How can the sensations of the meditation object (attention to the breath) be made more noticeable?

Being mindful of the rise and fall of the abdomen is what you do when other phenomena are not occurring. If you are seeing mental images, note "seeing...seeing...." When the images fade, return to the rise and fall of the abdomen.

From Venerable Yuttadhammo's booklet, How to Meditate, A Beginner's Guide to Peace:

  It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our
  first object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the
  motion of the abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a
  default object of meditation for us to return to at any time.

and:

  In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the
  body, one should fix one's attention on it, discarding the
  abdomen and focusing on the sensation. If a feeling of
  pain should arise, for example, one should take the pain
  itself as a meditation object.

  Any one of the four foundations may serve as a
  meditation object, as all four are aspects of reality. It isn't
  necessary to stay with the rising and falling of the
  abdomen at all times.

From Practical Vipassana Meditation Exercises by the Mahasi Sayadaw:

  In short, whatever thought or reflection occurs should be noted. If you imagine, note as 'imagining'. If you think, 'thinking'. If you plan, 'planning'. If you perceive, 'perceiving'. If you reflect, 'reflecting'. If you feel happy, 'happy'. If you feel bored, bored. If you feel glad, 'glad'. If you feel disheartened, 'disheartened'. Noting all these acts of consciousness is called cittānupassanā.

  Because we fail to note these acts of consciousness, we tend to identify them with a person or individual. We tend to think that it is 'I' Who is imagining, thinking, planning, knowing (or perceiving). We think that there is a person who from childhood onwards has been living and thinking. Actually, no such person exists. There are instead only these continuing and successive acts of consciousness. That is why we have to note these acts of consciousness and know them for what they are. That is why we have to note each and every act of consciousness as it arises. When so noted, it tends to disappear. We then go back to noting the rising and falling of the abdomen.

So just note "seeing...seeing..." with your mental images until they fade away then go back to the rising and falling.


How does enlightenment relate to the higher realms of existence?

The higher realms are not directly related to enlightenment although some higher realms (such as the moral humane 'human' realm or the meditative jhana 'godly' realm) can help with reaching enlightenment. Thus, some (but not all) higher realms precede enlightenment rather then result from enlightenment.

The word 'existence' or 'bhava' generally refers to attaching to things as 'self' thus, as described in AN 4.123, for example, any attachment, self-becoming or 'ego-existence' in a higher realm will eventually lead to 'hell' ('suffering'; 'torment'; 'despair').

In short, enlightenment cannot precede from or result in any kind of 'existence' ('bhava') since enlightenment ends 'ego-existence'.


How can I as a layperson approach the discourses given to monks?

The four noble truths & dependent origination simply explain how suffering comes to be & how this suffering can be ended.

As a layperson, it is inevitable you suffer (for example, when your motor car is damaged in car accident). Therefore, you  can use these teachings to understand & overcome your suffering.

For example, your motor car is damaged in an accident. You reflect:

I am suffering because I am attached to the car & do not want the car to be damaged.
However, this wanting & suffering is ignorant because the Buddha taught all material & conditioned things are subject to damage & impermanence. Therefore it is ignorant of me to suffer over things that are inevitably prone to damage & impermanence.
Also, the motor car is not-self. It is not really 'mine'. It is only something I use temporarily.

The above is an example of how to use the four noble truths & dependent origination to understand & end the everyday suffering of a lay person.

If you do not clearly understand the four noble truths, it is:

All suffering is summarised as attachment to the five aggregates.
This suffering arises when there is craving that leads to new self-becoming.
This suffering ends when craving ends.
The noble eightfold path is the way to end suffering, which is summarised as using mindfulness to bring wisdom (right view) to sense experience.

If you do not clearly understand dependent origination, it is simply the same as the four noble truths but more detailed, in that it traces the arising of suffering back to ignorance. It states:

Ignorance conditions ignorant mental formations.
Ignorant mental formations condition an ignorant consciousness.
Ignorant consciousness conditions an ignorant mind & body.
An ignorant mind & body condition ignorant sense organs.
Ignorant sense organs condition ignorant sense experience.
Ignorant sense experience conditions ignorant feelings.
Ignorance feelings condition craving.
Craving conditions attachment.
Attachment conditions self-ego-becoming.
Becoming conditions the birth of self-identity. (eg. 'My motor car').
Birth conditions aging-&-death (eg. 'My motor car is destroyed & dead).
Aging-&-death conditions sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair & all sufferings.

Therefore, if ignorance is ended by reflecting: "material & conditioned things are impermanent", the craving, attachment, becoming, birth & death that cause suffering will not arise. The mind will be free from suffering about motor cars.


Are "Saya Asadharana Nana" part of Nibbana?

Yes, the Buddha attained each of these knowledges at the moment of enlightenment.

No, the knowledges are mundane, and thus sankhata (formed). They are a by-product of the Buddha's specific enlightenment, not qualities of nibbana itself, which has only three qualities, viz. voidness, signlessness, and desirelessness.


Is Yogacara Buddhism still practiced today?

Yogacara as a distinct institutional school of Buddhism is almost totally extinct. There are two temples of the Hosso sect (which is the only remaining sect of Buddhism that calls itself Yogacara) of Buddhism in Japan ( Kōfuku-ji and Yakushi-ji) but that's really about it.

However, Yogacara as a distinct theoretical school has been preserved both in East Asia and also in Tibet. Within China, many Yogacara texts translated by Xuanzang are still read, and are incorporated into Chinese Zen.

Within Tibet, Yogacara has been preserved as part of the teachings on the different Tenet systems. Usually Yogacara is classified as being just below Madhyamaka in terms of the profundity of the view, so relatively few people accept all of its doctrines as the highest teaching, but it was very influential in a lot of meditational teachings in Mahamudra, some of the general terminology, and many in the Nyingma school combine Yogacara and Madhyamaka, using Madhyamaka as the perfect model for describing ultimate truth (i.e. emptiness) and using Yogacara as a model for describing conventional truth as all things appearing from the storehouse consciousness as a result of karma.

Also, in Tibet there is a tradition of Madhyamaka called Shentong which takes the teachings of Buddha nature as definitive, and a large amount of their vocabulary is derived from Yogacara. Some have criticised Shentong for bending certain Yogacara doctrines to make them fit, but it is a very popular interpretation within the Kagyu and Nyingma schools.

In brief, there aren't any Buddhist sects around nowadays that explicitly say "We are the Yogacara school" but the Yogacara teachings are still very much alive as a set of doctrines passed down.


We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.


Is there a compassion only Buddhist path?

The recent scholarship that Hanson is referring to  is probably this, by Richard Gombrich, the eminent British academic scholar of Buddhism:

Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism

This abstract mentions other places where Gombrich explicated his thesis:

  Gotama Buddha taught that compassion can produce enlightenment. So
  Richard Gombrich claims, based most notably on his reading of the
  Tevijja Sutta. First announced in his 1996 How Buddhism Began,
  Gombrich revisited this thesis (his “discovery”) the next year in his
  Gonda Lecture, “Kindness and Compassion as Means to Nirvana in Early
  Buddhism” and has returned to it more recently in his 2009 What the
  Buddha Thought.

Despite Gombrich's rather radical assertion, now almost 20 years ago, I have never been able to find any direct discussion of it by other authors either Western or of any tradition of Buddhism (the above paper is about the neuroscience of the issue). I suspect that is because it is so earthshaking for the Theravada -- effectively saying that they have been missing something huge in the Pali Canon for millenia -- that nobody would touch it with a ten-foot katvanga.

My own speculation (totally unsupported by any scholarship) is that Gombrich may have uncovered the hidden and forgotten roots of the Mahayana in the Pali Canon, but has mistaken it as an either-or doctrine when in fact it is meant -- and was developed by the Mahayana -- as a coordinate path to the highest enlightenment: you need both wisdom (Pañña, Prajna) and compassion, and at the highest level they actually become one.

Addendum -- 8/27/2015. I have since found this rejoinder to Gombrich by Bikkhu Bodhi, the distinguished Theravada scholar and translator. The nub of his objection to Gombrich's proposal is this:

  But Gombrich then goes on to argue that for the Buddha union with
  Brahmà is simply a metaphor for Nibbàna, and thus he concludes the
  Buddha taught that kindness ... was a way to salvation (p. 62). Such
  an inference, however, cannot stand, for in many texts the Buddha
  declares the divine abodes to be inadequate for attaining Nibbàna
  (e.g. DN 17, MN 83, MN 97, etc.); it would also mean that paññā,
  insight or wisdom, is not needed for final liberation. Gombrich is not
  unaware of the texts that contradict his position, but he casually
  dismisses them as the work of the compilers of other suttas (p. 61).
  The contrary evidence, however, is just too weighty to allow such an
  easy way out.


Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman?

may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything

I think that:

'Atman' is more commonly used in Hinduism
Buddhism usually denies that 'Atman' exists ... the more usual Buddhist doctine is 'anatman': according to Buddhism, 'anatman' is a better description of the world
Anatman is a word whose definition is a negative (negation) of Atman.
'Atman' is a word but not necessarily a reality (the mere fact that a word exists doesn't imply that what it's describing exists: see for example "unicorn").

So Atman is a word with a meaning, which other schools (not Buddhism) claimed had existence.

When some schools of Buddhism were trying to describe something (i.e. 'Buddha-nature') they re-used an existing word (i.e. 'Atman') for that description.

I think it's less confusing to view/use 'Atman' as an adjective instead of as a noun.

For example, this says,

  Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self ? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].

I (perhaps incorrectly) understand that as saying that 'atman' can be used like an adjective to describe anything/whatever is "true, real, and eternal".

When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"

It might be better to say, Atman means "true, real, and eternal" and you can use it describe that which is true, real, and eternal.

  is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self

If a dog is (immediately/already) not a cat, or if the moon is not a finger (or if a chariot is not an axle and an axle is not a chariot), then I think you can say that "it is not" -- without trying to say, "a dog is like the eventual non existence, annihilation of a cat" (but maybe whether or not you call it "eventual" depends on whether you believe in "sudden enlightenment").

  Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities

The Buddha warned about the 'thicket of views' you get into by trying to understand 'self', so I don't understand why you (IMO) persist along these lines of enquiry.

The Buddha specifically said that instead of asking "what is self? what is the Buddha? etc.?", he wanted to teach people about the four noble truths (i.e. dukkha and the way to end dukkha).

Beware that although I tried to answer this I know even less about Mahayana doctrines and terminology than I do about the Pali suttas, i.e. this is my opinion and liable to be ignorant.


Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?

Not sure if such concept has a place in the Teaching. If authentic pride is based on accomplishment, then it's important to notice that "accomplishment" in the Dhamma is just a label, or a word expression to denote how much one has given up instead of picked up. For example, one's accomplishment in Sotapanna-hood/Stream-entry is simply a label to denote someone who has completely given up the 3 lower fetters: identity view, doubt, and wrong grasp of rules/rituals. Similarly for other higher "accomplishments", the higher one "attains" something, it really means the more one has "given up/let go" of something. And the highest "accomplishment", again, is really just a label for someone who has completely eliminated all hindrances/fetters/defilements of the mind.


Is the force of Kamma like a God for Buddhists?

Sure, there is a way that karma could be understood as being "like" a god. It is one of the forces that controls the whole of the universe; it has the world in its power:

kammunā vattati loko
The world goes according to karma
-- MN 98

In that sense, it could be understood as sharing a similarity with the concept of god. That's about as far as the similarity goes, though.
The law of karma isn't an entity, it is a regularity of interaction between moments of experience, that certain types of experience (ethically intentional ones) have a creative force, for either good or bad. It is important to remember that the word "karma" just means "action". So, in a way you are asking "Are actions like gods?" which of course is silly. Nonetheless, the law of karma does act a bit like a god would, only a lot more logically.


You might see also How to explain what Buddhism is?

However for me bit hard to identify how to make a life with satisfaction

I think that the word dukkha is sometimes translated as dissatisfaction.

Is it OK if I say that? You say you've read a number of books regarding Buddhism; so maybe you know about dukkha and the Four Noble Truths already, and so I can just refer to them without explaining them?

Anyway, perhaps "a life with satisfaction" might mean "a life without dukkha" -- and, well, I think that's the foundation of Buddhist doctrine -- how to live without dukkha.

It involves the cessation of "craving", apparently -- perhaps even cravings for "spirituality", if that makes sense (I don't know what you mean by "spirituality", but maybe you're "craving" it).

An opposite to dukkha is sukha (not an exact opposite, but nevertheless). Various forms of Sukha are supposed to be available to lay house-holders -- being ethical, fulfilling all your responsibilities, good friendships, and so on. I might recommend this book for more details about that.

Other schools of Buddhism maybe emphasise that it's satisfying to try to help (save) other people.

I think that some people summarise the doctrine[s] as saying that what's "satisfying" is one's own ethical behaviour -- for example:

  It is the same technique most people unconsciously use to maintain their ego: finding reasons to congratulate oneself, and reinvesting the joy that comes from that into further effort in the same direction. The only difference here is that Buddhists use it consistently with Ethics ...

If I behave well (e.g. generously) then I might remember that good behaviour with some satisfaction (or I might, at least, have "no remorse"). And, to be a bit pedantic, it might be about having good intention, rather than only behaviour ... behaviour tends to follow after, follow from, intention.

As an addendum, when you talk about "life" and "spirituality", perhaps you're talking about what's translated from the suttas as "holy life" -- perhaps that's brahmacariya -- and features in suttas like this one -- or in this formula.

However that may give the impression that Buddhism is only for monks, which isn't the whole truth.


Suggestions for observing Uposatha on this coming Christmas

You should be able to observe it without much difficulty. Everyone's family and friends are different, but at the same time there are many similarities. You should pause to reflect on how you will observe it, and consider reactions you might receive in advance so you can prepare kind responses (to keep everyone comfortable).

For most of the precepts observed on Uposatha, this shouldn't be a problem. Your friends and family likely won't be upset with you for not killing or stealing, for instance. :-)

Precepts five through eight could be a little tougher, depending on the people around you. But they're probably already used to you not drinking, so the fifth precept shouldn't be an issue.

The sixth precept might raise some eyebrows, especially if you're attending a party or family gathering where it might seem odd that you not share a meal with everyone. But you can explain it however you wish, from "I'm already full!" (if you really are; don't break the fourth precept!) to sharing your observance of Uposatha and what it means to you. You should do what feels right, and what makes you comfortable.

I hope you enjoy both your Christmas and Uposatha!


In MN121 the Buddha explains his step by step method for achieving Liberation or Nirvana. This method relies on the gradual removal or abandonment or "giving up" of objects and any boundaries/limits, any separation, any division. First, the gross objects/limits/separation is removed, then medium-gross objects/limits/separation is abandoned, then subtle objects/limits/separation is "given up", and this process of incremental iterative refinement is repeated and perfected all the way until Final Liberation.
This process can be compared with a loop in a software program, a cycle:
var A = AttendTo(any object);
repeat until(A==Nirvana){
    var notA = FindComplement(A);
    A = AttendTo(A + notA);
}

On each iteration of this loop our current object is A. Next, we find its counterpart, the NOT A. Next, we combine the total of A + NOT A and make that our new A. This is repeated until Nirvana.
The first step of that process is to start where you are. Let's say you are looking out of your window and see a parking lot with cars and people. When you focus on one of those people, that's an A. When you focus on another person, that's another A. Any single person or any car can be your object. Then you try to find the counterpart (or the mathematical complement) of that A, the NOT A. If you take one member of a mathematical set, then the complement is the rest of that set. If you take any one object (person or car) on the parking lot, then its complement is everything else on that parking lot except that first object. Next step is to put together A + NOT A and make that your new A. When we combine our first person with the rest of the parking lot, the resulting A = A + NOT A is "the entire parking lot". This is the end of the first iteration.
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire parking  lot". The NOT A is the rest of the world. The A + NOT A is "the entire planet".
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire planet". The NOT A is the rest of the universe. The A + NOT A is "the Infinite Space". The reason it's called "infinite" or "boundless" or "limitless" is because it is spatially all-inclusive without any borders or separation. It is our first serious attempt at attaining an undivided meditation object.
The next iteration is when our A is "the Infinite Space". This is where it gets a bit more tricky. What is the NOT A, what is the complement of the Infinite Space in an even broader context? Can we expand from the Infinite Space even further out? In other words, if the A of Infinite Space is one member of a larger set, then what could those other members be?
(...drum roll...)
The other members are all other phenomena, all other contents of our consciousness! Then A = A + NOT A is the entire consciousness with the entire totality of all its possible states and objects. When this becomes our new A, our new object of our iterative meditation refinement process, this stage is called "The Infinite Consciousness". Again, the reason it is called "infinite" or "limitless" or "unbounded" is because it is our new standard of all-inclusive undivided object of meditation.
The next iteration of this goes as follows. If A is The Infinite Consciousness, then what is its counterpart? What is beyond all phenomena, beyond all states of mind, all contents of consciousness? It is the complete absence of any content, complete Nothingness. This is our NOT A. And what is the superset of both A and NOT A? It is that which includes both "entire realm of conscious experience, with all its possible states" and "the complete absence of anything". This A + NOT A is called "the realm of neither (just) perception nor (just) nonperception", in other words it is the common ground for both consciousness and nothingness. But what is it, really? It is the point of view that comprehends all conscious experience as well as comprehends nothingness. It is the ultimate reference point.
Finally, taking this last object as an A, we need to work harder to find its complement. Could there be anything beyond the ultimate reference point that comprehends both consciousness and nothingness? It seems impossible to imagine. However, if you look very-very carefully you can realize that this ultimate reference point is nothing but a sign of "I", the sign of "subject". The complement of that A is complete cessation of I-making, complete cessation of being a point of view. Which means, it is complete cessation of interpretation, evaluation, discernment, and recognition, complete cessation of semiosis. This NOT A of "neither perception nor non-perception" is traditionally known as "cessation of perception and feeling". And if we combine these A + NOT A, that is if we find the common ground of both, then finally we are done.


