Was there a period when "Consensus Buddhism"/"Buddhist Romanticism" dominated Buddhism in the West?

Chapman has drawn a circle around his own practice of Aro g'Ter, which he describes as "neither traditional nor modern" but as "terma." Everything outside that circle is "Consensus Buddhism" or infected by it. He also likes Shambhala, which he practised before the Aro sect. I live in Halifax, which is the International headquarters of Shambhala. The dominant form here is Vajra-Tantra; it totally dominates Buddhism in Atlantic Canada in numbers, wealth, teaching and practice. But I don't call it a "consensus"; I don't practice it and it has no affect on what I choose to practice.

Chapman's thesis on Consensus Buddhism approaches conspiracy theory. He purports that there is this loosely coalesced conspiracy, led by the Dalai Lama, Jack Kornfield, and other published teachers, to make us all practice the same thing ("One Dharma"), which deliberately excludes tantric practice from that consensus, thus suppressing the practice of tantra. He offers no evidence to explain how this Consensus Buddhism dominates US practice, or that it deliberately suppresses tantric practice--not even anecdotal evidence. It's a conspiracy theory which he proffers as a way to defend his own views.


Can someone provide explanation on dependent origination

okay, since you asked for a simple explanation... this is about as simple as I can make it:

Avidya: A newborn baby has no memories nor concepts, just a potential to learn.
Samskaras: Everything that happens leaves a trace, or imprint, on the baby mind.
Vijnana: As similar patterns happen again and again, baby begins to recognize them and classify in buckets by similarity and thus becomes minimally aware.
Namarupas: The baby begins to assemble recognizable features into individual objects.
Six doors: The baby begins to develop a notion of "here" and "there", and the doors connecting "here" with "there" (seeing, hearing etc.)
Contact: As objects disappear and reappear, the baby comes up with idea of "contact" or having the object.
Vedana: Baby notices that when some objects are present it feels good inside. So baby decides that this good feeling comes from the object.
Craving: From this, baby learns to miss a good object and to crave it again.
Upadana: As this craving becomes obsessive, the baby learns to make the contact its goal and to work towards the goal, in order to experience the good feeling again.
Bhava: As baby learns to crave, work towards a goal, and enjoy the gratification, it develops a notion of self or "I". Because it has the same obsessive thought of the goal from the initial desire, through working on it, and until receiving gratification. This obsessive craving becomes "I".
Jāti: From the notion of "I" comes self-identification with a living organism -- a human individuum.
Jarā-marana: From the self-identification with an individuum comes idea of death and million other problems.

The only real problem with this explanation... there is no baby! Baby is an object we learned to assemble. Which is why Buddha's original language is more precise, even if cryptic. "Ignorance" -> "Samskaras" -> "Vijnana" and so on. But if we put aside nitpicking about reification inevitable to any casual explanation, and just focus on the main idea, at least this explanation gives us a hint what Dependent Origination could be about.


From a buddhist point of view, i think the question is flawed already from the beginning by assuming that there exists a "self or person" by using the words "whose nirvana, my death, person, his or her nirvana".

By using these words it is implied that a self exists which it do not. There exist a physical and a mental stream and nowhere is there a self to be found. A self is not even needed in the equation. Things work just fine without the need for a self.

If you try to search for this self by either using the method of analysis where you break things up into the constituent parts and look at them you will not find a self anywhere.

If you use the method of synthesis by looking at things in a relational/interdependent way by using the doctrine of dependent origination you will also not find a self anywhere. Why? Because according to dependent origination things only exist as a part/reflection of other things. Therefore no real self can be found.

The false idea of a self arises when the 5 aggregates work together as a physio-psychological machine. The false idea of a self is really just one of the 52 mental formations belonging to the 4th aggreate and all the aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. This is said by Dr. Walpola Rahula on p. 18 in his book "What The Buddha Taught".

So in order to answer your question i would say that you should take out the aforementioned words and then you have your answer which is that no "self or person" achieves nibbana. Assuming that a "self or person" exists is not refering to ultimate reality - paramattha sacca. Instead you are dealing with concepts which is not real.

Lanka


What are signs of the three marks of existence?

Sweeping is a process made up of many experiences. An experience is made up of the five aggregates. Each of the five aggregates is Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in nature. That makes each experience Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. It's not about waiting for something to finish and calling it impermanent. That's obvious even without meditation. That is not strong enough to cut off craving or loosen your grip on conditioned phenomena. You have to develop Sati(awareness) through meditation until you can see these 3 characteristics here and now with each experience(moment to moment).

Yes, not able to stop unpleasant experiences or not able to prolong pleasant experiences is a sign of Anatta. Then again, reasoning it out like that is not what is expected from Vipassana. You have to be able see it then and there. You have to be able to note that each experience is born due to causes, not because there's a self in them or not because they belong to a self.

Feeling that there is a body or feeling that there is no body are both Anatta. Because both are mere feelings born of causes. Nothing more.


There are multiple stages of insight before you reach stream entry. Then there are the 4 stages of sainthood which follows which you can judge of the fetters and defilements that remain.

Taking Dependent Origination into account the main issue leading to the conditioned existence is when we sense any sensations due to, we react with with like or dislike which you try to possess or get rid of. This keeps you rolling in stress and conditioned existence. Once you feel the sensation and you maintain your equanimity then you stop conditioning. Therefore by all means the best measure of your progress is much equanimity and awareness you have towards feeling and sensations that arise in different situations. At a more advanced stage when your equanimity is not wavering, the main measure can become how much of the 3 characteristics of existence you can see. At some point your will start seeing the arising and passing away of phenomena in  any place of your body confirming everything is in a flux of change. You will realise any feeling you get has a finite length. It arrives as cluster of vibrating quantum particles and stays for a finite duration. You have no absolute control over creating, maintaining or the sensation of a particular sensation.

The next way you can monitor your progress is through your wellbeing and that of others people around you. You will be less agitated and stressful. This intern makes people around you less agitated and stressful. You become moral. Each time you try to generate negativity you see the process of stress and agitation building in you. This re enforces your morality and cordial interaction with others. You will have a balanced mind thus make the right proactive decisions than emotional reactive decision. This will be profitable for you in this life and the afterlife for you and everyone around you. Also you will experience peace and happiness with in you. As always your 1st measure of progress should be equanimity and mindfulness after which is firmly established you can look at the secondary measures. You will actively investigate the phenomena arising and passing away within the framework of your body. Once well You will feel pleasant and relaxed. Your mind will get focused. You will have a lot of energy in you.

Another way to measure your progress is through the level of understanding of the Noble Truths at the experiential level (Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi). If you were to use another way to investigate your progress you can keep looking at sensation within you. In further investigation you will see that any stress or agitation arises arriving in you. On further investigating you will see what causes this is your attachment and aversion. You will start seeing if something happens to something you identify as me or mine (things, ideas, thoughts, views, body, friends and foes) you get either agitated or pleased. The lack of mindfulness and equanimity you grasp to the feeling that arrised when you sense something. (E.g. your foe losing his job.) You always long for similar incidents as when you get to know and recognise this is in deed your foe then you experience the some feeling. As you practice, you see when your get any volition in your mind, you experience sensations. You see the sensations as not permanent, grasping to them cause resentment and not absolutely controllable. When you are equanimous and mindful in all times you see that this reduces the stress and agitation in you. You will see every time you even think about breaking your morality you get stressed and agitated, more control you exercise over your mind and prevent it going into negative states more positive you feel and when it does go agitation and stress arises, you will see each time you like or dislike towards something (starting with a certain type of feeling) you loose your balance of your mind and craving to create any such sensation or feeling is not under your absolute control, does not last long and since it does not last it is not satisfactory. You see the way out of this is not to react to the sensations you experience but be aware looking at their true characteristics.

Also you can always be mindful of the defilements to see what frequently arices and how intense they are.

Monitoring progress is has its drawbacks. Proximate cause of looking at progress is striving too hard. You have to leave the results for itself to manifest in due time than be trying to be over mindful of the progress. If you are looking for progress too often then this is a sign of being too attached to the outcome thus losing the balance of your mind and falling behind in your practice.

You do occasionally (not too often or not too far paced) have to see how you are doing though. This is to see if you are doing the right practice and on track. If you are not making progress then the this might mean that you have missed some aspects of the practice or doing something wrong. When you do look at progress is that if is like a knife. You cannot see the daily wear and tear but suddenly notice that it has worn out though this was happening little by little over time.


What are the occasions did Panchasika or Pansilu meet the Buddha

This is in Sakka-pañha Sutta in DN 21.

