Should/Would the Noble Sangha let go of the Dhamma?

Although "Dhamma" is in the title, the text of the question seems to be asking instead about the Discipline:

If the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes, should the Noble Sangha let go of their heritage? ...
Would the Buddha allow monks to give up Sangha heritage in that case?

I read The Broken Buddha so it's not completely new to me to hear of someone saying something like, "the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders".

I wouldn't want to say that, and I couldn't say it about anyone (because I don't know them), but I suppose that what's written in the book has some truth in it, even if only that it's as-witnessed.

Similarly I read a little of the "austere Forest Tradition" -- specifically as contrasted with the living and so on in towns.

I don't have a specific answer for you -- I think there are several:

You might want to find a monastery which you approve of -- a bikkhu, a group of bikkhus, who you approve of. People's biographies, monks and nuns too, often include their visiting and studying in several places, studying under several teachers.
It's common to disrobe -- not that I'm recommending that, but perhaps that's what you meant by "give up Sangha heritage". Perhaps some people who do that give up parts of the the Discipline, but not the Dhamma.
Perhaps consider being less critical of others -- I assume you are critical of others, "You shouldn't practice/live that way", "You don't have a proper teacher", "Your motives aren't proper", etc. To pick an example almost at random, there's this Wikipedia article about Ajahn Sumedho -- which describes him as "engaging and witty communication style", and pictures him and the monk who he's talking with laughing together. Then again the biography of Ajahn Chah says, "He sometimes initiated long and seemingly pointless work projects, in order to frustrate their attachment to tranquility" -- possibly you have some attachment to the way things ought to be, how other people ought to behave.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?

How popular is "that popular", what "householder movements"? Perhaps what you're talking about is an "observation bias" i.e. if you observe householder movements then that's what you see; and if you e.g. read the internet less then you wouldn't see them so much -- but I don't know what you're talking about. You see different things than I do, and perhaps you see them differently -- the all.

There are articles in the Appendix which say e.g. (in 1931) that ...

  Already prominent laymen in Burma, Siam, Ceylon, and elsewhere, view with misgivings the present state of affairs and know that sooner or later some alterations will have to be made. Nearly everyone sees signs of decay in the Order, that Order that has continued for 2500 years, but today there are new conditions and forces in the world and unless something radical is done this decay will increase until either the Sangha dies out, or becomes a dead letter, the refuge of the ignorant and unworthy.

It isn't only monks of Western origin who say this. Anyway you might want to read The Broken Buddha assuming you haven't already. I think it talks about issues (i.e. problems within Sangha) which you question here, and quote various people who suggest solutions, and maybe you can find in it some people or organisations who you might concur with.

I don't know that I can answer this question, though, since I don't know what you mean by "householder movements".

I suppose that everyone (householders too) must practice on their own (as "islands"), AND that the Sangha is, has been, will be important.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many?

I don't know that it's possible to prevent people from doing what's harmful -- if you knew how to, perhaps you could help drug addicts? -- and if you can't prevent them then I don't see how it's a question of "letting them".

If someone only sees you as getting into arguments, and scolding people, etc., I suppose that's not effective.

Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

I think the theory is that it isn't one OR the other (i.e. compassion OR equanimity) -- instead it's both (i.e. "and") -- or rather, all four (mudita and metta too).

Also you practice one whenever you can't practice another -- or perhaps one is an antidote to an excess of the other.


Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned?

The word "dukkha" has three meanings in context:

Unpleasant/painful feelings (dukkha vedana), which Arahants have.
Unsatisfactoriness of impermanent conditioned things, which Arahants must experience for dispassionate enlightenment.
Suffering of attachment (1st noble truth), which Arahants do not have or experience.

Jhana is certainly something "conditioned" & something "unsatisfactory" but jhana is only "suffering" if attached to.

Note: The Western translators (Bodhi, Thanissaro, Sujato, Anandajoti, etc) all translate "dukkha" incorrectly in relation to impermanence. Refer to the Mendis translation of SN 22.59, the Buddharakkhita translation of the Maggavagga or Buddhadasa's Anapanasati for the proper translation in this 2nd context.


-- "why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana"

There is a traditional Buddhist teaching that explains this Awakening through a combination of lucky causes and conditions. When the conditions are unlucky, they are known as "Eight Conditions in Which There is No Freedom to Practice Dharma". When the conditions are lucky, there are known as "The Ten Advantages" or "The Five Individual and Five Circumstantial Advantages". I will not quote them here verbatim, for fear of simplistic reification - instead I will try to explain the idea behind it.

Awakening happens when your life conditions are "just right". Being "just right" means they are not too bad but not too "worldly good" either.

On one hand, there has to be enough good luck to be born in the right place at the right time to encounter Dharma, and your personal circumstances should be good enough to allow you to pay attention to it. Meaning, you need to be born in the right historical period in a civilized country that has Dharma available in some form, when there is no active war or other issues that would completely distract from anything but survival. You also have to be born a human or other type of sentient being that has its mental faculty in a good functional order.

On the other hand, you need to have enough suffering in your life and enough confusion to push you to seek some sort of resolution. If your life circumstances are too structured from birth, for example you are born to a family that has everything running well and under control, you may be so completely preoccupied with worldly activities of study, work, art, making business etc., that you will have zero interest in Dharma even if the Buddha himself were to teach you.

Just enough suffering and confusion -- but not too much -- because too much suffering and confusion leads to perverted worldviews, excessive aggression, extreme pessimism/hopelessness/nihilism, an idea that one can only get happy by abusing others, incurable cynicism, addictions etc.

So when these multiple "just right" causes and conditions come together all at the same time, we have this phenomena of Awakening - one day you come in touch with Dharma and you are interested. This is the moment when your negative seeds (suffering, confusion) and your positive seeds (open mind, intuitively right values) germinate in the ground of lucky circumstances.

This combination of positive and negative factors is very important. This is why human condition is so valuable, compared to other life forms. It gives just enough positive and negative factors in just the right proportions. It does not happen all the time, true, but still a million times more frequently than with almost any other type of sentient life. We are lucky to be messed up just enough to Awaken! :))

-- "Why am I not already enlightened? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that?

As you can imagine, there's any number of mistakes you could have made, but here is one traditional list, known as "The Eight Intrusive Circumstances". I will list them here in brief, it could be one or more in your case:

you failed to overcome negative emotions dominating your mind.
you were intellectually lazy and did not want to make effort to study Dharma.
you failed to identify a confused teacher as such, and wasted your chance by following incorrect teaching.
you were a procrastinator when it came to meditation.
you failed to cut the self-perpetuating cycle of negative karma, and it claimed your freedom back.
you did not say "no" to worldly people in your life that wanted you to do what they thought was important.
you always prioritized solving your worldly problems over Dharma.
you fell victim to the temptation of using Dharma as a source of money, power, or fame - and lost connection with genuine virtue.

I'm sure there are countless other potential mistakes one could have made, but this should get you started. There is much more on this topic in a book I recommend, "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche.


If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?

First, one should study the scriptures so one is not caught on hearsay of what the Buddha might have taught. Moreover, how can one expect to learn the teachings of the Buddha while at the same time ignoring the teachings of the Buddha?

Having said that, besides being understood as a religion or carrying a philosophy, Buddhism carries a pedagogy and much of what the Buddha taught is a training, and like all training, it is intimately associated with technique (pretty much anything that requires repetitive practice is an exercise on technique).

By comparison, take anything else that requires training and technique, like martial arts, for example. With the dedication to study and practice guided by a master, one can expect you to become a master yourself, perfectly fluent in the craft, in this life time. But turn your eyes away and ignore those who came before you, and the likelihood is that you might not develop yourself at all, much less, become a master yourself -- possibly, will hurt yourself before there's any significant progress.

In another analogy, take calculus. It's not so hard to learn what Newton created by studying his work. However, it's very hard to come up with and invent calculus yourself.

Now note, it's not impossible to progress alone in any path -- some of them did have someone to pave the way after all. It just requires a certain commitment, a high endurance to failures and skills that is really rare. On that vein, some people may entertain the idea of trying alone anyway -- but then, the goal is not something like achieving nirvana (or understand calculus) but something else (like being recognized as someone who did it all by oneself -- a strange devotion to the very ego one is trying to destroy, one could say).

Now, to explain why a teacher would say to avoid taking the lessons as dogma, imagine for example a martial arts student copying and memorizing the lessons and boasting others by how well he has memorized -- but who could not perform a single move of what has been taught. Such student would likely have the teacher telling him "hey, don't take what I say as a dogma, but experience [the movements in order to learn]".


