text:
Increases in Physical Energy, Virya
I had conjectured that a few things could increase my energy. Lately, I wonder about physical and mental energy. I thought of reading as expending effort, but I realize now reading is mostly a mental activity. Aside from physical activity, what activities can help with energy? Here, I ask specifically about:

Meditation's effect on physical energy and vigour
Any other activity potentially linked with energy and vigour: possibly chores, activities involving movement, activities not involving movement, etc.

Thank you.

The Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta (AN8.80) provides eight grounds for the arousal of energy. In the original Pali version, it appears that the word used is "viriya".

"There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?
"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this
  work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't
  I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the first grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I have done some work. While I was doing work, I
  couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort
  for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he
  makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of
  energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I
  am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's
  message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of
  the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the third grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. While I was going on
  the journey, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I
  make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he
  needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone
  for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or
  refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light &
  suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the
  attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs
  to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for
  alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food
  as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for
  work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized?'1 So he makes an effort for
  the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness.
  The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness.
  Now, there's the possibility that it could get worse. Why don't I make
  an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness,
  not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have
  recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. Now,
  there's the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don't I
  make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained,
  the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for
  the arousal of energy.
"These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy."

If you consider the ability to concentrate the mind, as a kind of mental energy, then according to the Mettanisamsa Sutta (AN11.16), metta or loving kindness is one way to gain mental concentration easily:

"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?
. 1. "He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world.

Buddha shared his experience eating one meal a day before noon from Bhuddali Sutta

...experience few afflictions, few ailments, lightness, power, and a pleasant abiding....

tho in pali, Buddha didn't use Virya, he used "balañca".  I think it matches your question well as it means physical strength. Maybe "lightness" from sutta matches "vigor" from your question?  thanks

In this translation, it's "strength" instead of "power".

thanks.  i saw that too.  question seems to be about physical energy but , Virya is mentioned there.   to me Virya, viriya means towards more of mental strength (or even motivation) than physical strength as in sutta AN8.80 you mentioned in your answer.  Hopefully our answers are enough to cover the question.   Also came to mind was five benefit from walking mediation, but after refreshing my memories, they seem to be around increasing stamina than physical strength.  anyway, i think we give decent answers.

@DeanA Walking meditation, in my experience, does increase mental energy. I don’t have the resources to back it up with the Pail Canon or talks by learned ones, just from what I’ve encountered. I do respect and agree with your comments too.


text:
Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole?
Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole, and wholes can't be real?
With emphasis on space, not what takes it up, except perhaps to say they're "in" space likes parts in a whole, and / or the contents of a whole.

In Theravada space is listed as one of the primary elements like earth, water, fire, air, space, consciousness.

Would not any abstraction be ideal? ...time, space ...

Space (akasha) is one of those dharmas that were debated by Early Buddhist schools.
Some counted space as an unconditioned dharma along with Nirvana, and some did not. If I remember correctly, Theravada does not, and most other early schools did consider space unconditioned.
Then within that, there was argument whether a certain dharma can perform a function (whether its "real" or not - being able to participate in causal chains was considered an important characteristic, which later was denied equivalency with ultimate existence - things can perform function even though they are empty of real existence). This argument included akasha, some said it can cause results and some said it can't.
Some said akasha is only an absence of objects etc. All this messy debating about dharmas, in my opinion, is what led to eventual emergence and popularization of Emptiness philosophy and praxis of prajnaparamita. Declaring all dharmas to be mere conceptual designations/imputations, was an elegant way out of endless debates.
I do not remember who specifically spoke about "whole" vs "parts" but there was a line of analysis that was born somewhere in the period between Abhidharma and Madhyamaka, that showed that all spatial entities are designations, because they have "sides" (left/right/top/down) - and since they can be subdivided, they are therefore constructed, therefore are generalizations attached to a construct, hence not real. You find this point still cited in various Tibetan commentaries explaining the various facets of Emptiness.
Sorry, nothing specific here, hope it helps at all.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Bodhicitta and the path of knives?
Is cutting off the "path of knives" (i.e. avoiding rebirth into lower realms) not the ultimate?
I mean, obviously it's unlikely any Buddhist seeker would affirm that. But, given life on earth can be improved for humans, is it not very like the ultimate, to never again accrue evil karma and rebirth into hell or animal or ghost realms?
Also, do any of the schools which say some sentient beings lack a seed for buddhahood, self enlightenment, and arhatship, claim that those sentient beings can forever avoid rebirth into the evil destinies?
And in what way can they work for bodhicitta?

if anyone can remember the name for that seed, then let me know in a comment. thanks.

