"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."

  "As you say, lord," the monks responded.

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."
  - Sabba Sutta

Universe is a concept. What you call universe in reality is just eye & forms, ear & sounds etc. etc.

So the eye & forms are not-self, ear and sounds are not-self...
This idea you have been contemplating represents(in reality) just the mind and thoughts which are also not-self.


Buddhism changes as it goes into different cultures and adapts and is influenced by local and preexisting culture. It changed when it went from Indian into China and again into Japan and again into Tibet. I believe it is changing still as it goes into the West. For instance my group the Triratna Community is an explicit attempt to bring Buddhism to the West in an ecumenical way.

To follow on from that, the Trirantna's founder Sangharakshita identified the act of going for refuge (to the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha) as the central act of all Buddhist schools and the principle that can (and does for us) underpin any Buddhist movement. So our interpretation is that all schools have the same principle so are not as divergent as one might think at first glance. Of course I'm not banging the drum for that specifically here and people are obviously more than welcome to agree or disagree on that interpretation.

Buddhism also does change within a culture by reacting to the Buddhist school before it. The most notable example I guess is the growth of Mahayana as a reaction against the perceived ossification of the Hinayana (though this term is derogatory) schools. Parallels can easily be seen in other religions such as the Protestant Reformation, the Cathars, Lollards etc...

Also I might quibble with the premise of the question itself. I'm not convinced that Buddhism does have a particular high amount of branches as compared to other religion. It's just that we are not used to the religion. Also if we don't identify culturally with any particular branch we see them all. I think that Christianity has a lot of sub divisions - Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Methodist, Church of England etc.. Also having listened to Peter Adamson's excellent podcast of the history of philosophy, I find the branches of Islam bewildering.

This is probably a bit TR;DR. Sorry


Buddhist councils and government involvement?

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

Sangha - Business is Sangha - Business and laymen - business is laymen business, yet lay people do not conduct to any precepts that keeps them stay away from Sangha business and of course the views of laypeople had since ever an impact on the behavior of the Sangha, at least many of the Vinayas rules have been formulated after laymans critic (it this was proper).

But Sangha needs to conduct on staying away of what ever laymen business. Doing different is a heavy fault, Sanghadisesa 13. Yet, how could Sangha even come in certain situations like you mentioned is not having violated the Sg13 at first place? Do they leave in dependency on certain people or groups? They do and so they have their problems which will not and before they do not give up there comfort they gain within this dependency. But they would, in line of there defilement not be able to do and simply live a live according to Vinaya.

It is in no means intended by the Buddha that the Sangha seeks for coalition with lay peoples interest and totally against any independency if worldly institutions would act as regulation.

The reality, how ever looks different, since the Sangha at large is merely unable to act and move in those days already and there have been lot of positive interventions of Kings and wordily leaders through the history.

One might not forget, although it looks wonderful that there are countries with thousands of monks and thousands of monasteries, that this is actually a sign of strong corruption of the Sangha, or let Atma say, of most.

If Atma takes the country where he dwells he would say that 95% of what ever communities, monks, monasteries are far away form the heir of Dhamma-Vinaya and the institutions are at large means for a livelihood, nothing else. Livelihood needs regulations and with that such things like monk-passports, licenses, allowances... start to grow.

At least there is as big tendency of desire for governing from monks and even more strong by laypeople, of both have interests in becoming and material gain.

In this world of defilement and darkness, there is no way that such as Sangha survives, and it is sure, as far as Atmas awareness can reach, that this is the last generation of holy life within Buddhas institution called Sangha. That does not mean that its physical appearance will disappear, no, it will even grow, but its ways and purpose is gone.

Governments even have no other chance as to hardily regulate everything since there are less monks who stick either simply with Vinaya or have certain own virtue already. All they will do is making politics and oppose the state. They would not dear to leave a place where the conditions are no more given for a holy life.

The most harmful action is if Sangha uses people to fight each other or to make propaganda. If the Sangha carries out correctly they would not even give certain statements but simply act in sphere of there possibilities. At least they have no rights at all and do not hold rights but at the moment they start to do so, they are subject and object of all problems and quarrels.

Even in old times, it has been on invitation and guidance of great kings who had not so much dust in the eyes, that councils take place. Today the time of real Sangha councils are gone. If there would be a meeting in line of Dhamma and Vinaya, it would be the last meeting. Where ever Monks meet today, they are no more interested in correct each other but simply on how to maintain "harmony" so that the corrupt movement can go on and livelihood can be done without disturbing each other.

There have been in the past, always small particular Sanghas, which earned rightly the respect of the leaders. For example the forest tradition in Thailand which is differently treated in all aspects. But for the large, the folk Buddhism institutions, there will be no future without been strictly governed since both, the intention and the fruits of it are of worldly interest.

As for somebody involved as a citizen in such a matter, Atma would point back to the first line: Look simply of is your own business and do not get involved, do not take position aside of simply precepts and doing what is virtuous.

To be able to live a kind of live is not a matter of right but a matter of past deeds (merits) and of conduct one sticks to. There is no more safety of all that stuff, if one does not hold any right or weapon and anybody who tells different did or do not live such a live.

So there is nothing to fear for those who walk the right path and stay independent by letting go, but of course all reason to fear for those who took, take and like to take the instruments of the Buddha as a worldly means.

Atma would on this occasion remember on 1. on the reminder of King Asoka:

That the True Dhamma Might Last a Long Time

and 2. on the urgency to practice, things are not for sure and you don't know if town and forest will be on fire tomorrow or you even live that long. So don't waste your time with politic, Upasaka Theravada and stay far away for any protesting monk and monks who make even sight signs of interests in world and politic! They are poison and dangerous, not even as dangerous as lay people can be, for the Dhamma as well as for the worlds normal harmony.

If you have certain possibilities to influence others, like family and friend, lead them generosity, virtue, discernment. No need to care of things out of your range. You'd better develop gratitude in regard of those holding power and give you many possibilities they would not need to give you our they would have the power to take it from you.

  Danger is born from intimacy,
    society gives birth to dust.
    Free from intimacy,
    free from society:
    such is the vision of the sage.

  Who, destroying what's born
    wouldn't plant again or nourish
    what will arise:
    They call him the wandering,
    singular sage. He has seen the
    state of peace.

What did the Buddha and all his disciples give up fist, when they entered the holy life?
Home, clan, tripe, country, king, family... Show be even a hand full of monks or laypeople in your country or in other countries who have gone that far.

Dhamma is about to demount the pole and demount the flag. Yet, not long time ago foolish people even created such as a Buddhist flag. People have no sense at all today and Buddhism is at large nothing but national socialism, of interest of becoming and being and social means to get have a large support by those who actually do not understand the way of Dhamma.

So in that regard, if you like to play a sample, give up the flag and give up to make a label like that of a particular school your identity. That would how you would act for the sake of peace.

Nobody is able to govern you, if you do not identify here and there. And when the rulers of certain territory like to bind you, if you are not attached to it, what hinders you to walk on?

Government trying to get those who have worked out independency for themselves under control try something that does not work, they could only cut of there own possibilities to get taught a way the real liberation. Its like if people think they can put certain monks under TOS. The are fools. In such groups, what they have, are corrupt monks. Look where ever you find a certain Buddhist State online. Its all the same. Those who like to carry flags will met together with those seeking refuge in flags. They live in their own made prison, yet still there is an opening in their protective castle:

Your Temple, your palace and your borders

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


In Tibetan tradition torpor (Pali middha) is explained as heavy sleepiness, while sloth (Pali thina) is explained as laziness, lack of motivation.

So in case of sloth, you are not drowsy, just don't feel like striving. While in case of torpor, you kinda want to strive but can't, because your mind is so unwieldy.


why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic

(See this answer and this answer for explanation some of the terminology of the non english terms below)

The vocabulary and language is conditioned by common experiences of people. When suddenly a new experience comes about there will be no words or terms (nama pannatti) to describe it or language or medium to explain it (nirutti). You cannot create a vocabulary to communicate this experience to someone who has not experienced it, i.e., it is hard to express its meaning (abhilapa). Hence meditative experiences cannot be put into words, or make know (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).