What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?

Traditional refuge formula goes like this:

  Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.

  To Buddha for refuge I go.
  To Dhamma for refuge I go.
  To Sangha for refuge I go.

According to dictionary, "sarana" means den or lair, but also more broadly, shelter or refuge. Apparently, at the time of Buddha, "sarana" meant being under political protection of someone. For example, when a peasant acknowledged becoming a subject of, say, king Bimbisara, he would say "Maharajam Bimbisaram saranam gachami" -- literally, "To great king Bimbisara for refuge I go". This would serve to indicate that A) the peasant accepts no other lord and won't pay taxes to anyone else and B) the peasant now expects the king to provide military protection from bandits and other neighboring lords.

The same way, when beginner Buddhist goes for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, he or she A) promises to accept no other religious or philosophical authority as higher than Buddhism and B) expects to find protection from worldly troubles in Buddhist practice.

In Tibetan Buddhism, this idea of taking up a "provisional boss" (my play on your words, not theirs) is said to be a temporary measure employed for the duration of training, until one gets to the ultimate protection, the luminous mind of Bodhicitta.

The above is my own understanding, at the same time I really like explanation given by Chogyam Trungpa, which directly dismisses your dilemma about the notion of refuge contradicting Buddha's imperative of one being one's own island:

  By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point
  of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security.
  We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway.
  We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is
  to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.

  The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the
  line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of
  an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of
  the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real
  working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one
  takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path,
  and in the sangha as companionship.

-- basically, he defines taking refuge as becoming a (metaphorical) mendicant, which refers to letting go of one's stereotypes about oneself and reality, and the false sense of security they provide. As one thus becomes truly placeless (radically open-minded), the extent to which one takes comfort in Buddha is only as inspiration of predecessor having made the same path.

  At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of
  basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred
  years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of
  Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged
  follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that
  point.


How sexual relations with multiple partners affect us? What are after effects of promiscuity?

In his 1st sermon, the Lord Buddha taught:

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving
  for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.

Therefore, the more sexual partners, which is interactions based on lust, the more suffering.

Buddhism teaches to relate to people with non-harming (ahimsa), loving-kindness (metta) & compassion (karuna). Therefore, there is absolutely no place in Buddhism for the recommendation or endorsement of sexual promiscuity, because sexual promiscuity is a behaviour (kamma) rooted in lust.

MN 9, which is about Right View, states:

  And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root
  of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The Dhammapada states:

  Verse 202: There is no fire like lust.

In Buddhism, if a person needs to have sex due to strong natural urges, a person should establish a relationship based on loving-kindness & compassion.

In the Pali suttas, there are no teachings about how to engage in sex because all of the teachings are about how husbands & wives should behave in the more important compassionate & loving ways. For example, in AN 4.55, it is taught when a husband & wife are complete with virtue & love towards each other, they will naturally enjoy whatever sexual pleasures they desire.

In conclusion, Buddhism describes the world of promiscuity as the 'animal world', as follows:

  ... the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. AN 2.9

Therefore, Buddhists that tell other people that sexual promiscuity is "OK" are teaching the path (magga) leading to animal birth (tiracchāna-yoni-gamanīyā), as follows:

  And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of defilements.

  And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb (tiracchānayonigamanīyā), those that lead to
  the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
  those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
  diversity in defilements.

  And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.

  And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals (tiracchānayonivedanīyaṃ), kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.63


Can a Sikh enter a buddhist temple with a turban?

As a sign of respect and being inline with accepted customs it is best that the person removes the turban.

I guess they might have been allowed in the accommodation of Sikh religious custom of wearing the turban.

Being accommodating does no harm also, as long as a person is not wearing the turban as contempt or disrespect.


Is there awareness of impermanence during the formless meditations

If you choose to see things as they are or investigate the Dhamma. Since in the 8th Jhana there is a residue of Perception and Feeling hence you should direct your observation to understand the impermanence of feeling or impermanence of what is felt if you what to develop insight into the 3 marks of existance.

A person taking the Arupa Jhana route attains the final goal by going though Nirodha Samapathi (cessation of perception and feeling)

See: Raho,gata Sutta for further details.


Where does Buddha mention about Sanatana dharma (Hinduism)?

sanantana

  adjective

  primeval; old; eternal

Doing a quick search, the Pali word 'sanantana' appears to be found rarely in the Pali suttas.

Apart from being used in references to the Vedic (pre-Hindu) teachings about 'Brahma' & 'Eternal Youth' in DN 19, a quick search finds 'sanantana' used in only two Buddhist phrases, as follows:

  Saccaṃ ve amatā vācā, esa dhammo sanantano; Sacce atthe ca dhamme
  ca, āhu santo patiṭṭhitā.

  Truth indeed, is deathless speech — this is the ancient/eternal Dharma. On
  truth, its study and practice both, they say are the Peaceful firm.

  Snp 3.3

Most famously in the Dhammapada:

  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone
  is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

  Na hi verena verāni, sammantīdha kudācanaṃ; Averena ca sammanti, esa
  dhammo sanantano.

The word 'porāṇaka' appears to be not found in any teachings attributed to the Buddha; however appears found in later-day commentaries & Jataka Tales; as shown in this search list.

The word 'akālika' is supremely important in Buddhism, being one of six attributes of the Dhamma spoken by the Buddha, as follows:

svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo: perfectly spoken is the Dhamma of the Blessed One
sandiṭṭhiko: visible in the here-&-now
akāliko: immediately effective; without delay; 'timeless'
ehipassiko: inviting inspection
opaneyyiko: leading onwards (to experiencing here-&-now Nibbana)
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī: to be verified by the wise for themselves.

Every morning and every evening, the above verse is chanted by Theravada Buddhists as the recollection of refuge in the Dhamma.

Since the word 'akāliko' is often translated as 'timeless', it appears the word 'akāliko' might be mistaken for 'sanantana' & 'porāṇaka'. However, 'akāliko' means 'immediate' rather than 'eternal'. In short, it appears the Pali word 'akāliko' is not synonymous with  'sanantana' and 'porāṇaka'.


Extreme means "furthest from the center or a given point; outermost." Zen comes from Japan, which came from Chan in China which came from Mahayana in India. Thus Zen is far removed from the origin in India making it more extreme. I am a Zen practitioner in Florida of the United States. Here it is even more of an extreme since we are even further from the center point of origin.

"the extreme south of Florida"

Or look at it this way, your arm is an extremity of your body. Zen is an extremity of Mahayana buddhism. One could say the arm and the body are one. And one could also say the arm is an extremity of the body. Both view points are correct.

Zen in Japan has a lot of added texts and stories. Check out the book "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones". The "Gateless Gate" is in that book. The Shōbōgenzō written by Dogen is a Japanese Zen text. These are texts native to Japanese Zen that you will not find in the Chinese/Indian/Tibet texts. As far as practice, meditation on a Koan is a good example of a specific Japanese Zen practice that you will not see in Indian mahayana buddhism


Understanding anatta via "there are no computer programs" analogy

I find it helps to try to relate things back to the core teachings: suffering, the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering and the way to achieve that.  So the relevant teaching here as I understand it is not "there is no self" but rather "clinging to a false sense of self causes suffering."

On its face, "there is no self" is patently false, much like the claim that there is no computer program.  There's room here to quibble about language, allowing you to see it one way or the other, but that distracts from the real matter at hand.  Suffering is a visceral thing and getting to its root requires delving into the nitty-gritty viscera of this self-delusion.  Otherwise "there is no self" is just a word game.


Breath, and those interested (in possible release),

when ever there is the knowledge or assumption, that "living being", it would require to accept the destruction of life, if then (not knowing as it is) take on to destruct, call for it, or accept.

To tend to one speculation requires to deny the other possibility, once arosen.

Once such a serious thought of "it could be..." is arosen, it would be unskillful to simply deny it unproved and act on it. It falls then quick under what is called "deliberate" act.

Even if it would then show that there was no life in it, "luckily", the acceptance before, is unskillful kamma, yet not a break of precept.

So the wise way is always, if in doubt, to handle it as if, and not to deny it out of certain personal reasons, at least most unskillful.

"Please" be clear that intention is something very close to the act it self and not a far purpose.