I am seeking advice for blasphemous intrusive thoughts

Let me ask you this - which is more powerful, the original thought or the regret and repentance you have for having thought it?  The stronger one is more determinate of your karma than the weaker.


What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers?

That would be an unfortunate situation. Many 'Buddhist countries' have and are fighting wars where people who are Buddhists are engaged in warfare.

What can a Buddhist do if he is conscripted?
Not all Buddhists are at the same level of virtue, tranquility and wisdom. So it would depend.
Some may refuse to kill and harm and face the consequences.
Others may seeks vocations which does not involve killing.
However, if you are to go to the front

Be mindful

Accept responsibility

Never 'delight' in killing or harming, even an enemy

Contemplate the drawbacks of hate, the ego, self-views (collective and individually)

Once a week keep the Uposatha practice (re: Visakha uposatha sutta)

Practice metta (to one's colleagues and even the enemy, remembering that one could have born into the other side, and be fighting his current comrades.)

Samsara is a dangerous place, there are many times and places where hearing and practicing the Dhamma is impossible. So it is also worth considering to contemplate 'what do buddhists do in situations which are conducive for the Dhamma?'. Many waste such rare opportunities, squander it chasing after sensual pleasures and feeding the ego.


Good Brahman, good householder,
sure is it that good householder's intent is not so kusala provoking intended, but anyway my person will answer for what ever, who ever, can be healed:

Is it demerit to give donations to sick non-Buddhists?

Not at all, but always good to give to the sick. Not a single being not worthy to receive the basic means for life, even if a 'bad' one. Sure, such merits are most in sphere of Sila in ones relation or not that upwardly, yet secure not usuall fall down and keep ones level.

If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma?

One can not force or stop anothers beings actions, kamma, nor fruits. Yet one can provide with conditions that certain fruits could ripe. What one gives he gain and given can be only what one has gained/one has. Taking on given is the receivers thing, being touched and where.
**There are five proper times/occasions, always good to give and toward anyone, even if not beloved, enemy, bad: **

when a being approaches new (one comes)

when a being leaves

in times of sickness

in times of hunger

and best and alway, with merits strong upward: to those with virtue, metta (Ariya, training for Ariya)
  In the proper season they give —
  those with discernment,
  responsive, free from stinginess.
 Having been given in proper season,
  with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
  — straightened, Such —
  their offering bears an abundance.
  Those who rejoice in that gift
  or give assistance,
   they, too, have a share of the merit,
  and the offering isn't depleted by that.
   So, with an unhesitant mind,
   one should give where the gift bears
   great fruit.
      Merit is what establishes
      living beings in the next life.

If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala?

One isn't urged to control or teach other lessons since most not even able to have oneself under control. Such thought's a strong connected with defilements and wrong view.
If really wise, one gives always if one is able to without harm (against precepts, rules bond to)

If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm?

Sure, if deliberately seeking of non-support of the Noble Sangha, being an outcast, one is sure to walk straight toward hell. Yet, not to forget is that ones perception counts of what is perceived and how to react on it.
As for giving to the Sangha, even if defacto only perceived as such, not Noble yet, see 'former' Bhante Varados last suspicious gift before he actually headed toward highest, gained firm path of release:
MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ

Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann?

Supreme leader of the Dhamma is the Buddha, and if perceiving the Tatagatha, one is wise to be quick. It's always of high results to give toward the Sangha of the Buddhas disciples (monks).
As for Johann, good householder wouldn't be able, since he had turned over the bowl long time ago toward householder Dhammadhatu and those bound to him.
(And serious asked: aside that there is NO way one could make my person receive money even indirectly and seldom one would meet even other possibility if no Upanissaya, even if strong wishing, does good householder think that in good ten years dwelling as beggar in spheres good householder dwells even the effort of giving a spoon of rice was made? If not simply sharing forward the merits of others, there wouldn't be any reason to enter this outwardly homeland of marxists and traders void of basics. As if a monk would look for alms under not so wise Devas or hundry ghosts.)

What is the karmic destination of the troll, who solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists?

It's not a matter whether Buddhist or non in regard of giving at the first four proper times. If one lives in dependency of the Buddhaparisa and in certain corrupt way leads their wealth outside, such is of course demeritious. As for praise and prefer of what is to be blamed or minor, such leads also downwardly.
As for 'troll': Three things are praised, encouraged by wise: support of parents, generosity, go forth. Someone calls someone encouraging toward generosity, even at certain right time, is therefore to be seen as fool.
Often has good householder be told about the unfortune Moneylender, heirless and not able to enjoy his whealth as he destroyed his merits by having doubts later... disregarded Sublime.
And as the Buddha warned, less more harmful for oneself as to discourage others from doing good, generosity.
So may good householder have ways to possible not fulfill a complete transgression, or finds ways to confess and apologize, so that, aside of not able to run away from the poorness he will meet, may be able to wander on.
As the Buddha told: be quick!
Be quick in doing
  what's admirable.
  Restrain your mind
  from what's evil.
  When you're slow
  in making merit,
 evil delights the mind.

Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

While such are kusala thought, they are bond to heavens, Samsara. If able to practice vosaga, real giving and abound desires after garlands of the mind at all, if such done as effect of insight: much mudita, yet in householders really bad situation, possible difficult before not having solved old and out of the hole of transression.
Best wishes, metta & mudita
Addition because useful for understanding the comments since easy disappearing often:

And at least, in regard of householders bad advise, in his answer, to do not seek for the Noble Ones for ones generosity: Indeed, Noble Ones, at least an Arahat, is not in need, or wishes for gifts, yet not only Dhammadhatu would need a punsh of merits and really a missery when cutted off by ones stupidy... encouraging public to don't give toward the Sangha in a Dhammic room, possing there to be a wise and Noble one.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]


Avoiding Triggers that can generate negative karma

From the Zen perspective and referring to the first comment of user5954246 below your question, it is absolutely ok how you deal with this situation. There is no real right or wrong here (if they exist at all). Remember… if you're not able to adopt a state of peacefulness and calmness for your own, you won't be able to share this with other people around you. So for the moment everything is fine.

Let's assume this Status quo will last for the next period of time, may be you will notice how this distance to the mentioned person will relax you and your thoughts and in one or two months you'll become much more laid-back during the next encounter with him or her.

In my opinion it is very good invested time to ask yourself the same questions, you mentioned above, on a regularly interval. Give yourself and the other one a new try when the right time has come.

Hongzhi Zhengjue, which had great influence especially on the Sôtô Zen wrote in his "Cultivating the empty field"

  Senses and objects merge; principle and wisdom are united. When self and other are the same, mind and dharmas are one.

Yeah, I admit, it is hard to allow the own mind to play with the me-and-the-other-one-dualism in such mind states, but it helped me more than once in similar situations to remember, that I share more similarities with all other beings around me, than differences that separate me from them.


Sankhara conditions vinjana dependent origination

D.O. is a deep topic that is very hard to understand. Even when someone claims that they understand it, you should take their answer with a VERY BIG grain of salt.

In theory my understanding "could" be wrong too. In my defense, I have specifically studied this topic for years, going over much literature, both in Pali Canon and in Mahayana. I also took into account the (written down) verbal teachings of renowned teachers in the Kagyu lineage.

One thing that is absolutely clear to me is the overall high-level meaning of D.O. Overall D.O. is about gradual emergence of differentiated experience, that is, arising of a subjective experience of a world consisting of separate objects and a "self" acting in the world in pursuit of its objectives. This is clear to me as day, and confirmed by many, many texts and teachers.

It is 100% clear to me that the part of DO from Ignorance to Namarupa speaks about arising of the overall sense of the world, and then the rest of D.O. from the Six Sense Doors speaks about arising of the sense of self.

Now let's zoom in on "arising of the overall sense of the world".

This part is "pretty clear" to me. Not "clear as day" but not "I'm guessing" either. The overall mechanism is as follows:

First, there is accumulation of sankharas. Roughly speaking, in modern terms we can say there is accumulation of patterns or tendencies. Meaning, when similar things happen again and again, they add-up and their results tend to accumulate. (You see, this sounds very abstract, almost impossible to follow - and that's the problem with D.O. This why Buddha said it was deep and hard to grasp. You must be in a certain mindstate to be able to focus and understand it.)

Once enough patterns have accumulated, from these patterns arises ability to recognize and anticipate. This is vijnana or basic consciousness - recognizing and anticipating things as they happen.

Once there is recognizing and anticipating develops enough, there emerge the notions of individual "things". These are namarupa, distinct delineated objects.

Overall this seems clear enough. I definitely understand the overall mechanism, what's left to be clarified are the details of the process and the exact definition of terms used in the old texts.

