How is the faculty of persistence developed?

You phrased that as a personal/practical question, but here's a theoretical or terminological answer.

"Persistence" is listed as one of the Five Strengths but also one the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.

In the latter article, in the table named "Balancing enlightenment factors & hindrances", it's grouped with other factors ...

Joy or rapture (pīti)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)

... as a counter-balance to ...

to be used when experiencing sloth & torpor (thīna-middha) to regain mindfulness.

There are texts which describe "sloth-torpor" -- it is is one of the Five hindrances (Wikipedia), or for example The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest lists some dozens of ways to overcome it.

It's also counted among the ten or six "perfections" ('pāramitā' or 'pāramī') so people will mention it if they talk about the several/various perfections.

It's also associated with 'Right Effort' (so it may be understood in context of the Noble Eightfold Path).


Don't teach Dhamma to those who can't appreciate it or aren't interested

The Buddha not only stressed the importance of right speech but also the right time and occassion to say it:

  "So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~~ MN 58 ~~


Do the words Sacred, Divine and Spiritual have any context in Buddhism?

I don't think we are (nor should we be) looking at sacredness of the idol but rather Buddha's emanation and nature in our own mind. We can find a Buddha in ourselves. That is at least true in context of Mahayana and Vajrayana (emulating Buddha's mind or Deity's mind). In Pure Land however, this gets very Idol-based so sacredness is stressed, on the other hand it's Amidaba Buddha, not Shakyamuni. Zen has tendencies to do the opposite, the story of "cutting off Buddha's head" or famous "kill the Buddha" koan are some examples of desacralisation. With Theravada I do not know but I have seen Thai Theravadins in a temple taking Buddha's sacredness as an idol quite literally, praying and chanting to statue as if to the divine being - at least that was my impression.

Personally, I gravitate towards seeing Buddha as an object of my true self using a specific practise (like certain Sadhana), thus I completely negate sacredness, divinity and refrain from idolising the Buddha in any way. I consider such divine elevation a hinderance and obscuration to be removed in order to realise Selflessness of things and achieve meaningful progress on the path.

Everyone is divine and therefore no one is divine - everyone is the Buddha, we just have to see this capacity.


How many different techniques of meditation did Buddha teach?

Anapana, Vipassana, 32 body parts meditation, Metta Bhavana,
I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

They're parts of what's called the Kammatthana, the Forty objects of meditation as classified in the Visuddhimagga. The wiki page also gives a pretty good summary about them.


Permission of your parents in your renunciation

The rule of requiring your parents' permission for ordination, even if you are an adult, comes from this incident:

  When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.

In any case, most monasteries would not allow you to ordain right away as a monk. See here for the ordination process of the Bodhinyana Monastery near Perth, Australia.

You have to first undertake the eight precepts as an anagarika (a sort of a pre-monk) for some period of time (maybe a year), before undertaking the ten precepts, to become a novice monk (samanera). Then some time later (maybe another year), you may be allowed to ordain as a full monk (bhikkhu). The novice monk and full monk both wear similar robes, while the anagarika usually wears white clothes.

You don't need your parents' permission to become an anagarika and serve in a monastery. You can spend this time to experience a taste of the monastic life, to see if renunciation is what you really want to do, before making a final decision. Maybe you might not like it after experiencing it.

At some point, you would still have to get your parents' permission to ordain. For this, you need to convince them. In any case, you can remain an anagarika for an extended period of time.

I don't think you need your parents' permission to become a novice monk either. But they would probably be unhappy to see you in a novice monk's robes which is almost the same as a full monk's robes.

For more info, read here, here and here.

Another point is, have you decided which tradition to join? Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen etc.? Perhaps, there's more things to consider.


Difference Between Walking and Sitting Meditation

Walking meditation is great to developp awareness in everyday life. The setting is more likely to reproduce what you will experience throughout your day.

While in sitting meditation, there are usually much less distractions occuring.

So, from my point of view of a relative beginner, sitting meditation is effective to empty your mind and experience higher levels of concentration, and walking meditation is effective to help you carry this concentration into your daily life.

Walking meditation is also very convenient when you lack energy, you will usually feel much less sleepy walking than sitting.
In addition, if you already seat all day at work and meditate for long periods of time, alternating between sitting and walking meditation might be a good idea to maintain a healthy life style.


What are the differences between the Yogacarin & Brahma Net Sutra Boddhisatva Precepts?

I take it you know the BNS precepts already, so you're asking about the Yogacara tradition.

I wonder whether this might be close to what you'e looking for (4 major and 41 minor precepts).

  The Four Major Precepts

  Great Ones, the following four parājikas [grave sins] are in the
  mātṛkā [collection of treatises] written by Bodhisattvas.

  Praising Oneself and Criticizing Others
  If a Bodhisattva, out of his greed for benefits, praises his own virtues and criticizes others, it is called the first parājika.
  Begrudging Possessions or the Dharma
  Suppose a Bodhisattva is well-to-do but stingy by nature. If he fails to invoke compassion and give poor people—who have nothing to
  depend on—the things they ask for, or refuses to teach them when they
  ask to hear the Dharma, it is called the second parājika.
  Refusing to Accept Repentance
  If a Bodhisattva, out of harming and terrifying anger, refuses to accept his offender’s repentance, uses abusive speech and, not feeling
  satisfied, hits him with hands, clubs, or stones, it is called the
  third parājika.
  Maligning or Adulterating the True Dharma
  If a Bodhisattva maligns Bodhisattva teachings, or pronounces supposedly similar dharmas and pretentiously establishes himself on
  such dharmas, which come from his own or someone else’s understanding,
  it is called the fourth parājika.

These precepts are in addition to the four grave prohibitions:

  The eight major precepts are the “four grave prohibitions” in the glossary, and the four major precepts in the Book of Bodhisattva Precepts (Sūtra 31).

This link says that's Yogācāra:

  What specifically are your concerns? I just looked at Rulu's translation of The Book of Bodhisattva Precepts and the four parājikas are the same as what is given in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.


Is it sinful to masturbate in Bhutanese variety of Vajrayana?

Masturbation is not a Dharma practice, even in Secret Mantra.


What do you wish you knew when you started down the path of buddhism?

what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism?

Be sceptical towards a strangers advice on the internet.


Respect, attachment to position and aversion to disrespect. (In Buddhism)

Respect should first be given to the truth of suffering, to the truth of the cause of suffering, and the capacity of the dhamma to free you from that. Why? Because if you have no respect for the capacity of the fire to burn you, or the balm to sooth you, then you will only continue to burn.

Respect should be given to the Buddha, as a practitioner who accomplished something very profound and difficult, something noble and worthwhile, and then chose to share the wisdom of how he accomplished that with us all. He should be respected as someone who can teach us valuable lessons. When we see a statue or an image of the Buddha, we respect what it represents, the accomplishment and nobility of what was conquered.

Respect should be given to those serious practitioners who have set themselves out to follow the path laid out by the Buddha, to take it upon themselves to accomplish what amount of that great work that they can. It is hard work, arduous work that requires diligence, and is worthy of respect.

If we respect these good qualities, we will be likely to emanate them. If we do that, we may become free of our suffering. It is good to do so.

This is why.


In the Abhaya Sutta (MN58), the Buddha taught:

  (1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  (2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  (3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  (4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  (5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  (6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."


Dependent Origination in terms of conventional truth or teaching (Vohara Desana) and Ultimate truth or teaching (Paramattha Desana)?

The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination has a "conventional truth". Dependent Origination, as taught by the Buddha, only explains the arising of the ideas of "beings" ("satta") which cause the arising of suffering.

  In the course of the future there will be monks who
  won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep,
  deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are
  being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing
  them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But
  they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works
  of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of
  outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and
  set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as
  worth grasping & mastering. In this way the disappearance of the
  discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.


Relationships with fools: Interpreting the Dhammapada

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku. The verse should be understood properly:

The bad and good bhikkhus were searching for companionship.