One literary sample would be the burning down of a forest, jet accepting even if humans are inside, that they would die, as one story where a monk caused a downfall - transgression. (See Pārājika discussion)

To tell somebody "there is no life in it" without directly knowing, would transgress (aside of possible purpose to even have something killed) the precept of "speaking what is not true".

At least, in regard of the question: the modern and by certain sects used "sentient" is not a messure, since such leads to all kind of speculations. "Living", in what ever way and state is to be taken as messure.

Does a fertlized pigeon egg have life in it?

If knowing even this that fertlized... If not knowing that it died, it is to be assumed. Eggs have possible life in it. That is something seen and known, for the most, yet not an inherent knowledge of everyone at the same time.

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


In what ways the Way removes the craving?

For example if the answer is by holding right view then I would like to know How does holding right view removes craving ?

It's no coincidence that Right View is mentioned first in the Noble Eightfold Path (N8P).

We crave because of Wrong View: where one of its manifestation is the Four Perversions (seeing impermanent things as permanent, dukkha as pleasure, not-Self as self, and un-attractive as attractive).

But even with Right View, one still needs other limbs of the N8P to reinforce/strengthen one's practice toward a complete abandonment of craving, through the 3 gateways of moral virtues/mental discipline/wisdom (i.e. cultivate Sila/moral virtues thru Right Speech, Right Livelihood, etc.; cultivate mental discipline thru Right Effort, Right Concentration, etc.).

For a thorough analysis on the purpose of the N8P, see Ven. Bodhi's excellent "Noble Eightfold Path"


Different Pali words for remorse or regret

Etymologically, tapa-niya comes from the word for strong glowing and burning heat, like that of a big fire or sun. It also means the practice of self-torture done by the yogis. So I suppose metaphorically it refers to blaming oneself, torturing oneself, "giving oneself a heat", "beating-up oneself".

While vi-ppati-sara I think means something like "acknowledge result of one's wrongdoing", "realize one's mistake", "admit responsibility", "take blame", "plead guilty", "repent" etc.

So both tapaniya and vippatisara can be used to indicate regret and remorse - but one emphasizes the self-blaming aspect while the other emphasizes going back in time to look at one's past action.

Udhacca-kukkucca, as I explained in another answer, indicates something completely different -- obsessive wavering about right/wrong action, a scruples. While the previous two words pertain to someone experiencing results of one's past unskillful action, this one pertains to someone's state of worry and anxious wavering while choosing a course of action (including the no-action), even if it's actually the right choice.

Note, that Udhacca-kukkucca is completely different from 'vicikiccha' which is generic scepticism about something external, not anxious wavering about one's action.


Companies that practice right livelihood

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which
five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat,
business in intoxicants, and business in poison." - Vanijja Sutta

Is it really very hard to find companies that don't deal with weapons, human trafficking/ slavery/ prostitution, meat, alcoholic beverages, recreational drugs, and poisons (for malevolent purposes)?
For e.g. the company running Stack Exchange (with offices in New York and London) itself should fulfill these criteria.
UPDATED:
Right Livelihood applies to individual Buddhists, not entities like companies.
It's up to individuals to run businesses or be employed in businesses based on trades allowed by Right Livelihood.
Companies don't practise Buddhism. Individual Buddhists do.


Does every Buddha have knowledge of the past, present and future?

Questions about omniscience often arise, but the answers point us to a different knowledge:

MN90:17.4: “Sir, I asked you about omniscience, and you answered.

The Buddha taught us to not get trapped in the net of views worrying about omniscience. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, which apply to the past, present and future for all sentient beings.

DN1:3.72.3: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.  The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.  As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

The Buddha taught us how to escape that net to end suffering. And when pressed on particular points of omniscience, he would teach about the path:

MN90:10.1: “Sir, I am not asking you about the present life, but about the life to come.”
MN90:10.6: “Great king, there are these five factors that support meditation.

And in that teaching, the teaching of the universal knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, the teaching of the knowledge of the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to the end of suffering, we have:

DN28:19.16: “The perfected ones, fully awakened Buddhas of the past and the future are equal to myself when it comes to awakening.”


Mahayana-specific definition of "a buddha"?

Traditionally in Mahayana (esp. Zen and Tibetan) the student considers the teacher to be a perfect expression of the Eternal Buddha-Nature, "eternal buddha" in short. While the teacher himself traditionally downplays his realizations, sometimes as far as "These are the words of my perfect teacher and I'm just a dumb guy" etc.

The first point goes in line with the idea that all Teaching about ultimate Reality is by definition an expression of said Reality. Therefore anything or anyone that teaches Sat-Dharma is a continuation of Dharmakaya of Buddha - a continuation of Buddha in short - hence "the eternal Buddha":

  I, Kuntuzangpo, am the original Buddha of all, and through this prayer
  of mine, may all you beings who wander in the three realms of samsara
  realize this self-arising awareness, and may your great wisdom spontaneously
  increase.

  My emanations will continuously manifest in billions of unimaginable
  ways, appearing in forms to help you beings who can be trained.

The second point goes in line with the Mahayana realization that Enlightenment is attainment of no-attainment, and so does not represent anything special to be proud of:

  Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, is it true that when you attained Complete Perfect Enlightenment, nothing have been attained?”

  The Buddha replied:

  This is right, this is right, Subhuti. As to Complete and Perfect Enlightenment, there is absolutely nothing that I attained, and this is why it's called Complete and Perfect Enlightenment.


Feeling insane rushes of energy and pressure in the chest and neck during meditation

There are no "good" answers to questions like this just as there would be no "good" answers were to someone ask about why the microwave sometimes heats your dish instead of your food.  It just happens.  You're better off just resetting the timer and trying again.  Eventually your meditation will cook properly.  If you attach to experiences like this, you are in essence eating cold food.


what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas?

Good, interesting find. Here is what I think:

Jhanas are not just a list of four separate states, they are a progression of the same principle developing and getting stronger from one phase to another.

The principle is that as our skill (of seeing and overcoming obstacles to peace, which is what meditation, and indeed the entire Buddhist path, is about) increases, we overcome subtler-and-subtler types of obstacles and as a result our happiness gets subtler-and-subtler, too:

In the beginning we generate crude happiness by "detaching" ourselves from unwholesome experiences and ideas, and by remembering and going over certain wholesome ideas that elate our mind.
Then we "detach" from  this crutch of the wholesome ideas that we used on the previous step, and master a non-discursive method of generating happiness (of subtler nature) by focusing on the (psychosomatic) experience of inner unity, inner confidence, being at peace and comfortable in our own skin.
Then (and this is what's called the third jhana) we "detach" from any notion of spiritual goal or success, including the very notion of inner harmony that we cultivated on the previous step. Now we dwell in effortless peace, without any sense of "practice" or "cultivation".
Finally, we "detach" from any judgement or comparison that we used to apply in order to categorize our inner state as "peaceful" vs "disturbed".

As you can see, on every step we overcome the limits inherent in valid practice of the previous step, expanding our mind to include what we previously left out, and reducing the tension that comes from division.

I believe the word you found in this version of agama sutra, 空, is there to emphasize the sense of effortlessness and goal-less-ness, the peaceful exhaustion of striving that is characteristic of the third jhana.

This all-encompassing effortlessness is illustrated by the image of the lotus pond used in the Pali Suttas:

  Just as in a lotus pond there may be some lotuses which, born and grown under water, stay immersed at all times, never sticking out of the water.

These lotuses don't need to try and immerse themselves in the water. Water is already all around them at all times. The same way, a meditator who has mastered the third jhana has mastered dwelling in effortless peace. Because they let go of any sense of striving for a goal, including the spiritual goal of enlightenment or successful meditation or anything like that, they never "stick out of peace" no matter where they go or what they do. It's like being in retirement, there is nowhere to rush and nothing to worry about.

This sense of effortlessness, goal-less-ness, purpose-less-ness, vacancy - is what's meant here by the word 空.


How much merit is lost if we miss chanting for a few days?

Isn't this like any other meditation object, with vitaka and vicara the strength and sincerity of effort increases. To gauge sincerity, I rely on the generation of piti during recitation. No piti, no cookie.

I'd assume a single sincerely uttered mantra is worth more than a thousand mantras uttered as habit. I'd also expect to become the feeling or the emotion the mantra intends to generate.

If a sutta were located that offered the precise formula for the question you pose, would you trust it? How can it be verified? Unless there is a giant merit counter in the sky, how can we know for sure? It can become spiritual materialism like prayer wheel spinning.