I think that's called "Buddha seed" (佛種), or "Bodhi seed" (菩提種). It is said that contacting serious wrong fake teachings could cause permanent damage of that seed. Although it's the first sentence Buddha exclaimed when 1st arisen from his enlightenment that historical morning after seeing the stars, that "all beings are already with the Buddha nature (seed)..."

@Mishu米殊 Is that tathāgatagarbha?

in a loose sense you may say that. Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-nature, Bodhi... talking about "that" in different perspectives maybe - but perspectives do matter, ChrisW

The aim should not to be to avoid reincarnation in 'lower' realms, but to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings. Please do keep that in mind. Focusing on reincarnation encourages selfish thinking.

hm well ofc i don't disagree but there's merit before there is bodhicitta etc

Good if asking not for them, but for yourself first! What does it require that a desire for awakening whould arise in me? Bodhicitta, unsakeable.
When wise speak how incredibly seldom a human existance is, people are for the most incapable to imagen. Why? Because they see permanent in what is impermanent, believing that all they experiance is their own. Signs, sounds, smell, taste, touch and thoughts: the world.
But it might for those be possible to imagen how seldom a live not stupid, living in a civilized country and meeting even the good teachings of the/a Buddha is, given how seldom such one appears in this world.
Just that, imagen it proper, putting on honest meassures, one is properbly cabaple, if not stupid, to understand such as the highest blessings.
If, when understanding this, seeing that one is for now not blessed in this or that point, then to seek for that, to nurish it, that would be possible cause that it might arise one time for one.
For those who, if meeting such auspicious blessings but get not aware that those are not for sure, will not last in ways of that they might come in touch with teachings telling them, that they own inherent goodness or inherent capacities, a seed, or a nature, a tendency, yet having not entered the stream, are total insecure, open to all evil and pain for long long time: What do you think, are they blessed? Who ever could help them, if they whould not give the causes and conditions by themselves?
Why it is important to value our Conditions?
So each of you would do good to reflect wise and deeply if, now if so gifted, is it really smart to believe now others than the Buddha and those thinking even to know it better of what he thought behind simple words?
Is it wise to listen to those who for themselves are not able to renounce, still hold on everything, still hold on home, kind... still possessed with all fetters, living like you intrade and dependency, or whould you, reflecting on the kalama sutta, not be wiser to tend to those who have left normal ways of life, if seeking advice?
All my person is able to give here, are some small doors for freedom of "Buddha nature".
If you are capable to get (take) the message, is totally up to your conditions of wish association is the most importand, the only real importand outwardly condition, so here you are: alone as before, but maybe now with a small light for refuge.
Study just this tiny but very deep, very deep short sutta, here rendered and commented by a nearly 90 years old dutch living Bodhisatta, Upasika Nina Van Gorkum: The Greatest Blessings
The Maha Mangala Sutta contains all for your good journey, where ever you desire to arrive.
If you after having read and possibly listen, do not experiance tears running from your face, then remember those gifted who experianced it.
May you, may all beings, be blessed with the highest gift!
It's really time and urgend to leave the path of knives and imagen how long one used so many others and pain, to condinue it for selfish sakes, "cheated", "insane".
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

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


text:
If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat or buddha?
If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat?

Killing an Arhat (enlightened being)

is one of the ānantarika-kamma actions.

If I remember correctly, Buddha once said that Devadatta's throwing a rock and hurting Buddha's foot was caused by Buddha's past bad karma from a previous life.
Even for Buddha's and non-returners/Arhats past karma keeps getting resolved until parinibbana.

If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat or buddha?

Question premise might reveal an internal inconsistency - every bad event is not only caused by Kamma.
The Buddha taught that there are 5 natural laws (Niyamas), that causes physical and mental events to take place;

1.    The seasonal laws (Utu-Niyama) related to temperature, seasons and other physical events
2. The biological laws (Bija-Niyama) related to seeds and physical organic order
3. The physical law (Citta-Niyama) related to the processes of consciousness, or to the nature of consciousness which recognises objects etc.
4. The Kammic law (Kamma-Niyama) related to the law of Kamma, (good deeds and bad deeds and their results)
5. The Natural laws (Dhamma-Niyama) related to certain events: the general law of cause and effect, causality conditionally and unconditionally
  Trying to further interpretate it will just carry over into  imagination. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can know the intricate workings of kamma.

might, but might not. thanks for the answer, but i won't accept it yet :)