They found companionship with Thera.

The bad bhikkhu did not respect Thera, was not obedient and dutiful and was offended and extremely angry when Thera said something to him. Why? Because he thought that Thera was not better or equal to him. Thus, the bad bhikkhu choose a wrong companion. He should have let Thera go on alone and find a companion who is equal or better than him. There can be no companionship with a fool.

The good bhikku was respectful, obedient and dutiful. Why? Because he thought that Thera was equal or better than him. Thus, the good bhikku choose the right companion. He was not in a companionship with a fool.

  One: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion.

This rule can apply and not be broken. If a man and a woman are seeking a relationship and they both think about each other as being equal or superior to the other, the relationship/companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as one will think about the other being a fool, or both will think about each other being a fool.

If a bhikku is seeking a companionship with a teacher and the bhikku thinks about the teacher being equal or superior to him, the companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as the bhikku will think about the teacher being a fool.

  Two: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order.

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku, not from the point of view of Thera/teacher.

If we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha would never have taught the Dhamma to people obviously inferior to him, or less developed than him.
Or if we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha is contradicting himself. But he is not, which can be clearly seen by his actions - he thought the Dhamma, even to fools.


In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist?

Dogen is saying that from Buddhist perspective, a dharma does not "become" another dharma. Each dharma is a "presence" at its time, static in its own quality, followed by another "presence-quality" and so on.

So wood is wood and ash is ash, it's not the same "thing" changing while moving from point A in time to point B.

To this I can add that the temporal succession of dharmas is similar to a set of real numbers - each individual dharma is a generalization, and we can infinitely "zoom in" on a particular moment between "wood" and "ash" to see a some-level-of-burning-in-progress-dharma.

Wood and ash are connected as cause and effect. Ash exists due to wood (among other things).

Similarly, it's not like a living person dies. They exist in succession, first life, then death. Life and death are connected like cause and effect. Death exists due to life (among other things). Therefore, there is no perishing of the living.

Correspondingly, there is no arising. It's not like the newborn was dead before it was born. Nor is it like the mother turned into the newborn, nor mother's egg, nor the sperm. Instead, these dharmas exist in causal succession.

Now, if you think about it, it's not like any given dharma has exactly one dharma as its predecessor - not at all. Instead, most if not all dharmas have many, many "causing" or "conditioning" dharmas. Which one we consider "the main" cause is entirely up to us.

In this sense, someone who lives now is a "dharma" that has quadrillions of other dharmas as its "inputs" - going up the infinitely forking chains of physical ancestry, informational ancestry, circumstantial conditionality and who knows what else.

This is why there is no arising, because it's an infinitely spanning network of static  non-discrete dharmas causing and conditioning each other. The whole thing is like a multidimensional vector space, without one global time dimension.

So, to answer your question,

Past and future are something observed relative to a particular dharma. Past is the transitive closure of all its causes, and future is the superset of dharmas directly or indirectly conditioned by a given dharma.

Ontologically, there is no becoming, no objects moving through time, nor one global time dimension.


What happen before the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven create Samsara?

This is an understandable confusion of 2 mythical concepts:

[Samsara] is the wheel of rebirth, divided into 6 realms:

Niraya (hell)
Preta (hungry ghosts)
Tiryak (animals )
Manushya (humans)
Asura (demi-gods)
Devas (deities)

The Six Heavens of the World of Desire are 6 places between earth and the Brahma heaven:

Chatur-maharaja-kayika (Heaven of the 4 heavenly kings)
Trayatrimsha (Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods)
Yama Heaven
Tushita (Heaven of Contentment)
Nirmanarati (Heaven of Enjoying the Conjured)
Paranirmita-vasha-vartin (Heaven of Freely Enjoying Things Conjured by Others)

The “Heaven of the Devil King” (Māra  in Sanskrit) resides in Paranirmita-vasha-vartin. Māra enjoys making free use of the desires of others to manipulate and control others according to their own will. The founder of the Nichiren lineage wrote:

  This world is the province of the Devil of the Sixth Heaven.  All of
  its people have been his karmic associates since time without
  beginning

Since manipulating someone's desire will have karmic consequences, this can be associated with Samsara, but the Devil King did not create Samsara, nor is it recorded who is assumed to have created the Six Heavens.


What is anger. How it is different from violence?

Anger refers to a mental state. Violence usually refers to a destructive or harmful physical action caused by an angry mental state. Both are originating from the defilment called Dosa(aversion).


It depends on what you mean when you say "God" and "exists". In Buddhism all entities (objects) are abstractions or models, conceptual labels on top of mind-made constructs. So all things really exist in one sense, but don't really exist in another sense. God is like that too. If by God we mean "The Absolute" then it in one sense it obviously exists (since everything is included in it) but then in another sense The Absolute is just an abstraction so it doesn't really exist. It certainly exists as concept or model in our mental world.


Word that refers to a "second chance" or redemption?

Skill in offenses and skill in rehabilitation from offenses.
Āpattikusalatā ca āpattivuṭṭhānakusalatā ca dn33

I think this is close to redemption from wrongness.
As i understand it, the semantics are close to 'rising up & emerging' as a recovery from wrong-doing.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vutthana


As Mishu mentioned, the oldest copy we have is in Classical Chinese. Even though many of the characters of the sutra still exist in modern Chinese and Japanese, there are subtleties that are very hard to translate. The most difficult word to convey into English is the word translated as "no", 無 (wu in Chinese, mu in Japanese). It's not exactly as our word for "no" or "not", the character for this in Chinese is 不 (bu). Both appear in the sutra:

色不異空，空不異色
form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from form.

and

無眼耳鼻舌身意，無色聲香味觸法
no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, nor perception; no form, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects nor objects of mind;

So there must be a difference in meaning, otherwise they would have used the same character in both cases.
The origin of the character 無 is a pictogram of a man holding something in both hands:

This visible etymology is lost in the modern simplified version of the character: 无.
In Classical texts, it means a complete absence of anything, which in English we would equate with void.
The character in the earliest translations chosen for the Sanskrit shunya (emptiness) is usually 空, the etymology being a sky without clouds. It is therefore closer to describing the emptiness of a cup than total void. You may wonder why they chose 空 over 無, since the meaning of the latter is closer to shunya. The reason for this is probably because 無 was already used in Daoist texts, like the paradox of acting without intention (wu wei 無為). Zen (Chan) Buddhists in China borrowed this concept to help understand related ideas in Buddhism (specifically the limitations of language to capture meaning and the lack of substantial being in the cosmos). So Mu in Japanese has fundamentally this meaning: there is no substantiality to things, and language does not capture all possible descriptions of reality.
This is how it's used in the Heart Sutra: it doesn't literally mean there are no senses, it means something like:

無眼: seeing without conceptualizing it (like the difference between to see and to observe, the latter being a conscious action)
無耳: hearing without listening
etc.


Strange feelings after meditation and mindfulness practice?

I don't think you are alone in this. Susan Blakemore in her excellent book Zen and the Art of Consciousness describes almost this exact situation. She paid attention in her everyday life just as you have done and found it very illuminating. However after two weeks of this she reach a point when she couldn't cross the road. She was paralysed as you were. She abandoned this 'experiment' and went back to her meditation and retreats the results of which she details in the book.

I hesitate to give advice in your case as I am woefully unqualified to do it. However it does seem you are having trouble integrating you experiences, you might even be have a kind of alienated awareness experience where you are very aware but not emotionally connected. I think with all these practices wisdom and compassion need to be balanced. I would be tempted to back off a little and engage with some metta type practices - kindly awareness towards yourself and others. But please disregard this - it's only what I would try.