Then said Sakka, the king of the gods, to Five-crest the Gandhabba—‘Difficult of approach, dear Five-crest, are Tathāgatas, to one like me, when they are rapt in the bliss of meditation, and for that purpose abiding in solitude. But if you were first to gain over the Exalted One [by your music] then might I afterwards come up and visit him, the Arahant, the Buddha supreme.’
‘So be it and good luck to you!’ consented Five-crest, and taking his lyre he went to the Indra-Sal tree-cave. On coming there he thought—‘Thus far will the Exalted One be neither too far from me nor too near to me, and he will hear my voice.’ And he stood on one side, and let his lyre be heard and recited these verses concerning the Awakened One and the Truth, the Arahants and Love...
...
When Five-crest had finished the Exalted One said to him—‘The sound of your strings, Five-crest, so harmonizes with that of your song, and the sound of your voice with that of the strings, that your lyre does not too much colour your song, nor your song too much colour your play. Where, Five-crest, did you learn these verses concerning the Awakened One and the Truth, the Arahants, and Love?’

Here is the Sinhalese version.
http://pitaka.lk/16171/cs,aps


What is bodily formation? Does it refer to the breath or the body?

OP: What is bodily formation?

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.

OP: Does it mean tranquilizing the breath or the body?

  To do this, you should decide to make the breath tranquil, and go on being continuously aware of the breath from beginning to end. You should
  do nothing else, otherwise your concentration will break and fall away.

  The Visuddhi·Magga gives four factors for making the breath tranquil:

  ...

  Concern (ābhoga): you pay initial attention to the breath, you apprehend the breath, you advert the mind towards the breath, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
  Reaction (samannāhāra): you continue to do so, i.e. you pay sustained attention to the breath that way, do it again and again, keep the breath in the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’
  Attention (manasikāra): literally ‘deciding to make the breath tranquil’. Attention is the mental factor that makes the mind advert towards the object. Attention makes the mind conscious of the breath and know the breath.
  Reviewing (paccavekkhaBa): you review (vīmamsa) the breath, make it clear to the mind, to the effect: ‘I will try to make the breath tranquil.’

p35/36 Knowing and Seeing by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw


How different is the lifestyle of male monks from that of the female monks?

Bhikshuni Thubten Chodron founded Sravasti Abbey in 2003. It's based i the US, not Asia, but Venerable has her education and tradition from Asia (education India/tradition Tibet).  Male and female monastics train together there as equals—brothers and sisters supporting each other on the Dharma path.

They write a lot on their site about monastic life in general, see more: http://www.sravastiabbey.org/about/index.html

"Ordination in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition" is an article from H.H. The Dalai Lama on both male/monks and female/nuns. http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/ordination-in-the-tibetan-tradition


Where does a person go after attaining Nirvana?

In one sense he continues just as we do. Once he attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, the Buddha carried on teaching for another 50 years. It was only on the death of his physical body that he underwent parinirvana, that is to say final release. However this just pushes the question on from nirvana to parinirvana.

The question of what happens to an enlightened being after death is one of the unanswered questions i.e. does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death. The Buddha refused to address metaphysical issues such as these. He teaches one thing and that thing is liberation. He views other issues such as this, the nature of the universe, the nature of the 'soul' as a distraction.

It's not to say that this isn't a good question but it is one that is deliberately unanswered by the Buddha. As such I'm probably not going to be able to do it either.

It's the answer of no answer

NOTE

This answer is based on Theravada teachings and is not the stance of all Buddhist schools. Other answers here will be from different perspectives and should be considered along with this answer.


Is it bad karma if you say something that turns out to be false?

No. When it comes to lying, bad karma is not related to the actual truthfulness of what was said.
Rather, it comes from intention. Speaking the untruth intentionally is bad karma and a violation of one of the five precepts. Please see this answer for more details.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

From Iti 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."


Welcome to Buddhism.SE.

I'm not sure what the current policy is on these sorts of questions, but considering how powerful the mind is, seeking help in a forum like this might be problematic.

  while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?

I'm guessing the question mark is a way of saying something like "I don't even know if I'm describing it correctly". The Buddha used teachings like the five aggregates to help students understand that feelings are just feelings, shivering is just shivering, heaviness is just heaviness, etc. You finding it weird is just a mental phenomenon and has nothing to do with the nature of the experience itself - i.e. it's not weird, that's your judgement of it.

  Is it normal?

Meditation can trigger all sorts of responses as it affects mental and physical formations that exist prior to meditaiton practice. There is no "normal", as your physical and mental condition are unique. Also, different meditation practices will affect the body and mind differently, so there's really a very wide range of potential feelings, etc. that you might experience.

  how can we control this?

Control has the danger of increasing attachment of self. Regarding your experience specifically, there is no real Buddhist imperative to control feelings; what we are interested in changing is our reactions to experiences, not the experiences themselves.


Previous gurus or teachers of the Buddha

This is found in the Ariya Pariyesanā Sutta, (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, etc.


If every single person in a city or country practised the first precept with heedfulness, and also practised Right Livelihood, which prohibits trade in meat, then nobody would work as a butcher.

Those practicing Right Livelihood would also not be meat importers, suppliers or retailers.

The first precept is not about vegetarianism, or any type of diet. It's about allowing sentient beings to live with ease.

However, if you observe the first precept, it is still ok to buy and consume meat that was frozen in the supermarket. The reason for this is that you did not have the intention to kill and in fact, you did not kill that animal.

You're simply buying frozen lifeless meat that was long dead before you arrived at the supermarket. Please also see this question for a detailed discussion on this topic .


Perhaps, according to Buddhism and modern psychology, it isn't helpful to "speak about it to someone to let off steam".
If you are in some abusive relationship, then doing something about it (something other that what you have been doing previously) may be healthy; and so, talking enough to understand what's happening, and to make new plans, may be healthy; but "letting off steam" doesn't sound right.
To pick just one example from Google, here's a quote from Psychology Today: You Can't Punch Your Way Out of Anger --
You can’t let off steam with violence.
Posted Sep 24, 2009
As for Buddhism I think there's an obvious quote at the start of the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.

What's "skillful" might depend on how you talk about it and who with; but I at least want to challenge the premise that it "lets off steam" and that that's helpful. Instead of letting off steam it might keep the fire (of anger etc.) burning ... "fanning the flames" if you want a metaphor.


What does Nonduality correspond to in Buddhism?

There's an article on that subject Dhamma and Non-duality by
Bhikkhu Bodhi.

The following is basically all direct quotes from that article, except very summarized (I'm extracting sentences and sentence fragments).

Non-dual system

For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.

Not a non-dual system

As for the Theravada tradition:

Virtue

Non-duality: the adept isn't bound by rules because "The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil"
Theravada: "the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults"

Meditation:

Non-duality: defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality
Theravada: hindrances are "causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana"

Wisdom:

Non-duality: concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew
Theravada: wisdom not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All

So to answer your question, if I understand the article, it's saying that "non-duality" in Buddhism includes statements like "nirvana and samsara are the same" and "everything is equally empty" ... but non-duality is not a feature of Theravada Buddhism (it's a feature of Mahayana Buddhism, and of Tantrayana).


They shouldn't be done in isolation. It should be a comprehensive approach which is exactly why the Buddha taught the Four Right Exertions:

  There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent:
  1. for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen...
  2. for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen...
  3. for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and)
  4. for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. ~~ MN 78 ~~


Is there anything like discriminating intellect in Buddhism?

In the Theravada traditions, I understand this be a reference to the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya-bhojjanga).
In the field of dhamma, discrimination comes about by the very act of investigation, and what is discriminated is then known as arising in dependence on other factors and that, globally, those factors harbour three definitive characteristics: transience, unsatisfaction and not-self. This is understood through what he calls the contents of consciousness but what I would call the six-sense consciousnesses - sometimes enumerated as 8 or 9 consciousnesses to include mānas-vijñāna and mano-vijñāna. I think the ninth consciousness is seen as nirvana.
With regard to the consciousness or awareness aspect (possibly nirvana) I suggest reading the fascinating answers to this very interesting question: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?.
It is only by investigating (and discriminating) the six-senses in this way that they are broken down by wisdom-understanding leaving behind a deeper understanding of reality; what you might call consciousness or awareness. I cannot see this as a cultivation. Nothing is cultivated. It is just that complications and their disturbances were removed to reveal the simplicity that had always been present.


Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?