My person wonders about the source and the context of this set of five. Is that known and provide able, Nyom Lanka? Weather,food, beings... is said to be a matter of given strong causes, e.g. kamma, when thinking on 1-3.


text:
Is Lineage vital?
Lineage is important to teaching by gurus and the succession of teaching because it helps ensure that the teaching is complete and intact, and that the teachers are sincere. One must be granted permission to teach by one's Guru, which means that by using Induction, we can see that all lineages must go back to the Buddha himself.
But I wonder, in the modern world, if this has not become irrelevant? Any person can find the teachings now, in various translations, and so the issue falls on that person to determine what they feel is legitimate. Modern people are unlikely to become monks, and I have never seen any definitive statement that laypeople never can achieve enlightenment (rather the opposite). One need not join a community, follow a guru or even know another person with the same 'theories' to practice and make progress.
So, is lineage still important? Can we not fix down a translation of the books, make them public, offer opportunities for retreats or guidance and just allow people to choose and go forward for themselves? There is no particular lineage in science, even if some persons are well-regarded and often referred to. Anyone with access to a library could become a Physicist, regardless what schools they go to, or whom the teachers studied under. The knowledge is the guru, not a person. In fact, the Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." Is this not what he meant?

Consider the "Four Reliances".

It since ever merely unlikely that many find lineage and liberation, but not impossible, having the "luck" coming in contact.
asked/suggested: In fact, the Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." Is this not what he meant?
The Buddha said that to those having already changed to the "lineage" of the Noble Ones, not at all and never to wordilings.
In fact (the act of) the Buddha did not uphold something more importand outwardly as the teacher/admirable friend and pointed strongly on the ancestorship of the lineage:

It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how having admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."
— SN 45.2

This heritage, to keep it alive, he gave to the Sangha of his disciples, his monks.
Such as Gurus and people outside of the Sangha, especially under lay people, even to draw such as "lineage", is neither given by the teacher nor in any way able to transmit the good Dhamma by nature.
Also that there is such as permission invented in this lineage to teach, is a trader invented mythos, selling pride and identification to merely fools.
Such is pure business and livelihood on Dhamma of which the Buddha put a lot of means into to avoid it.
How ever, "lineage" or better "ancestorship" o the Noble Ones is not gained by birth or outwardly signs and affiliation but by the first stage of awakening, by gaining gotrabhū-ñāṇaṃ
From this moment on, and only from here, one can regard him/herself being talked to when spoken: "make you self an island with the Dhamma (you already have really gained)"

the beginning of lineage...And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye—...
...Then ..., having seen the Dhamma, having attained the Dhamma, having known the Dhamma, having fathomed the Dhamma, having crossed over and beyond uncertainty, having no more perplexity, having gained fearlessness, independence of others with regard to the Teacher’s message, ...

While it's not the most bad idea to turn away from Dhamma-dealers and "pyramid-trade" systems, is not smart to turn away from the most needed refuge to stay and have contact with the others, the Sangha.
As maybe observed, there is no such as a formal and regulated disciple-student relation between the members and the Sangha given, as such would neither work, or as we might have faced, leads to very problematic situations. So the relation, aside of natural laws, between lay people and Monks is a total voluntery one, purely based on goodness and generosity, without any formal personal duties.
As it is thought, this field of merits, can possible stay an independent source of teachers of the good Dhamma, others then later developments, copies and thieves for livelyhoods.
On the other hand, by person has not that much doubt that the Juwels, beginning with the Savaka Sangha, will fast disappear in the modern world and not even imagenable for the modern people. That's nature of modern (followed after by many).
Try to be wise and uproot the cause of incapacity of devotion and being capable to be tamed, you ego-tripps.
There would be just immense suffering able to teach you but possible no more refuge avaliable.
Good advices how to find oes good tracher are found in the essay: The Power of Judgment.
More on the topic student teacher relation might be found by one here: [Q&A] Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

So, there is "independence of others" achieved, but before that, we need the Sangha? Do I understand correctly?

