text:
Are there any exceptions to the first precept?
I recently accidentally injured a bee, I did all I could to help it, but its wing was broken and so was its leg, it could not walk nor fly, it was clearly in a great amount of pain and distress. I tried to heal it with some energy work, but it was no good, I am just not experienced enough and for some reason on that day couldn't find focus with my energy work.
So I took the decision to do what was necessary to stop what I took to be unnecessary suffering, I killed the bee.
In another occasion where I was not responsible for the initial injury, I found a bee in great distress on the ground, I am not sure what happened to it, I think maybe it stung somebody because it appeared very hollow inside. There was nothing that could be done for it, and though it gave me great sadness, I also killed this bee to end its suffering.
I love all life, it greatly saddens me when I accidentally kill something, and even more so when I have to do it knowingly. But it would sadden me even more if I had to leave a being in suffering and not doing anything when I could and there wasn't a reason not to.
Am I breaking the first precept or can an exception be made to end the great and unnecessary suffering of a being who cannot be saved from their fate?
I heard a story about one of Buddha's previous lives where he sad that he found out about a murderer on a ship who was planning to kill everyone, and out of only compassion for the man the Buddha killed him with no hatred and only love so that he wouldn't have to go through all the terrible rebirths fore his actions of killing everyone on the ship (this is from a memory of someone telling me this story, I believe that they had read it somewhere, but I may be getting some the details wrong). And that by doing so he in fact cleared a huge amount of previous karma, rather than gaining any for this act. That is not to say though that I am doing this with the intent to clear karma, I merely want to help the bee.
Now although that is a different situation, could that be related at all to this?

Wanting to help the bee is good Karma as it is caused by compassion.
Having great sadness is bad Karma as it is caused by aversion.
Thinking that killing is ok is bad Karma as it is a wrong view caused by ignorance.
Completing the kill is bad Karma as it breaks the 1st precept.

It's the same case with the example of the Bodhisatta. Make it a point to use the term 'Bodhisatta'. Not 'Buddha'.
You either practice compassion and try to heal the bee or practice equanimity and let nature take its course.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I have come to agreeing with you.

Don't beat yourself up over it.  Precepts are an interesting thing.  Most people come at them with the idea that they are iron clad laws governing our behavior.  Don't get me wrong, in some ways they certainly are.  When you take this kind of legalistic perspective, however, I really think you are missing out on their greater purpose.
The precepts are decidedly simple.  Abstain from killing.  Abstain from stealing.  And so on and so forth.  But what does it mean to kill?  Did the Buddha really say steal?  The Pāli reads more like "do not take that which is not given".  What does that mean!?  Likewise, anyone with an opinion will give you their interpretation on what the "sensual pleasure" precept refers to.  Reading the precepts this way isn't to split legal hairs or an attempt to loosen restriction.  These are all valid and important questions - questions I think the Buddha intended us to ask by making his training rules so brief in content.
Rather than view the precepts as moral law, it might be helpful to see them as a kind of spiritual Rorschach test.  What you see is very much dependent on where you are in your spiritual development.  Please don't take that to mean that the more ironclad you are in your interpretation, the more advanced you are in your training.  The precepts are factories of insight.  They are meant to teach and enlighten not just govern behavior.

5 elements of 1st precept:

Living satta.
Be aware satta's living.
Killing consciousness arising "I will kill it".
Try to kill by that consciousness.
Satta die by that effort.

Must complete 5 elements to break 1st precept. No one can break 1st precept by just the fifth element.
Source: tatiyapārājikā-sikkhāpada in vinaya-pitaka.

In criminal law those are the elements of the offense. When we put on a criminal trial in a courtroom we list those types of elements in instructions that we give to jurors as they determine innocence or guilt of the accused.


text:
What do buddha taught about dreams?
What has buddha told about dreams? Do dreams have any link with truths or realities? If a person understands something from his dream which he is asking in this world, than should such things considered as real? How is this world also one of the dream worlds among other infinite dream worlds/parallel universe? Is dream a type of meditation state?

Dreams (supina) are mental images that occur during sleep.

Also I found something may that would be helpful to you.  A Buddhist Approach to Dreams
Jung and Junti - Dreams West and East
by Rev. Heng Sure -.

Monks are not supposed to interpret dreams

Whereas some recluses and brahmins, living off food given in faith, maintain
  themselves by wrong livelihood through the low arts such as:
...

interpreting dreams

Te,vijja Sutta
Mahāsupina Jātaka does mention the Buddha interpreting 16 dreams King Pasenadi Kosala.
But with regarding dreams, there might be no accurate way to interpret them, by anyone other than the Buddha.
Dreams are not meditative states. In meditation you should be focusing on a particular object or having awareness. In both cases it is unlikely you might have a dream unless you dose off.

I once meditated consciously on what I was aware of while being in a dream. That is, not experiencing this waking life physical matter reality, but the dream state reality. I was conscious of the fact that I was 'dreaming' and with the freedom of choice I decided to remove all noise that was going on in the dream, sit down, close my eyes and focus on what I felt. Of course that sitting down, closing my eyes might all be created by the mind. What I want to say is that meditating and dreaming are not mutually exclusive in my experience. Maybe it depends on what you would define as a dream.

www.thefreedictionary.com/dream states "A series of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep" So in that respect, it wasn't a dream as the sensations and emotions occuring wheren't involuntarily. Also not entirely voluntarily, but my waking life reality isn't entirely voluntarily as well. That makes me conclude that in fact I am dreaming continuously to a certain degree. By body was asleep, and I was to a certain extent mentally self aware, more than average at least.

I'm not sure what Buddha taught about it. Here is something from my experience which might be of help.
From time to time I have a lucid dream, that is a dream in which I am conscious that I am dreaming. The more conscious I am, the more freedom of choice I have. Especially when I am motivated to ask a question to another being in the dream, I tend to 'wake up' in the dream. I've asked a couple of questions, spread over a couple of dreams. The answers provided were sometimes riddles to me for days. And suddenly a realization/epiphany struck me. Sometimes an answer was as clear as it could be right away. What these answers showed me were things nobody in waking life reality showed me, and what really helped me grow personally.
To give a concrete example. I once asked someone in the dream world what she was doing for ME. That is, I ignorantly assumed that this was MY dream world, and everything and everybody in it, was part of MY mind and so must had a purpose for ME. You can understand that that ME is ego and therefore based on illusion instead of reality. What the first dream person replied was: "I am not letting myself lead by YOU". I didn't directly understood that answer, I was more interesting in what I was looking for. So I ran of to another person. I came up from behind, took the person by the shoulders and turned her around and asked the same question. She replied with: "If you would work WITH US, than you would know."
The moment I experienced the dream it was reality, as in the pure definition of what reality is: "The quality or state of being actual or true". The experience in that moment was actual and true.
In that respect, no matter what the source is, information is always real, and therefore reality. Understand that the dichotomy of subjective and objective reality nuances it in the following aspect: When you take some subjectively created reality to be objective reality, you have an erroneous perception of reality, which is by definition an illusion.
Whatever monks supposed to do with interpreting dreams or not. I think it is always good to interpret any information from whatever source. If I would have limited myself back then to "Oh, I am not supposed to interpret my dream" I wouldn't have grown by it. Now I did and I am glad I spent time interpreting it.
So yes I do think that dreams have a link to reality. So yes, if you gain understanding from something by an experience you had in a dream, go for it I would say! Apply your newly gained knowledge, see if it works. If it does consistently, it must be very real and you should keep using that knowledge. Because only real things work.
I'm sorry that I could provide any information with respect to what Buddha taught. What I do know is that Buddha taught that when you have used a boat to cross the river, and it is no longer of use to you, you should leave it, how important that boat was to cross the river, or how much energy you spend in creating it, it is no longer of the same value once you have crossed the river (source). So don't hold on to the need to find a Dhamma about a certain subject. If you own experience is a guide to you, then go for that! Where do you think Buddha obtained his teachings from? First hand experience. So, I would say that if it works, the knowledge you gained through your own experience, it is more worth trusting that then needing to find a teaching to validate it. I am assuming here that you are looking for validation, my assumption might be wrong.Maybe you don't feel like you need it for validation, but you are just looking for supplementary information.