Some of the meditative states part of the mind's operations stop. Hence logic breaks down. In the 1st Jhana Thinking and Pondering (vitakka & vicara) stops. When you attain Nirvana so does Perception (sañña). At this stage all metal operations stop. This again is another reason it cannot be described. Since at these levels, conventional logic also breaks down you cannot use this to deduce of infer anything about it.

Also logic and reasoning is concepts (pannatti) or metal models of what we think is out there. This does not represent reality. Since concept and reality do not mix you cannot use concepts to describe accurately what reality is. Since only a few has experienced reality as it is there no vocabulary or language that describes the concepts.

Generally our current model of the universe is based on:

concept of time: (kala pannatti)
spatial dimensions concept: (disa pannatti), sapce: (akasa pannatti)
and generally a lot of theorising, maths and logic which are concepts

These are not ultimate realities themselves, hence cannot not related to meditative experiences, which deal with ultimate realities. They generally do not mix well like oil and water. This does not mean concepts do not exist, but they are not ultimate realities which are free from delusion. Conceptual realities are always with delusion or tainted by ignorance of the 3 characteristics. So a concept which is seam solid is not necessarily with no reality in it, but it does not reality well, which in turn leads to attachment or aversion which being about misery. Dealing with realities which are ultimate, misery does not arise as there is no disparity between reality and what is known or experienced hence will not develop false expectations, when you reach the level you can experience the relevant ultimate realities.

In Buddhism atomic units are explained as Kalapas which can be experienced through meditation. The experience realities might differ from what modern science says.


In the future how many Buddhas will be born?

There are infinite number into the past and infinite number to the future.

28 are the immediate preceding our Buddha. Maitreya will be the next.


Not exactly from the Pali canon but hope it helps, since it contains comparable references to the Pali canon literature. (fyi. the Pali canon has suttas, Mahayana has Sutras)
The following dialogue provides a nice overview of the differences between them. It is an extract of the 2nd-century Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra, a key text of the Prajnaparamita literature (which was allegedly practiced by all past Buddhas and Bodhisattvas):

Chapter IV part 1: Why is the Buddha called Bhagavat?
...
Furthermore, bhāga means glory (yaśas-) and vat indicates its possession. Thus this word means “the one who possesses glory”. No-one else has as much glory as the Buddha.
The noble cakravartin kings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas, are inferior to the Buddha. What then could be said of ordinary men (pṛthagjana)? Why? The noble cakravartin kings are fettered by bonds (bandhanasaṃyukta): the Buddha has broken the bonds.
– The noble cakravartin kings are sunk in the mire of birth (jāti), old age (jarā), sickness (vyādhi) and death (maraṇa); the Buddha has transcended them.
– The noble cakravartin kings are enslaved (dāsa) by their passions (anunaya); the Buddha has eliminated them.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the womb of the calamities of the human jungle (lokakāntāra); the Buddha has escaped from it.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the shadows of ignorance (avidyāndhakāra); the Buddha lives in the supreme light.
– The noble cakravartin kings often reign over the four continents (caturdvīpaka); the Buddha reigns over countless universes (apramāṇalokadhātu).
– The cakravartin kings have mastery over wealth (pariṣkāravaśitā); the Buddha has mastery over mind (cetovāśita).
– The noble cakravartin kings covet heavenly bliss (devasukha); the Buddha covets nothing, having reached the well-being of the summit of existence (bhavāgrasukha).
The cakravartin kings seek their happiness from others; the Buddha rejoices in his own heart. This is why the Buddha surpasses (abhibhavati) the noble cakravartin kings.
He also surpasses all the other beings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas who are even inferior to the noble cakravartin kings.

That should be enough right? The note says:

Compare the explanations of the Mahāniddesa, p. 142; Cullaniddesa, p. 466; Sumaṅgala, I, p. 33–34; Visuddhimagga, I, p. 210–212; Hôbôgirin, Bagabu, p. 46.


Change and decay of one's own body. How fast is it?

With vipassanā-ñāṇa you can recognise this change perhaps not to the clarity as in the Abhidhamma.

In p 39 of Process of Conciousness and Matter by (Aggamahāpaṇḍita) Bhaddanta Dr. Rewata Dhamma (Writen as a supplement to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma), gives an idea at what rate phenomena arises and passes away.

For personal practice if will be sufficient recognise:

Arising
Passing
Change, i.e., what has arisen is what has not arisen before

Also see my other answer on similar subject matter: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12392/295

Following two articles by Piya Tan might be of interest:

Dhamma and Abhidhamma
The Radiant Mind


What does Buddhism say about practicing Spiritism?

Despite the idealised and Romanticised versions of Buddhism popular in the West, which suggests that Buddhists are only interested in Enlightenment, historically and presently Buddhists have always maintained social practices which are unrelated to the such lofty goals. Amongst these are belief in and practices related to unseen entities which can loosely be called "spirits".

Spirits play an important role in daily life in almost all traditional Buddhist countries. In Burma for example, spirits are called "nat" and in Thailand "phi" (Encylcopedia Britannica). Phi are spirits of towns, homes, caves, and so on. Such spirits are the object of rituals and superstitions. Nats are imagined to look like humans. Thai people make little houses for spirits to live in.

In addition the traditional texts of Buddhism are full of references to spirits (devatā) of various kinds. Prominent types include yakkha, nāga, and kinnara. Tree spirits were, and still are in modern India, a focus of religious activity. The commentarial back story to the famous Karaṇīya Metta Sutta tells of how the sutta was spoken after some monks disturbed a family of 'tree spirits' or rukkhadevatā, who responded with fearful apparitions and terrible smells. (See How the Karaṇīya Mettā Sutta Came About). Tree spirit worship is also common in Thailand. Across India and Asia large old trees become shrines.

It seems that Buddhists assimilated animistic beliefs very early on, along with ideas and practices from Brahmin culture, and possible Zoroastrianism (via migrating Iranian tribes). Buddhism has always been syncretistic (i.e. it assimilates elements from other traditions). It's very likely that when speakers of Indic languages, who eventually became the dominant culture, first ventured into the Ganges Valley, they encountered people who spoke Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages for whom animism was a principle form of religion. They are the likely source of yakkhas for example, who share many characteristics with Burmese nats.

Many modern day Buddhists of my acquaintance are firm believers in ghosts, spirits and minor deities. I have been present at and even participated in more than one ritual to propitiate local spirits for example (in New Zealand, Britain and Spain). An account of some of these modern practices can be found in a book by Sally McAra, Land of Beautiful Vision, which is an anthropological account of a stupa building project by a Triratna Buddhist group in New Zealand. This includes discussion of the idea of local spirits, influenced by Māori beliefs.

So while the specific form of spiritualism you ask about is unfamiliar, Buddhists through the ages have believed in and engaged with spirits of many different kinds.


Unintended but mindless action resulted in death of a living thing

What are the implications of this action?

The implication is that you will suffer. Well, actually, you already are.
Your heart broke and you felt ill. These are the immediate results of your bad kamma.
And feeling guilt and remorse is bad kamma as well, since it leads you to suffer more.

Reflect on the fact that you didn't intend the snail to die.
Reflect on how it makes you feel, with kindness and compassion.
Make the determination to avoid both in the future.
Take up the five precepts, if you haven't already. Or take them up again, if you already had and wish to renew them (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html).

This is Theravada view, btw.

Be kind to yourself! :)


Did the Buddha himself say anything about 'greater good'?

If this is the lesser good:

  AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.

Then this is the greater good:

  AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

If this is the lesser good:

  AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Then this is the greater good:

  AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice in particular that "heroes sacrificing themselves for the nation" is only third best. There are two practices better than that. Indeed, one reads that practicing to benefit oneself is better than being a hero. But to understand this fully, one must also know that practicing to benefit oneself requires one to make progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. The first step of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View. And that Right View includes the direction to perform good deeds.