Except for an Paccekabuddhā, lineage is reqired, this is why, so to keep that alive, the Dhamma-Vinaya was given to the Sangha of Bhikkhus, Nyom @nocomprende. Independend means, being one self, part of lineage already. Therfore independent to become, one destinated to liberation. If the Sangha disapears, soon, Dhamma-Vinaya disapears, field of merits disapears, lineage disapears... having disappeared, only paccecabuddhas may arise in the world. Now thinking text could be the carrier of lineage, since the Dhamma is what does allow the change, no more lived, no more understood,

From student's perspective, studying explicitly under a lineage is supposed to give you a sense of reliable traditional foundation empowering your practice. This is similar to the feeling you get when you go to an Ivy League university, you have a very strong sense that the very walls of the institution are permeated with science, and this acts as an inspiration and gives you energy to strive forward.
From teacher's perspective, the main benefit that affiliation with lineage gives you is what I call the "abstract blessings". Meaning, as an authorized lineage holder you would feel entitlement, support, and abstract power of lineage - as something that gives you strength and increases your faith in the teaching and confidence in yourself, esp. in case of adverse circumstances.
This comes with its price of course. Effectively, you are relying on an abstract entity (the so-called spirit of the lineage) which is a relationship of co-dependency. If you think about it, in a mild form it's the same type of contract you get into with a deity in traditional monotheistic or pagan religion. You serve and support the entity and in return the entity gives you it's power and support.
I personally have a philosophical problem with these kinds of arrangements. Call me selfish, but for me freedom from dependency is more important than the support I'd get from an institution, however tempting that may be. Plus, in my opinion, if your Awakening is worth its salt, you should be absolutely able to function as teacher without any official authorization.
Of course your question was more about authoritative/reliable sources of information on Dharma, rather than these more complicated matters - and I will let other people handle those, but here I wanted to share my thoughts on the above, hoping it will be useful for someone downstream.

If you are 'selfish' then I am too, ha ha. I agree that transcendent entities are not useful to be relied on, in the sense that I feel that they do not exist. I also agree that if one is "independent of others with regard to the message" then authorization is not required. Thank you for your coverage of the issues.

Oh yes, I wouldn't say they do not exist. I would not go as far as to say they exist either, in the sense in which e.g. ice cream exists, but they are certainly nasty beasts and one day they'll get us ;)

Ok, well I seem to be different than most people in that I don't understand or gain anything from the shared views of such entities. Participating in groups or religions or even schools has not fed my needs for strength or security. Strange. Instead, I have had a purely individual view of things like a relationship to God, and my sense of it does not really match anyone else's as far as I can tell. So, it was possible for those abstractions to fall off for me because they were entirely mine, not reinforced by surroundings. I overreached in saying that they do not exist for anyone (delusions).

I think most people miss one of the greatest benefits of studying under a particular lineage.  Namely following a lineage very much narrows the scope of your practice.  Lineages aren't so much a heritage as they are a finely honed program of Buddhist study.  Dharma gates are without measure.  Most lineages have their own internal progression and have developed their own spiritual grammar that help their adherents quickly navigate through those dharma gates that offer the most expedient path to the most panoramic views.  Lineages can also require that a student develop a sense of trust in their teachings, lineage holders, and their teaching methodologies.  Developing faith and commitment of this sort is of paramount importance if one is to having any success on the Buddhist path.
These days, it is all too easy to fall into syncretism or dharma cherry picking.  Modern students are very much prone to go from teacher to teacher, book to book, and retreat center to retreat center.  They keep what they like and - and this is the great danger - avoid the things they don't or find challenging.  Rather than question a teaching or look for an easier answer elsewhere, our trust in our own lineage demands that we investigate our resistance and overcome our self-made obstacles.

So, it is like a scaffold: it helps us make progress, but we have to do the climbing. It doesn't much matter which scaffold, as long as we follow one far enough. But people do vary, and there are different forms of practice because there are different temperaments.

Lineage is for those who do not take refuge in the Buddha & Dhamma of the Pali suttas.

Say more? This seems like a very individual approach, which I tend to agree with, but some people require more community. Does your statement cover that?


text:
Rebuke of Jains - resource after Bodhis approach
Recently Ven. Thanissaro sacrified a lot of effort and time, to make certain Jain-ish approaches via the Buddhas better understandable.

The Limits of Description : Not-self Revisited. A response to a critique of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s essay, “The Not-self Strategy” (available in the essay collection, Noble & True). (Also available as pdf format)

Now, it would be maybe good to read Bhikkhu Bodhis previous critic.
Does any one know if there is a non-commercial shared copy avaliable? And if, maybe possible to be quoted.
Here is a reference to the critique, provided by Nyom Chris, the topic is about:

These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” ... The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time.

Using Google I only find it in a book:

Title -- Investigating the dhamma : a collection of papers
Author -- Bhikkhu Bodhi, edited by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
Published -- Kandy, Sri Lanka : Buddhist Publication Society, 2015

Here is a copy of the introduction, taken from a Google preview of the book:

So far as I know there's no free/electronic copy of the book.
The summary of the book on Amazon says,

This book brings together eight essays of Bhikkhu Bodhi, five of which were earlier published in academic journals and volumes, and three not published before. Most of the essays are critical responses to various modern interpretations of the Dhamma that the author considers to be at odds with the Buddha’s teachings, in particular as transmitted and interpreted by the Theravada school of Buddhism. The other essays are in depth discussions of important Buddhist doctrinal terms.