There is a school of Mahayana Buddhism that believes that the dream world is just as real as the waking world.
After some reflection I remembered...
It's the "Mind only school" Yogachara
And Here - Mind Only School

Slightly philosophical, but I hope this contributes...
According to the Prajnaparamita Sutra (over 2,000 years old) and related texts, dreams (known in sanskrit as svapna) have a classification although they are regarded as unreal. The Prajna-Paramita was allegedly practiced by all past Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and the knowledge contained therein is closely related to the knowledge-quality of the mind of a Buddha.
There are five types of dreams defined:

i) In the case of physical unbalance (kāyavaiṣamya), when the hot vapors predominate, one dreams a lot, one sees fire (tejas), yellow (pīta) and red (lohita) ;
ii) When the cold vapors predominate, one sees especially water (ap-) and white (avadāta);
iii) When the windy vapors predominate, one sees particularly flights [of birds] and black (kṛṣṇa);
iv) When one has thought a lot [during the day] and reflected well on what one has seen and heard (dṛṣṭaśruta), one sees all of that again in dream;
v) Finally, the gods send dreams to teach about future events.
These five types of dreams are all without reality; they are false visions.
(source)

Note: in order to understand the last sentence of the above quote, you should learn the context in which the discussion takes place: the unreality of the dharmas are compared to Dreams (svapna); this example forms part of a set of ten comparisons. The goal is thus to prove the emptiness of dharmas, not to invalidate the purpose of dreams.
The source link contains an interesting discussion regarding the reality of dreams. For example, one opposing argument is treated as follows:

Question. – You should not say that the dream has no reality. Why? Because every mind depends on causes and conditions (hetupratyaya) in order to be produced and, in the dream, consciousness (vijñāna) has all sorts of conditions (pratyaya). Without these conditions, how could consciousness arise?
Answer. – It’s nothing of the sort: in dream, we see something although we should not see it. We see, for example, a human head (manuṣyaśiras) with horns (viṣāṇa) or dead bodies flying through space (ākāśa). Actually, people do not have horns and dead bodies do not fly. Thus the dream has no reality.

What follows is a very interesting discussion regarding the illusion of conceptual existence but that's rather off-topic for this question.

Dreams occur through our identification in the waking life with nāma-rūpa or concept and object. Therefore, with relative reasoning dreams originate as a reflection of the cycle of samsāra which bears the component of duḥkha thus, the efforts of interpretation are futile. How so?
If identification with nāma-rūpa in the waking life leads to various degrees of discontented states that identification must also present in the interpretation of ones dreams. This would be similar to handing a user-feedback form to someone who has just punched you.
A question to contemplate quietly with yourself is: What would the motivation be for the interpretation of your dreams?
Interestingly, I hear in the enlightened state one has dreamless sleeps which goes some way to reinforcing the connection to identification with concept and object in the waking life and concept and object in the dream state.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?
Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?
I'm just asking 'cos that's what I would ask, if I knew of any 'Buddha'.

or in zen, either

Ven. Ananda had the habit of asking Buddha the future destinations of people who passed away. So Buddha gave him the mirror of Dhamma so now you can decide this yourself.

The Mirror of the Dhamma

"But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
"And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?

"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'
"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
And also in Nadika, in the Brick House, the Blessed One often gave counsel to the bhikkhus thus: "Such and such is virtue; such and such is concentration; and such and such is wisdom. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by virtuous conduct; great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration; utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom."
When the Blessed One had stayed in Nadika as long as he pleased, he spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Come, Ananda, let us go to Vesali."

"So be it, O Lord." And the Blessed One took up his abode in Vesali together with a large community of bhikkhus, and stayed in Ambapali's grove.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Buddha in the Patika Sutta tells about the rebirth of naked ascetic Korakkhattiya to Sunakhatta.

"I do not begrudge others their Arahantship, you foolish man! It is only in you that this evil view has arisen. Cast it aside lest it should be to your harms and sorrow for a long time! This naked ascetic Korakkhattiya, whom you regard as a true Arahant, will die in seven days from indigestion, and when he is dead he will reappear among the Kalakanja asuras, who are the very lowest grade of asuras. And when he is dead he will be cast aside on a heap of Birana-grass in the charnel ground. If you want to,
  Sunakkhatta, you can go to him and ask him if he knows his fate. And it may be that he will tell you: ‘Friend Sunakkhatta, I know my fate. I have been reborn among the Kalakanja asuras, the very lowest grade of asuras.’"

Then Sunakhatta goes to that naked ascetic Korakhattiya and tells all the things told by Buddha:

‘Then Sunakkhatta went to Korakkhattiya and told him what I had prophesied, adding: "Therefore, friend Korakkhattiya, be very careful what you eat and drink, so that the ascetic Gotama’s words may be proved wrong!" And Sunakkhatta was so sure that the Tathágata’s words would be proved wrong that he counted up the seven days one by one. But on the seventh day Korakkhattiya died of indigestion, and when he was dead he reappeared among the Kalakanja asuras, and his body was cast aside on a heap of Birana-grass in the charnel ground. ‘And Sunakkhatta heard of this, so he went to the heap of birana-grass in the charnel ground where Korakkhattiya was lying, struck the body three times with his hand, and said: "Friend Korakkhattiya, do you know your fate?" And Korakkhattiya sat up and rubbed his back with his hand, and said: "Friend Sunakkhatta, I know my fate. I have been reborn among the Kalakanja asuras, the very lowest grade of asuras." And with that he fell back again.

This is one of my favorites - Kukkuravatika Sutta: The Dog-duty Ascetic (MN 57)
The good part -

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard
  to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty
  has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his
  destination? What will be his future course?"
"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog
  mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and
  unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as
  this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall
  become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his
  case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say:
  hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it
  will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him
  to hell."

though bothers me the saying  : " Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb."
Most people in this world have wrong view  - also even many buddhist have wrong view and i guess there are levels of wrong view as well that even practicing buddhists who keep the precepts have some degree of wrong view /////////  also an example of an atheist who spends his life giving to others  -  will he be reburn as an animal or hell ?

Spending your life giving to others is hardly similar to spending your life acting like a dog.

yes i know  - still that sentence says that about wrong view as if in general and not about this specific case

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
If a living being is not self aware than can he experience suffering or pleasure?
When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering?

What do you mean by self-aware? Being conscious?

Dogs don't forget pain. You only have to look at a dog that has been continuously beaten and then cringes or tries to bite anyone who tries to pet it.  Yes it has become an automatic reaction but there must be some kind of memory there about humans not being trustworthy.

Its very clear that dogs are conscious  and feel the same pain as humans do and the suffering is the same suffering
If by self aware you mean mindful- than most people arent mindful 99.9999% of the time     ---  many many monks if good ones are not mindful most of the time
About bacteria i cant say much

I think that (according to Buddhism) humans, animals, ghosts, and residents of hell all belong to the same kind of category: all "sentient", all composed of the five skandhas, and all subject to suffering.
Since all belong to the same continuum (i.e. samsara), I expect that they all "lose memory" and that their "suffering finishes" in much the same way.
I don't consider a dog as like a bacterium, by the way: IMO a bacterium is more like a plant than an animal. I think different schools of Buddhism differ on whether plants are "sentient" and have any "consciousness".
don't they just forget or loose the momory of their suffering after it is finished?
Isn't that more-or-less true (or untrue) of people too?

It is hard to say unless you are an animal or bacteria.
In general observation, it appears animals such as dogs enjoy the sex and they feel the pain.
According to Buddhist teaching animals possess five aggregate same as the human.
Interesting video to watch. In this video, it is explained in plain English that any living and breathing organism has consciousness and how we interpret pain and pleasure.
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth

More primitive life forms, such as worms or fish, have a nervous system, therefore their nervous system experiences physical pain. Dogs are probably more complex and have emotions such as lust, love, emotional attachment; that makes them experience emotional sorrow & unhappiness.
However. as we can directly experience, homo sapiens (people) have the egoistic attachment (upadana) of self-identity (sakkaya ditthi), which is born from thought conception. This upadana of sakkaya ditthi is the 'suffering' ('dukkha') Buddhism seeks to eliminate.
I think it is a fair assumption worms & fish cannot create the upadana of sakkaya ditthi; and probably also dogs.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. MN 140

In all 31 planes of existence there is attachment to life except for the plane for Unconscious Beings (asaññasatta). So a dog feels pain thus like us.
Also any being in any plane are self aware except for enlightened beings who do not have self conceiving.
Also we all lose some notion of suffering otherwise hence why 1st Noble Truth is not readily comprehensible.


text:
Can somebody remove their bad karma by believing that it doesn't exist?
If somebody does sin or bad karma, harms other living beings, but that person doesn't believe in karma and believes that karma is just an illusion. then how does his bad actions will harm him? For example, if I kill a mouse but I totally believe that nothing will happen, karma or religion is just people's belief, then will I ever be punished for that karma and such believe? Because there is also one saying that everything is just our belief?
And also if I later ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas then will my bad karmas be forgiven?

generally speaking, the opposite would be closer to the truth for most buddhists, i think. belief in cause and effect is part of 'right view', surely?