No, if we are talking about what the Buddha teaches in the Pali Suttas but one has to keep the precepts and practice in line with the Buddha's Teaching while participating in the other religion's practices.

In other words, the other religion's practices need to be compatible with the Dhamma.

In other words the other religious practice has to be dhamma.

I would say that in general, the various traditions usually frown on one practicing anything outside the tradition.

I would say that in general, teachers usually frown on it too because it can cause a lot of doubt, wrong view,  misunderstandings and interference in the teacher's particular technique.


What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism?

Solipsism is not a religion or philosophy. It's just a speculative idea: "hmm how do we know the world we experience actually exists? What if our senses and minds are fooling us and nothing else exists at all?". I don't think there are many people, if any, who seriously believe in solipsism and make it one's guiding principle. It's just a philosophical joke people are playing with as they study philosophy.
Note how Solipsism doesn't say "other minds don't exist", no, - instead it says "I definitely exist because I can think and experience stuff, but there's no proof that the rest of the world exists other than in my mind".
Hinduism is not a concrete thing. It's a huge collection of traditions, myths, rituals, and teachings that developed over millennia in many different places on Indian subcontinent. There's no single system there. But in context of your question we can say that most people who roughly belong to this group, called Hindus, believe that people have souls and these souls are parts of the Universal Soul (call it God or Brahma or whatever). Some of the people in this group also believe that this Universal Soul is sleeping and this world is a dream this Universal Soul is dreaming up. Again this idea of the world being God's dream is more like a metaphor or beautiful myth, I don't think all Hindu people take it literally (although some might).
There's no teaching in Hinduism that says that other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist at all. They usually say this world of separation is an illusion or like a dream, and when the soul wakes up it realizes its unity with God or Brahman, and sees everything correctly as it really is. Note how they don't say nothing else exists, they say the awakened soul sees the true reality, and in this true reality everything is God, basically.
So in solipsism you are the only reality and everything else is illusion while in Hinduism all separate things are illusion and the unity of Everything with God is the true reality.
Now, Buddhism is not a single thing either. It's a huge collection of ideas and teachings that developed from one person's teachings. People were trying to implement this teaching, interpret it, and understand its implications - and this original teaching along with its historical interpretations and implications is what we now call Buddhism.
Many Buddhists (although not all!) will say that soul does not exist, this makes them very different from Hindus who strongly believe in soul. (There are some Buddhist whose faith is more like a hybrid between Buddhism and Hinduism but we can omit them for simplicity). Moreover, most Buddhists do not believe in Universal God or Universal Soul, whatever you call it. In this sense, Buddhists are more like the modern scientific materialists - they think the world works according to some kind of natural laws. Not necessarily same exact laws we know from science but laws nevertheless, not a God dreaming things up.
Now when it comes to mind, most Buddhists will say that mind also works according to some laws, it develops and changes based on causes and conditions - not randomly. When this mind develops, it comes up with all kinds of ideas about the world, including the idea of "I" or "self" - but according to Buddhism all these are just ideas, just concepts the mind develops to approximately understand and analyze its experiences.
So in Buddhism we don't say other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist, no. We say, the reality or the world we experience is an interpretation we make based on our experience, prejudices, on where we focus our attention and on our emotional state.
In Buddhism we often say that this world is like an illusion or our life is like an illusion, meaning that it seems to look a certain way until you look closely. This doesn't mean the world doesn't exist, it just means when our minds are childish our world is primitive, and as our minds mature - our world becomes much more deep, nuanced, more complex, and a more accurate representation of how-things-really-are.
As you can see, Solipsism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are three very different things. None of them says that other minds do not exist. Only Solipsism says the world outside our mind may not exist. Hinduism and Buddhism both say our experience of the world is not accurate. Hinduism says, in reality everything is one with God, while Buddhism says that every experience of a certain subjective world is a result of causes and conditions.
Solipsism is just a toy philosophy, it's not meant to be a real belief.
Hinduism teaches (among other things) how to strive for unity with God, both in this life and beyond.
In Buddhism we learn how our lives are shaped by causes and conditions, we learn how we create these causes by our actions, we learn how mind works, we learn how it develops illusions and superficial ideas about the world, we learn how these superficial ideas keep us entrapped in certain subjective realities, going in vicious cycles - and we learn how to liberate from all that.


Is 'making a strong commitment' a good idea?

To make a  strong commitment,  you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.

As Ajahn Chah says "Just do it".

Edit

One could reflect on death. This can really be motivating because it lets us know we are pressed for time not just on the surface but in the heart as well.


This question is addressed in the Abhaya Sutta from the Buddha himself, on the topic of Right Speech.

Your question should fall under "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Abhaya Sutta).

From your same link on the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, you can read the commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that
  Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha
  himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to
  cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how
  consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth.

  The Buddha's treatment of Sāti might seem harsh, but he is actually
  acting out of compassion for the monks in the assembly, in case any of
  them might be swayed by Sāti's position. Seeing Sāti as a lost cause,
  the Buddha doesn't want this lost cause to cause further losses among
  the other monks. We have to remember that during the Buddha's lifetime
  there were no written accounts of his teachings; the monks and nuns
  all had to rely on their memory of what they had heard directly from
  him or through word-of-mouth from fellow members of the Saṅgha. Thus
  the Buddha saw the need to establish orthodoxy whenever a member of
  the Saṅgha was espousing false interpretations of his teaching.

The Buddha also discusses this in the Kesi Sutta which is summarized here by Thanissaro Bhikku:

  Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha
  asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses
  responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others
  required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond
  to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the
  reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha
  how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same
  way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh
  criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't
  respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student. This
  shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant
  by "killing": He wouldn't train the student any further, which
  essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.


When Itry to reach to the toothbrush in the morning I saw my mind intention to take it and the hand movement is felt like as I was in a magnetic field. What is it ?

All actions are preceeded by the mind. An intention (Cetana in Pali), which is a mental formation, is the initiator behind the subsequent action done by the body - in this case the bodily action of reaching out for the toothbrush.
In reality that movement can be broken up into many smaller steps suchs extending the arm, flexing the wrist, flexing the fingers etc. There's also the feeling of touch sensation when holding the toothbrush and the awareness/consciousness of all the movements.
Beginning to see intentions is an important, vital step in understanding how the mind/body complex works. It's a sign that introspection is beginning to happen.
My advice would be to find a good teacher or undertake a meditation course to develop your practice further.


How do taboo acts work in tantra if people don't see the acts as taboo?

Tantric symbolism is always multifaceted. Although a lot of the imagery in Tantra is very taboo, there's more to it than just shock value. For example, the five nectars of urine, feces, menses, semen, and bone marrow aren't visualized in a skull-cup as an offering because they are transgressive, but because they represent the five aggregates, and refering to them as nectar represents that for an enlightened being they are innately pure. Even if someone doesn't find any particular part of Tantra to be taboo, they still would make sense in terms of their other symbolic aspects.


How to maintenance equanimity in the daily life?

If, during your formal practice, you are able to purify the mind of the hindrances then you can apply that level of concentration and purity of mind to experiences outside of formal meditation.

Purity of mind means that you are able to attend to a sensation without adding stories to it that are rooted in the hindrances to mindfulness (attachment, aversion, doubt, worry and slackness/laziness/lethargy of body and mind).

For example:

If you have warm hands and you say, "I like warm hands; they are so pleasurable!" That is attachment . . .

If you observe cold hands and you say/think something like, "I hate cold hands." That is the hindrance of aversion . . .

If your hands are cold and you ignore mindfulness because you do not believe it is beneficial then you have doubt about the practice . . .

If you have cold hands and you say something like, "I am scared, what will happen if my hands get too cold, I could get hurt and experience painfulness." That is worry . . .

If the mind becomes sluggish and ignores the sensation because of that sluggishness then you have lethargy of mind.

Instead of saying or thinking any of these things you should simply observe the sensation in the hands. If you can not do this it is a sign that there is still work to be done in regards to purifying your mind. If those thoughts arise notice them, then let them go and try to return to observing the bare sensation.


What to do when overwhelmed with Doubt - Practical Advice

There are times when there's nothing to do but watch. Put aside the expectations for yourself gained by reading the Dhamma. Unwise attention, in this case, would include reading about arahants and then judging yourself for not being like them.

Just focus on what is right here.  Focus on the doubt itself, or on the body, and the feelings in the body created by the negative emotions - the constricted breath, the aches and tensions, the agitation, the rushing thoughts.