I need to know the names of the angels and their actions in Buddhism

There is no matching concept for the Abrahamic angelic doctrine, because the existence of god(s) is quite irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism: enlightenment, which can only be gained through personal experience.
The only two concepts that could be confused with angels are devas (the same root as our word "divine") and bodhisattvas. However they differ in a number of key properties with the idea of angels.
A deva in Buddhism is one of many different types of non-human beings who share the godlike characteristics of being more powerful, longer-lived, and, in general, much happier than humans, although the same level of veneration is not paid to them as to buddhas (humans). However, they are still mortal and unenlightened. In Buddhism, the human form is the primary form for attainment.
Bodhisattvas in most schools of Mahayana Buddhism are humans who attained enlightenment, but chose not to enter Nirvana, but go back into the world to help other beings gain attainment.


What does "this" stands for in the observation "This is suffering."?

We see this phrase in SN 56.11 (Sutta on Rolling Forth the Wheel of Dhamma, translated by Ven. Bodhi).

“‘This is the noble truth of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to
things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom,
true knowledge, and light.
‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi,
āloko udapādi.

What is "this"?
It's explained in the same sutta:

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering:
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—
Birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na
labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

Also, "All conditioned phenomena are suffering" (sabbe sankhara dukkha) from Dhp 278.


rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas.

Not quite. Birth has a requisite condition as well. It's not the case that our birth was the ultimate origin of our suffering.

  Doesn't it imply that buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth.

Not having children will not stop those beings from being reborn. There are plenty of other organisms to be reborn as on Earth and there are other realms like the Deva world as well.

  what happens if all people in the world stop having children?

The entire population of humans could all die and be reborn as insects today and it wouldn't appreciably increase their overall number: adding six billion to 10 quintillion doesn't even amount to a tenth of a percent.

So removing the human path as a rebirth target does nothing in the way of removing suffering.


E.g. you are a thief.

you get punishment from the law - this can be karma (dittadhammavedeniya) or sometimes not
karmic consequences results after one dies - breakup of the body

So 1 results in this life and another in the next.

Thereforeyou get 2 results.

What is mentioned is the break up of the body and not body of sila.


How to apply meditation in the following difficult situations

Good for you that you're following the path. However, that first year on the path can be a sensitive time as there is a power in meditation. The Buddha talked about this power as being both a way to build your path but also a trap if you dwell in it too long. Meditation is making you more sensitive to the world around you and allowing you to perceive people in a more honest way. As you're seeing, that's not always pretty.

I would suggest you practice right speech, which is a part of the Eightfold Path. Right speech forces us to be both compassionate to others while also being compassionate to ourselves. We should value ourselves as much as we value someone else. In every conversation -- in every relationship -- everyone should be equals.

The Buddha said that good speech honors the other person while also honoring yourself. If someone does something you don't like, it's not honorable to tear them down with hurtful speech. However, it's also not right to dishonor yourself by saying things you don't believe just to make them feel good. You've got to live your truth while also recognizing theirs and do so in a compassionate way.

It's a hard balancing act, but if you can do that, you'll find people will change the way they deal with you because you've changed the way you deal with the world.


During Anapana, why does the breathing become slower and slower as we progress?

At least two things cause this phenomena: (1) the mind not desiring & not thinking, which results in the restless energy of desire & thinking not making the breathing restless & agitated; and (2) what Buddhism calls the 'Nirvana element' ('nirodha dhatu'), i.e., what science calls 'homeostasis', which, like the force of 'gravity', moves the breath towards the equilibrium or peace/stillness of Nirvana.

Whenever the mind is free from craving, clinging & desiring, the mind & the breath will enter into the 'stream' to Nirvana. It is the same as when a drug addict enters into 'cold turkey'. Natural forces purge the body of the drug addict of its toxins. Similarly, the 'cold turkey' of meditation dissolves the agitations of conditioned mental formations stored in the mind, body & breath, making the breath more calm & pure.


If there is no self what or who is it that gets enlightened?

The main point of the answer you cite is that anatta is a characteristic of ultimate reality. Your question misses this and conflates two different paradigms or levels of understanding.

In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you" and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, or thinking.

So, the answer to "who becomes enlightened?" is "a being becomes enlightened." As to how that can be reconciled with the teaching on non-self, there is really no conflict, since non-self describes a characteristic of ultimate reality, at which level concepts like "being" or "enlightened" have no place.


One of Dogen's major teachings is 'practice and enlightenment are one' - what is important for Dogen is continuous effort in the dharma, and the basis of that effort is seated meditation. This applies to all practitioners, new and old alike.

Dogen tended to be disparaging of other schools, but if you want a less partisan Soto opinion you could read 'The teachings of Homeless Kodo' which acknowledges the value of other types of practice.


Looking for help for Practise / Method to overcome distubring external sounds

You know, once I was leading a meditation group when a whole bunch of laughing, screaming children came running through the room.  Long story, that, but it wasn't an issue. Meditation happened. One of the things we have to learn, eventually, is that there are no external disturbances. There are only internal disturbances as our mind reacts to things with anger, outrage, irritation, or whatever. If it's not screaming kids or a barking dog or a low-flying plane, it will be a persistent itch or the hum of a fan or a cricket that's just a little bit off key. If the mind is looking to unsettle itself, the mind will find something to unsettle itself over, and it doesn't matter how big or small, how loud or quiet, how far or near that might be. The mind will seize on it and magnify it into a crisis.

The trick is to realize that the thinking mind wants to be unsettled, because when it's unsettled it has something to do. It can happily occupy itself complaining about or trying to solve whatever problem it has fixated on. When it does that, all we can do is sit with it like a parent with a child, and let it fuss itself to sleep. Part of what we're trying to do in meditation is teach the thinking mind that it doesn't have to fuss over every little violation of its expectations: that a dog can bark or a child can scream and it does not necessarily call for any action or reaction on your part at all. Of course, that equanimity doesn't come overnight, but keep it in mind as a standard for your practice.


Can one practice meditation to gain knowledge about the universe?

Please consider having a better look at MN 63. Here's an excerpt which might be relevant for you:

  It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.


What is the origin or history of the concept of 'Buddha Sasana"?

Here are some pali sutta references.

Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN16_13.html#sn16.13note01

I think it's natural to assume that 500 years refers to the appearance of counterfeit Dhamma but there are people who believe otherwise.
There is a lot of controversy around how disappearance comes about.


When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" thing that is born and dies what do they mean?

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies

The words "birth" ("jati") and "death" ("marana') are defined in SN 12.2 as producing or imputing the idea of "a being" ("satta") upon the manifestations or changing appearances of the aggregates.

What is important to understand is not so much the aggregates but how ideas of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings' are imputed upon the aggregates.

For example, when you see "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my friend", "my enemy", "my favourite pop star", etc; and Arahant, in the same situation, sees only aggregates, elements and sense objects.

  Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

Convention is different than ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, only aggregates change & cease. This is why there are so many suttas that says an arahant is not born, does not age, does not die (example, MN 140; SN 22.85; etc).

When there is no idea or view of a "self", "person" or "being", the ideas of birth & death do not arise.


What you see, in this case, are visual thoughts- they're the same as verbal thoughts. They arise due to untraceable prior causes that are outside of your control, and they can't really be stopped. Mental and verbal thoughts are both "sankhara", conditioned formations. We are all VERY strongly conditioned in our lives to grasp on to these formations, to "believe" them, and turn them in to ideas and visions and further thoughts.

When you focus on your breath (or any other meditation object), you're focusing on something real- something you "feel", like you said- but, unlike thoughts and visions, it's something that doesn't feed more grasping.

Each time your attention goes to your object, you slowly loosen the grip that these conditioned formations have on your attention.

So there's no need to place the attention of the "inner eye" anywhere. Acknowledge and accept that these visual images arise, then put them aside.

Later on, you'll start to see how visual and verbal thoughts are both the product of the same movements of the mind. These movements mean nothing in themselves- they're just disturbances, like swirls of milk in a stirred-up cup of coffee- but our storehouse of memories and perceptions fill those swirls with powerful symbolism and apparent meaning.


At my last retreat, we recited the Bodhisattva vow quite frequently.

Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to save them. Desires are
inexhaustible; I vow to put an end to them. The Dharmas are boundless;
I vow to master them. The Buddha Way is unattainable; I vow to attain
it.

Not the precepts themselves, which were only recited by a preceptor when the precepts were being taken.
I would advise against regularly intoning them; it's an interesting question whether we can take them unofficially. Why not recite the nembutsu instead?


Will most people go the three lower dimensions (hell, animal womb, ghost realm)?

In Buddhism, the 'human' realm does not always refer to something biological. The word 'human' ('manussa') in the Pali language means 'high minded'. For example, AN 6.39 says:

  Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident
  from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.

It appears the Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 are about what happens when the Four Noble Truths are realised and when the Four Noble Truths are not realised. The sutta quoted in the question is only an excerpt. The complete sutta is:

  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

  Why is that?

  It’s because they haven’t seen the four noble truths.

  https://suttacentral.net/sn56.131/en/sujato

The message of the Pansu Suttas appears the same as the message of the Lonaphala Sutta. The message of the Pansu Suttas appears to be when a non-Arahant enlightened person who has realised the Four Noble Truths falls away (cutā) from being human, such as if they are unmindful and perform an unmindful skillful action, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, they won't fall into the lower realms because they realise there is no self that did the unmindful unskilful action. Instead, they know the doer of the unskilful action was the element of ignorance. Therefore, their human status/coming-to-be (paccājāyanti) is not lost.

The Pansu Suttas can be contrasted with ordinary suttas about kamma, which are about the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

It is important to note, in the ordinary suttas about kamma, proceeding to (upapajjati) 'heaven' ('a happy state') due to a skilful action is not permanent. 'Heaven' is not permanent in Buddhism.

In summary:

The Pansu Suttas SN 56.102-131 appear to be about, due to realising the Four Noble Truths, how the human or godly state (paccājāyanti) does not change significantly despite unmindfully falling away temporarily from that state.
The ordinary suttas about ordinary kamma are about  the ordinary outcomes that follow from (upapajjati) various acts of kamma (actions).

Note: The word two Pali words 'paccājāyanti' & 'upapajjati' commonly translated as 'reborn' are different. The word 'upapajjati' means 'to proceed closely to the former' (for example, from performing an action causing pain, one proceeds to a painful state). The 'paccājāyanti' appears to refer to the attainment of a realm status.


Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition.

More particularly:

  And what, bhikshus, is ignorance (avijjā)?

  Not knowing suffering,
  not knowing the arising of suffering,
  not knowing the ending of suffering,
  not
  knowing the path leading to the ending of suffering.

  This is called ignorance.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta

My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara

Ignorance sets the ball rolling. Ignorance is one prace you can break Dependent Origination by understanding the 4 Noble Truths at the experiential level. Hence it is one condition for the samsaric existence.

Other place DO can be broken is but not letting craving arise which results from your reaction to sensations due to contact.

Is there any dependence between these?

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta

But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?

Attachment or it's flavours are necessary conditions for greed. Anger is a form of grief hence you can include anger also.

  From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. For one who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?
  From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?

Dhammapada - Piyavagga


Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

Yes, it is. A wholesome one that ends when you reach the 'park':

  ...
  "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one
  with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by
  means of desire."

  "In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as
  you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire,
  thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park,
  wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence
  allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
  and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent
  allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go
  to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
  particular act of discrimination allayed?"

  "Yes, sir."

  "So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has
  reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the
  true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is
  released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the
  attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
  discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an
  endless path, or one with an end?"

  "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an
  endless one."
  ...
  -SN 51.15, To Unnabha the Brahman

You might also want to read AN 4.159 which also touches on this theme and is an interesting read.


Given that Buddhism could accommodate people's prior religious beliefs, why is Buddhism itself now described as a religion?

As with anything else, that completely depends on what you consider a “religion” is, or what is a “religious belief”.

When westerners first came in contact with Buddhism they considered it a “philosophy” as they could not conceive of a religion that did not have a “god” at its center. The idea of an atheist religion did not make sense. You can see that such bias still exists in modern dictionaries.

But when does a philosophy become a religion and when is a religion a philosophy? Is Nihilism a religious idea or a philosophical one? What about philosophical skepticism? Can science itself be considered a religion?

Although Buddhism is very flexible and personal, it is very clear that to progress in the Buddhist path you have to accept a set of beliefs (e.g., Samsara and the eight-fold path) and reject others (e.g., atman/soul ).  It is possible to enter the path while still holding to incompatible beliefs, however sooner or later these beliefs will conflict with the teachings.

It is also very hard for most people to let go of the idea of a “god”, of atman, and many others. This sets a limit to progressing on the path.


Can karma operate at the level of groups i.e. collectively?

Yes, of course, there can be group karma.

To begin with, individual karma is only a useful approximation. Because of anatta, what we conventionally call individual is merely an assembly point of contributing factors. It is these factors that are referred to as karma. They don't belong to anyone, really.

As per the Hierarchy Theory, useful notions of groups can be arbitrarily designated at any level of observation. Individual being, family, social group, country etc. -- all of these are abstractions. Some of the karmic patterns make better sense when looked from far away, in which case it may be helpful to attribute them to a group.


What is the difference between "Bhāva" and "Ātman" in Pali

Both have their places in Buddhist thought/practice.

First, the definitions:

bhāva: condition; nature; becoming
atta (ātman is the Sanskrit form): self; ego; soul

Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

  In Buddhist thought, bhāva denotes the continuity of life and death, including reincarnation, and the maturation arising therefrom. (source)

So, bhāva could be described as the "seamlessness of existence".

  Although the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self. (source)

And atta is about the person in the moment; though as mentioned above, it's really more about a higher level conceptual "self".

In Buddhist thought, the opposite of atta (anatta) is a generally more significant concept:

  In Buddhism, the term anattā refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions, which along with the perception of dukkha and impermanence is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. (source)

I hope this helps!


Dona asked this question to the Buddha in the Dona Sutta:

  "When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"

  "Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.

  "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'

The Buddha is the one who is awake, whereas the other unenlightened people are "asleep".

The Buddha is not an ancestor to the future Buddhas. He is able to see into future or past through some degree of omniscience, but he is not recalling them.


What is the origin and purpose of the alms bowl used by monastics?

(Disclaimer: I'm going to answer this pragmatically and straightforwardly without any reference since I think it doesn't require any. There may be memorable stories about the bowl but I don't think they are really necessary to explain it. Feel free to discard the answer.)

The alms-bowl serves the purpose of helping one carry the food & prevent spoiling it with external dirt. If you went on alms-round with your hands it wouldn't be helpful for yourself or for the lay people as it would create hygiene problems. It also helps one measure the amount of food to accept, whether it's only for himself or also for others with whom he shares the food.

(As the comments below show, the next paragraph is not applicable, since monks should hide their bowls under their robes until they know someone intends to give.)
Additionally, it helps other people identify readily what the person with the bowl wants, food. In other words, if one carries a bowl around, instead of a hat or any kind of cloth, it is more straightforward what he wants. If one carries a hat or any kind of cloth, it is easier to perceive that he wants money or something else apart from food.

As for it's origin, if I wanted food I would also use a bowl. Why would I use anything else? With this I mean that the origin is not necessarily something special or traditional, it's just a pragmatic tool that anyone who wants food would use.


Is there anything akin to 'Jhana' in Zen Buddhism?