  MN117:6.1: And what is right view?  Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.  And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

The greatest good, however, is to practice to benefit both ourselves and others. And how do we practice to benefit others? We teach them Right View.

  AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two?  The words of another and proper attention.  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”


What a Buddhist should do is:

Lead a moral life which is beneficial to others and to oneself.
Try to develop control over your mind rather than be a slave to it.
Try to develop an understanding of the true nature of phenomena and reality (cause and effect) with relation to the psychological impact which cause misery and use this understanding as a leverage to come out of misery.

So this question boils down to if a physiologist can marry a surgeon or engineer or some one who subscribes to a non-scientific dogma. There is no issue.

But again marriage comes with other responsibilities and issues afterwards. You have to think through how you can handle these before hand. Also evaluate the impact it might have on your personal development and meditation, and see if there are any personal "costs" involved, but again this is up to you.


Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence?

In the Theravada tradition, there's no justification for killing. But justification is a personal thing. Buddhism tells you about the consequences of an action. Not whether it is justified or not. Killing intentionally is always bad Karma, whether you, the society, a religious community, a religious book, judges of courts, a god, inner voice, patriotism, honor etc. justify it or not.

But one highlighting factor is that if you kill virtuous beings, you get a lot of bad karma, whereas killing an immoral being will result in comparatively less bad karma.
A person who is trying to kill you is already an immoral being. And you may think of a justifiable reason to kill him. But killing him is still bad Karma which can cause much suffering to you in the future as well as corrupting your present mind state.

Karma is a law of nature. It is not a god who punishes you depending on how justified your reasons are for doing something.
ex: Think of a newborn baby touching fire. Having no knowledge of fire, is it fair for it to get burnt? Is it justified? Probably not! But why does it still get burnt? Because fire doesn't judge. It's simply a process of causes and effect. So is Kamma.


Translation of a Chinese Bön book about Dzogchen

I coudn't find a translation, but from what I gather from the title:

大圆满 Dzogchen
前行 forward, advance
法海 Fa-Hai

法海 Fa-Hai was a Chan monk in the Tang dynasty, but is also the name of a Sino-Tibetan Lama (1920-1991) who studied both Chan and Dzogchen. Monica Esposito wrote a book in English on this blending of disciplines:
The Zen of Tantra: Tibetan Great Perfection in Fahai Lama's Chinese Zen Monastery
Hope this helps.


Maintaining the emotional state achieved in meditation through the rest of the day

This pleasurable state that you are attaining during meditation is simply the result of concentration. These states can be developed in different directions within the Buddhist path, but if their place is not properly understood, they can in time become a hindrance.

This bliss isn't enlightenment unfortunately. The goal of Buddhist meditation is to attain clarity of mind and concentration in order to see that reality is impermanent, unable to give us stable and lasting pleasure, and non-self. When these are fully realized, the mediator will be able to at least temporarily let go totally of all attachment and experience the happiness of Nibbana (or Nirvana in Sanskrit), a happiness that is totally distinct from everything else in this world. When this is realized repeatedly, one can eventually become a fully enlightened Arahat, in which one is perfectly happy at all times because has no attachment and is content with whatever comes to be.

In order to progress towards this enlightenment you must understand that these states are a step on the path, and that they are a powerful tool, but not a goal in and of themselves. At this stage you have a choice in how to continue in practice. Option one is to continue to practice meditation the way you are (although there will come a point when the music will prevent deeper concentration, but if you really want to, continuing it for now isn't the worst thing in the world). It is possible to develop this into a powerful state of concentration and peace called Jhana in which the perception of the body totally vanishes. A good book explaining how to do this (you might be able to find it in pdf form here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/ ) is the book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm. He has a lot of other books on practicing the Jhanas as well.

Eventually, even with attaining jhanas, you will need to also develop a quality of mind called Vipassana. You can switch over to practicing Vipassana meditation now as well, or you can switch later. There are several different styles of Vipassana meditation. There is the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition of Vipassana meditation, the Goenka tradition, and some of the practices of the Thai forest tradition such as meditation as taught by the Ven. Thannisaro Bhikku can be classefied as Vipassana meditation.

One of the best resources for learning the Mahasi Sayadaw style meditation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLvU7ppM4vE&list=PLAFC00C07636BE277
It is taught by the Ven. Yuttadhammo, an excellent monk who I can personally attest to as having tremendous wisdom and teaching ability. I consider myself to be a follower of his even though I myself don't practice the Mahasi Sayadaw method, I find his advice to be spot on. I would also highly recommend watching this video of his as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUkzRcNhK8

You can find some writings of Ajahn Thanisarro on that dhammatalks.net site. He can also be quite helpful although he isn't very explicit in talking about vipassana specifically, if you want to continue your concentration style practice this is good because he incorporates both aspects of teaching. He has a book of meditation instructions here: http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/EachAndEveryBreath_v130117.pdf


Shouldn't we care only "What I think" instead of "What I + Others think"?

We should not harass other people, including with what is wholesome. The suttas say:

  Enduring patience is the supreme austerity, Nibbāna is supreme say the
  Buddhas, for one gone forth does not hurt another, nor does an ascetic
  harass another. Dhammapada 184

  Drawing in the mind’s thoughts As a tortoise draws its limbs into its
  shell, Independent, not harassing others, fully quenched, A bhikkhu
  would not blame anyone. SN 1.17

If we act with a wholesome intention, this is not wrong. But if we discover others are not interested in our wholesome intentions, we should refrain from harassing them & care about what they think.

However, if we unintentionally offend them with our wholesomeness, we have done nothing wrong. As Jesus said: "Do not give pearls to swine; do not give the children's food to the dogs; they will turn to attack & trample upon it".


What is the importance of intention in Buddhism?

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

Also from Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38) below, we see that intention (cetana) provides a landing point for the continuation of karmic consciousness.

[the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what
one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for
the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a
landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that
consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed
becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of
this entire mass of suffering & stress.

The story of blind elder monk Cakkhupala from Dhammapada 1 shows the importance of intention:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
intention of killing and so was quite innocent."
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have
mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an
evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

Also the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 shows the importance of intention:

The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has
been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he
goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus,
the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
evil."
Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle poison;
poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no evil for
one who has no evil intention.

So, intention is kamma. You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
But does this mean that intention without acting upon the intention can result in kamma?
According to the Yodhajiva Sutta:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle.

Here, the warrior has the intention. But when he strives and exerts himself based on the intention, then the fruit of the kamma reaches its peak.
Despite this, thoughts are also kamma that can result in suffering. From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

Also the Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

OP: so how do these teachings influence Buddhists?

You can see in this question that buying frozen meat from the supermarket does not incur the kamma of killing, because there was no intention or action to kill.
Another example is the case where if you give money to a beggar, he might use it to buy alcoholic beverages. Some people may have the idea that if the beggar uses the money to buy alcoholic drinks, then they would share in the kammic consequence. However, in this case, the kamma is based on the intention of the giver. If you gave the money with intention to help the beggar buy food, then the result will be good (assuming that the beggar hid his intentions from you).


Can Buddhism help me escape the difficulties in my life?

Of course. Realizing that you don't need things or that those things aren't going to make you happy is the beginning of awareness that the worldly world is not as great as you thought it was!

Fortunately, the Buddha laid the grounds for understanding exactly this sort of suffering and how to remedy it with the Four Noble Truths.

No need to be like everyone else in your society/community. Change your lifestyle in any way you see fit to give you time to study, practice, and explore that which leads to true happiness. No need to live in a cave to do this either; unless you want to. But people can live incredibly simple lifestyles anywhere as long as they aren't trying to fit in with those around them. Best wishes in your journey to true happiness. :)


This is going to be one of those Zen answers that tend to irritate people.

When I asked my teacher this question, he said something like:

  Mission, hmm... You want to be told what to do? Why?