When you follow through with an actions the motivation can be either wholesome or unwholesome . If it is wholesome then the roots are greedlessness, hatelessness, undeludedness (alobha, adosa, amoha) and if they are unwholesome the roots are greed, hate, delusion (lobha, dosa, moha). These also are known as the cause as unwholesome volition results in unwholesome actions, if followed through, and vise versa. The wholesome and unwholesome states are like seeds. They grow and bear fruit. So when you have generate and wholesome/unwholesome state of mind this matures into pleasant/unpleasant experience in the future.
The mechanism is not belief base. Say you believe some corn seed is actually wheat but when you plant it the result is that you get corn plants and not wheat. Also if the ground is fertile and the necessary conditions are there for the seed to germinate and grow they will grown and also giving corn, regardless of belief. Same way wholesome/unwholesome state mature into pleasant/unpleasant experience, regardless of belife system.

You are expressing the stock definition of 'wrong view':

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong
view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what
is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There
is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no
spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after
having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong
view... MN117

More graphically, it is described as:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit. MN60

You may choose not to believe in cosmic Karma, as in Hinduism, but kamma in Buddhism is only accrued due to intentional actions. Denying intention is denying agency, in one way or another. AN 3.61 deals with that issue, and with respect to God and kamma's place if God is to be believed in.
The Buddha did say:

Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
people. AN 2.21

So confession is understood as wise, and acceptance of such is also, but this confession is to a human being.

This is a variation of Akiriya-ditthi which is basically having the view that there's no merit or demerit to your actions. This is one of the views with a fixed destination. Whether you harm someone or not, if you die with this view, you will have no other destination but hell.
Asking forgiveness from a 'God' will only compound one's ignorance as there is no God.
Reply to OP's comments:
It has a fixed destination as in if you die with that view in the mind, you end up in hell. But if a good Karma comes to the mind at the time of the death, you will go to a good place.  The three roots of evil are not always present. Ignorance is present in unenlightened beings when they do bad or good karma. But the term 'ignorance' is an umbrella term. The Pali word Avijja simply points to the lack of the understanding of the four noble truths. It does not necessarily mean having a wrong view like the one you talk about in the question. On the other hand, Micca Ditthi or having a false view is at a whole new level.
Ex: Not knowing the cure for diabetes is one thing, but thinking that smoking is the cure for diabetes goes way beyond simply not knowing the cure. Not only it does not cure diabetes, it will make the situation worse. In the same way, simple ignorance just extends your Samsara, but wrong views put you in hells.

is this really doctrinally correct? i haven't read your links yet, but wrong view isn't bad karma itself, is it?

Every thought with  craving, aversion or ignorance is bad Karma. Wrong view is ignorance.

yes you're right, my apologies. i'll add an answer!

thanks for this... though i still disagree a) that it has a fixed destination and b) aren't the three poisons always present in some form for any unenlightened being, just more or less active? you could be right, and i'd welcome an edit that shows you are!

replied in the answer

do you mean that the thought at death can be of wrong view or good karma, but never both?

Except for Arahaths,  some karma comes forward to result in the next life at death. It can be either wholesome or unwholesome

sure, but if it is the karma of wrong view is that the only karma that does come forward?

It depends on the severity. There is a priority order. First comes weighty Karma. Second comes near death Karma. Third is habitual Karma. Fourth is random Karma.

sounds good, thanks!

"Wrong view" is one part of Kammapatha, and one of the bad (unwholesome) mental aspects of courses of action, kamma. There are many types of "wrong view", and it seems that this particular one is unwholesome, whereas belief in a self is not

There are many kinds of wrong views and they are of different degrees.
  Three kinds of wrong view are unwholesome courses of action, akusala
  kamma patha, through the mind, and these are capable of causing an
  unhappy rebirth.

I think one can overplay the bad karma, rather than lack of liberation, associated with it, however, especially as people with "wrong view" can end up going to a higher rebirth in their next life.

Right view, by contrast, is both good wholesome (good karma) and part of the Buddhist path to nirvana.

Just be kind to yourself, and don't do any action that you don't have to do , or don't enjoy. This statement can benefit you, if you see and become aware of ,all the energies and sensations, gross and subtle , within your body, feelings, mind , and contents of mind. In other words, your whole being. Good Luck

And also if i latter ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas than will my bad karmas be forgiven?

Yes. The kamma will be forgiven because there is the recognition the kamma was wrong.
Just as there is really no god, there is also no magical cosmic kamma. All that exists is: (i) the feeling of internal pain & stress due to performing bad kamma; and (ii) the feeling of relief & pleasantness when the bad kamma is purified.
Therefore, if you ask god for forgiveness, ask buddha for forgiveness, ask yourself for forgiveness or ask a mouse for forgiveness, as long as you see your former bad kamma was wrong & realise you should not do that kamma (action) again, there will be forgiveness & relief.

If you are an Eskimo and believe in some kind of fish god, the Karma still applies because these are rules of nature (Dhammatha). Karmaric results are inevitable just as gravity pulls you down to earth.
Furthermore, reason you live is because of Kamma. Life is a series of good, bad and neutral experiences. When you stop creating causes (Kamma) your lifestream (not just life) itself will cease to exist thus attain Nibbana.
Although the idea or Kamma is different from Jain idea of Kamma (Sanskrit Karma). The Jains believe everything happens due to Kamma. This is not entirely true because you can circumvent most effects of Kamma.
There are 2 things. There is the Kamma and there is also the Kamma Patha (An established Kamma). In order to understand refer to the following example;

The man is hungry and wants to hunt and eat an animal
The man gathers his gun and plans the hunt
The man uses the gun shoots the animal
The animal is shot and falls dead

A Kamma is any single task in the series of tasks. The full Kamma or the Kamma Patha is established when ALL steps are complete. 80% of the karmma that people do are not Kamma Patha since not all steps are completed.
A living being is a symphony of 3 activities.

The physical body (Kardaja Kaya)
The thought processors (Chittada Kaya)
The sub-conscious (Monomaya Kaya)

The word "Kaya" in Magadhi means activity. The Kamma Beeja (Seeds) or the Bawa one creates gets settled in the item 3 -> the Monomaya Kaya. This sets the colour of ones existence.
There are 4 activities a person must complete each day. This 4 activities will clear 60% of the Kamma beeja from the Manomaya Kaya. These are mostly the incomplete Kamma Patha similar to the example above.
Further 20% of the Bawa or Kamma beeja can be removed and rest must be spent.
The act of living experiencing good, bad and the ugly is spending the 20% of the beeja you created in the past.
Please note these figures are merely guidelines and may differ from one being to the next.

If you don't practise mindfulness and meditation, maybe in the moment of death you can do something to become free from the bad karma. The moment of death -If there is real mindfulness- can be an opportunity for enlightenment. Maybe a sudden enlightenment (when you're not facing death) can liberate you too but that is a very little possibility. Other than that there is no way to become free from the bad karma. The bad karmas creating, greed, anger, delusion and all kinds of suffering for the humans. The human actions are creating all kinds of identifications in the human mind that becomes the basis of the "self" and this fake entity called "self" controls and captures the humans completely. All of the human history(and pre-human history) lives in the humans minds and the beliefs like seperate sky-god and asking for forgiveness from it and hoping to go to heaven with this action are just delusions.
That's why realization of Nibbana is very important. Before the realization of Nibbana there are many things for a person that it is simply impossible to see clearly. If a person realizes Nibbana(the person would experience it many times after the first experience) s/he would gradually be more aware of the building blocks of humanity and eventually stop having thoughts like "Why there is so much suffering in the world" or "The situation in the world is totally unacceptable" etc. Also the person would drop meaningless beliefs like "thinking or wishing in a certain way can lead a person to happiness, liberation" etc.

There can be no happiness without peace.

https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/118014954414967440482/5985636131306858418

People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown they prefer suffering that is familiar.

http://1zl13gzmcsu3l9yq032yyf51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/thicht_hahn_suffering.jpg

Once you become an Arahant, there is no future re-birth and no more ripening of your old Kamma. A good example is the story of Angulimala. As an Arahant you are free from both wholesome and unwholesome actions.

After you killed mosquito, these cases will happen without believing:

Most of mosquito's family hate you.
Most of anti-killing-people hate  you, too.
Your memory will memorized that killing consciousness, then everytime you listen about the bad result of that killing conscioueness, you will feel bad.
Etc.

No need believing.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What are do's & dont's which should be followed for serene & calm life?
I would like some rules in the form of dos & don'ts to ensure happiness & eradication of miseries for making life calm & serene.

The don'ts:
Buddhism teaches ten kinds of unskilful action the serious lay Buddhist to refrain from, namely:

Killing.
Stealing
Unwholesome (uncaring) sex
Dishonest speech
Harsh speech
Divisive speech
Frivolous speech
Greed
Hatred
Selfishness & ungratefulness (delusion).