Publisher: Pariyatti Publishing (October 15, 2017) . Is this an old essay or has BB changed his view? Anatta is certainly 'ontology'.

Saddhu for the effort and Zuvorkommenheit, Nyom Chris. It might be left as it is, where it is.

@Dhammadhatu I think the book's publisher is "Kandy, Sri Lanka : Buddhist Publication Society, 2015". I don't know if the essay is written for the book or old, except for the quote in the OP which says, "was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time", which implies that this essay is one of the older ones (i.e. "earlier published in academic journals").

Thank you, ChrisW for your helpful information! It is because of your post that I was able to find a free PDF Version: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp437s_Bodhi_Investigating-Dhamma.pdf


text:
Dhamma by pictures, teaching with sgins, gestures and emos, a usual?
In relation to a question lately ask in regard of usuals in practicing body gestures (ones appearing) as a part of training as well as a certain voidnes of such gestures on internet as support and help, aside of the use of emos, in how far might it be of use or of distruction to receive and perceive not only words but also signs as teaching?
What is the disadvantage of being taught the Dhamma without relay on body or form, remebering here that certain existences do not allow understanding the Dhamma?
Is a dismay of certain form and signs and preference to relay on certain perceptions, if possessing them, (e.g. avoding ugly and beauty in regard of eye contact), not working on it, a way to get Dhamma rightly?

To add a sample: times ago my person used to give a * schmunzel *, something between * smile * and * smirk * within text, given that there are usually no emos exressing that well. Now, althought text, some people go attached, some very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations on forums.
Now, following the way to give even lesser changes to find achors for unskilful socialising, by appearing merely unmoved, not giving certain signs, people got likewise attached, very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations and kind of attention.
Yet, as for a monk (even formal for Bhikkhus), showing signs of emotions is regarded as improper conduct, such as showing teeth by smiling, moving arms, using body to express. Such kind of behaviour, giving certain favor and socialize improper way, has leaded right practicing monks in troubles once. Now people are often very lost if not finding pleasant things within the senses, no way to identify and tend to it.

Where to draw the border between "giving" beauty and ugly, neutrality and being touched with signs and bodily gesture useful for every one? What if perfect or void of such contacts to learn how to distinguish and approach?
Is it a case to case issue or should it be regarded as natural "chaos" not worthy to but, make merits on it?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I have used Morse Code to communicate by radio. People understood what I was saying and feeling. So, no: signs are not required. But that doesn't make them inherently wrong.

Even Morse has some emoticon-like words (i.e. abbreviations to convey emotion), doesn't it? Like "hi" for a joke, "dr" for dear ... I suspect they're important for chat (on the internet too), important for signalling jokes ... and I thought that ¯_(ツ)_/¯  added useful/helpful/informative context to the comment under my answer. I'm not convinced it's important for this site, though; it isn't commonplace here so it's unconventional.

Although I hope I understand a lot of what you write, I don't understand everything; but I understand it more easily when you write in English (text) than when you write phrases or equations using emoticons.
I don't really understand (the definitions of) individual emoticons, nor understand groups of them.
And you are able to write some (in my opinion) excellent answers; in my opinion you needn't feel it's necessary to use emoticons instead of (or as well as) text.

Incidentally I tend to edit answers on this site, sometimes, to give them a regular format (if they have an irregular format). For example sometimes people don't use block quote-formatting when they quote, or they format the whole answer using bold text ... which I think makes an answer harder to read. I'd rather read the content (of an answer) than be distracted by its format.

Sometimes pictures are or have been an important part of teaching dharma (for example some people have used a picture of the Wheel of Life as the basis for a dhamma talk). And in the last paragraph of this answer Andrei mentioned teachers' using gestures for communication.
Anyway there's a lot more to teaching than just text. But maybe not on this site, though, which is principally a text-based, English-language, question-and-answer site.

Sadhu for the effort. Maybe to much on certain case answered. How could it be answered so that someone not personal involved, not preoccupied by certain remembering, could get the message as well and not grasp a gone case? May Nyom Chris likes to give a modification or addition, distingtion in this regard within the answer. Something he is usually talented. The topic is somehow like "attached" to precepts, thinking everything is fine if beyond.

On meta-level: my person did not had the irion that SE is just a textual meant place, given that it holds even relation to image content providers.