This is not meant as teasing, it's a sincere invitation to sit and contemplate your personal answer to the above.


What distinguishes Japanese Shingon Buddhism from other types?

Shingon is a tantric Buddhism, which makes it rather dissimilar to Zen and a close relative of Tibetan Vajrayana. Unlike Theravada and Mahayana, both of which rely on discipline, study, and meditation for achieving Enlightenment, tantric systems work by putting a student inside a carefully crafted mandala, and having him or her interact with its energies.

Before the student can be introduced to his mandala, he needs to establish a deep relationship with the teacher. Once teacher has learned student's natural inclinations and energy profile, he picks a suitable tantra, tweaks it to match the student, and introduces the student to various deities and energies. As mandala begins to emerge, student works with it by participating in empowerment ceremonies, performing various rituals, and doing visualizations.

If teacher sees student making good progress, he will upgrade him/her to a higher tantra, and the whole process repeats until the student attains complete vision of Truth.


Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate

Autosuggestion engages the subconscious mind, and or a hypnotic state where one can induce self-oriented behaviors. This is not in keeping with calm abiding meditation, or insight meditation. One needs to stay awake and mindful in order to direct the meditation. In calm abiding the goal is to empty the mind of conceptual thoughts or at least push them aside so as not to dwell on them. One can use a focal point such as a picture of a deity, or the breath. However, when using an aid do not allow yourself to become hypnotized...keep mindful. This clear mind meditation will eventually lead to insight meditation, where one can meditate solely on matters related to dharma, without being interrupted by what needs to go on your grocery list!! Your success will come with practice. Your procrastination is an obstacle to be overcome, and that too is a beneficial practice.


At what stage is it wrong to consider oneself wise?

Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise?

To refer to yourself as wise could develop an over-inflated sense of self. I think it's best to just remain silent in mind and speech about the concepts you may want to use to describe yourself.

In the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 10 points this out thus:

  “A disciple should develop a mind which is in no way dependent upon sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensory sensations or any mental conceptions. A disciple should develop a mind which does not rely on anything.”

  “Therefore, Subhuti, the minds of all disciples should be purified of
  all thoughts that relate to seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling,
  touching, and discriminating. They should use their minds
  spontaneously and naturally, without being constrained by preconceived
  notions arising from the senses.”

If there really is wisdom, it tends not to make a fuss of itself.


How does karma calculation proceed in this case without a supercomputer?

The weather is complicated too. People literally use supercomputers to run numerical models/simulations of the atmosphere, to predict the rain and wind. In other words, it requires a super-computer to predict the weather.

On the other hand the weather happened by itself, resolved itself, even before super-computers were invented.

Similarly karma can proceed without a super-computer even though people cannot calculate it exactly.

One of the suttas (Acintita Sutta) says that one should not conjecture "the results of kamma".

How can we, as individuals, choose the right course of action

Karma isn't quite like the weather: unlike karma, the planet's weather is more-or-less unaffected by what one person does, so there's no feedback loop between one person's actions and the fruits of the weather.

I think there are many ways to choose the right course of action:

We get good advice (or teaching) from other people
The Dhamma gives us rules of heuristics about right courses of action (e.g. the precepts and other Buddhist ethics, and, the eightfold path, and so on)
The Dhamma gives us insight into which variables are important to monitor: for example greed and anger (craving and aversion) are important; lay (social) responsibilities and personal (family) responsibilities are important; mindfulness is important; good-will is important, and so is equanimity, generosity, and so on; renunciation is important, dispassion is important; etc.
We experience results of action.
Buddhism sometimes suggests some alternative to conventional thought (for example choosing a "middle way" instead of one extreme or the other; or for example non-action instead of action)

Incidentally I beware of taking the Jataka tales literally, or even as a good example of how to behave; for example it's difficult for me to accept that story as proof that it's sometimes right to kill somebody.

Also, one of the characteristics of an enlightened Buddha is that they are able to know more: including being able to see the workings of karma more clearly than other people can.
There are some Buddhist practices or paths which involve learning how to act is if we were enlightened -- see the answers which describe tantrayana in this topic -- but these may require a teacher.

To repeat, I think we should be reluctant to understand that Jataka story as meaning that it's sometimes alright and even benevolent or beneficial to kill people (which might be a doctrine e.g. of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita). On the other hand that story illustrates a point: that according to Buddhism, your "intention" matters -- karma is described as "intentional action". I suspect that maybe pre-Buddhist doctrine taught that "ritual action" (e.g. Brahmins tending household fires) was important, and the Buddha countered that with a new (Buddhist) doctrine about intention.


Samsara and States of Being (reference request)

Did you try Trungpa's Transcending Madness: The Experience of the Six Bardos?

Another Trungpa's work that touches similar topics is Glimpses of Abhidharma: From a Seminar on Buddhist Psychology


Does the Pali Canon say anything about duty to siblings?

Yes in several places Pali Canon says to help one's relatives such as parents. In the Mangala Sutta in one stanza says to support mother, father and cherish wife and children while in another stanza says to help the relatives. So relatives should include siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc.

"To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing"

"To be generous in giving, to be righteous in conduct,[11] to help one's relatives, and to be blameless in action — this is the greatest blessing"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.5.nara.html

Although I am unable provide any other exact instances, there can be other instances too.


According to the answer to a related question, there was no significant reform movement in Korean Seon:

  So there may be others who revitalized Seon, but in many ways the traditional practices and texts of Seon remained unchanged over a long time. Of all 3 Seon, Zen and Chan, the Korean practice seems the most like a mono culture with a tendency to remaining close to traditions.


Is it possible to attain stream-entry if one is only following "the 5 precepts"?

"entering the stream" means you understood the main point of Buddhism and started applying that point to your entire life.

Which point? -- That you should stop creating causes for future dukkha.

Which causes create dukkha? -- Whatever leads to increase of conflict, increase of side-taking, increase of attachment, increase of obsession, increase of aversion, increase of ignorance - leads to increase of dukkha. Whatever leads to maintenance of conflict, maintenance of side-taking, maintenance of attachment, maintenance of obsession, maintenance of aversion, maintenance of ignorance - leads to maintenance of dukkha. Whatever leads to cessation of conflict, cessation of side-taking, cessation of attachment, cessation of obsession, cessation of aversion, cessation of ignorance - leads to cessation of dukkha.

The nature of dukkha is conflict, clash, mismatch - so if you are setting in motion forces that will set up conditions for arising of conflict, clash, mismatch - then that's what you will get. Once you get that - there's suffering. Correspondingly, when you are laying down causes in the here and now that are by nature conducive to harmony - then that's what you'll get. It is that simple. We create Dukkha by ourselves, so once we stop creating Dukkha we may still get some Dukkha created in the past, but eventually all the past causes will run out and the new causes will come to effect, and so gradually we will attain the natural harmonious state - Nirvana.

Once you really "get" this, once you see it clearly, then you stop acting like that, because you know it's for your own benefit. It's not just blindly following the five precepts. It's about getting the principle. Sometimes you may still make mistakes and create trouble - but as long as you got the principle in the overall - you will keep making progress.

This is when we say you are "in the stream" leading to Nirvana.


Depending on what method of meditation you are practicing there are different options.

If you are practicing Samatha (tranquility) meditation, simply return back attention to whatever primary meditation object you have chosen, e.g. the belly or entrance to the nostrils.

If you are practicing Vipassana (insight) meditation, observe the tingling feeling and note it as "feeling, feeling" or "tingling, tingling", while keeping attention on the phenomena. Note it 2-3 times and then return attention to the feeling of the rising and falling of the abdomen (primary object).

In Samatha meditation one is gently shifting attention away from all other phenomena except the breath.

In Vipassana meditation one is changing object according to whatever arises at the sense doors.

For more info on how to meditate I would suggest Ven. Yuttadhammo's booklet and video series on how to meditate (Vipassana meditation).


What if a course lacks a proper introduction to Buddhist philosophy?