To this add avoiding the roads to ruin (DN 31), namely:

Addiction to drugs & alcohol
Gambling
Nightlife/nightclubbing
Addiction to sensual entertainment
Bad friends
Chronically laziness.

Add to this:

Avoid borrowing money leading to living beyond your means (AN 4.62).

The dos:

The opposite of the above.
Safeguard your social relationships in the 'six directions' (DN 31).
Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.
Engage in wholesome pleasures, such as exercise, sports, outdoors nature, arts, contemplative music, charity work, generosity, meditation. etc.

The entire list is here: https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html

Not sure why you say nightlife is "road to ruin". It's a massive generalisation.  It's entirely up to the individual.  I see no harm in going out and having fun dancing with friends occasionally. I think it's very healthy to let ones hair down every now and then.

@Arturia It's a paraphrase of DN 31 which is taken as the Buddha's advice to laypeople (householders).

How can i fight laziness ?

These rules are quite good. Will they help you to gain acceptance with God?
If you follow all these beautiful rules will be right with God?
What will happen to all the bad things that one has done before starting to practice these good rules?

For #10 under the don't's, can you elaborate on why is selfishness and ungratefulness delusion?

Thanks. I posted the teaching of the 10 skilful (kusala) dhammas. These are connected with wholesomeness rather than vipassana. Therefore, delusion here is when you do not recognise what you receive from relationships & what you must return in relationships. Therefore, I called this delusion 'selfishness & ungratefulness'. As for vipassana, delusion here means to view things as permanent, satisfactory & self, which is a higher teaching. This is not called "wholesomeness" but "enlightenment".  Regards

@Arturia I guess in Buddha's age most people slept early, and only people who addicts to sensual entertainment have a nightlife. Today few people go to sleep at sundown, thus nightlife is a different thing today.

Observing the "five precepts" is the starting point.
The five precepts are the "don't do" things (the things to avoid). Then you have to practice things to do -- I ask people in my meditation group not only to observe the five precepts but also practice the opposite. That is:

Killing vs loving kindness
Stealing vs generosity
Inappropriate sex vs refrain
Lying vs telling the truth
Alcohol vs practicing mindfulness

Shamelessly stolen from Dhammadhatu's great answer:

Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.

In my personal experience, this is really the make-or-break-factor. It is the one thing which you can positively, actively influence daily, nay, in each moment. It needs no study of any text or "rules".
It can often be very easy, but sometimes very hard, which means you can often practise it, and sometimes learn very much from it.
This includes being nice to your enemies, loving people who would be hated by others, appreciating things other people do which would otherwise seem unappreciable to you, and so on. All of these things are not obvious if you really think them through, but they are possible.
It is very important that what you do to achieve this goal is not running around with a constant insincere smile, but the feelings expressed above need to be real. You need to really see what is good about someone who seemingly is "out to get you", or someone who is "stupid", and so on. This is the hard part, which will lead to your personal development. But it is noticeable.
There is some quote about Marilyn Monroe, visiting some GIs in Vietnam, where some guys said that she had such an overwhelming presence not because she was beautiful, a goddess even, but because she sincerly made everyone feel liked and "on the same level". That's the kind of quality you're looking for.
Another example would be if you were to be attacked - your goal would be to be able to defend from attacks, but in a way that really is good for the attacker. You would not want to "break" or kill your attacker. But you would also try, while "winning" decisively, to leave him with his honor intact, or, better yet, find ways so that you both can win and there is no loser at all.
Equanimity obviously entails that you keep your calm in difficult situations, and not only by suppressing your anger, but by really letting the stressfull things "pass through" without letting them harm you. There is a lot of mind work you can do to achieve that.

Thank you for your deeply thought out question.
I have been looking at the Buddhist Stack site for a little while, and I notice some real similarities in the way many of the questions are formed.
  So, first , it is good to study, by which I mean get a perspective of the landscape, in this case the Buddha's Dharma. Think for yourself. If someone tells you to jump of a cliff, you probably will not, Thank God, for that.So , when this hypothetical person told you to jump , what happened? you had an insight that there would probably be a bad result. So, the Buddha was quoted as saying do not believe any think he tells you , until you have tested the truth of that saying and the possible benefit of that idea for you to apply. So, much for that , for now. So you study, then you get the big picture and you actually start to see how using your mind in a certain way is much more beneficial that using your mind in another way. This is the beginning of good judgement. So, Here's the biggie. Cease to do Evil, Learn to do Good, remove all defilements , follow this way to Compete, total, supreme Enlightenment. So, How do I stop doing evil, well , let's start on the simplest level. What if you determine that to get really frustrated and angry and nervous about what just happened to you is not good. So , then , you go to a quiet place or find some friends and calm down. This is ceasing to do evil and learning to do good.So now, you might have gotten a little , "good idea" . If you keep doing this , with all your experiences, you will learn to relax, and better still , you will say. "Oh, I am relaxed now, that is better that going crazy." What if I start to develop some real concentration. I bet I could do this even better, and maybe, just maybe, I could help someone else learn to become happier, too.
And so on. Of course there is much more. Good Luck.

Oh, I forgot to say, I personally think there is studying about such and such, and then actually studying within the method. Do you understand what I just wrote? We might become familiar with Politics and , at first this is overwhelmingly complicated. But then, we keep learning, and then we might see , oh, there are this many different view about politics. We keep studying, and then we meet some one and the give us a really good idea. Oh, I never heard of that kind of politics, Oh, you mean there was a previous first amendment that our Founding Fathers wanted us to use?

Oh, the after some time you learn of all the ways people could live. You start to become an expert, and you speak with other experts, then you see some people like this , other like that. But why?  Then you learn more. So with Dharma, you can study like this, but then some day, you have to decide, "is this way helping me ?"  How can I be happy, and help other people become happy? Then you start to really study. Some day , you might become so Wise, you can start your own Country. Good Luck.


text:
If someone steals my goods/harms me then is it ok to take revenge on him/her?
If someone has done some big bad thing bad to me, which can't be forgotten easily, then is it ok to take revenge on them, if that person is guilty in this matter?  Will it generate any negative karmic impression in me? should it? Which is important: peace or justice?

I think that the opening verses of the Dhammapada, for example, make it clear that "revenge" is not a way to appease emnity; and that "the wise" would "cease their quarrels" instead.

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.
"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.
Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.
People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

The problem seems to arise with the initial thought, "someone has done some big bad thing to me". I think that's the kind of problem which the doctrines of anatta and averena are meant to help solve.

this is wonderful quotes from buddha.

The Dhammapada is a popular introduction or summary of doctrine. You can read it all here; or here is a slightly more literal translation (and includes a story/commentary for each verse).

Justice can be performed peacefully; without anger & violence. Simply use the police.

No.
Consider the phrase "revenge is like a boomarang, it just keeps coming back"
In fact from a karmic view point revenge is just ensuring you will experience like in the future.

Yes the back story to verse 5 is of a feud continued over lifetimes.


text:
Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect is never its cause?
Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect can never be conceived of as its cause?
I'm asking because it would neatly fit my own views on how to understand science, as well as I think rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty (for reasons other than that thesis assuming a person).

i want to delete the question

Why do you want to delete it? Might it be possible to improve the question or the answers, instead?

@ChrisW hm not sure. the question makes sense, as it is, it's just that it's not a very interesting / good one. i thought the reply may have same bearing on textual understanding, but my motivation was silly

rarely a good question with depth here, nice! i recall in Madhyamaka: 穀子中芽無所從來 (the sprout comes from nothingness of the grain) [slit the grain found no sprout in it]... 若果非有生  亦復非無生  亦非有無生  何得言有緣 (if the effect is not a production [生], neither non-production, nor production and non-production, how renders it there the cause)... rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty that is very insightful :) you may like to read about the Zeno's Paradoxes as well.

usually the one who doesn't understand Nagarjuna will refute him, or those who never read his works will; or read the bad translations. Anyone who caught a spark will be so captivated by an extra-ordinary mind. Nag's original texts (his very original was lost) exist only in Chinese translated by Kumarajiva. The later Sanskrit was back-translated from Chi. Seemed Kum (my personal reading of his works) was so fascinated by and admired Nag he particularly wrote a biography for him, only 2 pages very easy to read but very interesting storylines I wonder if anyone translated it.

if Nagarjuna is not a profuse meditator none of the monks today are doing meditation; if Nag is not an accomplished meditator none of the meditator today can expect to accomplish anything, neither the Buddha meditated at all! those claimed meditating and how superb their so-called "dhammas/ insights" are only but gabbling, do they really know what is meditation apart from their superficial yelling of calming the mind? while Nagarjuna sat on the Dharma Platform in silence only radiating lights.