The Buddha spoke of jhanas, and mindfulness, but he didn't say much about mantras. I can verify the prolonged or even permanent transformative efficacy of the former, but the efficacy of the latter beyond the immediate is less clear to my mind.


Remaining in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating

From AN3.63:

With the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending of former happiness and sadness, I enter and remain in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.
When I’m practicing like this, if I walk meditation, at that time I walk like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I stand, at that time I stand like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I sit, at that time I sit like the gods.
When I’m practicing like this, if I lie down, at that time I lie down like the gods.

There are some who find the above an indication that walking meditation in jhana is possible. There are also those who find the above impossible given the depth of absorption in which senses recede and physical processes such as breathing stop.
There is also the matter of the Vinaya, which prohibits public discussion of attainments. To illustrate the difficulty of translation for those bound by the Vinaya, note that where Bhante Sujato uses "walking meditation", Bhikkhu Bodhi translates the section on walking in AN3.63 with more ambiguity. Both are bound by the Vinaya:

Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial.

Discussion of jhana attainments is problematic given the prohibitions of the Vinaya. In other words, the monastics who understand jhana are forbidden from discussing it. Therefore, this question can never be answered definitively in a public forum such as this.


Is the principle of rebirth falsifiable?

In order to try and relate how the process of rebirth is falsifiable and therefore try and relate the concept to science, I will have to establish a number of ideas/theories before I can directly try and relate it to science, so I'll have a bunch of definitions or excerpts from sutras and then I'll try and relate it all together, so the beginning of my question may be just listing a bunch of theories which will later be brought together.

The process of "rebirth," as I understand it, doesn't allow for one to remember a past life or past life experiences. It is important to make the distinction between the physical Buddha (Shakyamuni himself) and, what is in essence, the "life force" of the Buddha. Shakyamuni himself wasn't able to see his past lives or remember past experiences from before he was born. What he was able to do, and this is what his fifth transcendental power of being able to see past lives is, is understand his "life force" and perceive the nature of his life, which he had in his previous lives. It is from this concept that karma/karmic chains and other such related ideas come from. To support this affirmation, in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 16 (The Life-span of the Thus-come One), when Shakyamuni Buddha is addressing an assembly of nearly all of his followers, he says:

  "You must listen carefully and hear of the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers. In all the worlds the heavenly and human beings and asuras all believe that the present Shakyamuni Buddha, after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, seated himself in the place of
  practice not far from the city of Gaya and there attained annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. But good men, it has been immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of kalpas since
  I in fact attained Buddhahood.... in truth the time since I attained Buddhahood is extremely long (1)".

Shakyamuni here is saying that there was no start to his "existence" or life force in it of itself. Basically, he is saying that his, and everyone else's life force has existed from "the infinite past" and will continue to exist throughout. What is important to know is that one's life force isn't life in the standard sense, but is intrinsically existing as a function of the universe regardless of whether there is life. Life is more the manifestation of one's life force.

Also in the Lotus Sutra, in chapter 14 (Peaceful Practices), Shakyamuni states,

  "All phenomena are empty, without being, without any constant abiding, without arising or extinction.... phenomena exist, do not exist, are real, are not real, are born, are not born.... Look upon all phenomena as having no existence, like empty space, as without firmness or hardness, not born, not emerging, not moving, not regressing, constantly abiding in a single aspect (1)".

Here, Shakyamuni is saying that the true aspect of all phenomena is that it has no existence. Another way to say this is that causes don't have intrinsic implications; only effects do. It also is to say that, whatever happens, that doesn't mean anything other than that that happened; how one reacts is all that matters. Here one can see how Shakyamuni's statments of the true aspect of all phenomena can be easily applied to our day-to-day lives, so the next logical step is to have a system of, in essence, figuring out which different effects one can create from any phenomena. This leads us into the next philosophical idea.

The 3000 Realms is an philosophical theory developed by T'ien-T'ai, a Chinese buddhist philosopher. It is to say that the, "entire phenomenal world exists within a single moment of life (2)". The realms themselves are used as a way to "categorize" the phenomenal world. Below is a chart explaining how he came up with 3000 realms:

 (2)

The Ten Worlds (or Ten Spiritual Realms) are basically thought to be the full spectrum of one's life condition, which comes from ones life force (i.e. how one feels). I'm not entirely sure where the concept of the ten worlds comes from, although I believe it is a relatively universall concept, at least within Mahayana Buddhism.

In short, however one feels can be represented as one of the "Ten Worlds", or "Spiritual Realms". The part of the chart which lists it as "The Ten Worlds and Their Mutual Possession" is referring to the fact that T'ien-T'ai considers the ten worlds to exist within each other. That is to mean that, even in the realm of hell, one can exist in a realm of buddhahood. An example from history of this concept would be of Martin Luther-King Jr.. He led the civil rights movement in America for some time and did so peacefully and, as far as I know, ethically too. One may say that he often times existed in one of the upper worlds like Buddhahood or Bodhisattva (I don't know the Ten Worlds well enough to be able to say with much confidence which particular world he was in while he was working for Civil Rights). Anyhow, while he was doing that though, he was angry because of the injustice of how he and other people were being treated and that motivated him. However, the important distinction to be made is that, although he was angry, he didn't act violently, he still thought and acted like one who was in one of the higher worlds would act. The inclusive world which he often dwelled in was Anger, even though he was in one of the higher worlds nonetheless.

Another important aspect of the Ten Worlds is that the entirety of them exist intrinsically within us at all times and one can, moment-to-moment, move from one world to the next- either up or down. That is to say that, at all times, for all people without exception, the World of Hell exists within us, but so does Buddhahood.

--

The next part of The 3000 Realms is The Ten Factors. This theory too comes from the Lotus Sutra in the second chapter (Expedient Means) and is expounded by Shakyamuni to Shariputra and goes as follows:

  "Shariputra, to sum it up: The buddhas have fully realized the law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.... The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, external cause, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end (1)".

I personally have a hard time explaining The Ten Factors and so I'll also add a link that describes The Ten Factors (3) more clearly. To the best of my understanding, The Ten Worlds are how we feel emotionally, and the Ten Factors are how we project ourselves upon the world and how these two concepts interact with each other.

--

The final part of The Three Thousand Realms is called, "The Three Realms". I know the least about this part of the Realms, and so my explanation for it probably wouldn't be complete, but there are many websites which I think would be able to better explain them. Everything that I would be able to say about them is addressed in the image I added above, so I'll stop here.

--

What is important to know about The 3000 Realms as a whole is that they describe all of the possible effects within a single moment of life. It also means that everything is subjective - in terms of point-of-view - and that all things are equal.

The reason that I have included the concept of The 3000 realms is because it shows that not just Shakyamuni has a life force, and also that one's enlightenment (world of Buddhahood) intrinsically exists within one's self (as well as every other realm).

All perspectives are equal because anything that we perceive is a perception of a phenomena and all phenomena are "empty", as stated above, thus meaning that everyone's perceptions are equal.

This would mean that, if one can prove that all perspectives are equal, one can prove the principle of rebirth to be falsifiable because: If all perspectives are equal, because all phenomena are empty because there is nothing to perceive, all that is left to exist is our life force. Because our life force isn't constrained by any phenomena (e.g. birth and death), it exists for eternity neither beginning nor ending. One however, can not say that life simply doesn't exist, because as Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This would leave the only option left being that "rebirth" exists, because our physical selves are bound by physical limitations and phenomena, things will be born and will die. However, since our life force is eternal, and not really "alive" in the sense that living is usually implied with, when we are physically living we embody that life force just as how, when there is matter, there will be gravity. Our life force is eternal, however, we, as living beings, are not, and so we will forever be born and die, but whenever we are born, we embody our life force. This is what reincarnation is.

What is left to do is then prove that all perspectives are equal. For that one must look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't understand this concept in its entirety, but I do know that it says that, if there is a person who isn't moving, time will be faster for him or her than it is for someone who is moving. This has been scientifically proven to happen. Time wouldn't change for certain people (or anything for that matter), if someone's perspective could be deemed invalid. It is because everyone's perspective is equal, that time itself changes when something moves.

I hope this answers your question. I know that some of my explanation may be a bit murky or unclear, so I would be happy to try and clear up anything.

Works Cited:

1) The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2009. 57-267. Print.

2) "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html.

3)"Ten Factors." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Oct. 2000. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/ten-factors.html.


Is being conscious of actions' consequences enough to attain nibbana?