Zen and Jhana are the same word. Jhana is a word in the original spoken language. In Sanskrit it is written as Dhyana. Channa or Chan is how it came to Chinese language, and Zen is how it subsequently came into the Japanese (in English transliteration).
Jhana or Zen means the mind of meditation.
If you ever heard the phrases "attain the state of Zen" or "show me your Zen" - that refers to the same practice/result as Jhana. (The popular image that it refers to being a crazy wacko is a modern misunderstanding. "Attaining Zen" is breaking through to spontaneous clarity as a result of quality meditation practice.)
Of course if you are looking for the one-to-one Zen equivalents of each of the four jhanas or the eight jhanas, you will be disappointed - because such cut-and-dry categorization of practical experience would be very much against the spirit of Zen which emphasizes the first-hand discovery and learning-by-doing while avoiding the step-by-step instructions a-la Theravada as a dangerous trap for the mind. So in Zen everything is a little more fluid and the practice of meditation is not split in discrete phases. Nevertheless, the kind of meditation practiced in Zen is an authentic Jhana, functionally equivalent to the fourth Jhana of Theravada Buddhism.
Now, if you expand your scope beyond Zen and take a look at Vajrayana, it has two types of meditation closely associated with the first and second/third jhanas. I'm talking about Generation-phase and Completion-phase meditations correspondingly.
I imagine someone daring might combine the traditions and practice the Generation-, then the Completion-, then the Zazen/Shikantaza-meditation with great results.


We need to remove fear. But mothers fear for their kids?

In Buddhism, there are different kinds of fear or 'good fear' & 'bad fear'.

Bad fear is fearing what should not be feared (e.g. afraid of dying when you are old or terminally ill or fearing what other people think about you).

Good fear called 'ottappa' is fearing what should be feared; such as fearing doing bad actions that will bring a bad results (for example, fearing addiction to drugs).

The Dhammapada states:

  317. Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.


As a Buddhist lay-follower is there a need and good form to do good deeds?

Yes, good deeds are very useful to us! Read the Cula Kamma Vibhanga Sutta and the Maha Kamma Vibhanga sutta to get an idea of how good and bad Karma can affect our lives drastically.
You can do good deeds on your own without depending on political mechanisms. But if you have to get involved, focus on the good aspect to it, instead of the political side.


The purpose of associating with the wise

Any action will have a result somewhere in Samsara. Obviously a student performing correct practice kamma with a wise teacher of kamma will have fruits in this life such as jhana or the 16 stages of insight. -Metta


In Vajrayana every practice is done on 3 levels - on the level of body, speech and mind. We work with the mind through visualising the Buddha forms, the speech centre is exercised through mantra repetitions and the body - through keeping the posture, using prayer beads (mala) and through the use of mudras.

As a Vajrayana practitioner I can think of a few cases when I use mudras.

First case is while doing the practice of prostrations. A person stands straight and brings their hands together in the 'lotus bud' mudra and places them in the crown of the head, then to the throat and then heart. Then the person kneels down and slides their body on the floor with arms stretched out towards the front. Then hands should meet to form lotus bud mudra again and then the person can stand up to perform another prostration. Touching the head represents purifying the body, touching throat - the speech centre and touching heart - purifying the mind.

People also touch their head, throat and heart centre when standing in front of the Stupa or Buddha statue. When meeting a great teacher or receiving blessing from him people usually hold their hands together and place them on the heart centre. All these gestures signify opening up the mind, speech and body to receive the blessing.

Another example when I use mudras is while attending a recitation of Mandala Offering text. It usually takes place before the teachings or empowerments given by high Lamas. During rituals it is usually the teacher who does the recitation and mudra sequences, however during the Mandala Offering, all students use a special mudra shown on the picture below. One beautiful addition to this mudra is placing rice and flower petals inside the palms and throwing them in the air as soon as the recitation is finished. As for the the meaning of the mudra itself, the arrangement of fingers symbolizes the simplified depiction of the universe one mentally creates and then offers to the Buddha - upright fingers in the middle represent Mount Meru and the 4 pairs around - four continents (if you're interested in details, look here). Mandala Offering is a third part of so-called preliminary practices Ngöndro and it is done to purify attachment, generate merit and create lots of positive impressions in the mind.


How is possible that monks memorised 10.000 sutras?

The way the Pali Canon was transmitted was by oral tradition. The composition is in a poetic form, using mnemonic formulae for memorization and recitation. The recitation would have also served a ritualistic or ceremonial purpose. Even the tradition says that in the First Buddhist Council, Ananda and Upali recited the suttas and the vinaya.
Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a literature is
not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
tradition.
Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
composition.

I believe that the monks edited and reorganized the Pali suttas over centuries to make them have mnemonic formulae and they also modified similar stanzas to become exactly identical - which is why you can find some standard formulae repeated in multiple suttas. This made it easier to memorize, recite and transmit. This is explained below.
From section 3.2 of the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali:

For several hundred years, from the time that separate transmission
lineages emerged in the Asokan period until the texts were written
down, the EBTs were passed down orally in separate textual lineages.
Comparative studies have shown that this oral transmission was highly
reliable and that the core doctrinal material was essentially
unchanged. How did this work,given what we know about the
unreliability of memory? Indian culture provided the template for
highly reliable oral preservation. It is known that the Ṛg Veda and
other Vedic texts were transmitted orally—that is,by memory—with
extreme accuracy for over two thousand years.
In his comprehensive study of the Majjhima Nikāya, Anālayo considers
the impact of oral transmission and concludes: “At the same time,
ratherthan giving us a completely new picture of early Buddhism, what
my comparative study of the parallels to the Majjhima Nikāya
discourses yields is a reconfirmation of the essentials, with
occasional divergence in details.”
In the field of oral literature, there is a distinction between texts
that are to be memorised verbatim, as in the Buddhist and Vedic
traditions, and those which serve as springboards for storytelling, as
in oral folk traditions.
The latter are subject to natural evolution and variation; they are
meant to adapt to the teller and the situation. Such, according to
Oldenberg, are also found in Buddhist literature, specifically in the
Jātaka collection of the Khuddaka Nikāya. But the former, which are
codified and fixed texts, are meant to be preserved in exact form, as
in the case of the EBTs.
The Indian oral culture developed various methods to ensure that this
was achieved. Such methods pervade every aspect of the EBTs, and
include:

Repetitions of words, phrases, passages and whole Suttas;
Standardisation of words, phrases and passages;
The use of synonyms;
The use of the waxing syllable principle;
Sound similarities;
Concatenation of Suttas or other textual units;
Formal structures, especially ABA;
“Summary” and “exposition”, which is a standard feature of Indian oral education;
Framing narratives to define the limits and give the context for the spoken material;
Verse summaries of prose teachings (especially in the Aṅguttara);
Similes (usually in an ABA structure);
Numbered lists;
Group recitals.

From this page, we find the story about Ananda's eidetic memory, but I could not find the original source for it.

Shakyamuni Buddha had a famous disciple, Venerable Ananda, who bore
the nickname of “The Learnt Man”. As Venerable Ananda has a rare
ability, an eidetic memory, he could remember every word of Buddha’s
teachings. Because of his special talent, many often asked Buddha what
good deeds Venerable Ananda had done in his past life to deserve such
a blessing.
Buddha replied, “Ananda’s eidetic memory was a result of the
accumulation of good deeds in his past life.”
He explained, “Several lives ago, a master monk demanded his novice
monk to memorise all the sutras he was taught and would be reprimanded
or punished if he did not meet the master monk’s expectation. On a
fateful day, the novice monk received no food offering all morning and
became worried, as spending more time on the streets would mean less
time to study his sutras. In desperation, he started weeping. An elder
approached this novice monk to show his concern, and after learning of
his difficulty, he told the novice monk to go to his house for food in
his subsequent days. Having secured a source of food offering, the
novice monk could spend most of his time learning his sutras.”
Putting the story into perspective, Buddha said, “The master monk was
Buddha Dipamkara, the novice monk was me, and the benevolent elder is
the Ananda today. Ananda’s good karmic deeds had gained him his
eidetic memory in his present life, which allows him to remember every
word of dharma preaching.”