  When it is said in dependent origination that "sankhara conditions consciousness", in what way and how does sankhara condition consciousness?

Sankhara condition consciousness in the sense that the accumulation of tendencies or repeated patterns is what grows or develops into consciousness. The consciousness literally emerges from sankharas, so whatever shapes and forms that those patterns and tendencies have, is what's going to become the shape and form of consciousness. In this sense, accumulation of certain sankharas is the force that shapes or conditions the emerging consciousness.

  And also, how is consciousness conditioning nama rupa?

Consciousness was defined above as basic ability to recognize and anticipate phenomena as they happen. It is very important (critical!) to understand that phenomena are not inherently separate from each other, not inherently delineated. Instead, delineation emerges gradually, as a result of accumulation of sankharas and development of the ability to recognize. Clear delineation of objects is culmination of development of consciousness. The process is kinda cyclical: the more sankharas accumulate, the better the ability to recognize, the clearer the consciousness -- and as the consciousness gets clearer, it gets better at discernment/delineation, and so the objects become more well-defined, enabling more meaningful activity, which in turn helps new sankharas to accumulate even faster. The process automatically supports and feeds itself forward.

  And then namarupa conditions salayatana again how?

As I understand, delineation of objects enables delineation of "outer" vs "inner" (that vs this). Salayatana (literally "Six Doors") is a phase when this separation of outer vs inner begins to emerge. This part is less clear to me.

  Also, nama rupa -- I have heard many different descriptions of what it is, so i would be happy if someone could give the right meaning of nama rupa.

As with any explanation of D.O. there is no consensus among on what Namarupa means. The Pali Canon literalists keep on quoting the suttas that define "nama" as "mental" and "rupa" as physical, combining together to form the whole person. As you can see from above, my understanding is completely different. I think namarupas are our ideas of distinct entities or objects, "identified forms" or "names-and-forms". You can search this site for dedicated questions focusing specifically on namarupa.

  Going back to "sankhara conditions consciousness", what consciousness are they refering to -- is it the pure consciousness or limited consciousness?

As you can see from my explanation above, it is the discriminating consciousness is what's meant here, the tainted consciousness that naively assumes its experience of the world-of-objects to be the reality of how things are.

  And how can avidja or ignorance and sankhara come before consciousness in dependent origination (because i must first be conscious before i can have ignorance and do sankharas!)?

Not at all. Ignorance refers to the lack of differentiation. Imagine some kind of computer-based vision system before it was trained to recognize objects. This is basically what ignorance is. Once it accumulates enough data (sankhara) it can recognize (vijnana) objects and label them (namarupa).


Most efficient (timewise) meditation techniques to experience joy and bliss?

Joy and bliss arise when the five hindrances (desire, ill-will, sloth-and-torpor, restlessness-and-worry, and doubt) subside.

The desire for joy and bliss falls under the first hindrance. So whatever is the fastest technique to make you forget that you're seeking bliss... that's the fastest technique for seeking bliss :)

Subduing the five hindrances is the "first stop" for all meditation techniques, whether it is breath-counting, breath-following, metta, noting, or devotional practices. Different people respond in different ways to each of these. So try them all out and see which one motivates you to stick with it- that will be the best.

Two warnings:

(1) Joy and bliss are conditioned states, so they can disappear as quickly as they arise, especially early in your practice (and "early" may mean years). If joy / bliss fades, or doesn't last past the sitting time, it isn't a failure. It's the natural passing away of all conditioned states.

(2) Not everybody experiences joy and bliss when the hindrances subside. Some people, particularly those with a trauma history (though nobody knows for certain why), may experience disturbing imagery or emotions. If this happens, be careful about pushing your technique too hard. Some Buddhists will insist that it is a sign that you are not meditating hard enough. Be wary of this kind of advice. Not all problems are solved by meditation, and other kinds of work may be necessary too.


Are monastics allowed to wear lay disciple's clothing?

There's some discussion of that here.

Some answers quote references, which point out that the Buddha allowed footwear in the wilderness and take that as permission to adapt to the terrain.

One says that some monks simply don't go outside at all.

One says that the strict interpretation of the Vinaya can't easily be adapted to a hostile climate.

One says that monks wear warm layers underneath and monks robes as the outer later.

I too have seen photos of a monk wearing snowshoes, and of monks wearing winter coats.
If for example you search for the word "footwear" in this

Modernization? The Great Standards
More than two and a half thousand years have passed since the Vinaya rules were originally set down by the Buddha, and many things have markedly changed since then. Should the rules be modernized and brought up to date? How can this be done?
Already during His lifetime, the Buddha made special allowances for different regions (or desa) outside the 'Middle Country' of North India — where He lived and taught. These dealt with both the workings of the Community — for example, a smaller quorum for ordination is allowed in distant parts where there are fewer monks — and practical measures, such as special dispensation for footwear and bathing. So there is a precedent for adapting to conditions, but this does not mean the abolishing of any rules.
The Lord Buddha also left us a set of principles that can still be used as a standard to judge new circumstances. These are known as 'The Great Standards.' Properly used they should protect against a wholesale dilution of the Rule.

The next section warns against blaming others, by the way.
And ...

There is always an exception in the Sekhiya Training Rules for "one who is ill" so that a bhikkhu may, for example, cover his head when the weather is unbearably cold or the sun dangerously hot. The same applies to footwear, which normally should not be worn in inhabited areas.

... with this footnote ...

The Buddha did make a special allowance about footwear for 'outlying border regions.' In some western countries going barefooted would not be socially acceptable and might even be against the local bye-laws. The Great Standards should be used to decide what is suitable.


Abhisankhāra-māra - The Karmic force

  Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.

  Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of
  birth and death.

  Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned
  existence.

  Devaputra-māra, or Māra the son of a deva (god), that is, Māra as an
  objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Apart from your internal mara and metaphysical maras. The Mara as existent beings are essentially gods with Wrong Views and Wrong Intentions. The Mara that tempted Buddha in particular, was a god from one of the highest heavens Paranimmita-vasavatti, the devas with the power over other's creations. That is not only can they create anything to fulfill their desires, but other create it for them to worship them. Seeing that the Desire Realm was so enjoyable and pleasurable, why should anyone seek to leave it and so try to oppose the Buddha.

So how did such a being came about? Through their former karmic merit. Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.

Unlike the Christian devil, Maras are not rulers of Hell. But in a sense they are 'fallen' in spirit, though not in power. Eventually such a being use up their good karma and fall possibly even the the hells themselves. Of course they are not unredeemable either, if they repent and support the truth, the label 'Mara' would not apply to them.

There is a saying in Chinese Buddhism, to cultivate karmic rewards without cultivating wisdom is the Way of Mara. That is your good karma could bring you high up in the the heaven or as a ruler (or someone in position of power), but without wisdom - and therefore ethics, you could easily abuse your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.

So as you can see, you could be your own Mara, you could be a Mara to others and discourage them from doing good deeds.


Space is one of the 24 kinds of derived-materiality (UpadayaRupa), which is one of the 2 kinds of materiality (the other is primary-materiality, BhutaRupa, which is composed of the 4 elements of earth, water, fire, and air). They're all conditioned dhammas. Only Nibbana is the unconditioned one. Further info. is available at Vism.XIV.34


The Practice of Giving: How to Practice Giving "Thusly"?

Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly?

I think one needs to closely analyze the meaning of "thusly". It's valid to think of it as practicing charity with a serene, equanimous, AND wise mind. It doesn't mean one just carelessly gives to everyone, even if that means giving to evil people so that they'll have the means to carry on with their evil way. Remember the merits of giving is proportional to not only the mind state of the giver, but also that of the receiver:

  [The Buddha:] "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five". ~~ AN 3.57 ~~


How do we guarantee the accuracy and validity of Buddhist scriptures?

I think you are forgetting that those world systems, mythology about the creation and evolution of man, gods, Brahma, etc. were all 100% real to the people of the Buddha's time based on what information they had.  If it makes it easier for you, feel free to reimagine them with the scientific terminology of today.  My expectation, however, is that in 2,500 years, all of those cutting edge theories are going to seem at little quaint, dated, and mostly likely wildly, wildly wrong.

What doesn't change, however, are the core principles of liberation.  These are not dependent on any creation story (as the truths of, say, Christianity are) but are instead derived from direct insight into how suffering is caused by craving.  While you are unlikely to meet any Nagas anytime soon, you are guaranteed to find yourself facing down all of the obstacles to liberation mentioned in the suttas.  The means given for overcoming them will also remain valid so long as there are humans able to hear them.


Meditation leads to the clarity and tranquility of the mind, and such mind is fundamental and instrumental for discerning truths from non-truths.


How do you "meditate on" a saying or subject?

The breath is one of forty meditation objects according to the Visuddhimagga. For the full detail, see here, for a brief summary, see here


What is the Distinction Between Knowledge of The Path and the Fruit?