I'm having a slightly similar experience: in that I'm taking a Yang style Tai Chi class for beginners, however I'm not quite a beginner i.e. I previously practised Chen style for a few years with a relatively expert teacher.

Now in this class, I hear the teacher explain the basics, but during that I notice that there are (what I'd consider) some important fundamentals (e.g. to stand up straight), which this teacher never explains.

  My question is, does anyone have any advice for me about how to relate to this feeling of lack of teaching on basic Buddhist philosophy when in "class"?

I'm not sure what "how to relate" means as a question, but FYI some of my thoughts during class have been like:

I don't want to be a guy who argues or interrupts the teacher, shows lack of respect and disrupts class: other students came to learn from him, not to learn from me (see also conceit)
Occasionally I have added some sentence in my own words, if there's a verbal pause, if the teacher just answered someone's question and seems at a slight loss for what to explain further
Teachers and students have to start somewhere and maybe you can't teach nor learn everything at once; more time teaching theory would be less time practising, maybe it's his intention to teach barely enough of the static fundamentals so that he can begin to teach the dynamic movements of the form.
I'm at the class to learn how to practice the (Yang style) form, so as long as I'm getting that (instruction in the form even if not instruction in the fundamentals) I can't complain that me personally isn't getting from the class what I wanted
It sometimes worries me that other students who are beginners aren't getting enough instruction in the fundamentals (because this teacher isn't teaching everything my previous teacher taught) -- then I think that at my previous class we used to have lessons once a week, but we the students would also choose to meet during the week to practice. I haven't made time here, to do the same this time, but that remains an option: if I were really worried for the other students I could ask to meet them during the week so we could practice the lessons together (without disrupting class).

  But what if some of what he says is simply wrong or misleading, would you - in your situation - comment directly on that?

If that were to happen, in my situation I should probably be unsure of myself: because perhaps what he says is one way in which the Yang style that he's teaching is different from the Chen style that I was taught previously.

Also there are few students in our class, so we have every opportunity to ask individual questions. So if he said that we ought to 'something' and I disagreed, I could query that and ask for confirmation, "Is it meant to be like this (demonstrates this) or is it more meant to be like this (demonstrates this)?"

In your case you might (if you wanted to) ask that as a more pointed question, "Is what you just said contradicted by so-and-so who wrote such-and-such?" Perhaps that's an example of a question to ask privately after class, to see whether and how the teacher is able to respond to such a question?

If you're correct in claiming that he said something "wrong or misleading", then what you reply might (if what you say must be "disagreeable") belong to this category of 'right speech' defined in MN 58, i.e.:

  [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.

(but I think it's worth reading that whole page of 'right speech' guidelines for further insight).

Or perhaps you could find a less confrontational way to say that, e.g. "I previously read so-and-so say such-and-such" without emphasizing that that contradicts the teacher. In general I hope questions are welcome as long as you act towards the teacher as if they're a teacher who you want to learn from. If they say things that contradict your prior knowledge then I hope it's on-topic to ask a sincere question ("can the teacher resolve this contradiction/doubt of yours?"), maybe less OK to make an accusation veiled as a question (e.g. "I know more about this than you do and you're wrong, don't you agree?").


kleshas cannot be manifestations or come from the self, since there is no self in the first place.

What there is is various conditioned things that puthujjanas ''take up'', ie the various ''taking up'' is the upadanas, ie the fuel, and they claim the things taken up is self. They also claim that either it is not possible to stop upadanas, or that if is possible to stop the fuel, then it is bad to stop the fuel.

the buddha says the opposite, for instance

  But the well taught Ariyan disdple, brethren, who discers those who
  are Ariyans; who are skilled in the Ariyan doctrine, trained in the
  Ariyan doctrine; who discern the worthy ones, who are skilled in the
  worthy doctrine, trained in the worthy doctrine, regard not body as
  the Self, regard not body as having a Self, regard not body as being
  in the Self, regard not the self as being in the body;

  regard not feeling as the Self, regard not feeling as having a Self,
  regard not feeling as being in the Self, regard not the self as being
  in feeling;

  regard not perception as the Self, regard not perception as having a
  Self, regard not perception as being in the Self, regard not the self
  as being in perception;

  regard not the activities as the Self, regard not the activities as
  having a Self, regard not the activities as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in the activities;

  regard not consciousness as the Self, regard not consciousness as
  having a Self, regard not consciousness as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in consciousness;

  do not run and revolve round and round from body to body, do not run
  and revolve round and round from feeling to feeling, do not run and
  revolve round and round from perception to perception, do not run and
  revolve round and round from activities to activities, do not run and
  revolve round and round from consciousness to consciousness.

  They, not running and revolving round and round from body to body, not
  running and revolving round and round from feeling to feeling,

  not running and revolving round and round from perception to
  perception, not running and revolving round and round from activity to
  activity, not running and revolving round and round from consciousness
  to consciousness are released from body, are released from feeling,
  are released from perception, are released from the activities, are
  released from consciousness, they are released from rebirth, from old
  age and decay, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and
  despair; they are released from suffering, I declare.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.099.wood.pts.htm#p1

same thing with the next sutta

  The Exalted One was once staying near Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in
  Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.

  And there the Exalted One addressed the brethren, saying:

  "Brethren!"

  "Master!" responded those brethren.

  The Exalted One said:

  "Incalculable, brethren, is the beginning of this round of rebirth.

  No beginning is made known of beings wrapt in ignorance, fettered by
  craving, who run on, who fare on the round of rebirth.

  ■

  Just like a dog, brethren, tied up by a leash to a strong stake or
  pillar - if he goes, he goes up to that stake or pillar; if he stands
  still, he stands close to that stake or pillar; if he squats down, he
  squats close to that stake or pillar; if he lies down, he lies dose to
  that stake or pillar.

  ■

  Even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk regard body (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard feeling (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard perception (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard the activities (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard consciousness (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  ■

  If they go, it is towards this fivefold grasping-group that they go.

  If they stand still, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they stand still.

  If they sit, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that they
  sit.

  If they lie down, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they lie down.

  [128] Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own
  mind thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.

  Brethren, have ye ever seen a picture which they call 'a
  show-piece?'"[1]

  "Yes, lord."

  "Well, brethren, this so-called show-piece is thought out by mind.

  Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than that show
  piece.[2]

  Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.

  Brethren, I see not any single group[3] so diverse as the creatures of
  the animal world.

  Those creatures of the animal world, brethren, are thought out by
  mind.[4]|| ||

  Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than those creatures of
  the animal world.

  Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted [129] mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.[5]

  Just as if, brethren, a dyer or a painter, if he have dye or lac or
  turmeric, indigo or madder, and a well-planed board or wall or strip
  of cloth, can fashion the likeness of a woman or of a man complete in
  all its parts,[6] even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk creates and
  re-creates its body, creates and re-creates its feelings, creates and
  re-creates its perception, creates and re-creates its activities,
  creates and re-creates its consciousness.

  Now as to this, what think you, brother?|| ||

  Is body permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Are the activities permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  "Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future or
  present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or
  near, - every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every feeling whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or
  outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every feeling
  should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every perception whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  perception should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every activity whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  activity should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every consciousness whatever, be it past, future or present, be it
  inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  consciousness should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'


I have not read the term "beginningless" in the Pali suttas, which refers to a "beginningless beginning", similar to chicken vs egg.

The Pali suttas use the phrase: "without discoverable beginning", which means a first occasion cannot be discerned.

  Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
  came into being.’ AN 10.61

  Bhikkhus, this saṃsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by
  ignorance and fettered by craving. SN 22.99

In other words, "ignorance", for example, is the present 1st cause for the manifestation of suffering. Here, Buddhism does not attempt to answer the question: "What came before or what causes ignorance?". This is why the term: "without knowable beginning" is not analogous to the chicken vs egg scenario. The Pali suttas are saying: "It is not knowable when ignorance 1st began or what caused it however ignorance exists in the present moment that causes suffering".

