
  yet end up killing a hundred or a thousand people”, he is in fact
  referring to the influence of past karma contained in the alaya
  consciousness.

  Blockquote

So this storehouse consciousness sounds like the karma dump or receptacle where all the seeds of previous intentions and actions reside. It sounds like just a different way of categorizing one of the basic principals of karma and the seeds that generate more illusory experiences. It is only creating a category for where the karma remains until it manifests.

THere is further info that might be useful further down on the page of the link above.

Hope this helps some.


Which discourses list the factors needed for becoming successful?

"And what is meant by admirable friendship?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kalyanamittata.html


Any research on the authorship of the Avatamsaka Suttra?

Kenneth Wilson was from India and he had a deep interest in mathematics till his death in 2013
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blogs-the-copernican/article4992321.ece

He has probed deeply into numbers and found ancient sources that attribute large numbers to the Bodhisatva's

Link above has this paragraph.

  The incalculable number

  Kenneth Wilson did not come up with inclusivity. Yes, he found a way
  to use it in the problems that were prevalent in mid-20th century
  physics. But in the Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra, an influential
  text of Mahayana Buddhism written in the third or fourth century AD,
  lies a treatment of very large numbers centered on the struggle to
  comprehend divinity. The largest titled meaningful number in this work
  appears to be the bodhisattva
  (10^37218383881977644441306597687849648128) and the largest titled
  number as such, the jyotiba (10^80000 infinities).

  The jyotiba may not make much sense today, but it represents the early
  days of a centuries-old tradition that felt such numbers had to exist,
  a tradition that acknowledged and included the upper-limits of human
  comprehension while on its quest to deciphering the true nature of
  'god'.

  The Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra itself, also known as the
  Avatamsaka Sutra, also contains a description of an "incalculable"
  number divined to describe the innumerable names and forms of the
  principal deities Vishnu and Siva. By definition, it had to lie
  outside the bounds of human calculability. This number, known as the
  asamkhyeya, owes its value to one of three arrived at because of an
  ambiguity in the sutra. Asamkhyeya is defined as a particular power of
  a laksha, but there is no indication of how much a laksha is!

  One translation, from Sanskrit to the Chinese by Shikshananda, says
  one asamkhyeya is equal to 10 to the power of 7.1-times
  10-to-the-power-of-31. Another translation, to English by Thomas
  Cleary, says it is 10 to the power of 2.03-times
  10-to-the-power-of-32. The third, by Buddhabhadra to the Chinese
  again, says it is 10 to the power of 5.07-times 10-to-the-power-of-31.
  If they have recognisable values, you ask, why the title
  "incalculable"?

As far as authorship, there are several references to translators, but unlike many Buddhist texts, the authorship is attributed to someone that may not have written it, of unknown authorship or a collaborative effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra

  The Avataṃsaka Sūtra was written in stages, beginning from at least
  500 years after the death of the Buddha. One source claims that it is
  "a very long text composed of a number of originally independent
  scriptures of diverse provenance, all of which were combined, probably
  in Central Asia, in the late third or the fourth century CE."[6] Two
  full Chinese translations of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra were made.
  Fragmentary translation probably began in the 2nd century CE, and the
  famous Ten Stages Sutra, often treated as an individual scripture, was
  first translated in the 3rd century. The first complete Chinese
  version was completed by Buddhabhadra (Bodhibhadra) around 420 in 60
  scrolls with 34 chapters,[7] and the second by Śikṣānanda around 699
  in 80 scrolls with 40 chapters.[8][9] There is also a translation of
  the Gaṇḍavyūha section by Prajñā around 798. The second translation
  includes more sutras than the first, and the Tibetan translation,
  which is still later, includes many differences with the 80 scrolls
  version. Scholars conclude that sutras were being added to the
  collection.

  According to Paramārtha, a 6th-century monk from Ujjain in central
  India, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is also called the "Bodhisattva
  Piṭaka."[4] In his translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya, there is
  a reference to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, which Paramārtha notes is the
  same as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra in 100,000 lines.[4] Identification of
  the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a "Bodhisattva Piṭaka" was also recorded in
  the colophon of a Chinese manuscript at the Mogao Caves: "Explication
  of the Ten Stages, entitled Creator of the Wisdom of an Omniscient
  Being by Degrees, a chapter of the Mahāyāna sūtra Bodhisattvapiṭaka
  Buddhāvataṃsaka, has ended."[4]

It may not be that common in Buddhist texts, but Hindu texts are filled with all kinds of numbers. It is apparent that this environment friendly to numbers must have inspired some writers to go down this avenue, perhaps to appeal to potential Hindu converts to Buddhism.


Is "To Forgive is the only way to forget" an authentic quote of the Buddha?

I doubt it -- I expected it ought to be listed in https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ if I could say that without being harsh.

There is something pretty like it, IMO, though not as quotable, in the Dhammapada -- e.g. this translation:

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

After a while you begin to guess whether a quote is "fake" -- partly from knowing the prose style of the suttas a bit, and partly from knowing what themes the Buddha does and doesn't talk about.

The Buddha doesn't talk about "forgiveness" exactly -- more about other themes including:

Don't take injury "personally"
Don't "accept" (e.g. participate in receiving or giving) insults
Don't get angry (nor hostile) in the first place
Feel kindness, be kind, towards other people -- kindness, but also equanimity, and seeing good in them, and not wanting to hurt them


How does the idea of Bodhisatva in Mahayana mesh with anattā?

The lines between helping the self and helping others haven't always been very clear even to accomplished masters of either tradition,  for example, this is from Huang Po,

  Even if you go through all the stages of a Bodhisattva's progress
  toward Buddhahood, one by one; when at last, in a single flash, you
  attain to full realization, you will only be realizing the
  Buddha-Nature which has been with you all the time; and by all the
  foregoing stages you will have added to it nothing at all.

(source)

Then there is of course the position that the very idea of a Bodhisattva way of life isn't a purely Mahayana experiment.

  There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the
  ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with
  Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to
  become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It
  must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was
  spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were
  beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it
  without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the
  texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is
  that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the
  Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.

(source)

When one has gone beyond the idea of self in either case, where does the I end and the We begin?