Resolve to sit, but don't expect anything from the sitting- just put in the time. If chanting feels like a chore, just sit instead.

Find some small, easy, thing to do that is useful, or is kind and helpful to someone else, and do that.

Or just sit still and count to 100, if that's all you can manage. These are all wise and skillful actions and are Dhamma.

If you just do your best to not nourish the already-arisen thoughts, then you are practicing Dhamma. You're experiencing an emotional flood, created by long-past circumstances. The flood is pulling away your energy and faith. Wise attention, in this case, is to let the flood wash through, watch your energy and faith fade away, and stay aware. Later, the energy and faith will return - it is inevitable- and you will have have strength again to nourish new, increased faith and energy, but for now, just do what you can.


How does craving (taṇhā) relate to neutral feelings?

Taṇhā doesn't automatically have to relate to neutral feelings. Remember, the twelve links of dependent origination are talking about nessisary causation, not sufficient causation, so when the Buddha says

  [W]ith feeling as condition, craving [comes to be]

the meaning is that feeling is necessary for craving to arise, and without feeling, craving can never arise. But it does not mean that if there is feeling, craving will always arise.


Can an Icchantika make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?

"Possessing" grave wrong view (niyata micca ditthi) is one of the 6 reasons why one is, better does (since holding a view is an action) incapable to grow in Dhamma, incapable in reaching even paths or fruits, yes. But! ...to think that the view of a being is something inherent, lasting, not conditioned, for it's own, is already near niyata micca ditthi. So beware of Mohayanas.

  The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

  (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),

  (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),

  (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

Those who hold such views are for the most already on the "highway to hell".

Those views are actually not seldom, even under "Buddhist" and therefore it's very importand, even if having tendency toward such views, to do an effort and seek out for people with right view to assosiate with. See How to address wrong view?

To be incapable to change one view has to do with "stupidy" or mental defect, and as such is also a root reason that no grow in Dhamma can be attained for the time such may last, arises.

Thinking that being have such as a inherent Buddhanature or not, the current potential to awakening, or not, such is also grave wrong view. And it's mostly the case that things which one makes himself busy outwardly are very related to ones own case and so take care.

Whether there are being generally not able to gain way out, how many beings would reach awakening... all such answers the Buddha did not gave into, using to teach "simply" cause and effect, "from this comes that", "with the arising of this, that arises", and it's good to watch out simply this, giving much faith into focus just on causes, for effects of them come by themself.

(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment supposed to bind but as an exit out of the wheel here.)


Both originate from Bodhidharma, the first patriarch of Zen and Chan, as he transferred Indian heritage up north. The difference is that Zen was technically Chan that was imported to Japan by the likes of Dogen Zenji, and because both languages are different, here you go - different word. It is respectively Thiền in Vietnam, and Seon in Korea, all of which refer to the same thing. On the other hand, Chan is more rooted into Chinese philosophy, you could find traces of Taoism and Confucianism there, mostly unlike Zen.

Having said all of the above, Zen is very minimal, Soto Zen for that matter deprioritises chanting and koans and focus on zazen almost entirely. They meditate with their eyes open staring at the wall, posture is very important, due to how Japanese society is disciplined you might even get hit with a stick by your master if your posture is off. The key is in Zazen, it is in between of Samatha and Vipassana in my opinion. Zazen is almost entirely associated with enlightenment, as Dōgen said that practise itself is Enlightenment.

Rinzai school for another example has strong rooting in Japan but not entirely (it’s derived from Chinese Linji) and they, on the other hand utilise koans  to cut through rational, dualistic thinking to make leaps in experiencing enlightenment.

All of the rest is standard Mahayana approach: Bodhicitta, Bodhisattva vow. There is some Amidaba Buddha influence regionally, which is Pure landish, but not omnipresent. Also, Zen/Chan (etc) stresses Yogacara school philosophy that is mind only school.

I generally recommend a classic book on Zen by Philip Kapleau - The Three Pillars of Zen if you are interested in Zen.


Do we believe psychic and supernatural powers of Buddha?

You are basically saying "I have doubts about the Buddha's supernatural powers. Can someone prove them to me?". Nobody can do this for you unless the Buddha himself comes and show you. But that's not going to happen. So you have few options to appease your mind.

Meditate on the doubt until you realize that it's just another mental state that arises and falls and that holding on to it is useless and does not lead you to freedom from suffering.
Take it on faith, accepting the fact that you are not capable of knowing all that is possible with your current state of mind. And then do #1.
Do Samatha meditation, follow the instructions given in the Visuddhimagga that lead to attaining magical powers.
Waste your life trying to scientifically prove or disprove whether supernatural powers are real or not.


Did the Buddha ever say excessive meditation is bad?

the buddha says that ''with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration.''
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi
same thing with ''excessive energy'' https://suttacentral.net/mn128/en/sujato

he says meditation must be ''made much of''
https://suttacentral.net/arv12/en/anandajoti


That's cool you pointed that out.
The Buddha and many masters of course would say that you are practicing learning-yoga where through absorbing the expressions of anyone with cultivaton attainment, you too come closer to what they experienced. Some masters even got enlightened when they heard a particular thing from a master and it caused them to look directly at "Who is the one listening?" and they found out their True Self.

Whenever I noticed this sensation in my body (very frequently) I actually get the same thought... that vipassana is the direct road... that vipassana is great and awesome and the meta-physical life is so simple, just pure awareness, and I am grateful that it is so.
I also feel my body vibrating, especially my legs sometimes my body.

I tell myself I should get to practice but due to the ideas and good feeling I oftentimes keep reading until my time is up waiting till my scheduled time to practice.. :-/

I am convinced that this is the energy channels opening and that instead of sitting like a dead duck when such an opportune moment comes, one should meditate for 10 or 20 minutes because Master Nan, one of my late teachers, himself said that we cannot attain samadhi at any time we choose, there are certain opportune moments that we should seize!

I should definitely stop myself and practice what I learn much much more like you have thought, I think that is the wise choice of action reccommended by my teachers, especially William Bodri who states that you have to mix up theory with practice, either one alone will get you nowhere.


How does dependent origination and the skandhas fit together?

Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering (sorrow, grief, despair, etc) that comes from ignorantly attaching to the khandhas as 'self' ('upadana') and as 'a being' ('jati'). Not only is attachment itself a mental state fraught with anxiety & stress, but the sorrowful traumatic idea of 'aging-&-death' occurs when the khandhas attached to as 'self' or 'a being' are inevitably subjected to impermanence. SN 12.66 says:

  ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’

The word "acquisition' ('upadhi') above is a synonym for 'attachment' ('upadana'). SN 12.66 is one of many suttas that shows the word 'jati' in Dependent Origination does not mean 'physical birth'. Instead, 'jati' ('birth') means 'identifying' with something as 'self', 'mine' or 'a being'. MN 26 says:

  And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

For a more simple explanation of how attachment to the khandhas results in suffering when the khandhas change due to impermanence, SN 22.1 says:

  "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?

  "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is
  seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he
  is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change &
  alteration.

  "He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or
  'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these
  ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change &
  alteration.

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.

We should study the whole of SN 22.1 thoroughly until we understand it clearly. SN 22.1 is spoken in simple language and is not rocket science.

All of the above is reflected in the most brief explanation of Dependent Origination, from MN 28, below:

  Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’

As for the khandhas, they are merely the components of life. To help give up attachment to the khandhas, SN 22.59 explains the khandhas are unsatisfactory (cannot bring true happiness) & not-self because each khandha, when examined closely, is impermanent and selfless.


I see the original question as been modified when I went online again.  The original question included "hinting/asking"
I have included this under wrong livelihood.

How to know who is a good monk is a little more difficult to know than who is a bad monk.  People will judge differently on what factors makes one a good monk.  We can start with morality according to the monks rules which he has an obligation to follow. There are a few easy signs that one is a bad monk.

When he goes out into the village, if he has one shoulder exposed, this is a very clear sign that he breaks most of the rules.  If he has both shoulders covered, that means he follows this rule, but maybe not others.  This is just a quick way to throw out the majority of monks into the bad monk pile.  Unfortunately, most monks in Myanmar break this rule and that also means that most monks break most of the rules.

Monks need to follow all of the rules 227 rules and also the rules in the Culavagga and Mahavagga.  Likewise, they need to follow according to the commentaries as well in most cases.
Most Western Bhikkhus do not like the commentaries.  That is where "interpretations" can come.
Most of the information below, is from the BMC The Buddhist Monastic Code

Summary:
A Bhikkhu cannot use money.