Also, from "The Life of Ananda, Guardian of the Dhamma" by Hellmuth Hecker and Ven. Nyanaponika Thera:

In selecting Ananda as the treasurer or guardian of his Dispensation,
the Buddha had chosen one whose personal qualities coincided perfectly
with the demands of the post. By virtue of his devotion to learning,
Ananda was ideally suited to receive the manifold teachings delivered
over a forty-five-year period; by virtue of his phenomenal memory, he
could retain them in mind exactly as spoken by the Master; by virtue
of his sense of order, he could be relied on to preserve them in the
correct sequence and to explain them in such a way that the structure
of ideas accorded with the Buddha’s intention; and by virtue of his
steadfastness, he would so endeavor that the pupils under his charge
would receive the teachings fully and be properly trained so that they
in turn could pass them on to their own pupils.


How to stop a war according to Gouthama Buddha?

There's a description of that here: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed?
I think the article is based on the canon, but I've forgotten where in the canon I read of it.
Anyway to quote from the article:

When the Buddha learned about this outbreak of hostility, he came there himself. On seeing this revered and eminent person from their royal clan, the warriors of both sides became deeply embarrassed. All of them laid down their weapons and paid homage to him. This was the traditional way of paying respects to the Buddha in those days.
Whenever King Pasenadi of Kosala went to pay respects to the Buddha, he would leave the royal insignia such as his sword, turban, fan, parasol and sandals outside with his attendant before entering the chamber of the Buddha.
The Buddha took the seat prepared for him on the open ground of the riverbank. The Sakyans and the Koliyans paid homage to the Buddha and sat respectfully on one side before him. The Buddha explained to them that their blood was much more valuable than the river-water. They should not spill blood unnecessarily. Instead, they should find a way to share the water peacefully. The Buddha was a peacemaker filled with compassion. He did not consider it proper that human life should be lost for the sake of trivial material gains.

And it goes on -- you can read the article for more.
The eventual outcome was that the Sakyan clan was massacred.


To be honest, my ego is completely confused. Still, for the sake of satisfying it.

Can super Buddhists eat bread?

If by super buddhists, you mean as someone of so high calibur that s/he will be aware of the presence of any tiniest living organism whether it's yeast or something else-- No, that venerable one won't eat cause it's killing.

Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

Sorry, I don't know.

But atleast, I can give metta to self and others. :)

With Metta.
May all the tiny living beings that I ate unintentionally till now be free from their suffering. May I reach to the level of venerable one to identify any living microorganism with mind. May I be free from my remorse of eaten yeast. May they pardon me.


There are some differences of opinion between the different schools on this kind of thing. First of all, the Theravada school doesn't accept the idea that the Buddha has knowledge of everything (which Mahayana schools tend to teach) but instead teach that the Buddha possesses unobstructed knowledge and vision, meaning that the Buddha had the ability to find an answer to any question given time and effort, and even the precise meaning of this isn't quite clear. Confusingly, the term "unobstructed knowledge and vision" is sometimes translated as omniscience.

This unobstructed knowledge and vision is the result of having cultivated the ten Paramis of generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, honesty, determination, goodwill, and equanimity to perfection as a Bodhisatta, and when he attained Arahatship on the night of the full moon in the month Vesakha, the cultivation of these Paramis came to fruit and he obtained unobstructed knowledge and vision.

He attained Arahatship that night by means of the Noble Eightfold Path, just like everyone else, and according to the Pali Suttas, he did so by means of Anapanasati.


Is dukkha conventional or ultimate? Is it different from the other two marks of existence?

According to the Wikipedia article Four Dharma Seals, some schools of Buddhism teach "Three Dharma Seals" as including Nirvana but excluding Dukkha (for example Google finds The Three Dharma Seals by Thich Nhat Hanh) because "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence".


The following quotes come from Shantideva's Bodhisattvacaryavatara as well as Maitreya's text on Buddha nature, and commentaries from Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen.

In his commentary to Shantideva, verse 1, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen says:

  Compared with an arhat (foe destryer) the omniscience of a buddha is
  higher. This is because only the mind of a buddha has the ability to
  perceive the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth)
  simultaneously. The mind of a Hinayana arhat does not have that
  capacity.

In Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, with Commentary by Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen, it says:

  The definition of a Sangha Jewel is an arya being endowed with any of
  the 8 qualities of knowledge and freedom, such as the knowledge of the
  mode of phenomena.

Geshe Gyaltsen commentary reads:

  We do not need all eight to be a Sangha Jewel. The last set of three
  are qualities of true cessation and an arya bodhisattva on the first
  uninterrupted path of the path of seeing doesn’t yet have true
  cessations in his continuum and therefore not those last four
  qualities related to freedom. The arya bodhisattva mentioned in the
  Uttaratantra is of the eighth ground/bumi upwards and this arya has
  abandoned all afflicted obstructions so they have the freedom of those
  afflictive obstructions but not of the knowledge obstructions, since
  only a buddha is free from them, but they are still called a Sangha
  Jewel. Therefore it is mentioned: any of those eight qualities.

With respect to the verse 72, "Qualities of the non-returner", the commentary is:

  The bodhisattva who is a non-returner goes to complete enlightenment
  with no return—it is irreversible. This is the bodhisattva from the
  eighth bumi on, and includes the ninth and tenth bumis.

And:

  The Sangha free from afflictive obstructions are the bodhisattvas from
  the eighth bhumi onwards. Before the eighth ground bodhisattvas still
  have the afflictive obstructions. This presentation is from the
  Prasangika Madhyamika point of view, who say that only from the eighth
  ground onwards the afflictive obstructions have been abandoned.

And:

  Why do the Hinayana arhats not have the indivisible four qualities of
  the Buddha, the non-abiding or ultimate, final nirvana? It is because
  they do not have the causes or the bases to achieve the ultimate
  nirvana that are produced at the time of the three pure bumis. Without
  producing causes, no results arise and therefore these Hinayana arhats
  are said to be far from the final nirvana. And: The Hinayana arhats
  have some level of purity but no perfection of purity and even the
  bodhisattva from eighth ground up still has the obstructions of
  omniscience and therefore the purity is not complete. To attain that
  perfection of purity of a buddha we first need the devotion to the
  Mahayana because only by way of the Mahayana path we can abandon both
  obstructions. A Hinayana practitioner with only renunciation [and no
  bodhicitta] who follows the Hinayana path will only abandon among the
  two types of obstructions the afflictive obstructions and will not
  attain the purity free from both obstructions.

In addition, Madhyamika Prasangika posit that the two vehicles are not differentiated in terms of wisdom because they both realize the same object. At times, we say that the wisdom of a bodhisattva has a greater capacity because (1) it realized emptiness by way of relying on countless reasonings while that of so-called Hinayana do not, and (2) it is conjoined with bodhicitta, whih makes it more powerful. We say that the wisdom is like an axe, and bodhicitta like a strong arm. Without a strong arm, one cannot uproot a tree even if he possesses the axe.


There is no unchanging awareness. When he speaks of "unchanging awareness", Mingyur Rinpoche does not mean that there is an awareness that does not change. He means that all consciousnesses have characteristics in common. The more we understand (Mahayana) Buddhism, the more we are able to understand this and not take things literally.

Generally, when Mingyur Rinpoche says that awareness does not change, he refers to the nature of consciousness. He means that consciousness is clear and knowing by nature. Whether we speak of anger, attachment, mindfulness, joy, an eye consciousness apprehending blue or an ear consciousness apprehending a birdsong, we speak of phenomena that (1) are not form (2) are clear and knowing. Even anger has the nature of clarity and the function of knowing.

Mingyur Rinpoche is a Kagyu and mainly practices Mahamudra, concentrating and analyzing the conventional and the ultimate nature of the mind. Contemplating the analogy of the mind being like the sky is a way to get at the conventional nature of the mind (clear and knowing) that all instances of consciousness have in common. The idea is not to dive in the object of consciousness, but to find that which characterizes all instances of consciousness and to concentrate on that. It is an object that is always there, at reach, just like the breath, because we are always aware of something. If only we could find what is common to anger, desire, pride, an eye consciousness apprehending shape and color, etc. we would find the conventional nature of the mind. If we look for it and know how to find it, we will. On the other hand, if you were to focus only on, say, anger, then it would be different because there is not always manifest anger arising in your continuum.