The "pair" or "dyad" of "knowing" and "object" is found in the Pali scriptures, as follows:

  At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus... there is
  this (internal) 'group' ('kaya': of five aggregates) and external minds-and-bodies: thus this dyad (pair). Dependent on the
  dyad (pair) there is contact.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.19

~~~

  Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?

  Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.'

  Owing to the ear and sounds arises ear-consciousness. The ear is impermanent...

  Owing to the nose and scents arises nose-consciousness. The nose is impermanent...

  Owing to the tongue and savors arises tongue-consciousness...The tongue is impermanent.

  Owing to the body and tangibles arises body-consciousness. The body is impermanent...

  Owing to the mind and ideas arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent...contacted, monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends.
  Contacted, one perceives. Thus these states also are fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'

  SN 35.93

~~

  The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be
  known.

  MN 148

The 1st example in the opening post is incorrect understanding. For example, what is called "self" is not included in the pairwise occurring of knowing and object. The mind can know an object but be empty of 'self' because 'self' is a product of thought/thinking (sankhara) while knowing an object is a product of sense consciousness (awareness: vinnana).

The 2nd example in opening post is correct understanding, in that when the dyad operates, there is no 'self' in its operation. However, the thought of 'self' can arise quickly afterwards (called 'becoming'), as described in the following quote:

  "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'... The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression and sense-impression is
  the condition of feeling.'

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.... And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of
  craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.'... 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of (self) becoming.' Such
  is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

  SN 12.12

However, to assert there are no objects "out there" independent of the mind goes too far. It is an extreme view because to assert there are no objects independent of mind asserts the mind is 'God' or 'Brahma'; that the mind is the 'Creator' of the external world.

The Pali scriptures state, for example, the Laws of Nature exist "out there" regardless of whether they are known by a human mind or not, as follows:

  Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are
  unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly
  awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking
  through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it
  forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain

  Dhamma-niyama Sutta

The insight gained in knowing this pair of knowing and objects is explained in SN 35.93 quoted above, namely: (i) the mind can clearly identify or be aware of them and not create 'self-becoming' & suffering in relation to them; (ii) the mind can see they arise & pass; are impermanent & not-self.

For example, an object of sight comes to be when eye-consciousness functions & an object of sight ceases to be when the eye-consciousness ceases to function. If this is watched, the mind will realise all sense objects are impermanent each time the eye blinks.


Well you'll never know. From a Buddhism point of view, it could very well be a blessing in disguise:

  On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling near Vesali in a forest thicket. And on that occasion an all-night festival was being held in Vesali. The monk — lamenting as he heard the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse:

  I live in the wilderness
      all alone
  like a log cast away in the forest.
  On a night like this,
      who could there be
      more miserable
              than me?

  Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:

  As you live in the wilderness all alone
  like a log cast away in the forest,
  many are those who envy you,
      as hell-beings do,
      those headed for heaven.

  The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.
  ~~ SN 9.9 ~~


In the same vein as ChrisW's answer, I would ask you, "You and I live different lives.  I do not live your life.  Is it appropriate for me to give advice?"  The answer is generally "yes," especially in the position you have chosen to put yourself in, asking us for advice on this forum. =)  So what is the difference between me giving you advice on a life I don't live and a monk giving you advice on a life he or she does not live?  One may argue that it's a level of differentiation, but that immediately begs the question of what level of differentiation is appropriate?

Indeed, is it not reasonable to seek advice from everybody?  I know that, in my culture, we prize the ability of children to see things through their young eyes and reveal what we cannot see ourselves.  Of course, we aren't obliged to follow their advice either.  If we were, my toddler would have far more cookies in her diet!

You point to the title of "venerable" as an object of concern.  Alan Watts had a line of reasoning in one of his lectures that addressed this issue.  He focused on the concept of the teacher, and asked "From what does the authority of a teacher come from?"  What gives a teacher the right to tell you what to do.  The answer he offered: "The authority of the teacher comes from the student."  If someone wishes to learn from another, they might say "hey, tell ya what.  I'll call you teacher, and you call me student," and from that the authority stems forth.

As you say, they are fallible.  But they have also devoted a tremendous amount of time to seeing the world through eyes very different from your own.  If they are willing to share their advice with you, that should be seen as a blessing.

I can call myself "venerable" if I want.  It's just a word.  Whether anyone wishes to act upon my claim is entirely up to them.  However, as a general statement, we find that the lay society has decided that when a monk or nun is called "venerable," we really mean it.  There is something special there.  You obviously don't have to take my word for it.  I have no authority.  But the fact that lay society accepts that monks and nuns can and should be given this title is something worth noting, and you should decide what to derive from it.  If I were in a position of authority, I'd argue that it indicates that your peers have found their advice is worth heeding, but as I stated, no authority here besides that which you give me.


How should Buddhists handle prayer requests?

This is a great question, certainly understandable. I don't think it's right to say that prayer as an activity goes against the Buddha's teaching; certainly prayer that stems from desire is unwholesome, but prayer that stems from kindness and purity of mind, in the sense of being an expression of one's attitude towards all beings, as:

Sukhino vā khemino hontu sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā "May all beings be happy and secure, with a heart full of happiness!"
(Karaniya Metta Sutta)

is proper, since it leads to tranquility of mind and an outlook based on purity of intention. The problem is only when prayer is based on a sense of need for things to be other than what they are, rather than an outlook that informs one's life (i.e. acting, speaking and thinking for benefit rather than harm)
Another "wrong" regarding prayer, according to Buddhism, would be the localization of the prayer as depending on an external entity (i.e. God). Obviously if by prayer one means the beseeching of an external entity to intervene, that is likely based on both desire and wrong view.
So, in brief, when someone asks you to pray for them or someone else, by all means, say you will if you want; just be clear that to a Buddhist, prayer is simply an expression of "May so and so be happy and well." That's all anyone wants, is for people to be thinking kindly of them, and it is certainly a means of cultivating harmony and peace, both internally and externally. Just don't succumb to desire for change or expectation of outside intervention.