Therefore, Buddhism does not affirm or deny the 'physical universe' (which is not the meaning of 'samsara') may have had a beginning, such as the Big Bang (despite the illogicalness of the Big Bang theory).


How things become easier when we do things continuously / repeatedly?

Maybe your looking at it the wrong way. I am not sure of an exact sutta or even any sutta that says this exactly but habits passed onto another life can be because of the karma accumulated.

For example let take the following scenario.
If your a physical trainer, you would most likely train all your life to be physically fit. Now as a trainer, you get other people (your clients) into physical training hence you do the "dana" or "giving" of physical training to lots of people. Since you have that karma of "giving out physical training", your most likely to get "physical training" as a reward in your next life. Hence there is a high chance in your next life you will be really into physical training. While you do this, you will also inspire someone else to be a physical trainer. Again giving the "inspiration to be a physical trainer". Next life, someone will inspire you to be the same as a result of your karma.

If you inspire someone, you will be inspired by someone. You make someone do something, someone else will do the same back to you. This is the karmic law. Obviously its not this simple but in a bird's eye view, roughly this is probably the cause of a habit being born on a person and then continuing until that habit is dead.

Karma is subjected to impermanence like everything else. Hence eventually it will fade away. So you won't have a forever samsara habit.


So a client hires me as their personal trainer.  They say, "I've been working out for five years.  I never see any results.  I just don't think I'll ever get into shape!"  I ask them to workout for me.  They go from machine to machine doing all sorts of bizarre rep schemes.  They take five minutes between sets.  They use weight that's easily 50% less than what they should be doing.  They get on the treadmill and do ten minutes at about 2.5 MPH.  I ask them how often they do their workout out.  "At least once a week.  Sometimes twice.  Sometimes I don't go at all."

I put them on a basic, consistent, progressive program.  Since they are paying me $25 an hour whether they come or not, suddenly they start going to the gym with more frequency.  After six weeks, they've seen more progress than in their previous five years of training.

Seng Ts'an says that "to live in the great way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute."  If I was to look at your practice, how much would it resemble one of my fitness clients?  Are you really showing up or are you just going through the motions with your practice?

Simple exercise regiments often work just as well as the most complicated.  The deciding factors are effort and consistency.  The Buddhist path is no different.  At most, there are three things to keep in mind - sila, samadhi, and prajna.  Practice these three things wholeheartedly and you will make progress.  It's absolutely inevitable.  This means paying close attention to the precepts, meditating every day for at least an hour, going on regular retreats, and meeting often with your teacher.  It also helps to sit with a sangha.  This gives you accountability in a way that practicing by yourself simply cannot.

You can change, you simply have to work at it with everything you've got.  If you get derailed, simply get back on the cushion and keep going.


Is craving unskilful because it fuels craving?

Generally speaking, I think you're right.

  Ānanda, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can be clung to, craving increases. With craving as condition, [the rest of D.O. chain] comes to be…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.52-57, 12.60)

In addition to that standard explanation that goes from enjoying to craving, Buddha also provides an alternative - when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that...

  Where there is fondness, relishing, & craving [...], consciousness settles there and grows. Where consciousness settles and grows, there is descent of name-&-form. Where there is descent of name-&-form, there is growth of tendencies. Where there is growth of tendencies, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair. (SN 12.64)

And in slightly different words:

  Bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can fetter, there is a descent of consciousness. With consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be... [the rest of D.O. chain goes here] Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.59)

So, in my understanding, when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that. When it settles, it takes something as a position, it assumes this is how things "are supposed to be". It then identifies with that position, "this is me, this is mine". Then from this position grow all kinds of problems, like:

things change, you want to keep it the same but you can't - therefore you suffer.
someone else found pleasure in some other experience, and settled in that - now their idea of how things are supposed to be is different from yours, so when you two get in conflict you fight - therefore both suffer.

So the problem with pleasure is this very "settling" of the mind, which takes its experience far too seriously and reifies it as absolute reality, "how things are supposed to be".

In Mahayana we say, you can experience pleasure as long as you see it as empty and therefore don't settle there. As long as you clearly see that the experiencer is a construct of mind, the experience is a construct of mind, the whole situation is a temporary arrangement, and the "pleasantness" of it is an illusion. When you see all that, you can still watch it, like when a grown-up watches a magic show where he knows all tricks. He can still kinda enjoy it - but not in the same naive way as kids do.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in. [...] If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. (SN 12.51)

So, to answer your question, I don't think pleasure is only bad because it can't satisfy craving permanently, and if we look very carefully, I don't think we can say it is only bad because it fuels craving directly (although Buddha did speak about that too, as we can see above). Most importantly, from Buddha's explanations it seems that the big, "strategic" problem with pleasure is that it provides a comfortable ground for the samsaric mind of objectification and identification to grow on.

Now, you are asking, how is it possible for a non-Buddhist to realy appreciate this insight. I think the "tactical" part, about pleasure being unable to permanently satisfy craving and about pleasure increasing the craving, can be explained through the modern concept of addiction. You can say: "It is easy to get addicted to pleasure, but don't get addicted or else you'll want more and more, and will suffer when you can't get it".

The "strategic" part is harder to explain in modern language, or really in any language. Perhaps you could say, "Getting used to pleasure (really to anything "good") is dangerous, because first it becomes an anchor, then a reference point, then the center of your reality. And then you start measuring everything else against it, which determines your behavior. Then you're no longer shapeless and free, instead you are shaped and very vulnerable. Pleasure shapes you and makes your reality rigid. Once you have shape, you are mortal." - see, this part is hard to explain and hard to understand.


If science can't prove the existence of other dimensions forever

Three possible approaches, here.

One, you just acceptt this on faith. Depending on your mindset, this can be something like believing the impossible or groundless, or something more like feeling like you need to a decision. You can't prove tea or coffee is better for breakfast, but you can't stand around all day weighting the alternatives. So you make a decision, aware that the reasoning has some holes.

Two, you look at these as a myth, an instructive story and you don't even put much thought into if the story is true. In our distant past, everything was hearsay. There was no science, no reliable news outlets, and it was just a bunch of people telling stories. People got used to some stories seeming a bit far fetched, but everyone you ever heard in your life was a bunch of plausible sounding stories.

Three, you look at these as patently incompatible with everything we know about the world from multiple reliable sources-- science, journalism, and so on. You either discard that part of Buddhism as nonsense, or alternatively review it and look for what can be salvaged-- for example, some modern readers view the cosmology as a metaphor for states of mind (hell is the state of mind in this world and this body that we put ourselves in when we act unskillfully)


The symbol for Zen meditation is Riding the Ox.
See Wikipedia article on Ten Oxherding Pictures.

  The calf, bull or ox is one of the earliest similes for meditation practice. It comes from the Maha Gopalaka Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 33). It is also used in the commentaries, especially the one on the Maha Satipatthana Sutta (Digha Nikaya 22) and the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10). As Buddhism spread throughout South-East Asia, the simile of the bull spread with it.

According to this explanation, the use of ox as symbol for meditation predates Zen, but on my memory I have not seen the ox used in any tradition other than Chan/Zen/Seon. Now technically, the ox is probably a symbol for the mind or something like that - so it is not the ox itself but riding it joyfully (symbolized by the flute) is what probably stands for the (successful) act of meditating.

Or perhaps, if you want to show the struggle you can use the fighting scene:

In Tibetan tradition the ox is replaced by an elephant:

In Pali Canon, the Buddha speaks on multiple occasions about herding the grazing cows, taming wild elephants, and training horses as metaphors for Buddhist practice. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about training our inner gorilla. Dza Kilung Rinpoche compared the gentle but steady approach to meditation with teaching a very young child. I think it should be safe to say that training an animal is probably a good symbol for meditation.