A Bhikkhu cannot point out a kappiya without someone asking, "Who is you kappiya?"

A Bhikkhu cannot accept envelopes presumably with money inside.  It is an asannya offence (in the root text).   Which means, no perception is necessary for it to be unallowable.  That means the monks should not be intentionally ignorant.  The BMC debates and allows the modern use of "checks."

A Bhikkhu cannot ask for things from "Just anyone". He needs an invitation from a non-family member ( blood relation)

A Bhikkhu cannot hint to "Just anyone" (as above)

A Bhikkhu cannot do the above for another bhikkhu(s) either.

The BMC says checks are not money but a "promise to pay."  Sri Lanka and Myanmar Vinaya traditions call this money.  Money is defined as anything accepted as used in trade.  A US dollar is a mere bank note too.  Google "A Life Free From Money pdf"
The same as above is judged with signing checks.

A bhikkhu can ask for a bowl from anyone if it is broken or stolen.

A bhikkhu can ask for a single robe from anyone if he is left with only one (of three).

A bhikkhu can go for alms in the evening for "extra items," usually medicine or oil for light. The donors will offer food and he will refuse.  Then the person may ask, "what do you need?" Then he can say.

Lay people or committees can ask "just anyone" for things or money, etc. for monks if it is their own idea.   This might be what you are seeing on brochures and websites, etc.
A Bhikkhu cannot ask his helper, committee etc,  to ask others for money for himself.
A bhikkhu must be invited by a committee or kappiya before he asks them for things.

The above list is followed correctly unfortunately by a small minority of monks, known as vinaya monks, or forest monks.  Often the other (majority) monks do not know what proper behavior is.  They may memorize the rules, but do not think it is something to be practiced since corruption is so wide spread.  One of my monastic friends told me he cried when he found out that he was never supposed to touch money.   A monk may purify himself at any time.
Often, they just do not know.

Traditions often have interpretations which makes items seem "allowable.". Sometimes this is allowed and sometimes one can just be fooling oneself.  In the end it is up to them.  Often bhikkhus do not reflect or question questionable practices in a tradition because of the wide spread use.  Money and medicines are often such topics.

  "Monks, strive with heedfulness.  Rare is it that Buddhas arise in the
  world.  Rare is it that [one] it that [one] obtains a human [birth].
  Rare is it to have the good fortune of [being in the right] time [and
  place].  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to take the Going
  forth.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to listen to the
  True Dhamma.  Rare is it [that one has the opportunity] to associate
  with good people." (c.f. D.32.33 & A.8:29)

BMC I, 2009 ed. pdf
Monks must also practice right livelihood according to not doing things from the list below:

  Wrong Livelihood The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the
  same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), treats the
  banishment transaction in full detail, saying that a Community of
  bhikkhus, if it sees fit, has the authority to perform a banishment
  transaction against a bhikkhu with any of the following qualities:

  1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the
  Community.

  2) He is inexperienced, incompetent, and indiscriminately full of
  offenses (§).

  3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders.

  4) He is corrupt in his precepts, corrupt in his conduct, or corrupt
  in his views.   5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or
  Saṅgha.

  6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both.

  7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both.

  8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both.

  9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood.  This last category
  includes such practices as:

  a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state,
  householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in
  political campaigns.

  b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of
  material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in
  hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments
  in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make
  donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see
  Visuddhimagga I.61-82.)

  c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling,
  astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing
  ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining
  propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.),
  interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or — in the words of the
  Vibhaṅga to the Bhikkhunīs' Pc 49 & 50 — engaging in any art that is
  "external and unconnected with the goal." The Cullavagga (V.33.2)
  imposes a dukkaṭa on studying and teaching worldly arts or hedonist
  doctrines (lokāyata).

  For extensive lists of worldly arts, see the passage from DN 2 quoted
  in BMC2, Chapter 10.

  BMC I Lists wrong livelihood extensively starting on page 518 PDF ed.

"Medicines"
There are some things in the BMC which I think are very misleading, especially concerning, "medicines" and how "Any Reason" is defined (p232).  I could not find any pāli evidence that mentions "hunger and fatigue" as a valid medical reason.  I could be wrong, but I asked a couple of knowledgeable monks to verify this and they also agreed with my findings.  This would exclude many things which are considered medicines.

I will not cover further with lists of the "medicines."  Only that there should be a valid reason for taking them and justifying their use after Noon.
The reflection and criteria are below.  It is in every monastery chanting book and should be chanted every day.  (Nauyana chanting book source)

"Medicine Reflection"

  Whatever requisite of medicine for treating illness has been used by
  me today without reflection was only to ward off painful feelings that
  have arisen, [and] for the  maximum freedom from disease.


As far as I've been taught (specifically by Richard Shankman), it's fine to pick a place where the breath is strongest for you (for example the rise and fall of the chest), rather than one proscribed by a certain teacher or text. Also, from Joseph Goldstein's Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening: "For myself, I always appreciated the pragmatism of Munindra-ji, my first teacher, who said to observe the breath wherever it is easiest, wherever you feel it the most clearly."

And in general, I wouldn't worry too much about things being "faint." As long as you can feel it most of the time, patience and practice are more important than idealized technique. It's normal for the breath to disappear, so to speak, on occasion.


Who was the King Okkāka mentioned in Sutta Nipāta?

Check out Pali Dictionary of Proper Names:

Okkāka

  A king, ancestor of the Sākyas and the Kolians.
  In the Ambattha Sutta (D.i.92) it is stated that Okkāka, being fond of his queen and wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished from the kingdom the elder princes by another wife. These princes were named Okkāmukha, Karakanda, Hatthinika, and Sīnipura.

  The Mahāvastu (which confuses Iksvāku with his ancestor Sujāta) mentions five sons of Iksvāku: Opura, Ulkāmukha, Karandaka, Hastikasīrsa and Nipura (i.348). See also Rockhill, p.9ff.

  They lived on the slopes of the Himalaya and, consorting with their sisters and their descendants, formed the Sākyan race. The legend, thus briefly given, is enlarged on with great detail in the Commentaries. According to Buddhaghosa, there are three dynasties with a king named Okkāka at the head of each, all of them lineal descendants of the primeval king, Mahāsammata, and in the line of succession of Makādeva.
  The Okkāka of the third dynasty had five queens - Bhattā, Cittā, Jantū, Jālinī and Visākhā - each with five hundred female attendants. The eldest queen had four sons - mentioned above - and five daughters - Piyā, Suppiyā, Anandā, Vijitā and Vijitasenā. (The Mtu. calls them Suddhā, Vimalā Vijitā, Jālā and Jālī).

  When Bhattā died, after the birth of these nine children, the king married another young and beautiful princess and made her the chief queen. Her son was Jantu, and being pleased with him, the king promised her a boon. She claimed the kingdom for her son, and this was the reason for the exile of the elder children (DA.i.258f; SnA.i.352f).
  The Mahāvamsa (Mhv.ii.12-16) mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Nipuna, Candimā, Candamukha, Sivisañjaya, Vessantara, Jāli, Sīhavāhana and Sīhassara. The last named had eighty-four thousand descendants, the last of whom was Jayasena. His son Sīhahanu was the grandfather of the Buddha. The Dīpavamsa (iii.41-5) list resembles this very closely.

  Okkāka had a slave-girl called Disā, who gave birth to a black baby named, accordingly, Kanha. He was the ancestor of the Kanhāyanas, of which race the Ambattha-clan was an offshoot. Later, Kanha became a mighty sage and, by his magic power, won in marriage Maddarūpī, another daughter of Okkāka (D.i.93, 96).

  According to the Brāhmana-Dhammika Sutta (Sn.p.52ff; AA.ii.737), it was during the time of Okkāka that the brahmins started their practice of slaughtering animals for sacrifice. Till then there had been only three diseases in the world - desire, hunger and old age; but from this time onwards the enraged devas afflicted humans with various kinds of suffering.

  It is said (DA.i.258) that the name Okkāka was given to the king because when he spoke light issued from his mouth like a torch (kathanakāle ukkā viya mukhato pabhā niccharati).
  Although the Sanskritised form of the Pāli name is Iksavāku, it is unlikely that Okkāka is identical with the famous Iksavāku of the Purānas, the immediate son of Manu, son of the Sun. The Pāli is evidently more primitive, as is shown by the form Okkāmukha, and the name Iksavāku looks like a deliberate attempt at accommodation to the Purānic account. For discussion see Thomas, op. cit., p.6.