How come desire and sati causes sleepness?

Sloth and Topher is the fifth Mara.
It activated when all other previous four maras are inactivated.
For instance, when you watch TV the first mara is in charge.
When you listen to Dhamma if the fourth Mara is not in charge you will go to sleep.
This is a complex case.
The way to avoid this is to practice walking meditation.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=


Buddhist attitude towards prostitution and non-procreative sexual activity

Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual
  misconduct?

It does not break the 3rd precept, if both parties are proper(not belonging to the 20 kinds of improper partners). However, not breaking the 3rd precept does not mean you are not committing unwholesome Kamma. All sexual activities are unwholesome regardless of if you are not breaking the 3rd precept. Because the root causes are always lust and delusion.

The five precepts are given as the minimal moral standard that is required for spiritual development. A person who keeps to the 5 precepts can still commit many unwholesome Kammas. But doing it with your spouse can potentially be less unwholesome compared to doing it with a prostitute. Because the relationship with your spouse can involve wholesome feelings as well. With your spouse you are not trying to have pleasure regardless of if she/he is enjoying it. You are usually more gentle and if she/he isn't ready or finds a certain method uncomfortable, you get to practice self restraint. That comes from Metta & Karuna. So it's not all lust. But with a prostitute, you are mostly trying to get your money's worth. Usually you don't care much for the other person. The focus is on extracting the maximum enjoyment you can, in whichever way you so desire during the time you get. The lust involved here can be much more stronger. So it can cause greater unwholesome Kamma. Also, there are other disadvantages to consider like your reputation being sullied and the higher possibility of catching STDs.

  Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an
  animal?

Any kind of sexual activity has the potential to give you a unfavorable birth, if it comes forward at the time of your death. Read more about how the mind works at the of death. However, engaging in unorthodox sexual activities usually requires a greater degree of lust and delusion. So the said methods can potentially cause stronger unwholesome Kamma.


After The Buddha's death, his ashes are said to have been divided into eight portions. Source:Wikipedia

The cause of arising of the Buddha’s relics was from the desire of our Lord Buddha before his Parinibbāna (the Great Decease of the Buddha).
Normally, the Buddha who lived a long life to settle the Buddhist Legend, had his own relics in a piece of natural golden bar, which could not be shared among the people in their Buddha period and could not be placed anywhere. Hence the construction of the Buddhist sanctuary was required to be done in one place only. Our present Lord Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) considered that his teaching period was only 45 years which he thought not too much compared with the previous Buddhas. He also thought that his instructions were not expanded enough and taught to those who were not yet born on time in his legend. Anyone who received his relics for respecting would get a lot of Puñña (the accumulation of good blessing, fortune or well-being) so he wished that his relics be scattered to all directions except 7 pieces (1 frontal bone, 4 teeth and 2 collarbones).
All of the above mentioned information was presented identically such as in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, Paṭhama Sambodhi Kathā by the Supreme Patriarch Kromphra Paramānujitajinorasa, Mulasāsanā Scripture, Jinakalamalipakaranam by Ven. Ratanapañña Thera and Phrachaolieplok Scripture.

Source:The history of the arising of Buddha’s relics
If you want to know more depth details, Please read Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Eight portions there were of the relics of him, The All-Seeing One, the greatest of men. Seven in Jambudipa are honored, and one In Ramagama, by kings of the Naga race. One tooth is honored in the Tavatimsa heaven, One in the realm of Kalinga, and one by the Naga kings. Through their brightness this bountiful earth With its most excellent gifts is endowed; For thus the relics of the All-Seeing One are best honored By those who are worthy of honor — by gods and Nagas And lords of men, yea, by the highest of mankind. Pay homage with clasped hands! For hard indeed it is Through hundreds of ages to meet with an All-Enlightened One!


What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic?

Page 55 of this books tells a story about why no garlic

http://books.google.com/books?id=91OPcSUTFQ0C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=why+prohibition+of+onions+and+garlic+by+buddhist&source=bl&ots=-zabxvpxAT&sig=GLbsLl7P1h6soNNWDG8SXrzfzM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GN1OVISdDcz-yQS9q4DgCQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw

The text is from the Chanyuan Qinggui - the stories there are that the nuns were allowed to pick 5 heads of garlic a day but one day picked all of them. The Buddha then banned the use of garlic.

Another story tells that people who use garlic were not allowed near the Buddha when he was giving his sermon because of bad breath, body odor and possibly flatulence.

This seems more plausible to me if you have ever been around someone eating lots of garlic.

Onions, especially sweet onions, do not exhibit these same symptoms after eating.


Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics?

You're going to find two schools of thought on this:

Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding
Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward

Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings will fade away, and they will be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.
Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we create through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead beyond the teaching to bone-deep understanding.
Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to learn, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to see: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.


Jhāna in the different branches of Buddhism

The word jhāna is Pali, so it stands to reason you wouldn't hear about it directly in other traditions. What you should be looking for are the following:

Sanskrit: dhyāna

Chinese: Chán (simplified Chinese: 禅; traditional Chinese: 禪)

Japanese: Zen (禅)

As far as differences go, I'm not sure which you are referring to, but I once skimmed through a collection of modern Buddhist writings on samadhi and found that none of the authors seemed able to agree on what meditation or jhāna meant. It differs from monastery to monastery, let alone tradition to tradition.


This seems to be a rather common misunderstanding, that Buddhism is a doctrine of emotionlessness or aloofness. Instead, (Mahayana) Buddhism is a doctrine of emotional maturity, emotional intelligence, mental agility, and robust practical excellence.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't avoid attachments-as-connections, we still form relationships with people, make commitments, pursue long-term goals -- but we learn to let go quickly when situation changes, this saves us tremendous amounts of energy. That's why in English we call them "attachments", not "connections". Connections are alright.

Attachment is a much more broad notion than mere fondness of something good. It could be attachment to self-image, attachment to fairness, attachment to skills and intelligence, attachment to higher values, attachment to security, attachment to a certain perspective and so on. Every time we let go of attachment we let go of a button that "external" world may push to trigger an automatic reaction in us.