Other generic metaphors used by various Buddhist teachers for (not necessarily Zen, but definitely Buddhist) meditation, that come to mind, include:

Improvising a certain theme on a lute, with the strings not tied too tense nor too loose.
Flying a kite of mind, tied to the stake of the breath.
Practicing airplane "touch-and-goes".
Watching the running water calm down.
Sobering up without sleeping.
Cleaning the kitchen.
Weeding the yard or field.
Polishing a tile or a mirror.
Leveling jungle into a flat field.
Honing an arrow.
Heating or chilling a piece of smithwork to maintain the right temperature.

These metaphors hint at such factors as steadiness, balanced effort, removing the obstacles, and making incremental gradual progress.

Some of these might make good graphical symbols, too.


Is Buddhism life denying or life negative?

Why your question and all the other similar questions you linked are not getting a direct answer, but a shuffle is because the Buddha did not give an answer for such questions.
You may read many shuffles here, but the truth is questions such as Begining of life, end of life (i.e. beginner and end of Samsara); or hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings attain Nirvana will receive a cold silence as an answer from the Buddha.


well there is the 4 four divine abodes like you said, and beyond that, there is becoming an arhant.

For metta and the opposite, ie anger, ill will you can find out why you get angry towards somebody. Generally, people get angry at somebody or something because they care about a thing, then somebody does something and the angry person imagine that this action of this somebody will  threaten the thing he cares about.
Then the method is that you must determine if what you care about is indeed worth caring about. It runs out that puthujjanas care about bad things and do not care about good things. So that's probably a good start for improvement. So first see if you think that caring about the thing is good or bad, then see if the buddha says it is indeed good or bad.
If the buddha disagree with you, then you better follow him, rather than whatever false ideas  popping up in your mind.

so if you want something else than metta, you have to look at wisdom, ie panna, and with the buddha, the way to get wisdom is always the same, ie this
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.126.wood.pts.htm#p1

  Herein, monks, a certain person lives irradiating one quarter (of the
  world) with a heart possessed of amity; so also as to the second,
  third and fourth quarter of the world; and in like manner above,
  below, across, everywhere, for all sorts and conditions, he lives
  irradiating the whole world with a heart possessed of amity that is
  widespread, grown great and boundless, free from enmity and
  untroubled.

  There, whatsoever conditions arise by way of form, feeling,
  perception, the activities, consciousness, those conditions he comes
  to regard as impermanent, as Ill, as a disease, as an imposthume, as a
  barb, as pain, ill-health, alien, transitory, as empty and not of the
  self.

  When body breaks up after death he is reobrn in the company of the
  devas of the Pure Abodes.

  Monks, this rebirth is not partaken of by ordinary men.

Of course getting metta is hard for anybody clinging to sensuality, ie most people. So the beginning of that and more generally of ''mediation'', ie samadhi, is always to see thoughts as you see ''objects'' of the 5 usual senses, ie just things which come and go and do not get infatuated with ideas, thoughts, dreams, fantasies and all that.
Do not base your actions on thoughts. Base your actions, ie what you do and do not do, only on what the buddha says is wisdom. (since puthujjanas do not have any wisdom, they have to memorize what wisdom is, from the buddha , then cultivate it)

it turns out that the buddha says that there are good thoughts and there are bad thoughts.
First you must memorize what are good thoughts and what are bad thoughts, which is explained here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Second you must be judging all the time, all the thoughts which pop up in the mind. This is really hard for most people, only because people think that when they have an idea, they have to act on it, that their ideas, opinions, thoughts are always good, (and ideas of other people are mostly bad).

Third, you must judge a good thoughts as good thought and bad thought as bad thought . Some people do not even do that. for instance they say that thoughts of anger sometimes are good. THe buddha says thought so anger are always bad.

fourth, you must get rid of bad thoughts and keep only good thoughts. This is hard too as long as you see thoughts, opinions, ideas, dreams as important, as above.

Fifth, the way to get the citta in samadhi is actually to keep the good thoughts and then, with the faith in the buddha, you must manage to get piti, sukha, joy (ie that the things that the buddha calls good are indeed good, which is the way to tranquilize all the stuff that the buddha says is bad.

for instance, to calm the ''bodily formation'' you have to ''enter'' the 4th jhana

  "And how is a monk calmed in his bodily fabrication? [4] There is the
  case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with
  the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in
  the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure
  nor pain. This is how a monk is calmed in his bodily fabrication.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.020.than.html#fnt-1
Because the buddha says that  culturing  good thoughts and joy is actually the way to get the citta into samadhi.

  "For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

  "For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.

  "For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.

  "For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.

  "For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.

  "For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

  "For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.

  "For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

now back to metta

first the buddha says that to avoid aversion, you have to cultivate ''Good will as an awareness-release''

  "[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen aversion does not arise, or arisen aversion is
  abandoned?'

  'Good will as an awareness-release,' it should be said.

  'For one who attends appropriately to good will as an
  awareness-release, unarisen aversion does not arise and arisen
  aversion is abandoned...'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/03_threes/an03.068.than.ati.htm#p1

but then there ''two kinds of view'' about metta. the view of the puthujjanas and of course the way better view of the non-puthujjanas because it is wisdom and not really a view,
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/04_fours/an04.125.than.ati.htm

  "There is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first
  direction[1] — as well as the second direction, the third, and the
  fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will.

  Thus he keeps pervading above, below, and all around, everywhere and
  in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued
  with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from
  hostility, free from ill will.

  He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that.

  Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away
  from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the
  devas of Brahma's retinue.

  The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon.

  A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the
  life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the
  state of the hungry shades.

  But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up
  all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of
  being.

  This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the
  distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones
  and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination,
  a reappearing.

Do not confuse the view of the puthujjanas with the wisdom about metta.

now concretely the good will is explained here
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/snp/snp.1-08.than.ati.htm

  Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure.

  Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever
  beings there may be,
      weak or strong, without exception,
      long, large,
      middling, short,
      subtle, blatant,
      seen and unseen,
      near and far,
      born and seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart.

  Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through
  anger or irritation wish for another to suffer.

  As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
  beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
  heart: Above, below, and all around, unobstructed, without enmity or
  hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down,
      as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here and now.

  Not taken with views, but virtuous and consummate in vision, having
  subdued desire for sensual pleasures,
      one never again
      will lie in the womb.


Do the scholastic sects say that chan practice is something separate from themselves?

Remember the concentration division of the Eightfold Noble Path consist of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.

The Noble Eightfold Noble Path did not specify a particular practice for obtaining mindful concentration as long as long as they are consistent with the teachings. You can obtain Right Concentration from Sitting Meditation "Zazen" or you can chant sutras, or you can do walking meditation. In fact for the Chan/ Zen practitioner they aspire to maintain Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in every moment, in every thought. Some  practices are easier than others to obtain concentration however, that's why sitting meditation is generally fundamental since it avoids distractions.

To summarize:

Right Effort

  "And what, monks, is right effort?

  [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors,
  activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the
  non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

  [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful
  qualities that have arisen.

  [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds
  & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities
  that have not yet arisen.

  [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase,
  plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have
  arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/index.html

Right Mindfulness

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...

  "One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/index.html

Right Concentration

  "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html

As long as the Noble Eightfold Path is being practiced, mindful concentration is possible and therefor the Jhanas also known as Chan or Zen is possible. Therefore the myriad practices of Buddhism lead to the same thing and there is no separation. You can scrub clean the floor and have mental concentration to experience Joy and Peace in your heart. Or you can chant sacred scriptures while performing complex mudras.

In theory, the Noble Eightfold Path must be practiced by every school of Buddhism and hence 'Chan/Zen' is practiced by every schools of Buddhism whatever their names maybe. However, as it tends to happen there are monks and schools who don't know what they are doing and spend their time debating philosophical concepts in the scriptures or running a temple like a business and not cultivating themselves and not practicing the Dharma. Even within the Chan/Seon/Zen school in China/Korea/Japan there are people who lost sight of what 'Zen' actually means and engaged in pointless philosophizing. As long you know how it work you can see the practices everywhere and not be confused by surface appearances.