It seems to me you are defining consciousness as "being fully aware of consequences" and therefore "acting towards a better state", correct? (Just so you know, usually this is called "acting with virtue".)

If this is how you define it, then yes - acting with virtue is enough for Nibbana. The cool thing about acting with virtue is, the more you do it, the more it changes your life in the direction of Nibbana, the easier it gets to act even more virtuously. In fact, clearly understanding this self-fulfilling principle is exactly what's called Stream Entry.

The only other factor you need for Nibbana is to always keep improving  your virtue, always looking for ways to make it more sublime and more refined. For this, you need to be 100% honest with yourself, even critical.

Taken together, these two factors - Acting with Virtue and Continuous Improvement - will create the right cyclic engine to propel a sentient being to more and more sublime forms of happiness until complete Nibbana.


When you expect something, it's because it seems to you that you know that something is supposed to happen that way. For example you know that if you help someone they should be nice to you. It seems like you know for sure this is how it works, and based on this knowledge you set your expectation. But this knowledge may be wrong. Maybe the person has different goals, or he has some other problems that keep him distracted. Because of being distracted he doesn't notice that he is not being nice. If your knowledge is incomplete then your expectations can be wrong. So before you expect something you should say to yourself: "my knowledge about this may be wrong. Maybe it will happen this way and maybe it won't". If you think like this, your expectation will remain flexible. And when it doesn't go the way you wanted, you can adjust quickly.
In general every one of us only sees part of the picture. The other person sees a different part. Based on the part that you see each of you create your expectations, your actions, and your judgements. Then these expectations, actions, and judgments clash against each other. It's not your fault or his fault, it is the nature of the world, each person only sees one small part and acts based on that.
But what you can do when you know this principle, you can talk to each other and combine your parts, get them together and create one common picture, then you will be on the same page and there will be no conflict of mismatched expectations anymore.
The second problem is greedy nature, like you said. Sometimes when we are helping someone we begin to imagine the nice things we will get in return. As we keep thinking about these nice things, our mind gets excited. It wants to get something nice and it gets used to that imaginary future in which it already has those nice things. Again the problem is, the mind imagines something (in this case getting nice things in the future) and then it gets attached to that idea.
In general, the mind creates all kinds of pictures based on some information, but these pictures are only guesses. What you should learn is to never confuse these pictures as actual reality. Mind-made models are only models, and reality is reality.
If you are always aware that everything in your mind is a model, and that troubles and suffering arises when this model is wrong (and it is often wrong because it is simplified or partial) - then you can keep your mind open for new information, and when something different happens that is not in your model, you can re-adjust and get in sync with reality quickly without getting upset or angry.
If you learn to stay open (keep all your models open without conclusively completing them based on guesses) and learn to adjust your model within several milliseconds of receiving new information, then you will never be out of sync with reality - and never in trouble.


Why is the 16th Karmapa visualized rather than the 17th Karmapa in Karma Kagyu?

No, it is not true that it is done by the prescription of the Kagyu. I asked one of the senior students at the Dagpo Kagyu Ling center near me, who is very close to the head of that center, so he is in a position to know the answer. He told me that people can choose who they visualize during their practice, either the 17th Karmapa, Thaye Dorje, or the 16th Karmapa, Rangdrung Rigpe Dorje. What is true, is that there exists a special Guru Yoga practice text for the 16th Karmapa and not yet a formal Guru Yoga practice text for the 17th Karmapa.


How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day

Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted.


How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community?

Is he considered a great leader?

He isn't.

  Does he represents Buddhism?

He doesn't.

  Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

They aren't.

There's really not much more to say.  Why would you even think Osho was considered a great leader by the Buddhist community? He wasn't even a Buddhist. He lived a luxurious lifestyle and wrote in an eclectic, typically New Age-y way, mixing all kinds of influences and traditions that shouldn't be mixed.


Why did Buddhism nearly become extinct in Sri Lanka?

I have quoted 3 sources below on this topic.

Basically, it says that in Sri Lanka and other Theravada countries, people who lived over 150 years ago, thought that even stream entry was no longer possible because in-depth understanding of meditation had been forgotten. They felt that it's better to practise virtues and make merit, while waiting for the next Buddha, Meteyya or Maitreya to come and show them the path to Nibbana. Supposedly, even Buddhaghosa, who authored the Visuddhimagga around the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka, held this view.

However, Buddhist meditation practices (based on the Satipatthana Sutta and Visuddhimagga, as well as other suttas) started to be revived in Burma as a popular movement, over a hundred years ago, and then spread to other countries including Sri Lanka. This seemed to have reinvigorated the faith of Theravadins (both monks and lay people) in the possibility of stream entry and enlightenment.

Here, Buddhism did not become extinct in Sri Lanka, but people simply lost faith in the possibility of attaining even stream entry, until Buddhist meditation was reintroduced to them from Burma.

In the Broken Buddha book, S. Dhammika wrote:

  In Sri Lanka it is widely believed that it is not possible to become
  enlightened anymore and it’s not just simple folk who believe this
  either. I once attended a talk by the famous Narada Thera of
  Vajirarama in Colombo during which he said that it is  even
  impossible  to  become  a  sotapanna  today.  Richard  Gombrich  found
  this  same  idea  to  be widely  held  in  Sri  Lanka.  ‘The
  comparative  rarity  of  meditation  is  closely  connected  with  the
  widespread belief in the  decline of  Buddhism. A  village  girl said
  that in a Buddha-less period one must  keep  trying,  but  only
  limited  progress  is  possible.  It  is  further  believed  by  the
  majority  of monks,  at  least  those  whose  general  attitudes  can
  be  described  as  traditional,  that  the  sasana  has already
  declined  so  far  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  men  to
  attain  nirvana.  This  opinion  is  very prevalent  among  the
  laity...One  monk  even  specified  that  till  (Metteyya)  comes  it
  is  not  even possible to become a sotapanna. The last arahat is
  commonly said to have been Maliyadeva (1st cent B.C.E).  Others  say
  that  there may  still  be  human  arahats,  but  it  is  unlikely
  and/or undiscoverable ....

  I have heard these same views expressed a thousand times in Sri Lanka.
  Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could
  lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed,  step
  by  step  guide  to  enlightenment.  And yet  in  the  postscript  he
  says  he  hopes  that  the merit  he  has  earned  by  writing  the
  Visuddhimagga  will  allow  him  to  be  reborn  in  heaven,  abide
  there  until  Metteyya  appears,  hear  his  teaching  and  then
  attain  enlightenment.

In Encyclopedia of Buddhism (editor: Robert E. Buswell, Jr.), it is written:

  By the tenth century C.E., vipassana meditation appears to have fallen
  out of practice in the Therevada school. By that time it was commonly
  believed that the religion of Gautama Buddha had so declined that
  liberation  through  insight  could no longer  be  attained until the
  advent of the future Buddha Metteyya (Sanskrit,  Maitreya)  many  eons
  from  now.  In  the  early eighteenth  century,  however,  renewed
  interest  in  the Satipatthana Sutta (Discourse on the Foundations of
  Mindfulness)  led  to  a  revival  of  vipassana meditation in Burma
  (Myanmar). After encountering initial resistance,  the  practice  of
  vipassana was  endorsed  by  the Burmese sangha and embraced by the
  royal court.

  By the late nineteenth century, a distinct praxis and organizational
  pattern  had  emerged  that  set  the  stage  for the modern vipassana
  movement of the twentieth century.  Led  chiefly  by  reform  minded
  scholar-monks,  a variety  of  simplified  meditation  techniques
  were  devised based on readings of the Satipatthana Sutta, the
  Visuddhimagga (Path to Purification), and related texts. These
  techniques  typically  follow  the  method  of  bare insight.

  The
  teaching  of  vipassana also  prompted  the development   of   new
  Buddhist   institutions   called wipathana  yeikthaor  insight
  hermitages.  Initially  attached to monasteries, these evolved into
  independent lay oriented meditation centers. A related development was
  the rise of personality cults devoted to the veneration of
  prominent   meditation   teachers   as   living arhats. In terms of
  impact, the popularization of vipassana represents  the  most
  significant  development  in Burmese Buddhism in the twentieth
  century.

  Thailand has also witnessed a revival of vipassana practice in the
  modern  period,  and  both  Burmese  and  Thai  meditation  teachers
  have  been  instrumental  in  propagating vipassana in Sri Lanka,
  India, and the West.