This is what that quote says, that when we ("I") consider ourselves a separate entity, we think we are entitled to our pathologies and neuroses. But when we understand that this is an ocean of information riding on top of various media, including the media of the primate brains, we can take ownership of our reactions, and choose not to get pushed around by the fluctuations of the signal.

This does not mean we are frozen cold -- this means we can be positive, energetic, and happy all the time, because we now operate our own electrical generator that works both low tide and high tide, which makes us pretty independent and free.

Another metaphor I can offer is that of a sailboat -- once we learn to balance away the environmental influences, we are free to choose our course regardless of wind. It does not mean we lower our sails and stay in place, which is a metaphor for avoiding relationships altogether, and it does not mean aberrating randomly, which is a metaphor for avoiding long-time commitments, it just means we are not attached to one wind and one current, especially after it's gone.

Plus, "seeing through the delusion of separation" we no longer consider ourselves the center of the world. Once we stop obsessing about our own grief, it magically subsides, our eyes open, and we notice others stuck in all kinds of horror worlds. This is when it feels natural to go and help them out, but of course we must learn to float our own boat first.


What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?

Panna is understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight. Panna is always correct.
Ditthi is simply view. Ditthi can be either right(Samma-ditthi) or wrong(Micca-ditti).
Samma-ditthi has 2 levels:

The right view caused by faith in another's teaching and/or faith in personal feelings,perceptions and reasoning.
ex: having the view that rebirth is true without actually knowing and without knowing the nature of phenomena

The right view caused by Panna
ex: having the view that rebirth is true by direct knowledge and/or by inference(through understanding of how phenomena arise).

Micca-ditthi has nothing to do with Panna. It is caused by ignorance and the faith in someone else's false teachings or the faith in one's own feelings, perceptions and false reasoning.
ex: believing that death is the end regardless of one's mental conditioning


The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople
says that the "spirit of the rule" is important:

FAQ 4: "It is mentioned in the Vinaya rules that a monk is not allowed to reside under the same roof with a woman. How does that apply to multistoried (condominiums, flats, apartments) and multi-compartment buildings (terrace houses), where the flats, terrace houses, share one roof?"
A: This has become a complex question with various interpretations because of modern conditions. The spirit of the rule is very important — avoiding possibilities of intimacy — while the interpretation will depend on the monk and the circumstances. In countries without proper monasteries there will always have to be something of a compromise. (See Staying Together for a discussion of this.)

This is clearer if you read the previous 3 FAQs, for example,

FAQ 3: "What is the rule if an eight-precepter unintentionally comes into [direct physical] contact with another lay person or eight-precepter or ten-precepter or monk or nun of opposite gender?"
A: As with the preceding cases with bhikkhus, there is no fault if there is no wrong intention.


A bhikkhu is literally 'one who lives by alms'. However, it is not the same as a beggar because the laity that provide the alms get something in return - access to the wisdom and insight of the bhikkhu. Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta gives the Buddha's words to a confrontational Brahmin who refuses to give alms to the Buddha because he does not believe the Buddha 'works for it'.

The conditions for surviving on such alms depends on a laity that is interested in learning about the Dhamma (and hence supporting those that strive to gain direct knowledge of it). Really, the world is much more interconnected, there are far more people, and finding some who would be interested in your message would not be that tough imo! Finding a quiet and secluded spot would be more difficult imo! Here's a story I found: https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/alms-round-in-america/ I guess if the cultural knowledge is not there, it is a matter of educating your laity and getting them into the practice!


"The number of dust on the earth could be counted..."

THe puthujjanas who created Mahayana and vajrayana love to claim that people you see around you could have been your parents or loved ones in a previous life.
From this, they embarrass themselves even more by inferring that ''therefore you must be nice to them'', so that they build their humanist ethic and feel good about themselves. As usual they confuse the sila of the dhama with humanism.

Their confusion stems from their confusion of the dependent origination of the 5 aggregates with the dependent origination that they invented which they called ''inter-being'' which is just the eastern humanism where people depend on each others.
Those puthujjanas prefer to care more about the thousands little objects and humans they see each day and slap the words sunnata and dependent origination on it Whereas the claim of the buddha is precisely that instead of caring about those objects, what matters is to see how conditioned the 5 aggregates are.
Puthujjanas who do not cling to mental masturbation already know that objects and livelihood are conditioned, and this knowledge doe snot get them enlightened, but a few intellectuals pass this dull, bland, common knowledge as being awaken.

The philosophers are the textbook case of overthinking, they focus on a few words and they build a new system around it, a new semantics, a new doctrine.
Their story begins with the a famous claim that what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta. THen a natural question by Puthujjanas is ''why are things anatta'' and of course, the answer is that ''things are anatta because it is the way they are''. IT is a disappointing answer, because it is a stupid question in the first place.

But of course, for the Puthujjanas who are intellectuals, this answer is not intellectual enough. No, what matter to those Puthujjanas is to put another ''...because XYZ'' after ''because they are anatta'': They claim that things are anatta because they are sunyata. They picked the word sunyataand blew it out of proportion, by using it on their deep craving to find an essence in things.
When those Puthujjanas run out of ideas to intellectualize further their views, they stop and claim that the last bit of their sequence of ideas is in fact how reality is, so it goes

  idea A because idea B, idea B because idea C, .... , idea X because
  idea Y, idea Y because idea Z, and idea Z because reality is Z
  (expressed by idea Z). Which means ''Y because Z because it is the way
  it is, end of the story''

Now it turns out that the story imagined by those Puthujjanas does indeed stop  at sunyata:  things are sunyata because things are sunyata, because that is what things are, because it is the way things are.
And of course, those people love to feel smart for applying their fantasy to the most attractive word there is:

  Nibbana (the Unconditioned) is anatta because nibanna is sunyata. And
  Why is nibanna sunyata? Nibanna is sunyata because nibanna is sunyata.

With the crown of their speculations being the fantasy that:

  sunyata itself is sunyata

THis jewel of theirs is precisely what neuters their speculations. It puts a stop to the chain of ''because XYZ'' and adds nothing to the story.
Thus,  It is easy for those puthujjanas to claim that ''

  If dependent origination is true, then my attainment of enlightenment is mutually dependent on the attainment of all other beings.

So their craving for slapping sunyata eveyrwhere is utterly useless. They had an extra word and they stop here. It is already bad to intellectualize, but intellectualizing further by adding a useless word is embarrassing. But at least they obtain what they craved all along, fantasizing a true nature of ''the self'', as if things had a true nature and a not so true nature.