See "Mula-madhyamaka-karika" by Nagarjuna:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Later Chandrakirti wrote detailed explanations of these ideas.
The purpose was to demonstrate the middle way between extremes of eternalism and nihilism regarding causes.
Otherwise causes could be viewed as "substance of self" of phenomena.
For practical purposes, we can meditate thusly:

Realize that all things depend on causes,

and therefore they lack independent existence.
For example, my feelings depend on causes. All my thoughts depend on causes. Also my wishes and my actions all depend on causes.
Therefore, is there anything in "me" this moment, not dependent on something else?

Then realize also that causality itself is illusory.

For example, we can contemplate that causality is rather our assumption than reliably known truth.
We guess that this is the cause of that. But it's just our guess, conventional truth. In the absolute sense, we can not ultimately know it.
"Absolute truth" is understood here as something that appears directly (phenomena, dharmas). Any judgments - e.g. views about causality - are just guesses.
For practical purposes, we take such guesses to be "true", but we should realize that's just a convention in our mind.

This understanding helps to see the selflessness of phenomena, and thus to liberate from samsara.

I just want to remark that this answer should not be regarded as a true understanding of Nagarjuna's 中論. Your understanding is far from Nag's. Suggest to read the orginal work 1st, only 68 pages incl. 青目(Chandrakriti?) in Kumarajiva's translation. Also recommend reading Sutra 摩訶般若波羅密多.

Not sure who did good eng translation, very unfortunate the contemporary eng tranl. of almost all Mahayana Sutras (Chinese) were done by Theosophical scholars, they were twisted (erroneous), you shouldn't believe them don't read them as the 1st if you could read Classical Chinese.

These scholars promote what they called early (authentic) Buddhism recorded in - ONLY - Pali, they promote "Mahayana Sutras were great - a later invention (not originally taught by the Buddha, or Buddha not a person, Sutras were group creation". This is a forum that adores Pali Canon, with most of the moderators trumpeting that one voice, you get what I meant ;)

@Mishu米殊, multilingual edition is here: https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=volume&vid=27 So what is incorrect in my understanding, and what is correct understanding? I respectfully beg you to explain.

Your quoted is only a close translation, from this verse: 1諸法不自生 2亦不從他生 3不共不無因 4是故知無生 transl.: '1All dharmas (rules, laws, ways... there not an equivalent word in eng to either the Sanskrit dharma or Chinese 法) are not coming from themselves, 2neither from others, 3nor from both (themselves and others) or without causes, 4Thus should know there no becoming [suchness].' your quote missed the 4, also misinterpreted the verse by reversively stating "something arises" which is grotesquely contradictory to Emptiness, the core meaning in fact is the missing 4, 「諸法無生」, no becoming.

"Realize that all things depend on causes" this is very wrong. Nag doesn't state this, in contrast, nothing can be a cause of another thing, see my comment on the OP about the sprout and grain, things arise depends on conditions, not causes. 因緣 condition; 因果 causality or cause-effect (don't confuse it with Karma, Nag confirms Karma in his analogy too, not because it's morally necessary), Chinese is very distinct on these two terms. Your link was broken, also it will take too much time to explain point by point. I suggest you read the original Chinese work if you could. Hope that help :)

One more remark, 中論, your "middle way" and the scholars sayings are blind translation of this word: 中. In Chi 中 apart from meaning middle, it also means real, central. As the great ancient Chinese Buddhist scholar 僧叡 wrote in introduction: ...以中為名者，照其實也。It only further confirmed that the Sanskrit was back-translated from Chinese. We don't know if Nagarjuna named this Sastra "Mula-madhy..." but Kumarajiva got his meaning giving it the Chi eqivalent 中, 僧叡 if I remembered correctly is Kum's student.

@Mishu米殊, the link works in my browser. It says:
諸法不自生 亦不從他生
不共不無因 是故知無生
如諸法自性 不在於緣中
以無自性故 他性亦復無
因緣次第緣 緣緣增上緣
四緣生諸法 更無第五緣
The order of verses 2 & 3 might be changed because translations from other languages were used to join them all into one text. - Your criticism of my words is based on not understanding that causality is explained as conditional view (see Nag. comments), and any verbal expression is conditional. E.g. if you deny that "something arises" you fall into nihilism and don't understand emptiness of this expression. Anyway, thanks for your opinion. We may talk in chat.

One last revert to your comment, you didn't get my meaning, I said Nag means no becoming - suchness, definitely "something arises" is not Nag, and you don't need to have something arises to fill the world so that it is not nihilism, suchness is fully "filling" the world, read Surangama, also the Buddha said he is Tathagata, as come and well gone, means suchness. Logically thinking, if anything arises, over long enough time of accumulation, it will burst the world :D

@Mishu米殊, I disagree with this view. You need to see that terms are relative. "Suchness" is just a word. Is it correct or not depends on how we understand it. We can understand "suchness" as (1) what is: momentary appearances of phenomena. Or (2) in reified way, as what really exists. I could say that "suchness doesn't fill anything, and so your words are wrong". Likewise, "something arises" is wrong in a reified sense; but if that phrase points at momentary appearances then there's nothing wrong. Please study the concept of absolute and relative truths.

healthy debate is good to refine the understanding of Dharma, i appreciate, sure you do so too :). "absolute and relative truths" - you're strongly influenced by certain Tibetan concepts. But, isn't 色即是空, 空即是色 (Emptiness is form, form is emptiness)? i'm not sure using absolute/relative as a frequent stoppage how helpful it is. surely from the original Sutras that this is not often the manner of presenting Buddha his Dharma. did you read that Sastra the original text?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Mishu米殊 it would be very good if you could post your own answer, much better for other readers than a thread of comments.

@AndreiVolkov let me think... :)

An effect is a cause because it is an effect that is the cause of a cause being defined as a 'cause'. In other words, since a cause is dependent upon an effect to be defined as a 'cause', an effect is the cause of a cause & an effect and is therefore a cause. A cause is similar. Since a cause is also an effect and since an effect is also a cause, there are not really any true causes & true effects.
This is merely intellectual gymnastics & not the experience of meditation.
In meditation, the mind sees causes creating effects, such as feelings causing craving or feeling & craving stimulating attachment or refined smooth long breathing causing calmness.
These ideas of Nagarjuna are from thinking rather than from observation.
In meditation, the mind does not really see 'causes' & 'effects'. Instead, the mind sees one 'phenomena' stimulating another 'phenomena'.
To think in the manner of Nagarjuna is alien to contemplation (observation) meditation.
If there was not the belief X causes the effect Y the path would never be practised because it would not be believed practising the path causes liberation.
In fact, the only reason Nagarjuna must have formulated his idiosyncratic philosophies was for those philosophies to cause a positive effect.
If Nagarjuna was actually not seeking to cause a positive effect from his idiosyncratic philosophies then that philosophizing was in vain & for no purpose.
Nagarjuna was often very illogical why Nagarjuna is so easy to refute.
The refutations of Nagarjuna could be as lengthy as his idiosyncratic philosophies.

hm well, he was quite an important monk. i've seen very many people try and refute him, and i guess it just seems that they read whatever they like into his terse arguments.

See my answer. "Manner of Nagarjuna is alien to contemplation" presents your experience of meditation: not distinguishing between original phenomena (sense perception) and their supposed relations (conceptualizing perception). Without such distinction we generalize our limited experience and come to incorrect conclusions. "If there was not the belief X causes the effect" is eternalism. See chapter 1 of "Mula madhyamaka karika": Nagarjuna doesn't refute dependent origination, but explains the correct view on it.

You're right. An effect is never its cause. However, the action that one does due to the effect will create a new cause, and to an untrained mind, it always happens.

I haven't read about Nagarjuna's claims nor I have read or heard anywhere about such claims, but I know Nagarjuna is speaking the truth.
What is the truth?
An effect always arises independently of the cause.
A cause always arises independently of the effect which produced the cause.
All causes and effects arise completely independently.
There are no causes, nor effects.
Everything arises and ceases independently.
Thus, everything being independent:

Nothing ever can be made to be annihilated.
Nothing ever can be made to last forever.