  According to the Mahāvastu, Iksavāku was the king of the Kosalas and his capital was Sāketa - i.e. Ayodhyā. See also s.v. Sākya.

  The Cūlavamsa mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Mahātissa, Sagara and Sāhasamalla (q.v.).

  Okkāka.

  King of Kusāvatī in the Malla country. He had sixteen thousand wives, the chief of whom was Sīlavatī. As a result of her consorting with Sakka, two sons were born, Kusa and Jayampati.

  The story is related in the Kusa Jātaka. J.v.278ff.


Are there universal experiences associated with seeing through individual aggregates?

The falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, does not leave behind a sense of wholeness because the falling away of saññā (perception) results in the state of unconsciousness. In Buddhism, this is called "saññāvedayitanirodha".

What has fallen away in the experience of "wholeness" referred to above is "thinking" (sankhara) and "themes" (nimitta) rather than "perception". In other words, the sense of "wholeness" is also a "theme" born from "perception". MN 18 says:

  With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.

  MN 18

As for the state of "awe & wonder", this is a delusion or beguilement in Buddhism. In Buddhism, when right seeing occurs of the five aggregates, the result is "disenchantment & dispassion" rather than "awe & wonder"; as follows:

  Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released.

  SN 22.59

When all divisions thus cease to be, in Hinduism, this is called "Advaita" or the "One God".


Is Nibbana a state of mind or an element (dhamma)?

Nibbana is asankhata dhatu (unconditioned element or unconditioned dhamma) therefore it is not a state of mind (MN 115).

Insight wisdom (vipassana) into the three characteristics uproots craving (SN 22.59).

Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) of mind consciousness (Ud 8.1) but it is not a type of consciousness. This is why 'mind-objects' are called 'dhamme'; because they also include Nibbana.

It is because Nibbana is not a state of mind that a stream winner can taste the peace of Nibbana; even though their mind is not completely pure. This can be compared to feeling a cool breeze on a warm sunny day. Because the breeze is one thing & the sun is another thing, both the cool breeze & warm sun can be experienced together. Similarly, the cool peace of Nibbana (experienced from non-attachment) can be experienced by the stream-winner, even though the mind is not completely pure & cooled.

This said, when a stream-winner is in the stream, their mind is without asava (MN 117). In other words, it is inaccurate to say a stream-winner has craving; as though they always have craving. A stream-winner only has craving when their mindfulness has lapsed.

In conclusion, the mind attains Nibbana by using Path concentration & insight wisdom to uproot craving. The suttas say the Path (of concentration & insight) is conditioned. Therefore, the mind does not uproot craving by attaining Nibbana. First craving is uprooted using wisdom and what remains leftover is experiencing the peaceful element of Nibbana. SN 22.59 says:

  Seeing thus [with insight wisdom], the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate [uproots craving]. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released [Nibbana]. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'


At least with the Pali suttas, start with the first three sermons:

https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi + https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/bodhi
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/bodhi

Then basic moral teachings, such as:

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/horner
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.7/en/sujato
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

In the Buddha's Words An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Bodhi is a good compilation (although take care with Bhikkhu Bodhi's often sectarian footnotes).


The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.

This is a problem because you think that being reborn is good but actually it is suffering. If you want to be reborn in a heavenly realm you should know that these realms are also impermanent and it is much harder to practice the dharma there. And you also have no idea how much you might have suffered in samsara.

In SN 15.3, the Buddha said this.

  "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

If you want to achieve nibanna then practice the noble eight fold path.

  "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. [4] Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

You must also practice the four frames of reference. I’m not going to say how to practice it here but these four frames of reference are not four different exercises. Right mindfulness comes before right concentration so I think you should practice it if you want to achieve nibanna.


At what age does a person becomes capable to understand Buddhism?

7 year olds one can go forth into homelessness and  Arahantship can be sustained, younger than that is unheard of.

When I was seven
& newly gone forth,
having conquered with my power
the great powerful serpent,
I was fetching water for my preceptor
from the great lake, Anotatta,
when the Teacher saw me & said:
"Look, Sariputta, at that one,
the young boy coming there,
carrying a pot of water,
well-centered within,
his practices — inspiring;
his bearing — admirable.
He's Anuruddha's novice,
mature in his powers,
made thoroughbred by a thoroughbred,
good by one who is good,
tamed by Anuruddha,
trained by one whose task
is done.
He, having reached the highest peace
& realized the unshakable,
Sumana the novice
wants this:
'Don't let anyone know me.'"

Thag 6.10


Do you think that this Laughing Buddha Restaurant sign is a disrespect?

Intentions matter.

Only people and cultures take offense. The Dharma doesn't take offense. Awakened ones who have gone forth to become the Dharma can't take offense.

In certain strictly Buddhist cultures such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand and Tibet, I'd expect to see a strong reaction, including jail time. In non-Buddhist cultures, it won't matter to the majority who are ignorant of the implications.

A sincere adept of Dharma can even use this insult as a stepping stone, and inquire into what in him takes offense and let go of that identity.

Karma results from volition. Someone seeking to cause injury to Buddhists would definitely be falling afoul of good intentions, and thus cause consequent karma to occur.

The act isn't the problem, it is the intention behind it.


"According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates.", maybe according to whom's ever Buddhism and Buddhists, but the Buddha did not told such. More: he repeatedly stressed out that ones own can not be found in the five aggregates.

As for what is birth:

  "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. MN 141

And as part of the first Noble truth it's somehow pointless to call it "merely convention" since such would hinder one to take actions for a beyond. So for a serious practitioner it's very needed to avoid people who deny coming into being and the Noble Truths, people of grave wrong view.

What makes you the same person who wrote the question and now reading an answer? Desire? Not-knowing?

And without first things first, your practice becomes nothing but that of the many Jains around: a really poor living of real poor hypocriticals.

May you have an auspicious birth here, since it is the prerequisite of liberation.

(Note: not given for stacks, trade and exchange but as a tiny door out of the wheel of rebirth)


"No afterlife" means, from a Buddhist perspective, that there is no ego-centered identity to experience that afterlife. After life, the ego entity created by the human mind is no more but the consciousness in which that individual was operating in never dies.

As Andrei_Volkov answered, the Buddhist perspective likens consciousness to a vast ocean. The Five Aggregates are what happens as consciousness becomes embroiled and enmeshed in straits and currents, like tidepools on the coastline where water can be "trapped". If it mixes with pollutants here, it will still contain them if swallowed by a stork or channeled elsewhere. This is karma and it is a causative process stretching infinitely.

The human brain reasons and automates judgement which can blind one and veil true causation and the true nature of things. For instance, the human brain contains two dedicated regions in the parietal lobe: one to keep track of the body's boundaries ("elbow: check! nose: check! right arm: check!..." and another to keep track of the body in space. These regions greatly contribute to the human sense of ego or I-ness or self. There is no afterlife for this sense of self that is delimited by skin and bound in space. However, consciousness channeled through the eddies of the individual will forever return to the ocean (rebirth) carrying the traces of its course (the five aggregates).

Nirvana, the great blowing or washing out, is only possible when the water returns to its pure and primordial state. Death will always accompany life, and to the Buddhist death is only a turning point on a great wheel of eternity. Nirvana refers to the complete freedom, beyond conception. Nirvana is not a possibility only after death. Despite the rendering of the phrase "to enter Nirvana", it is not an "arrival" like you die and you go there instead of somewhere else. It is freedom from the perspective that otherwise glues consciousness to life, but in an ultimate sense - not a temporary conceptualization within an individual mind's understanding.

To explicitly answer your question, Nirvana offers nothing -- and death doesn't exist -- it begets more life. Like night and day, they are just vantages from a stationary point on the rotating earth. The sun just shines and gravity just propels and it makes a whole horse-and-pony show out of next to nothing. Again, Nirvana offers nothing.


If he is really enlightened, he will not be interested in you (romantically). If he is interested in you (romantically), he is not enlightened. The Pali suttas state:

It is impossible for... whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.
Sutava Sutta

However, he could show friendship (metta) towards you. True spiritual friends (kalyanamitta) are difficult to find in the world.