If you need to clarify an emotion, perhaps to soften or brighten some text-based message, it is conventional (elsewhere at least) to use a very few text-based emoticons e.g. :-) ("happy smile") or ;-) ("wink, I'm telling a joke"), which an experienced internet user will understand. I can't easily read graphical emojis (partly because they're so small I can't see them well). I don't usually use any other emoticons than these two. Sometimes I think "wai" _/\_ but I don't type that in case it's "affected" (pretentious, ostentatious).

¯_(ツ)_/¯ well that would be another language to learn...

Yes I suppose it would. And if this were a social forum (e.g. Facebook) then I could understand why people might want to express (share) a range of emotions. But (according to my imperfect memory) the only kind of time I remember seeing any emoticon on this site is when an OP expresses a problem: and the answer includes some agreement that, yes, that aspect of life is problematic. :-)

Good, having given much into meta, maybe another try to get to general aspect of the question. ...(ツ)... and avoid possible dangerous long discussion.


text:
Might be possible to gain highest bliss without a loyal relationship?
Marriage (and/or a binding relationship) is not very popular among modern people, who believe strongly in promoted "pseudo-liberality".

As an aside:

The word religion has very similar meaning like marriage, deriving from "religiō".

The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligo "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re- (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.

A certain text from a possibly well-known song came to mind the last days:

Love and marriage, love and marriage
  go together like a horse and carriage
  this I tell you brother
  you can't have one without the other.

Next to the possibly well-known wordily marriage issues, the "marriage" stance with the Jewels, for Nibbana in a guided, related way, goes "informal" like that:

“I go to the Blessed One for refuge, and the Dhamma and the Saṅgha of monks.
“May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.

What do you think, or what would you like to share on Dhamma, in relation to bonding, duties in relation to one partner (for worldly bliss), but also in regard of the relation with the Triple Gems for an end of suffering:

Is it possible to gain, either this in this world, or that beyond, if there is no real refuge and total acceptance of the duties in this "contract"?
Can a Hallodri (lightheaded man/woman) expect to gain one or the other, e.g. without real relationship (refuge), if they're either not giving promises or if they're carelessly breaking promises?
And what about relationships where both people mutually agree not to be loyal: can any higher attainment be expected then?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]

For whosoever, Ambaṭṭha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, or of connection by marriage, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness. It is only by having got rid of all such bondage that one can realise for himself that supreme perfection in wisdom and in conduct.

“Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.
“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to the teachings.

Like always abandoning the raft in the middle of the ocean and not listen/read carefully on what wise say but relay on own ideas., "Buddha" Andrei and your "sodom and gomorrah" approaches. seufz And do not steal by not linking! It might be not given.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll


text:
Can a one-pointed mind and a unified mind alternate?
During meditation i notice that the mind tends to alternate between one-pointedness (breath touching the tip of the nose while breaking off any upcoming thought) and classifying upcoming thoughts into thoughts about the past, future and related to ego, before breaking off the thought, or observing the upcoming and cessation of all sensations in the realm of body and mind while always keeping adhithanna in posture. Is this inconsistent or can a unified and one-pointed mind exist alternately or even simultaneously?

It's either one or the other.  One-pointedness means exactly that - the mind is fixed in one place.  Anything apart from that single point detracts from concentration.  What can happen is that as you develop one-pointedness, your attention can get somewhat "smeared".  You'll still have some hold of the single point, but your attention isn't fully fixed on it.  In this case, your vitakka or applied thought is [mostly] there, but your vicara (e.g. sustaining thought) is either slipping around or is intermittent.
If you find yourself moving away from single-pointedness on a fixed object, my best advice is to switch to something a little less subtle like the full inhalation and exhalation as it travels through your body.  It is much easier to maintain sustained attention on something that is moving.  In a sense, the motion keeps your interest more than would a single point.  As your concentration deepens, you can begin watching the where the breath makes contact again.
Bonus point - don't watch the breath, wait for the breath.  What I mean by that is that your attention should be passive as if you were waiting for a train to arrive, a gaggle of geese to cross the road, or your Hot Pocket to cook in the microwave.  Westerners especially can be overly aggressive when they actively try to watch the breath.  The pin the poor thing down with their efforts and don't give it any room to...well...breath.  As the Hsin Hsin Ming puts it, "when you try to achieve passivity, your very effort fills you with activity".  Strong arming your attention like that arouses needless agitation.  If you take a more patient approach, your concentration will be correspondingly deeper.


text:
Is an analogy between karma and modern day physics possible?
The Buddha spoke about kalapa's. A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and cease in a everlasting flow of sequence. Karma as the law of action/reaction. Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth and the truth of Newton's third law of motion? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a sub atomic level action reaction became not absolute anymore in predictability.
Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

Where did the Buddha speak of kalapa?