How were dreams and visions seen in the context of Chinese Buddhism?

Good question. Most Buddhist teachers do advise us to try to ignore dreams and visions. Hard to do, sometimes. Still, in some places, they do place credence on dreams. During the Kalachakra Initiation, a 2 or 3-day affair, after the first day's teachings, the student is advised to try to remember his dream from that night.  [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_554862326.html] The common factor between your question and the above, perhaps, is that a Boddhisatva or a Buddha is presemed to be giving the initiation, and perhaps the dream, too. There is also a Dream Yoga practice in the "Six Yogas of Naropa" practices. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_yoga]. In the advanced practice of the Completion Stage of the Mahamudra, the Six Yogas are practiced. One of them is the Dream Yoga practice, which is, again, only useful for advanced practioners. [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/mahamudra/karma_kagyu_mm/commentary_aspiration_prayer_definitive_meaning_mm/mm_prayer_commentary_02.html?query=six+yogas+of+naropa] Hope that helps.
ps. I tried to make a comment on your Brahma Net Project site, but for some reason the FaceBook login does not work on the network where I work. And I can not figure out how to get an account on your site. Maybe you need an "how to get an BNP site account for dummies page" there. Thanks.


How do Buddhists reconcile "Anatta" with Buddha supporting the existence of the Self in the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra?

I am not an expert on Mahayana Buddhism, but I will try to answer this question.

I found another translation here.

For the same section quoted by OP, this other translation states:

  Bhikṣus, thus you should not cultivate your ideas of impermanence,
  suffering, nonself, impurity, and so forth as if they were the true
  meaning [of the human condition]. Just like those people who took
  rocks, vegetation, or gravel to be the jeweled necklace they were
  looking for, you must carefully learn about expedient means so that
  wherever you are, you can continually cultivate your perception of
  self as well as your perceptions of permanence, bliss, and purity.

Later on, the text says:

  And out of my desire to subdue the non-Buddhist paths I therefore
  declared: “There is no self,there is no person or [individual] living
  being, life span, personality, observer, actor, or experiencer.”
  Monks, the heterodox paths affirm a “self” in the same manner as [some
  infer literacy in] the shapes of letters incised into wood
  accidentally by insects. This is why the Tathāgata proclaims “nonself”
  as part of his buddha-dharma. It is because I need to straighten out
  [the thinking] of living beings—because I am aware of their
  situation—that I expound the absence of self. ....
  But what I am speaking of is not what ordinary people imagine the self
  to be. Ordinary people or ignorant people suppose the self to be the
  size of a thumb, or perhaps a mustard seed, or a speck of dust. What
  the Tathāgata explains the self to be is nothing like that. Therefore
  when I preach “dharmas are without self,” in truth they are not
  without self. So what is this self [of which I now speak]? If a dharma
  is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis, and its nature is
  immutable, then that is what I call self.

The term "dharma" above means "thing". So "self" is a thing which is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis and is immutable.

Then it continues:

  [Kāśyapa continued:] “World-Honored One, is there a self or not in any
  of the twenty-five forms of existence?”

  The Buddha said: Good man, “self” is precisely what tathāgatagarbha
  means. All living beings have buddha-nature, and this is what is meant
  by this notion of self. However, the significance of “self” understood
  in this way has been continuously covered over by an uncountable
  number of the defilements since the beginning [of any given
  individual’s existence], and that is why living beings have been
  unable to perceive it.

So, the "self" in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra refers to the tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature.

It must be noted that tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature is not the same as the concept of Atman in Hinduism, as can be seen by the following excerpt from the same text Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

  Good man, if people have never heard of the profound, hidden tathā-
  gata treasury, how could they be aware of the existence of
  buddha-nature? What is it that I am calling “a hidden treasury”? I am
  talking about the well-balanced Mahāyāna scriptures themselves. Good
  man, there are other paths: some expound a self that is permanent,
  some expound a self that is cut off permanently [at death]. The
  Tathāgata is not like them. In affirming both self and nonself, I call
  it “the middle path.” One way of explaining this is that the Buddha
  expounds a middle path in which all living beings possess
  buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by the defilements they do
  not understand it and do not see it. Therefore you must diligently
  cultivate whatever expedient means you can in order to destroy those
  defilements.

According to this article:

  Tathagatagarbha, or Tathagata-garbha, means "womb" (garbha) of Buddha
  (Tathagata). This refers to a Mahayana Buddhist doctrine that Buddha
  Nature is within all beings. Because this is so, all beings may
  realize enlightenment. Tathagatagarbha often is described as a seed,
  embryo or potentiality within each individual to be developed.

And it discusses further:

  In the religions of the Buddha's day that were the forerunners of
  today's Hinduism, one of the central beliefs as (and is) the doctrine
  of atman. Atman means "breath" or "spirit," and it refers to a soul or
  individual essence of self. Another is the teaching of Brahman, which
  is understood as something like the absolute reality or the ground of
  being. In the several traditions of Hinduism, the precise relationship
  of atman to Brahman varies, but they could be understood as the small,
  individual self and the big, universal self.

  However, the Buddha specifically rejected this teaching. The doctrine
  of anatman, which he articulated many times, is a direct refutation of
  atman.

  Through the centuries many have accused the Tathagatagarbha doctrine
  of being an attempt to sneak an atman back into Buddhism by another
  name.

  In this case, the potentiality or Buddha-seed within each being is
  compared to atman, and Buddha Nature -- which is sometimes identified
  with the dharmakaya -- is compared to Brahman.

  You can find many Buddhist teachers speaking of small mind and big
  mind, or small self and big self. What they mean may not be exactly
  like the atman and Brahman of Vedanta, but it's common for people to
  understand them that way. Understanding Tathagatagarbha this way,
  however, would violate basic Buddhist teaching.

Another article here tries to point the origins of tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature to the Luminous Mind in the Pali Canon (which according to Theravada Buddhism, is not permanent or eternal, but is dependently arising - see this answer):

  The term "'tathagatagarbha'" is generally taken as to mean that the
  "garbha" (womb or potential) of a 'Tathagata' exists in all sentient beings without
  exception, and though temporarily contaminated by adventitious
  defilement ('agantukaklesa'), it is the cause which eventually leads
  sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion of the 'tathagatagarbha'
  can be traced to a luminous¡A inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta)
  found in the 'Anguttara-nikaya' (1:5):

  Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! It is defiled by the adventitious
  defilement. Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! it obtains liberation
  through the adventitious defilement.

  When the original pure mind came to be regarded as something capable
  of growing into Buddhahood, there was the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine.
  Although the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in the
  Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as Wayman (1), Paul (2),
  Yin-shun (3) think that the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was originated
  from the 'Mahasamgika', but was rejected by the 'Theravada'. This
  theory is also held by Mizuno who points out that the pure mind
  ('pabhassarcitta') articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally
  identical with the original pure mind ('prakrtivisuddhi-citta')
  articulated in the 'Tathagatagarbha' doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that
  the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic in that it is
  capable of eradicating defilement.(4) At any rate, the relationship
  between pure mind and the adventitious defilement appears to have been
  wholly adopted by the 'Mahasamghika' and later by the 'Mahayana'.

It also comments in its conclusion:

  In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the
  'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

  1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a
  principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

  2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the 'Mahayana'
  doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitya-samutpada'.

  3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine signifies the
  ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the
  masses aiming at a given time.

  That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as an positive
  soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is
  empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a
  devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the
  hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect
  that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.

  4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means
  ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the
  'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further
  qualifications -- rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught
  to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This
  is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness
  of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the
  'tathagatagarbha', and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is
  better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing
  "profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a
  monistic self.


Any recommended monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats?

Please refer these links.

http://nauyana.org/

http://www.sadahamarana.org/?page_id=48

You can google for these links. Please do some background checks, before you go there. False teachers can be exists like infamous 'Pitiduwe Siri Damma'.