Lack of Grasping of the Object of Meditation

Meditation is non-doing.  However, you must prepare and devote time and space to this "non-doing."  That preparation is infact an act of doing in an effort to partake in an act of non-doing.  What is in the process of being done has a goal.  The goal is to partake in an endeavor of what is not being done.  Meditation by it's very nature creates a paradox for the participant.  The answer is to relinquish the paradox.  How does one do this ?  The act, or non-act if you will, must at first be recognizable.  Then there is a calling to fuse the act and the participant into one state of beingness. How does one transmute?  If you were to focus on the 5 strengths that might be of some use.  Conviction, persistence,mindfulness, concentration and discernment can create a looping effect in the mind whereby the one meditating can constantly reflect on how each strength effects not only the current state of mind but also the relation of the 5 strengths themselves.   The distraction of the mind becomes the essence of the meditation.  In order to break through the thraldom of the senses and the inertia of conceptualized thought patterns the mind needs to be distracted.  To have a goal in meditating is not the answer.  To be able to transmute the energy of who and what is currently proclivitating in and around us into what is our true nature is meditation.  I hope this helps.


The meaning of the story is that spiritual and mundane, mind and matter, information and media - are two sides of the same coin. Our nature from primordial times is pure and not different from Buddha nature.

We think there's some truth or escape to be found outside of this world, but the truth is, this world is only an interpretation we make, the escape then is to be free from the interpretation. The one who gets this is the one who loses all but still has the guts to laugh. We call this, the Golden-haired Lion.


Why we need Samadhi to attain enlightement?

Is widom something like that ? What is the connection between samadhi and wisdom ?

There's a big difference between wisdom and being book-smart. If you have a fish tank full of muddy water, and if you constantly shaking it, will you be able to see through the tank and detect the objects on the other side? How about letting the tank settle on a solid level ground for a while, then see through it? Sila is that solid level ground. Samadhi is the "settling" of the tank, Wisdom (or penetrating insight) is the "seeing through" to the other side.


Is it possible to "over-train" in samatha meditation?

First, physically, you're probably always going to cause some pain by sitting in a strict posture unless you've been doing it since you were young. So if a person had just started meditation and did so with a great deal of zeal, I could see them causing some pain and stress in the body by doing too much at once. They might even cause some permanent damage if, in their zeal to do it right, they won't sit in anything other than full lotus, even when they're causing pain.

The bigger issue though is that, mentally, there's the danger of getting burned out. Thanissaro mentioned in one of his talks he had friends who would go out into retreat alone for long periods and the problem they would run into is making no progress. Weeks and weeks of no progress in their meditation. It must be tough to become a monk, have one goal, do nothing but practice toward that goal and end up making no progress.

I think it's universal: your practice will have ups and downs. There are times where the mind becomes more and more focused, it lets go of all discursive thought, the precepts become easier to follow, and then there are times when it seems you're sliding backwards.

All in all, the real danger, if there is any, of overtraining is this mental burn out, because when you sink a huge amount of time and energy into something, you want to see short-term progress.

As to whether it would be better to do less sitting than more, I'm not sure. Are you the kind of person who takes on new projects easily and then gives up easily when you encounter difficulty? I suppose the more short-term oriented a person is, the more I'd recommend they just take things slow and steady so that they don't run into a patch of doldrums, get frustrated and give it all up entirely.


Is it possible for absolutely everyone to attain enlightenment?

The nature of mind is clear light,
defilements are only adventitious.

-- Dharmakirti

In my view, enlightenment is possible -- if not within this lifetime, then in other lifetimes.

From the point of view of the doctrine of Buddha Nature, all sentient beings possess the inherent seed for enlightenment. The Dalai Lama says:

  Every sentient being—even insects—have Buddha nature. The seed of Buddha means consciousness, the cognitive power—the seed of enlightenment. That’s from Buddha’s viewpoint. All these destructive things can be removed from the mind, so therefore there’s no reason to believe some sentient being cannot become Buddha. So every sentient being has that seed.

Logically, karma must have fruition, and the mindstream follows the path of Samsara endlessly until it reaches Nirvana. Otherwise, it will always reincarnate, experiencing karma in the process. All karma is impermanent, as Buddhism suggests. From these premises, any karma -- negative or positive -- must come to an end. Even individuals having committed much negative karma, as Milarepa or Angulimala, reached high levels of spiritual capacity.

As to your question more specifically, for individuals cognitively impaired, such individuals may develop merit within their lifetimes, which will help them in future lives, even if they don't follow the path in its entirety.

To perceive this lifetime and the next as fully separate is against the idea of dependent origination, entailing linkage between cause and consequence. From the view of emptiness, the division of this life and the next -- as well as many other such divisions -- is empty of intrinsic nature: it exists on the basis of appearance alone. Merit, from this point of view, is indistinct from the realization of the spiritual path; the Buddha committed many compassionate acts in previous lives which furthered his enlightenment.

Therefore, from the view of the two truths of Nagarjuna, merit is karmically linked with enlightenment, on the basis of conventional reality's cause and effect. In other words, merit furthers enlightenment, and can be developed by individuals incapable of deeper cognition.

From the point of view of ultimate reality, in the same framework, I recall visiting a Buddhist temple where a Tibetan master explained how emptiness entails a division into parts. Even if a person cannot fulfill enlightenment in this lifetime, they can contribute to it in by right deeds, and even with very partial deeds. If compassion meditation consists in various altruistic intentions towards others, then why not a few intentions? Even one intention? Anything a person is capable of may fulfill a virtuous purpose.

For someone unable to commit any action on the basis of great disease or such things, then their life may consist in experiencing negative karma accumulated previously. In diminishing this karma they also promote later enlightenment.

In sum, I suggest enlightenment should be perceived in the context of multiple lifetimes. Otherwise, many individuals might conclude it is not possible for them, and commit detrimental acts. They would be forgetting the wholeness which the Buddhist path possesses.

P.S.: Isn't it that even for people deficient in a cognitive sense, that their minds still possess the capacity for virtuous and detrimental acts? Any mind entails various possibilities, leading either towards or away from enlightenment. And if a person failed to have the capacity of choice, i.e. the capacity for intention, then I'm unsure how this lack of intention would arise karmically speaking. In any case, I wish this helps!


Admittedly, I am not a well-versed student of Zen ... or Buddhism for that matter. However, I will offer my interpretation: Before you achieve enlightenment you will have to do chores associated with everyday living. Then, even after becoming enlightened, you will still have to do the same chores - becoming enlightened does remove the need to deal with everyday things.


What is the difference between Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya?

Chogyam Trungpa explained dharmakaya as the experience of the ultimate, nirmanakaya as coming at peace with the relative, and sambhogakaya as an ability of practitioner-turning-teacher to skilfully join together the ultimate and the relative, to keep a foot in both worlds and facilitate communication between the two:

1. Dharmakaya

  "Dharmakaya has no categories; dharmakaya is simply being awake. It is the first achievement of a buddha; the first glimpse of vajra-like samadhi. Vajra-like samadhi means cutting through everything, completely and thoroughly. You cut through psychological and spiritual materialism and you cut through the notion of perfectionism as well."

  "[At this stage] there maybe uncertainty as to how perceive things, and you don't know how to make a particular situation graspable. Our reaction to the world is uncertain and bewildered, and strategies and planning have not yet formed."

  "The dharmakaya aspect is basic openness or ambiguity. We could say that a buddha actually sees the world from a nonreference point of view. They see that the world can exist without a reference point, that reference points are no longer applicable. When you possess such an enlightened view, you attain dharmakaya, the body of nonreference point. Dharma means "the highest norm of the universe", which is nonreference point. Kaya refers to the achievement of that particular experience."

  "With no praise and no blame, we accept and realize our thought process as it is -- but with a touch of nonfixation and without holding on to thoughts."

2. Nirmanakaya

  "In the niramanakaya aspect, the second stage of this process, there is clarity. You develop a clear idea of the situation and how to organize things. According to my tradition, that is the realistic way of looking at things. Even if you are a great teacher or a buddha, you still have a body and that body behaves more or less the same as other people's bodies. The necessities of eating, shitting, wearing clothes, and combing your hair are basically the same as anybody else's."

  "It is in that acceptance of the universe, within that particular frame of reference, that the nirmanakaya buddha functions."

3. Sambhogakaya

  "Third, you begin to make a relationship between the two. In order to make a link between the openness and clarity, we have the third aspect, or sambhogakaya. The sambhogakaya bridges the gap between the basic openness or ambiguity of dharmakaya and the very specific organized clarity of nirmanakaya. So the three kayas are the subtle world, the direct world, and that which goes back and forth between the subtle and direct worlds in order to survive on earth."

  "Sambhogakaya means 'complete joy', it is beyond any kind of inhibition. Having gone through constant struggle and discipline of practicing the bodhisattva's work of compassion, whatever you feel can be communicated or taught. There is a need for articulation... You have to do something, you have to proclaim."