In Meditation en Masse, Erik Braun wrote:

  These days many assume that Buddhism and meditation go hand in hand -
  sometimes they are even considered to be one and the same. But even
  counting Theravadins, progenitors of the massively popular insight
  meditation (Vipassana) movement, relatively few Buddhists historically
  have ever understood meditation to be essential. On the contrary,
  instead of meditating, the majority of Theravadins and dedicated
  Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused
  on cultivating moral behavior, preserving the Buddha’s teachings
  (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous
  giving. To be sure, such folks have recognized the critical role
  meditation plays in awakening—in the Theravada view, you cannot become
  enlightened without such practice—but they have not doubted that one
  can live a worthwhile and authentic Buddhist life without meditating.
  Aiming not toward awakening but toward a good rebirth, many
  Theravadins have even argued that meditation is inappropriate in our
  degenerate age, except perhaps for a rare few living in the isolation
  of jungles or mountain caves. Where, then, did this now pervasive idea
  come from that meditation lies at the heart of Buddhist life?

  This question brings us to Burma just over a century ago. Prior to
  this time, no trend toward widespread meditation had developed
  anywhere. It is true that Thai forest masters, above all Ajaan Mun
  (1870–1949) and revivalist figures in Sri Lanka such as Dharmapala
  (1864–1933), played an important part in the establishment of insight
  practice and sounded the call for lay meditation. But they did not
  spark any broad-based movements. One must look instead to Burma to
  account for the ascendance of meditation to a popular
  practice—specifically, that of insight meditation. The Vipassana view
  understood meditation as the logical and even necessary application of
  a Buddhist perspective to one’s life, whether lay or monastic. The
  rise of this practice, however, was not strictly an indigenous
  development. It came into being specifically through colonial
  influence. (In fact, no current tradition of insight practice can
  reliably trace its history back further than the late 19th or early
  20th century.) Though now a global movement, insight practice had its
  start in a moment of interaction between a Western empire and an
  Eastern dynasty. Indeed, one could go so far as to pinpoint its
  origins to a particular day: November 28, 1885, when the British
  Imperial Army conquered the Buddhist kingdom of Burma.


The following answer is informed by Insight into Emptiness by Khensur Jampa Tegchok who was a former abbot of Sera Je Monastery.

Presentation of Tenets

According to what is currently taught in contemporary Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, the view of selflessness differs between proponents of the Fundamental Vehicle school (which includes Theravada) and the Universal Vehicle school (or Mahayana). The common delineation is given as four different (ancient) tenet systems regarding selflessness:

Vaibhashika
Sautrantika
Chittamatra
Madhyamaka

The first two tenet systems belong to members of the Fundamental Vehicle school while the latter two are ascribed to the Universal Vehicle.

Here is a brief breakdown of the view of selflessness as it differs among these tenet systems:

Selflessness of persons (from course to subtle)

Emptiness of a permanent, unitary, and independent person
Emptiness of a self-sufficient, substantially existent person
Emptiness of an inherently existent person

Selflessness of phenomena

Emptiness of existing by its own characteristics as the basis or
referent of its name
Emptiness of the form and so forth and a valid cognizer of it being
different substances (different substantial entities)
Emptiness of true existence (existing without being posited by the
force of appearing to a nondefective consciousness)
Emptiness of inherent existence (existing from its own side,
existing by its own characteristics, and so on)

Definitions:

Permanent means something that does not change from one moment to the next
Impermanent means that something changes under the influences of causes and conditions
Unitary is something that is one seamless whole that has no parts
Independent has different definitions given different contexts:

Independent is something not being affected by or not relying upon causes and conditions
In the context of a person it means being independent of the aggregates as well
In Prasangika it means existing without depending on being merely imputed by name and concept

Self-sufficient means being able to exist independently in a
self-supporting manner, without depending on anything else, such as
the aggregates
Substantially existent person means being able to know such a person
exists without the appearance of the aggregates

In general, it is said that the Fundamental Vehicle systems do not subscribe to the selflessness of phenomena. Furthermore, the Vaibhashikas only subscribe to the lack of a permanent, unitary and independent person. That is they do believe that a self-sufficient, substantially existent person exists. The Sautrantikas on the other hand do not believe in a self-sufficient, substantially existent person nor do any of the other tenet systems.

All of that is to say, it is my understanding that the modern day Theravada is most closely aligned with the Sautrantika tenet system.


Meditation is not linear, as it involves the whole of ourselves. There is one part/side of us that is connected to our rationality, logic, linear thinking, and understanding. The other side of us is connected to feelings, nurturing, caring, compassion, love, and all the emotional qualities. This is how our right and left hemisphere in the brain is programed. The left side of the brain processes information in a linear manner. It processes from part to whole. It takes pieces, lines them up, and arranges them in a logical order; then it draws conclusions. The right brain however, processes from whole to parts, holistically.

Intellectual understanding about meditation is never the same as the actual experience of it.  It is similar to that of having to bite into a mango to know its taste. We can read everything that there is about a mango – that it can be sweet, delicious, soft, etc. but we cannot imagine its taste unless we get the feeling of the mango on our tongue and have the personal experience. Then we can no longer debate whether the mango is sweet or not, because we have experienced the truth. This is the difference between just thinking or thinking coupled with the experience of feeling.

Once the meditator goes beyond the second Jhana level, the internal thinking comes to a stop, and memory of past experiences never come up.  From there on there is no such thing as a linear process.  From there on it is total awareness in staying with the breath. This is being one with your meditation.   This is ekaggata, as in ekaggatarammana, oneness of preoccupation, or singleness of preoccupation; and ekaggatacitta, singleness of mind. This kind of oneness applies to all levels of jhana. It means being focused on one thing, like the breath. You stay steadily focused on it, at the same time making it the one thing filling your range of awareness.


How is a mindstream associated with human forms?

What is it that makes and maintains this mental-physical association endure throughout a human lifetime?

It's an ongoing conditioned process whereby a state conditions the next.
Imagine a line of domino's. You tip one over, that one tips the next over and so on. There are the domino's; and there are different (invisible) forces playing a part in how the next domino is tipped.
(It's not a great comparison though. Cause the domino's in the line are already there when in actuality that's not the case. But I haven't found a better comparison yet, the candle simile doesn't work for me.)

So, a state of matter-mind-combination ceases and makes room for the appearing of the next matter-mind-combination (at least in the sense realm).
The ceasing of the mind-matter-combination is a condition for the arising of the next. But so are different other conditioning forces.

The Patthana (last part of the Abhidhamma) explains 24 different conditioning forces that play a role in the arising of the next states and the maintaining of the process. Important is also to understand that there are always several conditioning forces active, not just one.
You might want to read this book. Or just the chapter of the Patthana in the compendium of the Abhidhamma, by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

By the way, at a certain point it's possible to see the conditioning of this ongoing arising and ceasing in meditation. It's fascinating, at least for me.

  Why is there a tendency for the association to result in a first-person perspective/sense of self?

That's due to conditioning. Delusion (which is there when one experiences this first-person sense of self) is basically embedded in every newly arising matter-mind-combo. It has to be broken down, replaced by new conditioning.

The practice of what's usually called vipassana meditation (or meditation based on the Satipatthana sutta) makes this possible. From own experience I can say that with vipassana the experience of first person becomes the experience of being the observer (2nd person) of the ongoing arising and ceasing of the matter-mind-combo. And later the experience shifts even further away to more and more neutral, so the feeling of being the observer also drops away. By then there is no more experience of liking, disliking; no identification with what ever khanda, no kilesa and so on. (Upekkha nana).

So, it's a matter of replacing old conditioning with new one. That can take time though. Depending, again, on the way your mind stream is conditioned and how quickly your mind can let go of old ideas and so on.

Hope this helps a bit.


How can I focus on breath at the tip of my nose?

"Mukha" can merely mean "to the front" or "to the fore".
"Pari" means "all round".
"Pari mukha" means to make mindfulness the foremost of the mind's activity in an all pervasive way.
"Mindfulness" means "to remember" or "keep in mind" the teachings. The teachings are about abiding without unwholesome states & craving.
Mindfulness establishes the mind all round to be without unwholesome states & craving.
The Buddha taught to keep the mind as pure as possible and, when this is done, the mind will naturally know the breathing in whatever place the breath is felt.
The Buddha did not teach about the nose-tip. Pari mukha does not mean tip of the nose or nose-tip.
If we attempt to only watch breathing at the nose-tip; this will be unnatural for the mind; cause frustration; and have adverse affects (such as sleepiness or "sinking mind").