This is the truth. This is how it was said. This is how it was seen. This is what I know.
If a fire is burning due to fuel, it is not burning due to fuel, but it burns independent of the fuel. In other words: the fire does not burn due to fuel.
If a castle of cards is made, then a card is removed and that castle crashes to the ground, the crashing of that castle has not started due to the card being removed, but it started independent of the "removal of the card". In other words: the removal of the card did not cause the crashing of the castle.
If a red marble hits a blue marble and the blue marble moves due to being hit, the movement of the blue marble was not produced by the red marble hitting the blue marble, but the movement was produced independently. In other words: the hit of the red marble into the blue marble did not cause the movement of the blue marble.
If a truck crashes into a car and the car gets shattered to pieces, the car is not shattered to pieces by the forces the truck exerted on the car, but the forces were produced independently of the truck. In other words: the truck is not the cause of forces that shattered the car.
If you were to build a house, no matter what technology you would use, no matter what hi-tech materials you would use, no matter how you would built it, no matter what you would do, that house would be subject to decay.
If you were to knew and understood in its entirety why things are subject to decay, no technology nor any actions you would perform on things to eliminate their decay, would made things last forever. They would be subjected to decay no matter what you do.
If you destroy something, you destroy nothing. You can only dismantle an object to many pieces, but you destroy nothing. Everything rebuilds, no matter if you destroy it. If you were to destroy the universe, it would be rebuilt again. Everything in the universe is independent from everything. You can't destroy anything.
If you kill somebody, you kill nobody. You can only dismantle a being to many pieces, but you destroy nothing. All ignorant beings are reborn, no matter if you kill them. If you were to kill all the ignorant beings in the universe, they would be reborn again. All beings are independent from all beings. You can't destroy anything.
Etc.
I guess you're not bewildered by this nonsense. Good my friend, good. Does your understanding come from ignorance or from wisdom?
What is the cause of all this nonsense?

If a plant were a seed, or the totality of a plant was in a seed, then where's the plant not, and hence cause what and effect what?
Annihalationism is not possible because 'nothing', 0, is more concrete than 'no thing', and the laws of nature follow the 'valley of the world', so to steal a Tao Te Ching expression. Action settles at the lowest energy level it can, 0 is as much effort as 1 in the end.


text:
How to breathe into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?
During conventional Buddhist sitting meditation I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short (I can't seem to change that) and just a few minutes in, just as I am starting to get into a deeper state and see something, I find that I start feeling quite light headed and almost hyperventilating because I am thinking about the breath and thus not breathing as I usually (which may still not be the perfect way for meditation, but at least normally when I'm not thinking about my breath I don't hyperventilate).
I have been told by teachers that I should try to breathe into my stomach as this is good energetically and will make the breath to the degree and the length it needs to be.
However, no matter what I try, I don't seem to be managing to achieve this stomach breathing.
So I was wondering if there is a particular knack to it or any advice? Am I actually trying to breathe into my stomach or just to expand my lungs down there (different teachers have said contradictory things on this matter)?

How to breath into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?
When you breathe with your diaphragm (instead of just with your rib cage) you breathe more deeply.
To avoid hyperventilating then, you presumably need to breathe more slowly:

Longer pause between breaths
Longer duration during breaths (during each inhale or exhale)

Try both:

Breathe slowly (because deeply; the only time I deliberately breathe deeply and rapidly would be during vigorous exercise)
Don't be in a hurry to deliberately take/start the next breath after exhaling (instead, taking a next breath is a reaction to needing more air)

I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short
"Where" are you think about your breathing: is your focus somewhere around your nose?
An alternative might be to focus somewhere lower: e.g. on your diaphragm; or lower (e.g., according to the Chinese, "The Lower Dantian (Jing), located two inches below the navel, is the source of energy which builds the physical body").
Or even lower: my Tai Chi teacher once said to imagine breathing through your heels!
In Anapanasati -- Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Bikkhu Buddhadasa, it recommends you shift your point of awareness (in Appendix D in the section titled "Getting Started: Establishing Sati"):

Note the three primary segments of each breath: beginning, middle, and end. For the inhalation these
  correspond to the nose, the middle of the chest, and the abdomen. For the exhalation the reverse is true, beginning at the
  belly and ending at the nose. Watch and wait at the nose until the incoming breath is felt there. Then skip to the middle
  of the chest and watch there until the breath is felt. Then skip to the abdomen and watch there until the breath is felt.
  Continue watching as the inhalation ends and wait for the exhalation to begin.

That's just a preliminary practice though:

This hopping from point to
  point is a relatively easy way to establish sati on the breath. It is a good way to get started. It becomes, however,
  somewhat crude and agitating after a while. Once we are skilled at it, we will want a more refined and peaceful way to
  be mindful of the breath

After that, it says,

Next, we connect the three points into a continuous sweep or flow. This more closely approximates the breath
  itself. We call this "following, chasing, hunting, stalking." While breathing naturally, without any forcing or
  manipulating of the breath, sati follows the breath in and out, between the tip of the nose and the navel.

And finally:

Once "following" becomes easy and constant, it will begin to feel unnecessarily busy and disruptive. Now we
  are ready for "guarding," a more peaceful way to practice sati with the breathing. By this time, a certain point in the
  nose will stand out.

In summary:

If at first our breaths are short and shallow, with movement in the chest only and not in the abdomen, then simply
  follow the breath down however far it goes. After sati is established we will relax and the breathing will become deeper.
  Before long we will feel movement in the abdomen. If we see that the breath is passing by many places at the same
  time, do not use this fact as an opportunity to complicate things. Keep it simple. A simple flow from the tip of the nose
  to the navel and from the navel to the tip of the nose is sufficient for our purpose.

These quotes are extracts; I'd recommend you read the book for a further or more complete description.
Am I actually trying to breath into my stomach
Air should go into the lungs as usual, not literally into your stomach!
I think it means to drop your diaphragm (so that the lungs expand downwards).
When you do that there's less room (less volume remaining) for your stomach, intestines, etc.: so you need to relax your abdominal muscles (which might normally keep the belly from protruding) and let your belly appear to push forward when you breathe in.
Imagine you had a metal band, tied around your ribs, so that you couldn't inhale by expanding your rib-cage: you'd still be able to breathe by using your "stomach" (i.e. diaphragm and belly) ... that's what "breathing into the stomach" means.
To be honest what I just described seems to be contradicted by something in the Anapanasati book I referenced above (in Lecture Two, in the section titled "Step One: The Long Breath"):

When there is a deepest
  possible long breath, does the chest expand or contract? Does the abdomen expand or contract? These are things to
  examine. In doing so, you may learn that it works differently than you thought. Most people have the overly simple idea
  that when we breathe in the chest expands and when we breathe old: the chest contracts. In studying the breath
  carefully, however, we find that in taking the longest inhalation, the abdomen will contract and the chest will expand.
  With the very long exhalation, then, the abdomen will expand and the chest will contract or deflate. We find the reverse
  of what common sense teaches. You ought to investigate this business of the very long breath, the longest possible
  breath, to see what changes happen. Do not take anything for granted. You ought to understand even these most basic
  natural facts.

This is explained later (in Appendix D, in the section titled "Long & Short Breaths),

After sati is established (techniques two or three) we begin to notice the long and short breathing. The mind still may
  wander some but stays with the breath enough to learn what it is like. The first and easiest quality to note is length, in
  terms of both time and extent of physical movement. For our purposes, an exact dividing line between short and long is
  not important. Become familiar with your own breathing and learn what your longest breaths and shortest breaths are
  like relative to each other. There is no need to compare your breaths with someone else's. (D. 29)
Generally, you will find that abdominal breathing is longer than chest breathing, that is, if abdominal breathing comes
  naturally. This is something we observe, however, it is not something we desire or seek. We are not "supposed" to
  breath in a certain way and we do not use Anapanasati to develop this or that way of breathing. So do not try to force
  abdominal breathing, the results would not be very relaxing. But should it occur naturally, you will see that it is longer,
  more relaxed, and healthier. (D. 30)
Should your breaths become very long, you will discover an interesting point. You may have thought it strange when
  Ajahn Buddhadasa said that the chest expands and the abdomen contracts with the long in-breath (Marker 58). Common
  sense says that the abdomen expands on the in-breath and contracts on the out-breath. The two seem to contradict each
  other. Which is right? First, we observe the normal breathing. As we inhale, the diaphragm drops and pushes the tummy
  outward. When we exhale the tummy falls in again. This is the ordinary abdominal breathing before it becomes very
  long. It is a simple movement of the abdomen expanding (or rising) with the in-breath and contracting (or falling) with
  the out-breath. Some people will consider this short and others will feel it is relatively long. (D. 31)
Now, there is a limit to how far the abdomen can expand. As we relax and breathe more deeply this limit will be
  reached. At that point there is, however, room left in the chest (lungs) for more air. If we continue to breathe in, the
  chest will then expand. This in turn pulls up and flattens the tummy. This is what Ajahn Buddhadasa meant. A very
  long inhalation begins just like a normal breath. The abdomen expands but the chest barely moves at all. After the
  abdomen's limit is reached the chest expands and the abdomen contracts. When the breath is really long you will
  discover this for yourself. The opposite movements (roughly) occur with the very long exhalations. So the very long
  breath is an ordinary breath plus more. Many of us will seldom experience this very long breathing until the body
  becomes very relaxed through Anapanasati. Eventually, it will happen more and more regularly - even outside the
  formal sittings. (D. 32)

In other words, a very long breath starts by depressing the diaphragm (abdominal breathing), and when that's full then the in-breath continues by expanding the rib-cage.