Knowledge of the path is simply the first realization of Nibbana as one of the particular kinds of Aryas. In other words, the first time a person experiences Nibbana as a Sotapanna, Sakadagamin, Anagamin, or an Arahat is called knowledge of the path. During the path-knowlege, the fetters are destroyed or greatly weakened . Knowledge of the fruit is the same except that it doesn't cut away at the fetters in the same way so it is classified differently.

Knowledge of the fruit occurs automatically after knowledge of the path. You don't have to do anything specifically to make it happen.

Here is a description of these knowledges from the Visuddhimagga:

  Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target 3  set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping
  his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a
  wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel
  contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him
  a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot
  the arrow and hit the target.
  Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge’s [675]
  making Nibbána its object without pausing after the sign given by
  change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding  the  mass  of
  greed,  hate  and  delusion  never  pierced  and  exploded before, is
  like the archer’s hitting the target without pausing after the sign.

  And not only does it cause the piercing of this mass of greed, etc., but it also dries up the ocean of suffering of the round in the
  beginningless round of rebirths. It closes all doors to the states of
  loss. It provides actual experience of the seven noble treasures. 4
  It abandons the eightfold wrong path. It allays all enmity and fear. 5
  It leads to the state of the Fully Enlightened One’s breast-born son
  (see S II 221). And it leads to the acquisition of many hundred other
  blessings. So it is the knowledge associated with the path of
  stream-entry, the provider of many hundred blessings, that is called
  knowledge of the path of stream-entry. The first kind of knowledge is
  ended.

  Immediately next to that knowledge, however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. For it is
  owing to this very fact that supramundane  profitable  [consciousness]
  results  immediately  that  it  is  said, “And which he called the
  concentration with immediate result” (Sn 226), and “Sluggishly  he
  reaches  what  has  immediate  result  for  the  destruction  of  the
  cankers” (A II 149), and so on.

(Visuddhimagga Chapter XXII 12-15, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf )


Why is it hard to breathe naturally when meditating?

In the beginning one tends to control the breath out of habit. The moment we think about the breath we tend to take it over. Even going as far as trying to even it out, make it pleasant, make it smooth.

Sticking with it long enough one can realise that the breath is not completely controllable or always pleasant. Realising this one can think that the meditation is not done right, as if the mediator is failing, however this is part of the practise. Seeing your habit of clinging, of trying to control and seeing that it doesn't work, you slowly and momentarily let it go.

So my suggestion is to simply sticking with it and you'll find yourself slowly letting the breath rise and fall, rather than trying to control.


You get a lot of support and nobody has an inherent duty to give that suppot. All is given by others. It's a matter gratidute at least to care about you duties timely.

To say "oh it's not of great value" is fine, but than one should also stop to receive for that paticula task. And it's for sure not so, that at times one does not work on "low" duties, one is actually practicing for the higher.

If not able to manage simply tasks which are given with generous exchange of all requisites for life-maintaines, even including certain sensual pleasure, if that lazy, if lacking that much on persistance, how would you like to be able to master the Dhamma?

Those high and noble aims require people with effort who master the hindrances. If not able to master them even on this level, being busy with doubt, sensuality, lazyness, ill will... all this "spiritual-monster-ego"-things, how to master anything?

It would be certainly good to get known the sacrifies need to be done, which are done, by one self and others, to get the value of that understood.

There is for sure no problem in living a live of a "beggar" but are you sure that you might receive enough to maintain a life for higher purpose? Would a live of required arosen persistance, effort and no wordily rewards at all be possible to be lived by one constantly giving improper attention to feelings, thought... what ever leads to be astray?

It's good to be very honest to one self and do not misuse high truth for low aims and leave a lane build on defilements cheating.

As for the case that one really takes on the "burdens" of a special beggar, is really willing, than there are always aims.

Don't become one in big debts, don't be or become a so called "(derogative) welfare parasite". It brings joy if free of debts. It is a "hopeless" way if just accumulating debts. So work where you are and what's you duty for now and even a little more.

Having, having enjoyed rightly gained wealth it not only a joy to share it but also to let go of it later, out of wisdom, without any remorse and not based on possible excusses.

See: "AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless" for more on that.

"(only skillful) labor makes free", and only if done Voluntary.

So good to stop certain "ego-trip" and start to work at the actually state and place where one is, because:

  "These two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools. (AN 2.98)

On procrastination and delay:

What ever is not done at proper time, what ever has not been made suddenly, one will later be very sad having not done this merits. What is gone, chances, are gone... just think of how less beings have that much "luck" you have and now, what do you do with that?

See also (especially the later part of the topic: Delayed deeds

"In the youth not managed whealth, in the age not renounced, such is indeed a wasted life", which does not mean that it's not even the best to renounce the fist part in the youth, if honestly. Today many accumulate debts by pseudo-renouncing and feeding on given in the youth and when older they have become really burdened slaves.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]

(Possible extended and modified answer, als well as place for discussion and questions here: [Q&A] Delayed speech as right speech (delay of skillful deeds))


Why is the Pali word 'saṅkhārā' in Dependent Origination plural?

Dependent origination is the cycle of the happening event. Each event has only one decision. There are 2 saṅkhāra for each decision: wholesome and unwholesome. Wholesome saṅkhāra gives good resultants. Unwholesome saṅkhāra gives bad resultants. So, viññāna to vedanā which are the resultants of saṅkhāra must be singular, because it's just the resultants of one decision. Jāti and jarāmaraṇaṃ are same. Wholesome karmma-bhavo gives good resultants. Unwholesome karmma-bhavo gives bad resultants. So, jāti and jarāmaraṇaṃ must be singular because of the same reason.

Above explanation explained clearly in abhidhamma vibhaṅga paccayākāravibhaṅga and it's atthakathā. It separates each event to singular as "saṅkhāro". That's why no direct explaination in any atthakathā, included path of purification. However, it's used widely in difference context such as in VN.A. Introduction.

And this is the example of what I wrote "it's used widely":

  Kusalattika: kusalā dhammā, akusalā dhammā, abyākatā dhammā.

  The "wholesome" triad: wholesome phenomena, unwholesome phenomena, not
  both phenomena

The Path of Purification detailedly exposited the dependent origination follow to 'the "wholesome" triad':

  jarāmaraṇaṃ = not both phenomena

  jati =  not both phenomena

  bhavo =  not both phenomena

  upādānaṃ = unwholesome phenomena

  taṇhā =  unwholesome phenomena

  vedanā =  not both phenomena

  phasso = not both phenomena

  saḷāyatanaṃ =  not both phenomena

  nāmarūpaṃ = not both phenomena

  viññāṇaṃ = not both phenomena

  saṅkhārā = 1. wholesome phenomena, 2. unwholesome phenomena

  avijjā = unwholesome phenomena

You can see whether saṅkhārā are separated into 2 events.

Above quote is my own conclusion. To read it, the reader needs to understand in advance of chapter XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, and some part of chapter I, III. Also, it requires Abhidhamma knowledge in advance, as well.

Path of Purification, CH. XVII, THE SOIL OF UNDERSTANDING—CONCLUSION, DEPENDENT ORIGINATION, III. Detailed Exposition page 547-608.


That is an effect of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ, that appear before your quote.

My link is just a head. There is more information in that book after the head.

For a guideline:

Beginning = complete and perfect practicing of all dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ (achieved jhāna).

Middle = an effect of the 7th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

End = an effect of the 6th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

You must memorize dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ head, and meditate it to get a deep understanding.

Note: I never read throughout the english translation version (my english is terrible), that make me not sure about the translation's quality. So you can ask more, if you see something that is unclear.


If someone says publicly that he has achieved nirvana , can it be true?

From a Theravada perspective, the answer is probably "no".
While not being a sutta, the Milindapanha states if a layperson attains to Arahatship they either ordain as a monk or die.
If the layperson Arahant ordains as monk, the Vinaya forbids them making a public declaration.

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
Page 263

As for the Buddha & monks that declared arahantship in the Pali suttas, if they used the personal pronoun "I", they were only speaking in conventional language. Refer to SN 1.25.


I use Fodian.net a lot.

There are two categories of Mahayana texts, the ones that made it to China and the ones that made it to Tibet.

Within a specific sect or tradition, some sects have fantastic online documents, such as SGI's Nichiren library.

I'm less familiar with the Tibetan ones, but I do know that some of the Mahayana texts also made it to Tibet.

Scholars like Jan Nattier sometimes has to do comparison of the Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan to reconstruct a text.


Please Recommend Pure Land / Other Power Buddhism Books

I'm not sure if you would like some academic literature but here goes:

T’an-luan’s Theory of Two Kinds of Dharma-body as Found in Shinran’s Wago Writings has a detailed description and great diagrams on this topic.