After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore (parimukhaṃ).
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth & drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth & drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness & anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.
MN 38


Can environmental degradation be used as a justification for the culling of an invasive alien species?

This is a complex question to which there is no right answer.

Karma is created by our intention.  The intention with which we engage in an action.  You can look at your intention.  Are you engaging in it for your own convenience or a well considered belief that it will ease suffering?

Do you know enough to make a decision about the situation?  Will the suffering of foxes you kill be less than the suffering of the native animals?  Do you know that the environment should be restored or is that just your own attachment to how things should be?

When I consider situations like this and the questions that arise it becomes clear the world we live in is messy and there are situations for which there is not a right answer.  Purity within samsara is not possible.  What I can do is work to purify negative karma, accumulate good karma, and develop wisdom.

Ultimately, killing is killing and most of us have ignorance of self-grasping.  Killing invasive foxes with self-grasping ignorance creates its own karma.  Very strong conviction that it was the best course of action would be required before I took on such karma.


How can I build up to being able to get into the full lotus position?

Yoga is very helpful, especially aspects that deal with opening the hips and stretching the legs. It is best not to force it or you could hurt the body.
A cushion or zafu under the tail bone and buttocks can elevate the body sufficiently so crosslegged is more comfortable.
Some people sit Japanese style with legs folded under sitting on your heels and or supported by a zafu.
Sitting in a chair with a straight back and feet on the ground is a valid method of meditating. The position will open up and be comfortable over years as the practice opens up the locked up sections of the body.

Here is a youtube video that especially works on opening for beginners. Adrienne has many yoga videos. She seems like a meditator as she encourages mindfulness expecially in 2nd video. She is conservatively dressed and friendly in her approach. I find her a helpful teacher that does not provide unneeded distractions.

20 minutes complete beginners - very doable sequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYKMP6rOE

40 minute longer more meditative from the preview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ6NfFIr2jw&list=PLqkIhuaKSFbuaG3i9cBpO7E0dAKnd-MAu

Accepting where you are is important. You are right where you need to be. You are opening in a very natural way. Namaste.


How do Buddhists that think of karma figuratively do so about rebirth?

I think of karma, seeds of karma, and fruits of karma as individual's action, latent effects of such action, and individual experience resulting from past action, correspondingly. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.
I think of rebirth as a type of karmic process that spans multiple lifetimes. An action is performed in one life, its seeds remain latent after death, then in another life the effects of those actions influence, shape, and configure individual's background, environment, and therefore personality, in a certain way. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't read any unscientific mumbo-jumbo into these concepts, purely cause-and-effect.


If you have an interest in learning the Burmese system of Insight or Vipassana Meditation, which was popularized the world over by the Burmese Monk, Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, recommend his magnum opus "Manual of Insight," (pdf) which was translated into English by the Vipassana Metta Foundation of USA. Also recommend the utube video >Phra Noa Yuttadhammo - How to Meditate< as a visual supplement, for a novice  to get to grips with the subject. Incidentally, Ven. Yuttadhammo is a registered User of the Buddhism Stack Exchange.


How does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion?

Whatever experience we get used to and grow comfortable in -- with that we identify, to that we attach. Then anything that looks like it could help us get that experience again -- seems good to us, and anything that goes contrary to that -- seems bad to us.

Next time we see a sign, we recognize the form, we associate the name with that past experience. Based on that, we like or dislike the object. Whenever an object reminds of a good past experience, we crave that object because we crave that experience and we assume it will help us get there.

If you look at your mind very carefully, you'll see that it's not the object that you crave, it's a vague promise to get an experience. Lust/hatred/delusion is about confusing (conflating) experience with objects. You project your own memories onto objects, and based on that you form attitudes to objects.

For example, imagine you sit and suddenly want those sunglasses you've seen in the store yesterday. You liked how they looked on you, or, rather, you liked how you looked in the mirror. You liked how you looked, because your reflection looked cool. It looked cool, because it resembled the images of men you've seen in the advertisement. You liked those men because they were surrounded by the smiling women. Smiling women are happy women. You too want to be surrounded by the happy women.  You want to be near women that laugh and have fun, because you want to be part of that experience. You crave the positive emotions of being in a company of happy women.  You crave positive emotions and that's why you now sit and want those sunglasses!

This is how craving (for positive emotions) leads to lust (for an object).

All of this comes from naive generalization of objects and naive generalization of experiences. Naive generalization comes from ignorance. Like a magic trick, it only works if you don't look carefully. When you look carefully, it disbands:

Upon careful examination, these sunglasses don't really make you look like an actor in that ad. You do look somewhat similar but only under a certain lighting conditions when seen at a certain angle. The women in the ad do smile but are not actually happy, their smiles are smiles of professional models. You don't actually crave to be among the happy women, instead you are craving one experience when you were a little boy visiting your grandma in the summer, and your older cousin-sister and her friends used to play with you. You miss that experience of careless summer days and being playfully cared for by the older girls. More precisely, you miss the experience of being completely at ease, in a safe environment, someone more powerful taking care of you -- and buying those $150 sunglasses won't get you an inch closer to that. Worse than that, the "perfect" childhood experience of being safe and cared for was a 100% illusion because the six-years-old girls could not possibly take care of the four-years-old boy should any real situation arise; he only felt safe and at ease because of his ignorance!

Just like that, you sit on your cushion meditating, and you suddenly realize that you're feeling (subtle) suffering because you don't have $150 to buy those sunglasses. And then you realize that the entire situation, from sunglasses to the childhood memory of feeling at ease, is an illusory bubble due to a chain of naive generalizations! Once you see it completely and thoroughly, the illusion disbands like a dream and with it disappears all craving and all suffering associated with that.

So ignorance leads to naive generalization (formations), which leads to craving for experience (feeling), which leads to pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to suffering.

Cessation of ignorance (seeing through the illusory bubble to its individual components) leads to cessation of naive generalizations (formations), which leads to cessation of craving for experience (feeling), which leads to cessation of the pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to cessation of suffering.


Do Buddhists have a country or a religion to defend?

One needs to separate the teachings for monks from the teachings for laypeople. For monks, instructing the killing of or actually killing a human being in any circumstance is forbidden. Where as, for laypeople, killing is a training rule.

But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?
Well then, my dear, relying only on principle — honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice prevail in the realm.
DN 26

Therefore, while a monk cannot directly instruct a layperson to engage in any type of killing, a monk can directly instruct a layperson of a duty to protect their society. If the layperson chooses to engage in killing to protect their society; that is the choice of the layperson (and is unrelated to the advice of the monk).
For example, I only once listened to a speech by the Burmese 'terrorist' monk Wirathu and I never heard Wirathu transgress the monk's Vinaya (even though I did not personally agree with the underlying intent of his speech).
Monks do not have any country to defend. But laypeople have a country to defend. Many of these laypeople consider themselves to be Buddhists and want to live in a country with a culture that is influenced by Buddhism. They don't want to live a country influenced by Judaism (such as in Palestine) or Wahhabism (such as in Saudi Arabia). They want to live in a Buddhist country, where there is metta,  patience & monks.
If Islam or Christianity, for example, ruled every country, the Buddhist religion may become extinct. History shows Christianity eliminated every religion it had power over and, under the (originally pluralistic) Islamic Empire, eventually, after about 500 years, Buddhism became extinct (when Turks and then Mongols took over the Islamic Empire).


Understanding uncertainty of thoughts and the mind

What you describe is the phenomena of the monkey-like mind, which changes more quickly than the body.
From SN 12.61:

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take
as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the
mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great
elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three,
four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years,
for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest
grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets
that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’
and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
another by day and by night.
“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and
carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists,
that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this
does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this,
that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional
formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition,
consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance
comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of
volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the
cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

OP wrote:

Even thoughts are changing, It feels like source of it remains
unchanged. How to understand this clearly? What are the practises that
I should do? What meditation practises help to understand this?

Please try the meditation practice taught by Ven. Yuttadhammo in his booklet "How To Meditate" and also taught in this video playlist.
I quote from Chapter One of "How To Meditate":

The basic technique of meditation that we use to facilitate this
change is the creation of clear awareness. In meditation, we try to
create a clear awareness of every experience as it occurs. Without
meditating, we tend to immediately judge and react to our experiences
as “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, etc., which in turn gives rise to
stress, suffering, and mental sickness. By creating a clear thought
about the object, we replace these sort of judgements with a simple
recognition of the object as it is.