My assumption that the Buddha spoke about kalapas was based on a dhamma talk during vipassana retreat by my teacher, who , I think now, had reason not to go into detail about the origins of the concept of kalapas (Abhidhammattha Saigaha) and used therefore the simplification that these were the Buddha's words. Since I am not a buddhist scholar I was unaware of the falsehood of the statement made in my question. Thank you very much for clarification.

A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and
  cease in a everlasting flow of sequence.

The body does not arise & cease in some dualistic sequence. A body is born from two cells (sperm & ovum) grows over 20 years & then slowing declines in its health but not form until it ends.

Karma as the law of action/reaction.

The word 'karma' means 'intentional action' and, based on the quality of intention, there will be results. For example, there is the intention to make money via an investment. If the investment is successful, there will be happiness over the result; if the investment fails, there will be disappointment. This happiness & disappointment is the result of the intention or wishfulness.

Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that
  action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action
  causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth
  and the truth of Newton's third law of motion?

There does not appear to be a correlation with Newton's third law of motion because much (but not all) of what is described as wholesome acts is related to non-doing, such as non-killing; non-stealing; no-lying, etc. Thus, these kinds of wholesome acts maintain the natural balance of the mind rather than create a dualistic reaction.
Also, the kammic law you have described is not an absolute "truth" but a mere generalization. For example, if you are a perfect parent, it can be generally (but not always) expected that you will have good children. However, if your children die, the love of your perfecting parenting will generate suffering. This shows the wholesome act of perfectly loving your children can bring a negative result.
However, if it is (erroneously) assumed good kamma always brings a good result, this would seem to contradict Newton's Law because there would be no opposite reaction.
Where as with the reality of kamma, yes, something similar (but not exacting) to Newton's law would occur in relation to kammic acts of doing (as opposed to non-doing) because the elasticity of the brain results in excitement or hope over good results, which will eventually lead to an opposite reaction when those hopes fade (such as with the absence or loss of children who are loved).

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As I posted, this does not necessarily occur with the mind because results of kamma are extremely varied thus cannot be quantified using the precise mathematical laws of physics.

Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a
  sub atomic level, action reaction became not absolute anymore in
  predictability.

There is no absolute predictability of kamma. Kammic law is merely a generalisation. It does not form part of absolute truth (Paramattha Sacca) in Buddhism.

Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

Unwholesome actions always lead to an immediate unwholesome result. For example, if the mind has an angry intention, immediately, there will be stressful vibrations within the neurology of the mind-body. However, the mind may quickly learn a lesson from this anger or this anger may actually bring a good result (for example, getting angry at another person that leads to the other person changing their behaviour in a positive way).
In summary, over the long term, wholesome kamma does not always lead to wholesome results & unwholesome kamma does not always lead to unwholesome results. This can be read about in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.

I need to do some more reading about quantum physics, I really do.  It seems very interesting.
What I can say, is there is a clear analogy (to me at least) between Buddhism (or how I understand it) and modern mathematics.
It is my opinion that the single most important theorem in mathematics is Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem.  Basically, this theorem shows that no system of constructing proofs of arithmetic is expressive enough to prove all true theorems and disprove all false ones.  No system of logic can tell all tales and solve all problems.
This hydra has many heads.  Another well-known one is the Halting Problem in computer science.  This one states that there is no single algorithm that can determine whether any algorithm halts.  This is an extremely deep result assuming the Church-Turing thesis, which states that any computable function at all is computable by a Turing machine.
It's very similar to the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.  While this is not a Buddhist text, nonetheless it opens with "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the eternal name."  We are extremely fortunate that it can be proven logically that all logic is faulty in some way.  We are privy to the knowledge that all knowledge is false, and that that is the only true knowledge.
It is my belief that there is no truth.  When somebody says "This statement is false", a good and proper response is, "Yes, every statement is false."  Newton's third law is not true, nor is any other physical theory true.  Edge cases will continue to be discovered ad infinitum.  If any physical theory were true, and the universe operated deterministically according to its laws, there would be no experience.
The only things that are real are the things that transcend this world, such as our Karma.  Of course, to us there is no difference between the things that transcend this world, since we cannot access or imagine them.
Do not rely on Karma to bring good results in this life, since the distinction between good Karma and bad Karma itself is just a dualistic notion.  Just know that you are here for a reason, and have faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFgZD4errQ