The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine: Ching-ying Hui-yuan's Commentary on the Visualization Sutra


How do the stages of insight before stream entry relate to the suttas

The sixteen stages of knowledge are taken for the most part from the Patisambhidamagga, a treatise attributed to Sariputta. They are also enumerated in the Abhidhammatthasangaha. Some are specifically mentioned in the suttas, e.g.:
udayabbaya

Yo ca vassasataṃ jīve apassaṃ udayabbayaṃ
Ekāhaṃ jīvitaṃ seyyo passato udayabbayaṃ.
Dhp. 113

nibbida

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti yadā paññāya passati
Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.
Dhp. 277

ādīnava

Disvā ādīnavaṃ loke ñatvā dhammaṃ nirūpadhiṃ,
Ariyo na ramatī pāpe pāpe na ramatī suci.
Ud. 5.6

The knowledges are also closely related to the seven visuddhis from the Rathavinita Sutta (MN 24), again attributed to Sariputta (and Punna Mantaniputta).


Is it correct to say that 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

The Buddha indeed spoke of people or individuals, for example, in AN 4.98:

  “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
  “Cattārome, bhikkhave, puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ.

Puggala means individual or person.

Your question is different from this other question. The other question asks about the Buddha saying "I am the unexcelled teacher" - would that be considered as having identity view or conceit.

Your question is about the Buddha referring to a person or individual or self.

Does a self not exist at all? That's not what the Buddha says.

In the Attakari Sutta (AN 6.38), he says:

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

So, there are individuals. There is such a thing as a self.

On the other hand, the Buddha also says in SN 12.12:

  “Venerable sir, who craves?”

  “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One
  craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a
  valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus.
  Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with
  what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid
  question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition,
  craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.’

So, how can we understand this? The Buddha says on the one hand that there is a self-doer, that is an endeavoring being, who moves himself forth and back at will. But on the other hand, when it comes to explaining dependent origination, the Buddha prefers not to speak of a self, but rather speak of the 12 links of dependent origination. There is no suffering person, but there is simply suffering.

The Acela Sutta (SN 12.17) says (paraphrased here):

  Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"

So, this is an important principle in Buddhism. If you say there is no self, no being at all, then that is annihilationism. If you say there is an eternal being at the core of every person, that is eternalism. Both are to be avoided.

The self is existent. However, it is not permanent or eternal or standalone. This is explained using the vina or lute analogy in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205).

  "Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'

  "Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'

  "In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Just as music arises from the inter-working of the different parts of a vina or lute, similarly, the self is like a piece of entertaining music which arises when the orchestra of the five aggregates are playing.

The only way self is related to suffering is according to Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85):

  "In the same way, 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. (and the same applies to the other aggregates)

So, when we read the suttas, we need to understand the context of it. Is the Buddha speaking of beings who do exist in a conventional sense? Or is he digging into the nature of suffering and speaking of dependent origination?


Buddha is pretty cool. Jesus is too. Shiva is pretty cool. There are cool guys everywhere. The real question is what kind of teacher are you willing to understand? Shiva is like falling down a bottomless pit. Which is safe as long as it's bottomless. Jesus knew others like he knew himself and that creates a wonderful basis of good. Buddha didn't like things complicated. a direct approach. He would tell you it's not their responsibility nor his to carry you to the place you want to go. That's on you. They tell us where we could go if we choose to. Now these cool guys look like they might not agree but That's not true. They could see themselves and others well enough to understand they're doing the same work. People have a hard time hearing it. So just take some time a listen. I'm a Buddhist. If I thought there was a superior way to live my life I'd do that. Even if it was prostitution. Gautama did too. So find your love language you wish to speak and use that to learn and share in it.


Does sexual liberalism lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm?

Let me present the so-called Tathagata Dhamma viewpoint, represented by Dhammadhatu. The answer is no, sexual liberalism doesn't lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm. You may want to want to read this answer to see why, according to this viewpoint, rebirth cannot fall into the dhamma of the Buddha. If there is no rebirth, then, logically speaking, there is no rebirth in the hungry ghost realm either.


Is ending up in hell at some point in time inevitable for those beings who are not Stream-Entrants?

The 4th jhāna brahma and above have a long enough age to meet more than 1 buddha, they are not going to hell until they die. So buddha can't say "If you do not enlighten by my teaching, you are going to hell soon".

However, most being are going to hell, included dead brahma, by Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Āmakadhaññapeyyāle:

  "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
  the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the human realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in hell... in
  the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among devas. Far more are the beings
  who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell... in the
  animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  ... "In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away
  from the deva realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
  beings who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell...
  in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts.

  "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
  duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of stress.'"

Hurry up.


Is this a statue of a six-armed wooden Buddha?

"Buddha statues generally show a particular Mudra (a Sanskrit word) or hand gesture."

~ Cited from: Buddha Statue Mudras

Bhumi Sparsha Mudra
Samadhi / Dhyana Mudra
Abhaya Mudra
Dharma Chakra Mudra
Vitarka Mudra
Vajira Mudra
Uttara Bodhi Mudra

Apart from the above listed Mudras there can be a combination of two Mudras or a variation of a Mudra depicted in a statue of Lord Buddha. For example the below statue of Lord Buddha depicts a variation of Abhaya Mudra.

~ Image source: Wikipedia

Since the statue you've shown doesn't depict any of the known Mudras, there is a high possibility of being that is not a statue of Lord Buddha.


How does a forest-dwelling dhutanga practitioner get food?

The page you linked for āraññika dhutaṅga seems to already have an answer:

A "forest monastery" is a monastery situated at least 500 (curved) bows lengths from the doorstep of a house situated on the remotest spot of a village.

This sounds like only a few miles away, so totally within walkable distance.

The bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga must fulfil several daily duties, such as performing his food collection by means of his bowl.

...

When the time has come to go collecting his food, the bhikkhu conveniently closes his robe, takes his bowl and proceeds to a neighbouring village in order to receive his daily meal. Before proceeding to the village, he puts into order all that which remains outside of his lodging and properly shuts down the door. If the path leading to the village is rough, he can tread it with his feet dressed in sandals. However, he must remove them and set them aside just before crossing the entrance of the village. He must minutely observe all sekhiyas. He enters in houses with attention and manages remembering his own location (in order to trace back the house of a dāyaka who invites him to come collecting his food at his home), he avoids entering while not collecting food or in case of emergency. He avoids being too slow or too fast while entering and going out of houses. When he waits standing with his bowl, he stands still neither too near, nor to far from the house. He never waits too long in front of a house. When his collection is completed, he doesn't go to people's house, without good reason. He doesn't waste his time into idle talk. He enters his forest monastery without delaying.
When he enters back his forest monastery, he conveniently performs all allotted domestic duties, such as the storage of drinking water for various uses, or sweeping. When darkness already came down, he lights up some oil lamps. So as to avoid any danger caused by animals, he catches up a stick for protecting himself. He tries to trace back the location of the stars and the four directions (South, East, North, and West) so as not lose himself. He pays attention to the calendar (regarding uposatha days, etc.)
If a bhikkhu who lives in a forest monastery has an unhealthy instructor or preceptor and the monastery doesn't receive any medicines (or medical materials likely to heal the later), he must take him to a village monastery, where he will easily receive all necessary cares. By doing so, the bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga should leave the village monastery before dawn so that he will have reached the forest at dawn time. If the state of health of his instructor or preceptor has worsened, he must remain in the village monastery for the sole task of looking after him. In this case, no worries for his dhutaṅga. The state of mind being the main element, the dhutaṅga is not broken.

So it sounds like visiting the village is allowed (and even required!) for food collection, and staying in the village overnight is allowed for emergencies.


What is meant by statement "the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination"?

This very question is exactly the topic of The Rice Seedling Sutra (Salistamba Sutra), one of the earliest known post-canonical sutras that can be classified as a missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana:

  [...] Venerable Śāriputra then said to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, here today, the Bhagavān, gazing at a rice seedling, spoke this aphorism to the bhikṣus: ‘Bhikṣus, [just like this seedling was born from causes and conditions, the twelve nidanas occur in succession to one another. Verily,] whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.’ [...] Maitreya, what is the meaning of this aphorism spoken by the Sugata?

  1) What is dependent arising? 2) What is the Dharma? 3) What is the Buddha? 4) How does one see the Dharma by seeing dependent arising? 5) How does one see the Buddha by seeing the Dharma?”

  The bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya then replied to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāriputra, you want to know what dependent arising is in the statement made by the Bhagavān [...]

  Well,

  the phrase dependent arising means that something arises because something else already exists; something is born because something else was already born.  [...]
  what is the Dharma? The Dharma is the eightfold path of the noble ones [...] This eightfold path of the noble ones, combined with the attainment of its results and nirvāṇa, is what the Bhagavān has called the Dharma [...]
  who is the Bhagavān Buddha, [the Dharma-Born]? A buddha is so-called because of comprehending all dharmas; is endowed with the wisdom eye of the noble ones and the body of Dharma [...]
  how does one see dependent arising? On this point the Bhagavān said, ‘One who sees dependent arising as constant, without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled, [...] clearly understands the Dharma of the nobles ones, and
  by thus acquiring such right knowledge, sees the Buddha -- the body of unsurpassable Dharma.’

  [...]

  [...] there are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links? Namely, 1) ignorance, 2) craving, 3) karma, and 4) consciousness.

  Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives the six elements [earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness] as a unit, a lump, permanent, constant, eternal, pleasurable, a self, a being, a life force, a creature, a soul, a man, an individual, a human, a person, me, and mine, along with the many other such variations of misapprehension, is called ignorance.  [...]
  The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. [...] three types of [karmic] tendencies accumulate: those that lead to meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to neutral states.
  Karma [resulting from karmic tendencies] and afflictions [i.e. ignorance, craving, and pursuit of objects] cause the seed of consciousness to grow [...] [Consciousness dwells in the impressions produced by karma which are then deposited in the consciousness as representation of objects]
  That which distinguishes between individual objects is consciousness.  [...] When the seed of consciousness grows, planted in the field of karma, moistened by the water of craving, and strewn with the manure of ignorance, the sprout of name and form manifests.

  [...] there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born elsewhere, and yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma nonetheless manifests [...] although things are devoid of owner, devoid of ownership, ungraspable, space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the seed of consciousness born of karma and afflictions will nonetheless produce the sprout of name and form [...]

  [...]
  “Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and from several different conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, rolling along like a flowing stream.

  [...]

  Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by the Bhagavān, as it actually is — as always and forever without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled — whoever fully and truly sees it as unreal, vain, hollow, unsubstantial, as a sickness, a boil, a thorn, as miserable, impermanent, painful, empty, and no-self, [thereby restricting the power of ignorance-produced karmic tendencies] -- such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future thinking, ‘Will I exist in the future, or not? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the present thinking, ‘What is this? How is this? Being what, what will we become? Where does this being come from? Where will it go when transmigrating from here at death?’
  Whichever dogmas mendicants-and-brahmins hold throughout the world, whether they involve belief in a self, belief in a being, belief in a life force, belief in a person, or belief in rites and rituals -- such dogmas, prone to agitation and dullness, are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never to arise or cease in the future.

  [...]

The meaning of this, as I understand it: just as someone looking at a moist seed in the ground sees the potential sprout - same way someone looking at the seeds of ignorant consciousness in the ground of karma sees the inevitable arising of individual experience, and someone who understands this dependent origination of individual experience - necessarily understands ignorance, craving, and origination of suffering. Since s/he understands how it originates -- s/he understands how it can stop. S/he understands the ground, the goal and the path. This understanding is called "seeing the Dharma".

Seeing the Dharma, there is no more ignorance, no craving or aversion, no attachment, no selfish goal-making, no I-projecting, no conflict between "is" and "should", no suffering, no birth and no death. Whatever remains is suchness.

Seeing the Dharma is seeing Buddha, because Buddha is born from the seeds of Dharma and Dharma is spread by Buddha, just like with rice plant and rice.


Please explain when and where to use the terms Theravada and Hinayana

The term Hinayana's usage is confused at best. It's mostly used now as a synonym for Theravada along with some other early Buddhist schools, but some people think Theravada needs to be specifically excluded from that group. From Pali Buddhism, Hoffman/Mahinda:

  It has been a repeated mistake to identify Hinayana with Theravada.
  But at this juncture the denial of the absolute and independent dharmas itself
  testifies to the fact that Theravada is neither Yogacara nor Hinayana.
  Some scholars continue to make the mistake of identifying Hinayana with Theravada.
  The Theravadins themselves never call their religion "Hinayana."
  Therefore, it is inappropriate for anyone to dub them with derogatory names.
  A few Buddhist schools, such as Sarvastivadins, claimed the existence of
  independent dharmas and mainted the pluralistic realism in the early history of Buddhism.
  Theravadins were not among them.
  All in all, Theravada is not Hinayana, and Hinayana is not Theravada;
  therefore, the criticism of Hinayana does not fall upon the Theravada.

I think the idea here being that the term Hinayana arose as a point of doctrinal criticism, one which Theravada did not practice, so it's not valid to use here.

But somehow I'm willing to bet no one but scholars views the term Hinayana so narrowly within its historical context. I think the term has evolved past its original scope.

Hinayana is mentioned in Robinson/Johson's The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction:

  At any rate, because Buddhist monastics were wandering the length and breadth of India,
  the anti-Abhidharma partisans eventually joined forces with the new Buddhist savior cults and other like-minded
  factions to grow into a widespread movement calling itself the Mahayana
  (the Great Course or Great Vehicle--yana: a going, a course, a journey; a vehicle).

  This was in contrast to the Hinayana (the Inferior Course),
  the new movement's pejorative term for those conservatives who did not accept the new doctrines as truly Buddhist.
  Because the conservatives answered the Mahayana propaganda largely with silence,
  they did not adopt any name for themselves as compared with Mahayana.
  Consequently, modern scholars have given them the name their adversaries gave them, Hinayana,
  although without implying any deprecation.

  Modern Theravadins do not like being called Hinayanists--who would?--but
  there is no other current term that designates the whole set of schools that arose between the first and the
  fourth centuries after the Parinirvana and continued after the rise of Mahayana.
  The term Nikaya Buddhism, for instance, accurately applies to these schools before the rise of Mahayana,
  but not after, as Mahayana formed a subgroup within each of them.
  Continued usage of the name Hinayana may expunge all derogatory connotations of the term.
  Quaker, Mormon, and even Christian similarly started out as labels sarcastically attached by outsiders.

I feel it's probably true that only some portion of the people throwing around the term Hinayana actually intend it to cause damage, the rest use it because what other term could you use? You can't just use "Theravada" for everything non-Mahayana and non-Vajrayana.

I find myself coming around to the view expressed at the end, of viewing the term without the derogatory baggage.

Because people often translate Hinayana as "inferior" vehicle, and of course that was the original intent, but I believe it literally means "smaller", which doesn't have to be an insult. The Buddha's concern in the Pali Canon does seem to be individuals, personal action and personal liberation from suffering, not the grand salvation of the universe, extraterrestrial Buddha fields, cosmic Buddhas, etc.

It is indeed a smaller vehicle by comparison.


Killing a bigger animal causes more bad karma than killing a smaller animal?

My knowledge in Buddhism is quite poor. IMO it is a greater sin to kill a larger animal than to kill a smaller animal but this cannot be the case always! Let me ask you a question. Which is easier, to kill an ant or to kill an elephant? Generally the effort and planning you have to go through to kill an elephant is much greater than to kill an ant. The greater the effort you are willing to put is because of the greater intensity of cruelness of your mind which makes it a greater sin. True physicality isn't what determines this. Hope this answers the question


I grabbed this quote from the wiki, in the section "Names applied to him":

"Thich Nhat Hanh is often referred to as "Thay" (Vietnamese: Thầy, "master; teacher") or Thay Nhat Hanh by his followers. On the Vietnamese version of the Plum Village website, he is also referred to as Thiền Sư Nhất Hạnh which can be translated as "Zen Master", or "Dhyana Master".[37] Any Vietnamese monk or nun in the Mahayana tradition can be addressed as "Thầy" ("teacher"). Vietnamese Buddhist monks are addressed "Thầy tu" ("monk") and nuns are addressed "Sư Cô" ("Sister") or "Sư Bà" ("Elder Sister")".

Here is a quote from a website named "Thich Nhat Hanh Foundation:

"Thich Nhat Hanh – affectionately referred to as Thay (means teacher in Vietnamese) by his students – brings the art of mindful living and engaged Buddhism to the world, transforming suffering and bringing peace to millions. Now, in this moment, we each have a joyful opportunity to support Thayʼs teachings".

Here is a quote from a website named Buddhism Guide:

"Thích Nhất Hạnh is often referred to as "Thầy" ("master; teacher") or Thầy Nhất Hạnh by his followers. Any Vietnamese monk or nun can be referred to and are often addressed as "Thầy" or "Thầy tu" ("priest; monk")".

Here is a quote from Dharma Folk:

"But I’m not done! Now what about the name Thầy?**
Many people refer to the Venerable Thích Nhất Hạnh as Thầy. Indeed, this is what most Vietnamese speakers use when we speak about him in Vietnamese. It is also the term we use when we talk about or to any monk or male teacher. After all, thầy is simply a title. Thầy means “teacher,” and in Vietnamese it’s also used like a pronoun with reference to teachers. When talking to a monk, thầy means “you,” and when a monk talks to you, then thầy means “me.”
Regardless, thầy has crossed linguistic barriers and has found a home of its own in the English language Buddhist community as Thay — a direct reference to Venerable Thầy Thích Nhất Hạnh. In this case, no matter how much it confuses me, Thay has become his English nickname, as used by hundreds (if not thousands) of English speakers worldwide".

Lanka


What are the unthinkable (acinteyya) dhamma?

The reason is given in the sutta itself. Pondering on these brings madness and frustration for someone with an undeveloped mind.