Later on, they cannot help themselves from claiming that their intellectualization is the dhamma and even more embarrassing, that it is a better dhama than the one from what they call the ''pali canon'' today,

But the intellectuals do not stop here. Those puthujjanas crave so much speculating and basing their life on their fantasies that they picked another word and blew it out of proportion by mixing it with their favorite topic: craving to attribute an essence or a true nature to things that they perceive.
Their new and equally  toxic fairy tale is about applying what they read about dependent origination to their craving for true nature of things like the external object.

THe dependent origination is and always will be about the conditions for the birth of an aggregate and the condition for the death of an aggregate. Dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of the objects that Puthujjanas love to cling to and which live ''in reality'' like they say.
On the contrary, if there is ONE thing that the buddha does NOT focus on is precisely those stuff of what Puthujjanas call ''objective reality''. It is utterly useless and never conductive to nirvana.

In fact, Puthujjanas know very well that the objects they crave are fabricated. Puthujjanas know that the meal they cook is sunyata.Puthujjanas know very well that their car is sunyata, that clouds are sunyata. THey know that when they change the summer tires on their car, to put a winter tires, the drive-ability of the car changes a lot, that the fuel consumption changes a lot, to the point of driving a totally different car. They know that when they change the gearbox or the engine, the car no longer behaves like the car before to the point of being a different car. And knowing that all those objects are sunyata does not get them to stop being Puthujjanas, does not stop the cravings they have for the objects nor the craving they have to find the ''real nature'' of things. Knowing that a carrot is fabricated is not reaching nibanna.
The dependent origination is never ever about the condition of the birth of a carrot nor the about the condition of the death of a carrot.

THe buddha and the bikkhus used the analogy of the fabricated chariot and the scent of the flower, the sound of a lute https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html
 to talk about the 5 aggregates precisely because Puthujjanas know those objects and that the all those objects are fabricated. The fabrication of the chariot is not new to Puthujjanas. What is new to Puthujjanas is that the 5 aggregates are fabricated, just like their car is fabricated. This is the claim which is amazing.

Claiming that a carrot is sunyata is the most bland, common, vulgar claim for the Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkya-ditthi.
On the contrary, for the toxic Puthujjanas who love to pat themselves on the back for intellectualizing even more the few bits they read about the dhamma, the claim that a carrot is sunyata  is amazing, is deep, is the most profound revelation that there is.
The intellectuals find amazing what the Puthujjanas who do not create much views beyond sakkya ditthi do not find amazing at all.

it's like living in a builidng with many floors. Puthujjanas who know that the objects they fabricate are fabricated live on the floor 0, and the one who cannot help themselves from intellectualizing live on floor 100.
Puthujjanas who love to live up their dreams high at the floor 100 have completely forgotten that floor 0 exist. Then they pat themselves on the back for constructing a whole fairy tale leading them to discover that floor 0 have always existed. THen , the buddha lives at floor -1  and tells the Puthujjanas at floor 0 that there is a floor below them.

But it gets worst for those Puthujjanas clinging to rationalize that they experience. Because they exhaust themselves by struggling to fight their  views, they run out of energy when it is time to kill the lusts for the various 5 senses.
In fact, the most toxic Puthujjanas are not even interested in restraining their actions and prefer to claim that they already are awaken, because they delude themselves even more by creating the view that all that matters to reach nibanna is to have good intentions, so they go on carrying on their actions of Puthujjanas while building the fantasy that they have good intention while they are doing them. In order to express this new  view, that they love to pass as deep and pragmatic, They create the most moronic claim ever uttered by a deluded Puthujjana :

  ''Samsara is only nirvana seen from a place of confusion'' or  "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?

They really feel smart and deep when they say that.
On the contrary, the Puthujjanas who already know that carrots are sunyata have zero need to kill the speculations created by the toxic Puthujjanas. The Puthujjanas who do not build much views beyond sakkyaditthi struggle the least to reach nibbanna. Those Puthujjanas are easy to talk to and the easiest way to make them ''understand'' that the 5 aggregates are conditioned is to talk to them and create analogies from their daily life with all those objects that they work so hard to fabricate and service. Those non-philosopers  Puthujjanas do not confuse samsara with nirvana. Those Puthujjanas do not get awaken by seeing that cars are fabricated, they get awaken by seeing that the 5 aggregates are conditioned which leads to the death of the lusts for the aggregates which kills the aggregates at least at parinibbanna, if not at nibanna.

The goal is not to see that a carrot is sunyata, nor that to see that a car is sunyata , nor that a sound is sunyata . The goal is only to see that the aggregates are sunyata which leads to see that  in the ''sound there is only the sound'' (an no other stuff like lust), to cognize the earth element as only the earth element, contrary to puthujjanas who cognize the earth element as earth element+sakkaya ditthi and later on, speculate on this sakkayaditthi and turn that into their numerous mistaken:

  The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives
  [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives
  [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he
  delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I
  tell you.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html


Are monks better teachers than ex-monks?

1. There were lay Arhats

In the Buddha's time there were lay Arhats such as the rich merchant Vimalakirti of Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. His knowledge was considered by the Buddha (to the discomfiture of many monks) to far surpass most monks, and equal Bodhisattvas. Thus, being lay is no reason to look down upon a teacher.

2. Having the Buddha for a teacher does not guarantee enlightenment

The Buddha was frequented by several Kings, one of them, I can't remember his name right now, and I certainly don't want to defame the wrong King, was a regular patron of the Buddha, visiting him more than once. It so happened that at one point in a succession struggle he ended up killing his own brother. So much for having the Buddha as a teacher.

On the other hand, there was a blind weaver girl who heard the Buddha speak from afar only once, and that was enough for her to begin her contemplation on death and impermanence. She died a stream entrant.

In this age of the Internet, one can be like the blind weaver girl, and listen to the great teachers of our age anytime we like. There were even people who listened to the Buddha's teachings as it was narrated by someone who had heard it from someone else who had heard it from someone else and so on, handed down several times, and still attained enlightenment.

3. Western teachers relate better to western students

There are definitely great eastern masters who have produced enlightened western students. Still,  several western students report getting very little out of the extended stays in Tibetan and Thai monasteries, other than a liking for strange food and exposure to a new culture. That's not to say it always works this way, but certainly more times than we care to admit. Especially monks who ordain as children are unfamiliar with anything other than the local culture and monastic setting, and are rather uncomfortable with foreign students.