This is a very common misreading of the four noble truths.  Don't feel bad; you've got a lot of company!  The Buddha never actually said that all craving is bad.  In the 2nd noble truth, he is very specific about the kind of craving his path seeks to eradicate.

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the
craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The third noble truth is the extinction of that kind of craving -

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the
remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
release, & letting go of that very craving.
from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The desire that truly seeks liberation is not the same mind that craves for sensual pleasure, becoming, or not becoming.  Sure, there are people who begin practice because they believe that enlightenment will add something to their personality - as if nirvana will bring about something they are otherwise lacking.  Perhaps they crave for the pleasure of meditative absorption or believe that the wisdom that the path generates will give them a sense of personal power.  Perhaps they believe that the Buddhist path will lead to some sort of Schopenhauer paradise of pure nothingness.  Those lesser desires  for liberation need to be given up if one is to proceed past a certain point.  But the desire to put a final end to suffering?  If it's pure, there's nothing wrong with that.


Resolving right action & intention in a white lie

There are 4 conditions which need to be met for something being classified as a lie:

FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)

So if you are mentioning the white lie with the intention to deceive then it is false speech.


Take a look at Mindfulness Meditation (MN10). This is one of the key meditation suttas. MN10 breaks down meditation as a progression of 16 steps, grouped in four tetrads. The first tetrad is the body tetrad. Your current practice is breath awareness, so you are already doing part of the body tetrad. The following should be familiar to you:

  Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out

Notice that you're not forcing anything. You are simply being aware. This is very important. Just be aware without grasping or rejecting. In particular, do not "choke your thoughts". Instead, invite the mind towards an awareness of and engagement with the steps of the sutta. Following the steps, we eventually see:

  They practice breathing in experiencing the whole body. They practice breathing out experiencing the whole body

And so the sutta proceeds through feeling and thence to mind, etc.

Don't skip ahead, especially if your concern is agitation of mind. Although awareness of mind is a tetrad, it's later, after awareness of feeling. First take care of the stuff that makes sense and is doable. For example, you could spend years doing just the first tetrad. I did. Eventually, your own insight will prompt you to the next step when you are ready. It's not a race to be won. It's more like tending a garden--you can't rush this.

If your current awareness of body stops and skips, be aware of the body in the context of your breath. The breath is already smooth from the prior step, so a gentle consideration of the body while breathing will naturally become smooth. In other words, maintain the breath connection (aware of in/out/heavy/light) as your awareness touches the body.

When agitated, we breathe quickly, sometimes 6 or more times a minute. As meditation deepens, you will find that breathing slows on its own and everything settles. Perhaps you may find yourself breathing 3 times a minute. Or even 2. Effortlessly. As the breath calms, so does everything.


What basic knowledge and skills are required to become a Vipassana teacher?

I imagine this varies from tradition to tradition. In my tradition, the Thai version of Mahasi Sayadaw's teaching, anyone can pass on the teachings, so in a sense anyone can be a teacher. What this means is that there is no governing body going to reprimand you if you go out and teach others as you have been taught. This seems in line with the Buddha's way himself; the only requirements as far as being a teacher is concerned relate to fulfilling a role as a monastic teacher (i.e. regarding monastic discipline).

That being said, to become recognized as a teacher in my tradition, one generally has to undergo training both theoretically and practically - and of course, it goes without saying that one must have previously completed basic training in insight meditation (at least one month of intensive practice, preferably more).

Theoretically, one must have studied and/or been taught about the sixteen stages of insight knowledge as found in the commentaries and Visuddhimagga, along with the sort of "symptoms" to look for in someone going through each of the stages. A basic knowledge of Theravada Buddhism (usually through the Thai Dhamma exams) is also understood as a given.

Practically, one would be required to first listen in on another teacher's interviews with meditators (I spent a year doing this, every day for about five hours including ceremonies) and then eventually teach yourself under the guidance of a qualified teacher.

There is generally no certificate given, though there is a standard course in Thailand now for monks that lasts 40 days and gets one a certificate of sorts. Since there is very little practical experience in teaching involved, it doesn't seem quite complete as a teacher training, more of a basic requirement that one should then use to undertake further practical study of the art of teaching.


"In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. The PDF version of it can be downloaded here.

It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds the Sutta Pitaka too huge and difficult to traverse. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of the foremost translators and scholars of the Pali Canon. He also created this 512-page anthology arranged in a systematic manner, for the benefit of Pali Canon students everywhere.

I quote from the Preface:

  In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003, I devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.

  This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.

  The second type of readers  for whom this book is meant are those,
  already acquainted with the suttas, who still cannot see how they fit
  together into an intelligible whole. For such readers, individual
  suttas may be comprehensible in themselves, but the  texts in their
  totality appear like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered across a
  table. Once one understands the scheme in this book, one should come
  away with a clear idea of the architecture of the teaching. Then, with
  a little reflection,  one should be able to determine the place any
  sutta occupies in the edifice of the Dhamma, whether or not it has
  been included in this anthology.


Vegetarianism in Buddhism on different schools

According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to
  eat any kind of meat.

To my limited knowledge, this statement is not true. What I mean is that:

I do not know of any Mahayana sutra in which the Buddha proscribed the eating of meat.
There is no Pratimoksha vow (neither in the Mūlasarvāstivāda nor in the Dharmagupta linage) prohibiting even a monk to eat meat.

However, it is true that Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of meat consumption. For instance:

One of the 8 Mahayana 24 hours precepts says not to eat at inappropriate times. Most Mahayana institutions interpret it to mean (in addition to not eating after lunch) not to eat black food. In this respect, Lama Yeshe says:

  Fasting. The foods we shouldn’t have are onion, garlic, eggs, and
  meat—these are recognized as black foods. Also, radish has a bad
  element, a bad power. Taking these foods affects the pure power of the
  mind. If we are only concerned for the body, it is okay, but for a
  person practicing Dharma and following precepts the reason is keeping
  the body clean but not with attachment. These foods destroy the power
  of the body and the power of the mind, making one sleepy, unconscious,
  and so on.

Master Padmasambhava, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism, stated in his terma Jewel Lamp Commentary on the Three Roots: “The eating of meat should be gradually stopped,..."
In some countries where Mahayana strives, it is expected of monks and nuns not to eat meat. It is even expected of them to eat vegan. Such is the case of Vietnam, for instance, where I went last summer. It is not because of the Pratimoksha, but because it is expected of monks holding the bodhisattva vows to express compassion in this way. It is a matter of principle, since there is no bodhisattva vow prohibiting the eating of meat.

I do not think it is related to the Dharmadhatu, but simply to the notion that eating meat amounts to eating the flesh of a sentient being that used to be one's mother. If anything, it is related to karma, rebirth and compassion. It is because the seven-fold training to arise the mind of enlightenment - bodhicitta - includes remembering that all sentient beings have been our mother, remembering their kindness, wanting to repay their kindness, generating compassion, etc.

Although Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of eating meat, several Mahayana practitioners do eat meat in fact. For instance, there is a great practitioner who eats so much meat that, when she approaches our area, we say the cows are crying.

Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche gives his view on vegetarianism.


buddha and me (my will to accept all from buddism)

I personally wouldn't worry about such details and labels of who is who and what status everyone is. I would recommend you read, " The Noble Eightfold Path"( conceptual understanding) accompanied with Vipassana meditation (experiential realization). Work your way through the teachings of the NEP, and you will remove your own ignorance.

I would still recommend asking monks for detailed help, but what i have mentioned above, that will be a very good starting point for you, if you are serious about the practice!

I hope i have helped!

Metta


How can one avoid the suffering after getting cheated?

First, do not hold ill intentions. It may or may not be a case of cheating, there could be misconceptions.

Secondly, if you really got your money cheated, just report to the police or managers. Do it out of due diligent intentions, nothing more nothing less.