  "These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html#fnt-1


"For a person whose past,present and future are the same" from Dhammapada

Dhammapada verse 421 does not say: "for him the past, present and future are the same".
The Pali is:

Yassa (whatever) pure (past) ca (and) pacchā (future) ca (and), majjhe
(middle) ca  natthi (does not exist) kiñcanaṃ (in any way) akiñcanaṃ
(not in anyway) anādānaṃ (not grasping)
He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing — him do I call a holy man. (Buddharakkhita)
He who has nothing
— in front, behind, in between —
the one with nothing
who clings to no thing:
he's what I call
a brahman. (Thanissaro)
For whom there is nothing in the past, the future or the present,
having nothing and unattached, that one I say is a brahmin. (Anandajoti)


What does it mean by 'All beings have a Buddha nature'?

It is not just Dogen's translation. The Nirvana Sutra states that all beings have Buddha Nature. You can also check Mark Blum or Yamamoto's translations.

However, Dogen played with the initial statement. He rephrased "All beings have Buddha Nature" in "All beings are Buddha Nature." I will not explain this point because you did not ask.

The meaning of "All sentient beings have Buddha Nature" is that all sentient beings have the potential to achieve full enlightenment. However, the entity of Buddha Nature is debatable. The following interpretations are traditional:

Buddha Nature as the suchness of the mind of a sentient being. From this viewpoint, a buddha does not possess Buddha Nature because he is not sentient.
Buddha Nature as the resultant dharmakaya. A buddha possesses it, a sentient being does not. You can think of "Buddha Nature" in this context as "What characterizes a Buddha".
Buddha Nature as the mind-basis-of-all (Alaya-Vijnana)
Buddha Nature as a seed in the mind-basis-of-all. From this viewpoint, we would have to water the seed for it to sprout.

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra explains traditional presentations of Buddha Nature. It is a must read.

I cannot remember the passage, but Dogen despised the idea that "We are already buddhas but just don't know it". This idea is that of the original enlightenment doctrine. More importantly, In chapter Ten (On the Four Truths),   the Nirvana Sutra itself states:

  A person might say: "I have already attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment! Why? Because I have the Buddha-Nature. Any person
  possessing the Buddha-Nature has assuredly attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment. Consequently, I attain Enlightenment." Then, one should
  know, such a person infringes the parajika. Why so? There surely is
  the Buddha-Nature. But not yet having practised the best expedient of
  the Way, the person has not yet seen it. Having not yet seen it, there
  can be no attaining of unsurpassed Enlightenment. O good man! On this
  account, the teaching of the Buddha is profound in its meaning and
  difficult to fathom.


Unforgiveable/Unforgetable Past Abortion and Miscarriage

From the sutta quote below, you can see that a person's actions while they were alive determines their outcome, and not rituals performed after death.
Also, please watch this video talk and this video talk on superstition by Ven. Ajahn Brahm. In SN 7, you can find many cases where the Buddha criticized superstitions.
In DN 2, we find that astrology, palmistry, divination, tea leaf reading, magic, geomancy, dream interpretation, making predictions etc. are considered "animal arts" and wrong livelihood for monks.
From SN 42.6:

Then Asibandhaka’s son the chief went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat
down to one side, and said to him:
“Sir, there are western brahmins draped with moss who carry pitchers,
immerse themselves in water, and serve the sacred flame. When someone
has passed away, they truly lift them up, raise them up, and guide
them along to heaven. But what about the Blessed One, the perfected
one, the fully awakened Buddha: is he able to ensure that the whole
world will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm when their body
breaks up, after death?”
"Well then, chief, I’ll ask you about this in return,
and you can answer as you like.
What do you think, chief? Take a person who doesn’t kill living
creatures, steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech
that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
kind-hearted, and have right view. And a large crowd comes together to
offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating them with joined palms
and saying: ‘When this person’s body breaks up, after death, may they
be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell!’ What
do you think, chief? Would that person be reborn in hell because of
their prayers?”
“No, sir.”
“Chief, suppose a person were to sink a pot of ghee or oil into a deep
lake and break it open. Its shards and chips would sink down, while
the ghee or oil in it would rise up. And a large crowd was to come
together to offer up prayers and praise, circumambulating it with
joined palms and saying: ‘Sink, good ghee or oil! Descend, good ghee
or oil! Go down, good ghee or oil!” What do you think, chief? Would
that ghee or oil sink and descend because of their prayers?”
“No, sir.”
“In the same way, take a person who doesn’t kill living creatures,
steal, or commit sexual misconduct. They don’t use speech that’s
false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. And they’re contented,
kind-hearted, and have right view. Even though a large crowd comes
together to offer up prayers and praise … when their body breaks up,
after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”
When he said this, Asibandhaka’s son the chief said to the Buddha,
“Excellent, sir! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as
a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”


My question is that can an average person who is meditating for half hour or an hour a day get these side effects?

Assuming you are doing Vipassana.
Yes, any-type of experience is possible with a meditator.
It doesn't depend upon, "whether meditation is done for 1/2 - 1 hour or by seemingly average person" rather it depends upon , "how dedicatively meditation is practiced?".

You just started in car, for I started in a Bus later-on in a train. I started from 10s to 100s to 1000s of kms. journey.

Yes, symptoms remained same at start.

These were till I stopped having belly-full food during journey or before journey. Sometimes I would complete my journey by remaining hungry for 1000s of kms. and dedicatively focusing on meditation by taking adhitthana(it means to fixate your posture irrespective of room/place is shaking or not). This way, concentration increased, even the continuous noise of bus tyre or train helped me to focus on breath, sensations, seeing thoughts and analysing different sankharas through their body-effect.

Moreover, it was during journey till now, that I have made any progress in meditation.
It's just a start, don't flee away from it. Meditation is not always about merely getting calmness within 1/2 - 1 hr. It takes a lot to really calm and rectify your previous/current bad-habbits.


Because nibbāna of Upanishad and Vedas is sassata-diṭṭhi (eternalism) in brahmmajālasutta. But nibbāna of buddhism is enlightened by ariya at the finish line (enlightenment) of the middle way, that is in the midst of whole extreme teaching around the universe, such as eternalism,  annihilationism, egoism, altruism,  theistic determinism, determinism that only past-life's karmma is cause of present life (i can't find the correct word of this view), accidentalism, nihilism, Marxism, democrazy, communism, science, capitalism, etc.
What is the middle way?
The middle way is ariya-magga (The Noble Eightfold Path), the best balanced teaching which must leads to the complete and perfect whole suffering cessation (anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu). The middle way must have these whole properties as their results, not just some properties:

Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:
By avoiding these two extremes, O bhikkhus, the Tathāgata has gained
the knowledge of the middle path which leads to insight, which leads
to wisdom, which conduces to calm, to knowledge, to the Sambodhi, to
Nirvāna.
....
‘This, O bhikkhus, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: (it ceases with) the complete cessation of this thirst -- a
cessation which consists in the absence of every passion -- with the
abandoning of this thirst, with the doing-away with it, with the
deliverance from it, with the destruction of desire.
...
‘And this knowledge and insight arose in my mind: "The emancipation of my mind cannot be lost; this is my last birth; hence I shall not be born again!"’
ādittasutta (ādittapariyāyasutta):
“Monks, the learned, noble disciple seeing it thus turns from the eye and forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings,
pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of
eye-contact, he turns from that too  re  He turns from the mind,
deas, mind-consciousness, mind-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant
unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, he
turns from that too. Turning loses interest. Losing interest is
released. Released knowledge arises to him, I am released, birth is
destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done, I have
nothing more to wish.”
The Blessed One said thus and those monks delighted in the words of the Blessed One.
When this exposition was done about a thousand monks released their minds from desires without anything remaining.
mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:
"These are the single gold paths to the purification of beings, to the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, to the disappearance of pain & distress, to the attainment of the right method, & to the realization of Unbinding — Summary are the foundations of mindfulness.

Tipitaka studing that heritage from Arahanta, tipitaka reciting, and tipitaka memorizing his tipitaka knowledge, these 3 things make the buddhist practitioner understands tipitaka.


Information on the best vow/Baare to do for a child's health and safety

Try doing a Bodhipuja at Sri Nagavihara temple, Kotte. It seems to help some people. I'm sure there are many other places that work too. Ruwanveli Saya, Sri Maha Bodhiya, Dalada Maligawa are obviously the best places you can try.

As a Buddhist you should make the vow to the Buddha, with virtuous gods(all who supports the Sasana) as witnesses. A good vow would be "if the child lives, we will offer him to the Sasana"

If your child can speak the language, teach him/her the "iti pi so bhagava araham..." verses with meanings and tell to chant regularly in his mind while contemplating the meanings.

Also, if you have money, free some animals in slaughter houses and wish for your child's health.


Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the clinging and stress going on at the five clinging aggregates?

Yes. Meditating on the five aggregates and seeing the three characteristics of impermanence, stress, and non-self, leads all the way to Arahatship. In the words of the Anattalakhana Sutta:

  "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

  "Inconstant, lord."

  "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

  "Stressful, lord."

  "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

  "No, lord."

  (Similarly with the other aggregates)

  "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. 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.'"
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html