Western teachers, lay or otherwise are often times better at relating to western students, and vice versa. That is not to say, some of them are not Dharma politicians, several of them can be that way, always saying what the student wants to hear, and presenting a false facade of calm, peace  and enlightenment, but then such teachers are everywhere, even in the East.

One Western monk's account with his Burmese teacher went as follows - he confided  his problems in attaining deep concentration to the Senior abbot, and the Abbot's only question was - "did you ever do drugs?" As a college student he had taken his share of weed, which he admitted to. That was it, the teacher decided he was unfit to be taught, and ignored him for the rest of the time he was at the monastery. The teacher's cultural perception of drugs clouded his ability to nurture the student.

I'm not discouraging you from going out to find a supremely enlightened monk to learn from, but it is the equivalent of saying, "I will not move from here until I can afford a Rolls Royce." Maybe all we need is a bicycle.


What is the relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature?

They are the same thing. Tathagatagarbha is the most common Sanskrit term, but occasionally it is referred to with different terms like Sugatagarbha or Buddha-dhatu but they all mean the same thing.


Bad actions are inherently stressful and there is a natural tendency to want that which is not stressful and avoid that which is stressful. In example a person far and down could happen to see an englightened being and that could have a powerful positive effect on his mind or other mundane things like acts of kindness or giving, there is just a tendency to seek those things out once one gets a taste for the fruits of moral behavior, the higher the contrast the more obvious it becomes as a fool gets filled with evil he will suffer the consequences. It is like pissing at the wind, eventually one will just figure it out more or less even if by chance one will turn around a bit and discern it is as better. If discernment is not cultivated to a certain point it can deteriorate if one trains what one should not train, does not train what one should train and associates with wrong view.


Should I always put another person's interest before mine?

In Buddhism, there are fundamental realizations that help you answer these kinds of questions via direct experience, especially the realization of non-self.

There is in fact no "other" that does stepping on.
There is in fact no "me" that is being stepped on.

You are not just yourself. "You" are the whole universe (in a sense).

Anyway, when you can realize that then you will be able to let go enough to stop feeling sorry for yourself and be able to see things objectively more clearly.

That is what the following advice is based on.

If people did not pay for services and people just gave them away then two things would happen:

Those people would in fact not value the service/gift that they are receiving
The person doing the giving will go hungry and perish, one way or another

Furthermore, this delicate exchange that I am referring to, if disrespected by letting other people "step on you" by not getting something back in value (whether it is the practice itself be it teaching or whatever service you are offering), then they will eventually form a debt with you and a chronicity of theievery in their own mind.

In Buddhist tradition, monks don't just beg and run off after they get a meal. They tend to share dharma with their benefactor.

Something to think about: by letting other people "step on you", you are enabling them to do an evil deed! Do not let them use you! This evil deed is not only their seed of retribution but your own to experience in the future as well.

So be strong, be assertive. Make sure you are happy with the exchange! Give and take value. Even if that value is just the action itself, make sure you are happy with it before doing it and not doing it too much out of guilt or pity. If you have to do it out of pity, then try to assert that you are just "making one exception" so that there is no chronicity in the person's mind (which strangely enough is your mind as well!)

I am sure I lost you somewhere and I would need to talk much longer in order to clarify this deep, deep matter but the following things will help you solidify and strengthen your thinking in this regard as you live in this world.

Read MindOS 2nd edition (the best psychology book that exists)
Read Diamond Sutra Explained
Do Metta meditation
Meditate on the feeling of being "stepped on"... find out where it is coming from... talk to it in a journal. Ask this feeling what will make it feel better and happy. You will have surprising insights when you can open up to.. yourself.


Why Buddha lined up four brahmavihara in the chronological order 'metta, karuna, mudita and upeksha'

The practitioner wishes to let the being took the benefit&happiness, lovingkindness, so the practitioner wishes to help that being when that being is suffering, wishes to congratulate with that being when he is happy, and is equanimity when whatever happen.

Upekka, equanimity, is not easier than the other three. The practitioner is ignoring, doing not care, when he practices Upekkha without practicing the other three before, i.e. the healthy practitioner is not equanimity but he is ignoring when he doesn't care the standing old woman on the bus while he is sitting.

See the path of purification brahmavihāraniddesa:

  Ñ(IX,109): One who wants to develop these four should practice them
  towards beings first as the promotion of the aspect of benefit—and
  lovingkindness has the promotion of the aspect of benefit as its
  characteristic;
  Ñ: and next, on seeing or hearing or judging that beings whose
  benefit has been thus wished for are at the mercy of suffering, they
  should be practiced as the promotion of the aspect of the removal of
  suffering—and compassion has the promotion of the aspect of the
  removal of suffering as its characteristic;
  Ñ: and then, on seeing the success of those whose benefit has been
  wished for and the removal of whose suffering has been wished for,
  they should be practiced as being glad—and gladness has the act of
  gladdening as its characteristic;
  Ñ: but after that, there is nothing to be done and so they should be
  practiced as the neutral aspect, in other words, the state of an
  onlooker—and equanimity has the promotion of the aspect of
  neutrality as its characteristic;

  Ñ: therefore, since their respective aims are the aspect of benefit,
  etc., their order should be understood to correspond, with loving
  kindness stated first, then compassion, gladness, and equanimity.


Is it possible for active people to truly live practice "mindfulness"?

Mindfulness or living in the present moment is not the same as not having goals or responsibilities. Instead it is about doing everything you do with full attention and without judgement.

For example, an active and not very mindful person would drive a car, look at his watch to see what time it is, and nervously think about everything he still has to do today, all three at the same time. A mindful person would drive the car with full attention. When other thoughts pop-up he would accept it and let them just pass by without giving them too much attention. Only when he has arrived at his destination would he actively think about his next activity.

This means that you still can have goals, it's just that you are not (in your mind) busy trying to achieve multiple goals at the same time. Additionally, being mindful also means that you accept whatever happens without judgement. If you accidentally hit another car while driving, you (try to) don't get angry or upset, but instead accept and deal with the consequences of the accident.


Questions about strong acceptance of rebirth?

The question is basically, why is belief in literal rebirth (reincarnation) a problem. I won't address every OP point here, just make four theses:

Rebirth is self. Self is rebirth. Whenever there is belief in rebirth, there is attachment to self. You can't possibly believe in rebirth without having a notion of entity (identity) that is getting reborn. Having a notion of entity means you don't understand sankharas (assembly of phenomena), which means even your understanding of anicca is superficial, let alone of anatta or shunyata.
Rebirth usually (but not always, see next point) involves dualistic views about some "special" substance that carries on the entity's identity. That substance is imagined to be made from something principally different, a second kind of stuff (first being normal matter/energy) - hence "dual-ism". Whatever you call that stuff, it basically means "soul" - some spiritual supernatural essence.
Even if you define rebirth as arising of the new being on the basis of the previous being's karma (like the old candle transferring its flame to the new candle) - in other words if you define rebirth as transfer of information/causation - if you imagine this process going 1:1 from one previous being to one new being through some mysterious mechanism, you are still creating a cohesive entity where there is just a bunch of disjointed causation chains. The information/causation is transferred all the time, many-to-many, not at the moment of death or birth. So transmigration of sentient beings at large is real, the wheel is continuously in motion rolling in the rut from generation to generation. Karma is real. But individual reincarnation is not.
If you look deep inside you will see that rebirth is a byproduct of a psychological need. What need? A need to have something beyond THIS to look forward to, to hope for, because THIS is unbearable. But denying THIS is denying the first noble truth, it is escapism. No progress on the path can be made until we accept THIS with all its pain. We must fully come to THIS because THIS is where Enlightenment unfolds.

My recommendation is to meditate on the notion of entity. Think about a piece of wood and how it becomes ashes as it burns. Where are the spatial/temporal boundaries of an entity here? Same with ice/water/vapor. Same with an entity called "a river". Same with people, including both body and mind. Where does the mind come from? Where are its boundaries? Is there an entity here?


The vinaya probably talks more about food. In the suttas the stock phrasing is ''moderation in eating'' is associated to good condition with minduflness, like that

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html

  "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/bhojan.html


There are three considerations: getting into meditation, establishing connection with (whatever it's called), and maintaining connection.

First, to get into meditation you need to be careful not to scare yourself. If you start too rough on yourself you may end up secretly hating it. So all my teachers always said, start gentle and enjoy, little by little. Maybe 15 mins at a time, once a day. Then maybe 20.

Second, to establish connection with (I still don't know what it's called, but you'll know it once you get there), you need to have a good long meditation session. Maybe 90 minutes. Something like this. This is how long it takes to actually get deep. You don't need to have every meditation session be that long, only when you really feel like it. But it is important to do it a few times, until you catch the right feeling (state? mood?)

Then, once you have it, and feel it remain with you even in postmeditation, you need to maintain it. This typically takes about 30 mins twice a day. Or 45-60 mins once in the morning. Something like this.

These are my numbers. Everyone is different, so I'm sure a bunch of people here will have different opinions. But here it is anyway.


What are the requirements in order to happen a complete sin?

I don't think it's thoroughly explained in suttas.

I know you tagged this topic lay-buddhism, but it might be relevant to mention that the topic is extensively discussed in the Vinaya (the "discipline", the rules for monks).

Pages of 74 through 86 of The Buddhist Monastic Code says:

  This rule against intentionally causing the death of a human being is best
  understood in terms of five factors, all of which must be present for there to be
  the full offense.

  Object: a human being, which according to the Vibhaṅga includes human
  fetuses as well, counting from the time consciousness first arises in the
  womb immediately after conception up to the time of death.
  Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting
  to cause that person’s death. “Knowingly” also includes the factor of—
  Perception: perceiving the person as a living being.
  Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that person to die.
  Result: The life-faculty of the person is cut as the result of one’s act.

It details a number of exceptions: if you kill a person by accident; if you thought they were already dead; or etc.

It also details some non-exceptions, e.g. telling someone else to kill does count as "effort".

Perhaps I could mention that attempted murder (where the victim doesn't die as a "result") is considered still an offence, and punished ... but with "lesser penalties".

The penalties (and the deeds for which monks are punished) in the Vinaya aren't necessarily the same as the working of kamma -- they're more well-defined (and so easier to list in detail).


Skillful activity is getting your head and your heart to respect each other, and in being mindful as you go about in life. Then your head and your heart can take each other far when you can remain mindful, even amidst the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Your heart needs the help of your head to generate and act on more skillful emotions. Your head needs your heart to remind you that what's really important in life is putting an end to suffering. They need each other.  When you come to this realism, you will dwell in “kaya passaddi”.

To explain the above, I must give you another meaning to words like “Kaya”. Such words come under Adhi-vacana – meaning - the same word has different meanings depending on the sutta, and how it gets used. Here “kaya” refers to action; action of the mind. So, “passaddi” refers to serene, tranquil nature of action. Actions of mind become tranquil only when the mind is devoid of “heat”, resulting from the existence of defilements such as lobha (greed) and dosa (aversion).

There is a tendency of mind to grasp objects. The action of mind (kaya) is always to grasp something. When one’s mind reaches the stage of passaddi (quietude, serenity), the action of grasping takes place in a tranquil manner.  A person who has developed this quietude of mind discerns greed or aversion exactly at the time that these qualities appear in his mind. This discernment which synchronizes with the arising of greed or aversion in mind is the correct way of “anupassana”. Anupassana means “discard according to the principles learned” (“anu” means according to and “passana” means to get rid of).

Let’s take an example where a youth coming face to face with a pretty girl. The sight of a pretty girl is a sensuous sense object for a young guy. If this guy is one who cultivates good or worthwhile qualities in the mind, then, he sense the arising of greed at the sight of the pretty girl. Therefore, he applies “anupassana” in respect of the sense object. Likewise, if this girl walks past the boy completely ignoring him, that could cause anger in him. If the boy could note the anger in his mind, then, he applies “anupassana”. As his sole objective was to maintain a wholesome state of mind, devoid of greed and aversion, he was successful in doing so at the sight of a pretty girl. This is meditation, if you take it in its truest sense of meaning.

When you conduct yourself in this way, in whatever you do, or wherever that you go, then you experience that more often than not, your body calms down and your mind is completely relaxed. Your brain's thinking is slower, your mind is clear and you may even feel slightly drowsy or idle. But worry not, as this is “being intelligent”. Being intelligent signifies being able to exist with a happy, blissful mind. Happiness is the tranquil nature of mind. Happiness arises in mind. It manifests through bodily and verbal actions.  Such a person will go about things in a happy, blissful way.