You should not think about the breath but just passively observe natural process of respiration. Also you should not try to influence it. If it is becoming short just observe it is short. If it is long just observe it is long.
The perfection of meditation is when you can observe things as they are without any influence.


text:
Help me to understand the concept of Svalakshan & Savikalpaka jnana intuitively
I've found this phrase-

Buddhist logic school of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, which flourished in medieval Kashmir. According to this school, the foundation of knowledge is a series of momentary and discrete perceptual data (svalakshana). There are no grounds in those data for the recognitions of any enduring entities through ostensible cognitions utilizing linguistic or conceptual interpretation (savikalpaka jnāna).

But I'm unable to intuitively understand the meaning of Svalakshanam & savikalpaka jnana clearly. Can anyone help?

Shcherbatskoy wrote in "Buddhist Logic" (translating Dharmakirti's Logic Manual) something like this:

Senses can directly perceive only one 'moment', but there is a 'chain of moments' that enters our consciousness, thanks to the activity of mentation (which unites them in regard to that moment) on the basis of sensual perception.
Only a chain of moments can enter the consciousness on the basis of perception, because one moment cannot be apprehended by consciousness.

As I understand, it means we build our knowledge not on the basis of those momentary discrete appearances, but on the basis of something like their superpositions, somehow prolonged in time.
But that leads me to another question: are these momentary and discrete things actually real?
It seems possible that "momentary" and "discrete" are just our ideas.
Maybe there's nothing really "momentary and discrete" at all.
PS to explain more:
(1) More on Svalakshana, read Shcherbatskoy: The Buddhist Logic. It's a well known book, where he translates and comments Dharmakirti. I have only Russian edition, so I myself translated the quotation above to English, which might introduce some inaccuracies, as I'm not a native speaker.
Also I found an interesting article by Victoria Lysenko, who explored exactly those problems - sense perception (pratyaksha), conceptualizations, etc. In an article "Svalakshana" in Russian Encyclopedia "Philosophy of Buddhism" she says that Svalakshana is somehow a controversial term, understood differently in Sautrantika and Yogachara.
http://www.fshq.ru/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY/ENCYCLOPEDIA_OF_BUDDHIST_PHILOSOPHY_Svalakshana.html
I don't know is there this text anywhere in English, so here is the Google-translation with several my corrections:

Svalakshana
[The opposition] Svalakshana - samanya-lakshana (Sanskrit svalakshana: literally "characterizing / defining itself". Sämänya-lakshana: "defining through the common [with others]") - the terms of the epistemology of the Dignaga and Dharmakirti schools, denoting individual, concrete, singular, unique - "particularity", in contrast to the general characteristic - "universalia". Svalakshana is something that is perceived in itself, as a reality, independent of any other things, whereas samanya-lakshana is the result of comparison, comparison of the given perception with something else, or their perception in some capacity, in some role, in otherness. Between them there is an impassable abyss: the svalakshanas are changeable, or rather, instantaneous (see Kshanikavada), and the general characteristics, on the contrary, are stable. Since reality, from the POV of Buddhists, is a discrete flow of dynamical point events - dharmas, then svalakshanas are real, while Samanya-lakshanas are mentally constructed.
The opposition Svalakshana - Samanya-lakshana goes back to the abhidharmic opposition of the truly existing (dravyasat) and nominal (prajnaptisat) dharmas, where the former are endowed with their own nature (svabhava), and the latter are declared unreal. In abhidharma schools, svalakshana is the self-nature of the phenomenon, distinguishing it from other phenomena, or a specifying characteristic (eg, svalakshana of Earth - resistance, of Fire - burning, etc.). Ontologically, S. - S.-l. become these units of analysis in the philosophy of Dignaga-Dharmakirti.
Dharmakirti puts forward a number of criteria that distinguish svalakshana from samanya-lakshana: the ability to produce effects in the form of expedient actions (artha-kriya-shakti), dissimilarity [with nothing else] (asadrishta), nonspecificity by word, perceptibility regardless of any other factors (such as agreements on the use of words, etc.) (Pramana-Varttika III, 1-2).
According to Dharmakirti, actual existing svalakshanas are perceived in two ways: in their own form (svarupa) and in the form of something else (pararupa), i.e. in the form of generalization. Hence two tools of reliable knowledge (pramana): direct perception (nirvikalpaka-pratyaksha) - for svalakshanas, and logical cognition (anumana) - for samanya-lakshanas.
If there is almost no disagreement in the interpretation of Samanya-lakshana, since this term is unambiguously associated with mental construction (kalpana, vikalpa), which is in Buddhist Epistemological School of Dignaga-Dharmakirti belongs to the category of non-genuine, conditionally-true being (parikalpita; see Trisva-bhava), then there are different, often mutually exclusive opinions about the much more complex and ambiguous concept of svalakshana, sometimes even from the same author. For example, Shcherbatskoy, on the one hand, saw in this term an analogue of the Kantian noumena and "things in themselves"; on the other hand, he likened the svalakshanas to "sensory data", sense data, sensibilia (Stcherbatsky 1930, vol. 1, p. 68, 79, 87 ). The difficulty of interpreting Svalakshana is that in the teachings of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the position of the epistemological idealism of Yogachara is combined with realistic position of Sautrantika. Amar Singh, criticizing Shcherbatskoy's attempt to bring the concept of Svalakshanas closer to Yogachara idealism, notes that the real opposition of the Svalakshana as the ultimately particular object of perception to Samanya-laksana as an object of logical cognition is possible only within the realistic theory of knowledge of Sautrantika (Singh 1984). From the point of view of Sautrantikas, cognition does not deal with external objects, but only with their representations in consciousness - sensory data, which, however, are caused by objectively existing external stimuli. It is these stimuli that are called in Sautrantika Svalakshanas. From the position of Yogacharas, once cognition is independent of external objects, svalakshanas can only be sensory data. In the works of Dharmakirti, the term svalakshana is used, as a rule, in the context of the realism of Sautrantika. However, here arises the problem of the relationship between the Svalakshanas and their sensory reflections in cognition, images (abhasa, akara): are these images similar or different to their svalakshans?! Are svalakshanas noumenas or are they knowable?
Dharmakirti did not give direct, unambiguous and consistent answers to these questions. First, he adhered to the Sautrantikan concept of similarity (sarupya) between the cognitive image and his real prototype, i.e. external object (see Sakaravada - Nirakaravada), and secondly, he acknowledged that the svalakshanas are "grasped" (grahya) by pratyaksha (sensory perception, sensation), which implies that they can not be noumenal. But then in what sense can we speak about their inaccessibility to verbal expression? In Buddhist epistemology this is explained, first, due to the instantaneousness of the Svalakshanas (see Kshanikavada), because of which they can not be objects of empirical experience, which is a mixture of instantaneous sensations with their conceptualization - kalpana (only buddhas and other enlightened beings are able to recognize kshanas), and secondly, by Buddhist nominalism - the conviction that the meaning of words is only mentally designed universalia. Therefore, the verbal ineffability of Svalakshanas does not imply their transcendence in relation to perception. Against the noumenality of the Svalakshanas is also the fact that Dharmakirti speaks of Svalakshanas as atoms (paramanu - meaning Buddhist "phenomenal" atoms of colors, tastes, etc. qualities). Though, he does not develop this idea; so researchers argue about whether he understands by Svalakshanas individual atoms or their clusters (samchita) and, accordingly, whether the atoms generate one sensation (sensum, eg, a color spot) or a set of atomic sensations, which are then synthesized into color spots.
Analysis of new sources, inaccessible in the times of Scherbatskoy, especially Skt. and Tib. commentaries of the followers of Dharmakirti, allow to better understand the dilemma faced by the Buddhist philosopher. If he recognizes that the svalakshanas are single atoms, then this will contradict the Buddhist postulate of the non-perceivability of individual atoms (from the POV of Buddhists, atoms are perceived only in mass, like hair); but if he would assert that these are aggregations of atoms, he will face the objection that the accumulation of atoms, as representing "single in many", is actually a universal (samanya-lakshana), and, cognizing it, sensory perception turns to be conceptual (Pramana Varttika III. 194). In response to this objection, Dharmakirti denies the possibility for one object to be both single and multiple at the same time, citing the example of a multicolor on the wings of a butterfly, which is perceived as a single color (the reference to the well-known concept of the "motley" color "chitra" in the Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya schools, which is not a collection of different colors, but an independent color). According to the commentators, Dharmakirti interpreted the cluster (samchita) of atoms not as a whole (avaya-vin), different from the sum of its parts (avaya), but as an impulse acquired by each individual atom as a result of the impulses of other individual atoms entering the causal complex (hetu-samagri), which generates the sensible given. Since in Dharmakirti's teachings it is the Svalakshanas that are causally effective (artha-kriya-karitva) stimuli of perception, and therefore the only real entities, they should be identified not as a collective impulse of all atoms, but rather as a complex of interdependent impulses of individual atoms (Dunne 2004, p.103-109). This interpretation ultimately proves to be close to one of Shcherbatskoy's interpretations, who often compared svalakshana to energy point-moment. ("External object is not matter, but energy ... reality is instantaneous and consists of moment-points, which are centers of energy" - Shcherbatsky 1930, vol. I, p. 510).
However, the question remains open: what is the content of this sensory given - a mere reflection of the Svalakshanas, which by definition are non-spatial, - or it is an image, for example, of a color (a color spot) having a spatial extent? Dharmakirti does not give an answer, but it is obvious that the lack of spatiality of the Svalakshanas jeopardizes the principle of congruity (sarupya) of the cognitive image and its external referent, to which he was committed. Critical analysis of the concept of S. - s.-l. of Dignaga and Dharmakirti was performed by the Madhyamik-Prasangik Chandrakirti.
REFERENCES: Stcherbatsky Th. The Buddhist Logic. Vol. 1-2. Leningrad, 1930-1932; Singh A. The Heart of Buddhist Philosophy - Dinnâga and Dharmakïrti. D., 1984. P. 117-137; Dunne JD Foundations of Dharmakïrti's Philosophy. Bost., 2004. P. 91-113; Arnold D. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. NY, 2005.
V.G. Lysenko. Source - Encyclopedia Philosophy of Buddhism - Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy

That's an interesting text, and there are more interesting articles by Lysenko - on Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Vasubandhu, Vachaspati Mishra etc., e.g. "What is immediate perception? The Buddhist answer". Download PDF here: http://www.iias.asia/sites/default/files/IIAS_NL44_2021.pdf
or from Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/8135589/What_is_immediate_perception_The_Buddhist_answer
(2) So if you asked what I think, I approach it from Madhyamaka (as I understand it). Or, in modern logic, from what they call "constructivism". How did ideas of "momentary" and "discrete" appear in our thinking?
They might look self-evident, from the point of view of our experience:

a book moved by my hand seems to be a discrete object;
and an idea of "zero-length moment" comes from imagining a frozen cut of the world...

But does "zero-length moment" have any reality except being our imagined concept?
No.
Then are we sure that separate moments exist at all - even of non-zero length?
What if the world and the time are not discrete at all, in any sense?
Then how can we speak of elementary constituents of our perception as discrete momentary things?
Did you ever perceive really discrete momentary perceptions? Even a flash of lightning is not a discrete perception, because it has a "tail" of subsiding blindness.
So isn't "discreteness of moments" just a mental construction which we use to cut the world in our imagination?
I.e., "discreteness" might belong only to our mental constructing, but not to primary sensory data or their sources.
Do these questions make sense?
Then, speaking about discrete things, are they really discrete, or that discreteness exists only in our modeling of the world?
Is the book in my hand really discrete thing, or that is just an illusion, developed in my mind?

Thanks. Can you explain more? Svalakshanam also seems Self evident.

@Rohit., glad if it helped somehow. I will add more in a PS to my answer in a few minutes.

@Rohit., enjoy. It took a bit longer than I thought... :)

@Rohit., welcome. I vote for Yogachara/Madhyamaka: we can't really know anything about "stimuli of perception", ideas of them are just our mental modeling. Cognition starts from appearances - dharmas - which then turn (in our thinking) into dualities like "consciousness and its contents", "unity and multitude". In fact, there's no unity without multitude, and no multitude without unity. All these notions come not from real perceptions, but only from our mental modeling. In reality there's no unity at all, no multitude at all.

Did you see the first Jurassic Park movie? Remember how the T-Rex couldn't see them if they didn't move? Because while his senses could detect the persons (sight, smell, sound), he didnt recognize that as being his target unless it moved. He didnt actually recognize them (it) as his target or prey until they moved or made a difference from frame to frame so to speak.
Same type of conception here. It isn't the quality or whatever itself but the difference from one moment to the next that consciousness recognizes.
It is actually a rather mind-boggling concept when combined with big bang theory. It means that consciousness only existed once time existed so it really does, literally, make us the fabric of the universe.

Thanks I didn't watch the movie so couldn't understand.

So sorry Rohit. I was trying to think of a common reference. It's hard coming from a different culture. namaste.

no problem :)  .


text:
I hate human beings how can I develop metta?
I don't like human beings because of their ego centric nature. They have destroyed nature- plants, species, morality, love, harmony etc. I just wish whole human species vanish or come to end. They have messed up the perfect nature. How can I develop love or Metta towards human beings? What are the ways by which I can develop love towards who are not doing such works to be loved?

I have posted a few times recently, to focus on developing equanimity (upekkha). Unlike Abrahamic religions, Buddhism teaches what creates the (social) world is ignorance. In Buddhism, that people are ignorant is just the way things naturally are. It is the true nature of the world (refer to the Lokavagga). Buddhism teaches people who are truly humane or human are "rare" (SN 56.47).
Therefore, Buddhism instructs to practise equanimity (upekkha) to free the mind of irritation & aversion. Once this is done, more positive mental states can be practised, such as forgiveness, to remove hatred & cruelty. When hatred & cruelty are removed, metta & compassion will arise.
'Metta' ('friendliness') is a social value, which can be difficult to practise in today's world, which has become extremely immoral & corrupt over the last 30 years or so.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "The Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has two Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two?
'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 39

You sholud know the difference characterizes  between wisdom with metta and hate.
Metta is practitioner's consciousness that thinking to make happy consciousness arise in the other lives. (sukhī attānaṃ pariharantu)
There are the same and the difference characterizes  between wisdom with metta and hate.

Wisdom clearly comprehensions about cons (unwholesome consciousness) & pros (wholesome consciousness).
Hate see only cons, cons of pros, and pros of hate.
Wisdom never love anything.
Hate love it's beloved such as you love the world, hate it's enemy such as you hate human being.
Wisdom with metta clearly comprehensions about the cons of hate, but never hate people who having cons.
Hate see  the cons of people, and hate both people and cons.

Have you ever see the pros of your enemy such as  "they still not kill you"? That is the pros but you never thinking of it, because you hate your enemy's pros, too.


text:
Which body of the Buddha belongs to the Buddha nature?
Which body of the Buddha belongs to the Buddha nature?
I suppose all three, but I would be interested to hear otherwise.

probably going to delete the question, cos it may just generate confusion (in both me and you) about the term "belongs"

What do you mean by "Buddha nature"? I think it means:
Anyone is Buddha, as soon as he stops to generate vexations.
That fact can be described as: "We all are Buddha by nature, we only differ from Buddha in maintaining some mental processes".
Therefore, the term "Buddha nature" is applicable to sentient beings, not to metaphysical concepts of reality like Trikaya.

thanks for the reply. i don't think the trikaya is always a metaphysical doctrine though.


text:
Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras in the same way?
Does all Tibetan Buddhism classify the sutras and sastras in the same way, or do specific schools elevate different Indian etc. texts?
I read about Chinese discussion about panjiao (doctrinal classification), and found it really interesting, especially the systems developed by Tsungmi and Zhyiyi, even if may seem quite dogmatic compared to someone like Wonhyo, who practiced hwajaeng, doctrincal harmony, so that "in his works we do not see the application of the practice of doctrinal classification".
Is there an equivalent in Tibetan Buddhism?

There are variations in the classification per school/monastery. All schools divide the canon in Kangyur and Tengyur (resp. original canon and treatises).
The number of Kangyur texts varies. Variations include the Derge, Lhasa, Narthang, Cone, Peking, Urga, Phudrak and Stog Palace versions, each named after the physical location of its compilation.

If your question is whether all schools of Tibetan Buddhism have historically agreed upon which sutras were definitive and which were provisional, then the answer is no they have not always agreed.
In particular, there is a dialectic between the schools of Tibetan Buddhism similar to the dialectic between the two great philosophical schools of Indian Mahayana Buddhism: Madhyamaka and Yogacara and their proponents.
The dialectic is complex and the issues are subtle, but the upshot for sutras is the question of which of the 2nd Turning of the Dharma Wheel or the 3rd Turning of the Dharma Wheel should be held as definitive and which provisional.
To be clear, I do not think any modern Tibetan Buddhist school thinks there is any real contradiction between these sutras, but there is still argument about which sutras should be held as definitive and which provisional in order to resolve the apparent contradiction between these two turnings of the wheel.
See here for a decent discussion.