  "[However, ] you can't just say, 'Come and look at me'. You have to be very skillful, particularly if you proclaim yourself as an enlightened person, for then you have a heavier burden. So the sambhogakaya involves a sense of relationship (as in, being able to relate -- AV). You know the place, you know what kind of crowd you're going to get, and you know what you are going to say."

  "This communication between your non-manifested and manifested levels ... includes all forms of communication, such as physical gestures, facial expressions, and how you present yourself in all kinds of ways."

4. Svabhavikakaya

  "The fourth kaya, svabhavikakaya, is the whole thing, the total panoramic experience. When we realize the link between the three kayas, that totality is known as svabhavikakaya. The svabhavikakaya is a state of mind that is known as transcending birth, cessation, and dwelling."

  "Since you have no fear, you seem to know everything in the very highest sense. You know how to handle things."


There is a good analysis of this, with regards to negative states of mind, in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta (MN 138).

Concerning the external scattering and diffusion of consciousness:

  "How is consciousness said to be scattered & diffused? There is the
  case where a form is seen with the eye, and consciousness follows the
  drift of (lit.: 'flows after') the theme of the form, is tied to the
  attraction of the theme of the form, is chained to the attraction of
  the theme of the form, is fettered & joined to the attraction of the
  theme of the form: Consciousness is said to be externally scattered &
  diffused.

And the same applies to the other senses.

This describes how external sensual inputs can trigger a chain reaction resulting in the consciousness becoming consumed and following the drift of the theme. But why does this happen?

  "And how is agitation caused by clinging/sustenance? There is the case
  where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
  noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
  no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. His form changes
  & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of form, his
  consciousness alters in accordance with the change in form. With the
  agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in
  form and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities,
  his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness,
  he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

And the same applies to the other aggregates.

For example, deep within you, you take the form to be your self. If you get a minor injury like a splinter in your foot, this would trigger despair and agony in you, because you take your foot (which is essentially part of the form) to be your self.

Another example is, you may take the mental fabrication of your ethnicity, to be your self. You may strongly associate yourself with your ethnicity. So, when someone insults you with a racial slur, it goes in through your ears, and triggers anger and rage in you, because you take your ethnicity (which is essentially a mental fabrication, specifically a mental concept) to be your self.

So that makes complete sense. Agitation is caused by clinging/ sustenance.

Now if you become angry as in the second case, as I'm sure you have previously experienced multiple times in your life, did you assault or kill someone? I guess not. Somewhere along the way, you came to your senses and gained control of yourself. You just need to ponder this chain reaction and how you gained control of yourself.

The method to control yourself here, is by practising heedfulness (or appamada), to watch your mind carefully. Please see this answer for details.

I'm trying to convince you here that you have managed to control your anger before in your life, so you surely can do it again. And the same applies to other negative states of mind.

There are details regarding the use of heedfulness (appamada) in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205) as follows:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

  (and the same applies to the other senses)

  "Suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedless. A
  corn-eating ox, invading the corn to eat it, would intoxicate itself
  as much as it liked. In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, not exercising restraint with regard to the six media of
  sensual contact, intoxicates himself with the five strings of
  sensuality as much as he likes.

  "Now suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedful. The
  corn-eating ox would invade the corn to eat it, but then the watchman
  would grab it firmly by the muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the
  muzzle, he would pin it down by the forehead. Having pinned it down by
  the forehead, he would give it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having
  given it a sound thrashing with a stick, he would let it go.

  "A second time... A third time, the corn-eating ox would invade the
  corn to eat it, but then the watchman would grab it firmly by the
  muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the muzzle, he would pin it down
  by the forehead. Having pinned it down by the forehead, he would give
  it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having given it a sound thrashing
  with a stick, he would let it go.

  "As a result, the corn-eating ox — regardless of whether it went to
  the village or to the wilds, was standing still or lying down —
  wouldn't invade the corn again, because it would recall the earlier
  taste it got of the stick.

  "In the same way, when a monk's mind is held back, thoroughly held
  back, from the six media of sensory contact, his mind settles
  inwardly, grows steady, unified, & concentrated.

Disconnecting the chain reaction above by watching your thoughts heedfully is one solution, but the other, is to gain compassion out of empathetic understanding or empathetic insight. Why did someone insult you? It's because he did not have control of his mind, because he is deluded. This way, you can grow compassion towards other people and tolerate their shortcomings. However, this method is only applicable when there are other people or other sentient beings involved. You cannot grow compassion towards a splinter.


It's a gradual training. According to Buddha, we need to develop skill at the coarser, more invasive levels before proceeding to the more refined and subtle.

So initially we learn to stop, to suppress, to manipulate by switching attention. Then we learn to stimulate positive emotions through discursive sequences. Then we learn to tune our mood directly through immediate effort. Then we get to levels when we are practically effortless and purely contemplative, but that comes only with great mastery.

From Gavi Sutta:

  "Suppose there was a mountain cow — foolish, inexperienced, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof without having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would not get to go in a direction she had never gone before, to eat grass she had never eaten before, or to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go where I have never been before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would not return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a foolish, inexperienced mountain cow, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains.

  ...

  "But suppose there was a mountain cow — wise, experienced, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof only after having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would get to go in a direction she had never gone before... to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a wise, experienced mountain cow, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains.


Practice of the other three Brahmaviharas

The practice of the Brahmaviharas is comprehensively dealt in Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga. Online resource :- Visuddhimagga.

Daniel Ingram says that the Brahmaviharas are:

  Loving-Kindness (Metta): the natural well-wishing for one's self and all beings.
  Compassion (Karuna): the natural wishing that the suffering of one's self and all beings will cease.
  Sympathetic Joy (Mudita): the natural appreciation of the successes, good fortunes and joys of ourselves and all beings.
  Equanimity (Upekkha): the feeling of peace that comes from realizing that all beings are the true heirs of their karma and that their well-being depends on their actions, and not on our wishes for them.

He makes an important point that all the Brahmavihara practices share common ground - they are rooted in conscious intent. In this way they produce positive effects. The structure of the meditations are similar and it is merely the intent that changes, encapsulated by the meaning of the phrase that is used. As in Loving-Kindness meditation, so in the others we (substituting the appropriate pronoun in the blank spaces) we silently intend:

  For Loving-Kindness: May _____ be happy. May ____ be peaceful.  May _____ be safe. May _____ live with ease.
  For Compassion: May _____ be free from suffering. May their suffering finally cease.
  For Sympathetic Joy: May the happiness and good fortune of _____ always increase.
  For Equanimity: ____ is/are the true heirs of their karma. ____'s happiness depends upon their actions and not upon my wishes for them.

Quoted from integrateddaniel.info


What would Buddhists do to get rid of the feeling of insecurity in relationships?

Insecurity is caused by wanting permanence, is it not? We feel fear and insecurity when we are anxious about the root anchors of our life being unstable.

In truth, one who understands anicca knows nothing is permanent. At a very deep level we must see that resting on inherently unstable emotional platforms and expecting stability is folly.

There is no easy cure for this. We must  at the very least learn to dissociate our identity and sense of self from worldly factors such as a job, a relationship, a degree, a house, a bank balance etc. This can be done through any of the several forms of vipassana.

In the end, we must lose all sense of self by seeing its illusory nature.

What helps me is to take time out to go on a retreat and try to solve a sticky problem in my life through better understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha.

ULTIMATELY, there can be no perfect relationship where no one hurts the other, or misunderstands. If there were such perfection possible, then that would replace the dhamma, and everyone would aspire for the perfect parent or partner. These imperfections in relationships are our teachers, helping us realize the futility of chasing happiness in relatives and family. Every pleasure carries with it a tragedy - pleasure and pain cannot be separated. One can only go beyond both.

Update: (This was part of my original answer but because of a bug in the mobile client of StackExchange it didn't get posted.)

Here is a short meditation mindfulness exercise by Thich Nhat Hanh to deal with anxiety in the immediate moment.

  Sit comfortably. Close your eyes if possible. Gently focus your
  attention on your breathing. Don’t worry about deepening or
  controlling it in any way…just notice.

  As your breathe in, say to yourself “I am breathing in.”

  As you breathe out, say to yourself “I am breathing out.”

  Continue for one minute.

  The effects are cumulative, so the more often you do it, the faster
  your overall level of calm increases.

  “Breathing in, I calm body and mind. Breathing out, I smile. Dwelling
  in the present moment I know this is the only moment.” – Thich Nhat
  Hanh