However, such a mental state is shrouded with our own suffering if we cannot get our head and heart to respect each other, and in being mindful. Once this is done and once the suffering is eliminated, dormant happiness begins to surface in a mind. Then anything that you do constitutes skillful activity.


What are the verses relating to meditation in the Tripitaka? And to what type of meditation does it relate to?

The excerpt given below provides some references but in the pages following this one, the meditation subjects are explained and many more references are given. With this in mind, I suggest going to the link provided at the end of the excerpt and read these pages to extract the additional references.

§75 FORTY CONCENTRATION EXERCISES
There are forty concentration exercises (kammatthana) leading to the tranquility of the
absorptions. They are:
I. Ten kasina exercises: (1) earth kasina, (2) water kasina, (3) fire
kasina, (4) wind kasina, (5) blue kasina, (6) yellow kasina, (7) red
kasina, (8) white kasina, (9) light kasina, (10) space kasina. The
older suttas replace the light kasina with the consciousness kasina,
as at AN 10:29.
II. Ten perceptions of loathsomeness (asubha-sañña): a swollen-up
corpse, a bluish discoloured corpse, a festering corpse, a split
corpse, a gnawed corpse, a scattered corpse, a dismembered and
scattered corpse, a blood-stained corpse, a corpse full of worms, a
skeleton. More or less identical with these exercises are the nine
cemetery contemplations in MN 10 and DN 22, and the contemplation in
AN 4:14, quoted below.
III. Ten contemplations (anussati): (1) on the Buddha, (2) the
Doctrine, (3) the Community of Noble Disciples, (4) morality, (5)
liberality, (6) heavenly beings, (7) death, (8) body, (9)
in-and-out-breathing, (10) peace. While 1-6 are mostly explained in
one and the same sutta, (7)—(10) are described each separately in
different suttas, e.g. (7) in AN 8:73f. (8) in MN 119 (but not as in
MN 10, while in Vism the meditation refers to the thirty-two parts of
the body); (9) in MN 118; (10) in AN 9:52-61, 10:26.
IV. Four divine abodes (brahma-vihara): (1) all-em bracing kindness
(metta), (2) compassion (karuna), (3) altruistic joy (mudita)), (4)
equanimity (upekkha).
V. Four immaterial spheres (arupayatana): (1) sphere of boundless
space, (2) sphere of boundless consciousness, (3) sphere of
nothingness, (4) sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
VI. Perception of the loathsomeness of food.
VII. Analysis of the four elements.
Neighbourhood concentration may be reached by III 1-7, 10; VI; and
VII.
The first jhana may be reached by II 1-10 and III 8.
The first three jhanas may be reached by IV 1-3.
The four jhanas may be reached by I 1-10 and III 9.
The fourth jhana may be reached by IV 4.
The immaterial attainments may be reached by V 1-4.
The acquired image (uggaha-nimitta) and counter-image
(patibhaga-nimitta) will arise only on realizing I 1-10; II 1-10; III
8, 9: hence in twenty-two exercises.
For a full explanation of these forty exercises, see Vism III—XI.
For further details about jhana, etc., see Fund. IV.
-The Buddha's Path of Deliverance, p.75 by Nyanatiloka Thera


I think you must be thinking of 'middle'. Things have beginnings, middles, and ends. And yes the suttas are filled with discussions of all three.

"It was not until I had thoroughly understood the six senses, the origin of the six senses, the satisfaction of the six senses, the problem with the six senses, the end of the six senses, and the way to the end of the six senses, that I knew of myself that I had attained the highest attaining."

Buddhism also discusses 'inside' vs. 'outside' or 'internal' vs. 'external' which is more easily understood as 'personal' vs. 'impersonal'; subjective versus objective.


I think that dukkha is the reason why the reader is looking for a way to stop the cycle.

I think that, because the "four noble truths" were the first thing that the Buddha explained, during his first sermon after enlightenment (with dukkha being the subject of the first of these four noble truths).

The fact that dukkha is the cause of the search (i.e. that "the search is the result of stress") is also stated explicitly, in the Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

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

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

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

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

Saying that dukkha is the reason for the search might seem like a one-size-fits-all answer: if several/many people want to stop the cycle, do they all have the same reason for wanting to?

For that reason, dukkha is a broad term with apparently several meanings or usages; the WIkipedia article starts with ...

  Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan: སྡུག་བསྔལ་ sdug bsngal, pr. "duk-ngel") is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness".[a] The principle of dukkha is one of the most important concepts in the Buddhist tradition. The Buddha is reputed to have said: "I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha."

... and then continues, with many various categories (and translations) of dukkha.


How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant?

Into the Stream -- A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
and The Power of Judgment might help.
It's all a matter of having done what leads to blessings -- and "dwelling" in borderlands:

A monastery, traditional Wat (pi: vatta) is an outwardly borderland ...
A "borderland" is a "state" between home and homelessness, outer lands and noble domain ...

[DD, post not given for trade or any wordily exchange]


Wheel turning king runs the country without stick or sword, what does it mean?

I believe "wheel" refers to tradition (in the broadest sense) and "turning" refers to establishing and/or continuing the tradition.

The wheel turning king (or, in modern terms, leader) rules by setting up a way of doing things that (most of) people find compelling enough to follow, without being forced to -- this is what I feel is referred to as "without stick or sword".


Look where you mind goes. If it jumps to a pain know you attention is on the pain. If it is a thought know that it is with the thought. If your attention is on a ___ just know that your attention is with ____.

With each object your mind jumps to there is a sensation attached. If it a pain it is unpleasant. If it is sweet memory it is pleasant. If it is a birds chirping it can be neutral. What ever that grabs your attention just know the sensation.

In all these cases for each sound you experience though through your physical senses there is a metal reaction also which is also either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. You should maintain equanimity so you do not get the mental reaction. In addition try to see in impermanence of each experience. All experience has a start, middle and and end. Also if you diver the sensation into smaller areas and examine them, large sensation is made up of smaller sensations clusters which shorter lived than the affected area. You can continue this division seeing more subtler and subtler clusters until you come to a level it is indivisible and changes seem unimaginably rapid. In addition you will see because of stimuli at the sense faculty only the some sensation started and when that simply subsides the stimuli the sensation disappears. You are not in control of the stimuli nor the pleasant experiences which you might want to prolong or unpleasant which you might want to shorten or get rid of.

Also developing the Jhana factors of:

bringing the mind to the object
sustaining the mind on the object

may help you develop more focus.

Also your meditation is not entirely in your control, i.e. it is non self, hence having expectation will be counter productive. Also getting attached to these expectation can be more counterproductive and it will cause unsatisfactoriness with the meditation. So practice the meditation techniques to the best of your ability without expectation or attachment to the expectation.