You told so little information which could be many state.

The lowest state of the simple meditation of a person who can't ever do sitting meditation whole day through years.
The high state of a person who can do sitting meditation whole day through years simply.

Which one your are is depending on various information that you didn't told us. Calming, happiness,  feeling like not worth attach to it, etc. are not enough information to judge your state.

How long you sit per days?
Do you have the "instead characteristics of major characteristic and minor characteristic  (PaṭibhāgaNimitta for concentration meditation; Pure 3 characteristics and pure smallest realities for insight meditations are the instead object of Nimitta and Anubyañjana)"?
Do you realize that both meditations and Buddha's teaching are the only main path for your lives from now on.
etc.

We need more information from you  to consider of what you are.


Well, Before we continue you must ask why you gave up the identity "Being a Buddhist" and you should also ask why are you still here in this SE. I am not trying to be rude.i'm saying this to make you realize the deceiving side of the mind.It is important you understand this and come up with solutions.

Now Lets talk about the ambitions part, Let me tell you a story
I learned it from a monk. this will give you a direct answer.....

  One day a man (lets call him Paul) visited an old friend of him (Lets call him Tom). This friend was a farmer and he had a large piece of land which he used to farm. Paul looked around and saw that there is not much of farming going on, only a small part of Tom's land was being used for farming.
  So Paul asked Tom

  "Why are you not using the whole piece of land?, You know what you shold farm the whole thing."
  "So then what should i do?"asked Tom.

  Paul said "Oh, then you should start a little shop near the house and start selling some of your harvest."

  "OK, looks like a good idea,so what's next" asked Tom.

  "Then you should work hard and make it successful and you should start few more shops like that and get them to success too." said Paul.

  "Right,then what should i do?" said Tom.

  "My friend then you got good money, that would be a nice time to settle down and have a nice family" said Paul.

  "Yeah,nice. So what should i do next?" asked Tom.

  "Then take care of your Family and kids and once they are young teach them your business and once they are ready let them take care of your farm and business." said Paul.

  "OK Paul. then what i should do?" Said Tom.

  "Then what man, you got all things covered, you have a nice family and a successful business and you will be rich too. So enjoy your life and live in peace. Let your children take care of your things." said Paul.

  Then Tom said something that amazed Paul, "My friend i know you mean well but here's the thing, I know i haven't farmed all my fields and i don't have a lavish life or a wife. But i'm happy with what i have and what i am. Today i have enough to live a happy life and yes i have little but this is what i always needed. There is not a single thing that i have to dream of. A simple life to live in peace is all i ever wanted and what i have right now. Why should i work so many years to pile up many things just to find peace at the end when i have peace in my life right now?"

You should ask a question from your self, and that is

  "Who do i want to be, Tom or Paul?

And after that you could work your way from there. What is missing in your practice is "Not knowing what you really need".

Being a buddhist is all about understanding who you are what you are after. Until you have answers to those two questions you are obviously lost. So ask yourself what you need and choose which type of Buddhist you want to be.

There are two kinds of practices to Lay people...

  The stallion :-
  This path is simple. The only goal is nirvana and there is no stopping until the target is met. you could call this "Hardcore lay person practice". These fortunate ones live simple lives and their only goal "Nirvana" is their goal.

  The turtle :-
  The path is slow but shielded. These fortunate ones live happy normal lives. Their goal is also nirvana but there's a catch. They have decided to reach a higher realm and start their "Stallion stage" and until then they will obey to the "Five precepts" and live a proper Buddhist life. But they will live like any other person with worldly goals in life. The only shield they have is their "Sila (Protecting the precepts) & Shraddha (undying trust on triple gems)". They are taking a big risk here, but they are confident about their Shraddha.

Choose your life my friend....

---

Path does not make you a boring person. You have realized the true nature of the world and you are no longer driven by the lust of lavish things. This is why it does not feel the same.

But you still have attachments to live like there is no tomorrow. Party & get high not to mention the ladies.

But your mind is giving you mixed signals here. There is a reason why...
this happens because of you not deciding a life between these two. So your mind goes back and forth.

My advice is choose your life. either be a "Stallion" or a "Turtle".

--

May the triple gems bless you!


What is the meaning of Gatha #140 of the Parayanavagga?

I am going to give this a shot.  From my kindergarten level self taught Pali.

key words:

Akincanna: perception of Jhana in No-thingness
nandi: joy, dwelling
samyojanam: bind, fetter
vusimato: insight

when one gains a knowledge that joy or dwelling in content of the infinite consciousness (empty of any permanent nature)-  is a causal of a binding fetter, He practices insight wisdom in that knowledge.

My opinion, i.e.  Buddha's meditation teachers when he was seeking enlightenment, those two meditation teachers did not see the binding force (fetters) caused by joy in (from) those meditative states so they did not gain any insight.

further simplify:
when you know that joy in meditation is a binding, you practice insight from that knowledge.


By trying to "control it", you are putting the (idea of) lust outside of yourself.  In effect you are seeing "the lust" and yourself as two separate entities.  That (conceived) separation sets up a duality.  On one side is "lust", which it sounds like you are labeling as "bad".  On the other side is self, which it sounds like you want to label as "good".  And you're attached to both these concepts, lust is bad and self is good (or "should" be good).

If you choose to acknowledge the sensations you are describing as "lust", the duality will disappear.

Try sitting whatever form of meditation you prefer, that doesn't involve visualization.  When sensations that you describe as "lust" come up, acknowledge them.  This is the difficult part.  "Acknowledge" means you accept the feeling, don't judge it or yourself, and watch what happens to the thought or feeling.  Then return to your practice.

In effect I'm suggesting you acknowledge the aspect of yourself that you conceive of as lust.  That acknowledgement will integrate you and dissolve the duality.  And lust will resume its normal, healthy role in your psyche.  May your life go well.


Why Buddha said "There is No God" and Later "There is God"?

The Buddha took a different approach to God than 'is' or 'is not':

  “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon
  the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one
  who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
  there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
  who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
  wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. "
  SN 12.15

In only accepting truth that is directly perceivable and verifiable,

  “Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta.
  They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage,
  denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some
  other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain
  and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride,
  and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt,
  Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak
  falsehood.

  It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be
  in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come,
  Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
  inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a
  view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or
  because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you
  know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are
  blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if
  accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should
  abandon them." AN 3.65

, as well as MN 27, one is naturally lead to DN 9.

  “There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like
  this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.’ I approached them and asked them, ‘Is it true that you have
  a doctrine & view like this: “After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?’ When asked this, they replied, ‘Yes.’
  So I asked them, ‘But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?’ When asked this, they said,
  ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you know that “This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?’
  When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  “Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

  “Potthapada, it’s as if a man were to say, ‘I’m in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,’ and other people were to say to him,
  ‘Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she’s of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?’ and, when
  asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she’s tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she’s dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she’s from?’ When asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you’ve never known or
  seen the woman you’re in love with?’ When asked this, he would say,
  ‘Yes.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “ Potthapada , it’s as if a man at a crossroads were to build a
  staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to
  him, ‘Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a
  staircase: do you know whether it’s east, west, north, or south of
  here? Whether it’s high, low, or in between?’ and, when asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you don’t know or see
  the palace for which you are building a staircase?’ When asked this,
  he would say, ‘Yes.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

As the Buddha stated in his first sermon,

  “Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has
  gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
  happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
  worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
  self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
  veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
  to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
  knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbāna." SN 56.11

All speculative views are abandoned in DN 1. MN 74 gives one analysis of why Nihilism, the strong atheist's statement 'there is no God', is flawed.

DN 15 is likely approximately what he taught, and MN 118 and MN 10 is likely what he would have practiced..

Some Hindu societies accepted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, which may mix his statements quite a lot.. in fact, a lot of his supposed quotes on the net, are not his quotes. Best to stick to the Pali canon and some later writings for what he says imo! :)