The Sanskrit term for Buddhist is bauddha.

This derivation is known as a "secondary derivation" (taddhita-pratyaya). An -a suffix is added, and the initial vowel is strengthened. It has the general sense of "of or relating to", and here the specific nuance of "one who follows the Buddha". Compare the more familiar word Jaina, which is the name for a follower of the "Jina", i.e. Mahavira. The word brāhmaṇa is derived from brahman via the same process.


How can I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group?

This is a tough and important question with no easy answers. If there were some guaranteed system for definitively determining whether some group or teacher is going to lead people to liberation that would make life a lot easier!

One thing to look for in a group is, do the longtime members seem kind? Don't get distracted by whether they seem smart or businesslike or polished or well organized; none of those things necessarily matter. In America we want everything to be slick and new and polished but that attitude won't get you far with the dharma. But do look for senior students who are kind and generous.

Another trap to watch out for is, don't judge a sangha based on their adherence to contemporary liberal political correctness. While I personally think it's good to do things like recycle and drive a Prius and eat vegetarian and so on, the historical Buddha Shakyamuni did not do any of those things so it's not a valid basis for judgement of a sangha or set of teachings. In fact, I would say that anyone who is nasty and judgmental about such things is not very far along in dharma practice, because they are putting abstract principles ahead of actual kindness. And a sangha primarily composed of such people may have a poor quality of instruction overall.

Remember kindness, that's the short version of my answer.


May I Still Take Refuge In the Triple Gem?

Sangha here means the monks who preach inline with the teachings of the Buddha. So if a certain monk teaches something that goes against the teachings of the Buddha, it doesn't prevent you from taking refuge in  the Triple Gem. You just have to find an authentic member of the Sangha to teach you. Even if you can't find one, you still can take refuge in the enlightened monks in the past.


How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?

There are the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice.

Your question can be part of restlessness-worry and also doubt. But it sounds to me more like doubt.

You can read more from the essay of Ajahn Brahmavamso:

  Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own
  ability "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right
  way?", or even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be
  remembered that such questions are obstacles to meditation because
  they are asked at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion,
  obscuring one's clarity.

  The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.

  Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instruction, having a
  good map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the
  unfamiliar territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go.
  Doubt in one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces
  the sports team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one
  can, one will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and
  patiently follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'!
  Experience also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt
  whether this is the right path. As one realised for oneself the
  beautiful stages of the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable
  of the very highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.

  The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.

  The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner
  speech. Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey
  out of trust in the driver.


As far as i can tell the delineation of school/sect doesn't really come into play until one plans to join a community for the long term or is in a doctrinal discussion.

The various schools have collections of texts, some doctrines therein are non-negotiable whereas a lot of texts will be in a "maybe true maybe not true" category (ie commentary) and the various positions in regards to those will be tolerated within that school as a whole, although some sects within a school might hold strongly a position regarding a particular non-canonical text and be thus closed off to those of other persuation.

Buddha himself said that he taught the doctrine of analysis (Vibbhajavada) and one would historically have ie  Vibbhajavadins of Theravada, people who would reject some positions held within a school, based on analysis and cross referencing with texts known as true.

Nowadays there are different sects within Theravada, some reject the Abhidhamma, some reject commentary, some rejecting some commentary, some not rejecting anything at all even if the texts contradict themselves.

It is my impression that relatively few people actually study the texts before joining a school.

More often than not people find a community and get taught as the teacher was taught. More often than not the expression and methods are more or less based on the very recent popularizations or passed down tradition.

There is really no reason for having to choose a school before having familiarized oneself with the various doctrines.

Birds of feather flock together, so it is with holymen and views. If one wants to join a community one will for the most part have to learn their particular doctrine because it's just a lot less conflict if all members believe same things. The actual study of texts will often be neglected as well, because that's looked at as a bit dangerous as it might cause disruption and challenge the guru's authority.

Also most monks and lay people alike don't really study beyond the things their teachers tell them. This in part has to do with the sheer volume of essential and non-essential material to study.

If mastering a teachers expression & it's meaning takes 1000 hours, that alone might keep one occupied for years and it might not even result in any understanding of the essentials of what the Buddha taught but instead be based on stories, anecdotes, popularizations and new age systems of doing and explaining things.

Therefore you probably don't belong to any particular school. Ideally one should know why one belongs to a particular school and the various points of controversy.

You can frequent the various communities as you like and as i said people usually don't care about what you believe lest they see you as a threat or consider you for long term cohabitation.


For an "advanced practitioner" (sorry), how to view "addictions" (or bad habits) correctly? How to practice?

If you're post stream-entry you should understand that "I" is not a thing, therefore your eating habits or weight problems are not your decision, they are part of your overall life style, your environment, and the patterns of your life. If you really want to change them, change your situation drastically, move to another place etc. Either that or make a firm decision to stop worrying. The worst you can do is to keep perpetuating the inner conflict without fixing either by changing or by letting be.
What you need to meditate on, is why exactly this still bothers you. Why do you even think this is important? I'm guessing you still have some notion of "better" bothering you. If that's the case, that's what you need to focus your meditation on, the concept of "better". Why do you still crave "better", you want to be perfect or what?


You can be reborn in this life as an actor. In a fundamental way, life is like a stage and we are the actors in the play. I guarantee you that your desires will lead to results.


Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities?

Enlightened qualities are ultimate. One's mind is innately ultimate ie. enlightened.

A highly achieved buddhist practitioner often likens the enlightened mind with the clear blue sky.

Often clouds (defilements) obscure the clear blue sky and the clear sky cannot be seen. In other words, without the clouds, the clear blue sky (the ultimate) can be seen.


Similarities between Daoism and Buddhism

Buddhism and Taoism are usually both judged to fall under the heading 'Perennial philosophy' because they share the same metaphysical message.

Middle Way Buddhism rejects all positive metaphysical positions. For this reason when we speak about the world we are forced to do so in riddles since we are not allowed to make or endorse a positive statement. The doctrine of Two Truths explains this and gives us a way of speaking about Reality whereby we speak of the 'self' as existing and not-existing, the equality of emptiness and fullness and so forth, and get told off by outsiders for speaking paradoxically.

In the same way Lao Tsu tells us that we cannot state the world is this or that in any case and lays down the rule 'True words seem paradoxical'. True words seem paradoxical for reasons explained by Nagarjuna in Fundamental Wisdom. Only if Reality is as Nagarjuna describes would Lao Tsu's statement be true.

So underneath the different methodology and emphasis is the same doctrine and world-view. For many people this is 'True Religion' or the Perennial philosophy.

There are, of course, Buddhists who deny Naharjuna's metaphysics but those who do must also deny the metaphysics of Lao Tsu, Plotinus, advaita, Sufism and other expressions of non-dualism. It seems to make more sense to say that truth may be discovered by anyone who seeks it and this is why so many traditions share the same underlying doctrine.

I have a nice book here somewhere by a Taoist discussing the equivalence of the message of Lao Tsu, Buddha and Jesus and will post a reference if I can find it.

So my view would be that we can achieve liberation by way of either tradition and methodology. I find Taoist ideas very useful and treat them as complementary. Taoism and Zen are like twin siblings.

PS - It would important to distinguish between Philosophical Taoism (Lao Tsu, Chung Tsu et al) and Religious Taoism, which arrived 500 years later and introduced gods, angels, heaven and hell etc. in what seems to have been an attempt to popularise the teachings. Bad idea but it gained a lot of ground and muddied the waters.


Did Nāgārjuna describe features of the Fourier transform?

Nāgārjuna was not a mathematician; he was an eminent buddhist philosopher. That is certainly enough, don't you think?
There is an interesting parallel here, perhaps — maybe even a useful analogy, though one that would only be meaningful to people who understand Fourier transforms — but that's all. The claim inside the question asked is mere puffery (great word, puffery), but if we puff Nāgārjuna up with undeserved praise we deflate that which he actually deserves praise for.
A thousand people can all look at the same thing and describe it in a thousand different ways. Laozi described it centuries before Nāgārjuna, but we wouldn't give Laozi credit for Nāgārjuna's vision, and we shouldn't give Nāgārjuna credit for Fourier's vision.


What is the cause of imaginary dialogues in mind?

It's about the first Governor arguing with the defilement or vici versa. Nothing wrong and very needed till the final abounding of even this relation. Just don't mix them, since the defilement are smart in tricking.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade or what ever keeps one bond in the wheel]