No I don't think it's possible. At best it's a weak or stretched analogy; at worst it's a misleading one (implying too much equivalence between the system-of-kamma and the system-of-physics); or it's an unfalsifiable theory with cherry-picked results (e.g. "we observe phenomenon X in one system ... what phenomenon in the other system is analogous?"). The problem there is that the analogy exists because you created it, not because they're genuinely (or useful, predictively) analogous.
It is (or was, has been) especially common to confuse things using Quantum Physics (see Quantum woo and Quantum mysticism).
A cleverer teacher than me (e.g. the Buddha) might use what you know already to give analogies which explain his Dhamma; so if you knew Physics you might appreciate any apt Physical analogies; but I can't think of any. The only analogy I've ever made is that kamma is like the weather: things happen when the conditions are right but the details are complicated to predict.
More on the subject of Quantum Mechanics, see also Observer effect (physics):

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result; the 1998 Weizmann experiment is a particularly famous example.[1] These findings have led to a popular misconception that observation by a conscious mind can directly affect reality,[2] though this has been rejected by mainstream science. This misconception is rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[3][4][5]

If you read the references [3] through [5] it's clear (if you understand e.g. what the famous "double slit experiment" is) that the "observation" it's talking about is the act of installing the physical test equipment (which I'd also know as "probing the system"), or the action (effect) of the equipment itself ... and it's not to do with whether any "conscious mind" observes the results of the experiment.
I kind of like jcarpenter2's answer, because I thought this was an unanswerable question but that answer (perhaps successfully) talks about the limitations of logic and not just about physics.
I could try to add another analogy along those lines -- inspired by Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the start of the Tao Te Ching -- that making a verbal observation (i.e. a comment or description) about something will affect (disturb, interfere with) the thing described (or the perception of the idea described) ... but I don't think that's a useful analogy. The Buddhist analogies are purposeful, have a goal (liberation or cessation). Inventing further useless analogies is just proliferating views, leading to a "thicket of views" of the sort that we're warned doesn't lead to liberation. Even Occam's razor (also Einstein) suggests preferring simpler theories.
I think it's better to try to understand Buddhism, to approach Buddhism, on its own terms: understand what it's saying, understand what the Buddha would have been saying to the people he said it to ... without preconceptions such as that it's talking about Rutherford's theory of atoms. Perhaps the only really useful preconceptions are ones you might have learned in pre-school, i.e. morality, of the sort that allows the Buddha to tell the Kalamas they should judge for themselves.


text:
Common denominator between forms of happiness included in dukkha
What is the common denominator between the happiness derived from family life and the happiness derived from being a recluse?

The common denominator is the feeling of pleasure. Apart from that, the conditions giving rise to the two types of pleasure are different. The conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the household life is craving & affection where as the conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the recluse life is the abandoning of craving & affection.

Monks, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
AN 2.7

Psychologically, the answer is that both probably experience both happiness and dukkha. You do not specify whether or not they are practicing mindfulness meditation or learning Dharma. It is also possible for either one or both to already be Enlightened or to be Enlightened soon. Either one may be experiencing dukkha more than the other.

Buddha taught gradual training.
There are many stages of happiness you can experience before you become a recluse.
This is explained in Sutta such as many kinds of happiness.

Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.>

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html


text:
Formal training in Buddhism
I wish to learn Buddhism from monks and learn things I don't understand. Is a formal training from an institute like ( http://www.rootinstitute.ngo/ ) fruitful? Are there people who have taken training like this? I will have to invest a life-time of my savings to take this education. I want to make a good decision. Can someone please show me the way? :)
--Noob here.

Whenever an Indian friend in Dhamma ask a similar question as yours, always my advice to them was to not try to go in search of one elsewhere in India but to go to the Buddhagyan Ashram, Bodhgaya. The Buddhagyan monastery is like an oasis for the Dhamma loving people in India. To find the highest level of Dhamma, you may have to visit Sri Lanka.

Root Institute belongs to the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, founded by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche). It is a Gelug-pa organization.
At Root Institute, they teach the (normally 5 years) Basic Program, but I am not sure they do it as long as 5 years. There are FPMT centers where it lasts 2 or 3 years only. The curriculum is always the same, though.
I studied the 5 years BP at Nalanda Monastery, in France (the program was in Tibetan, English, French, and Spanish). It is a lot of study, discussion groups, exams and learning by heart, "karma yoga" (i.e. community service). There are usually more lay people than monks. It is designed specifically for those who do not speak Tibetan and cannot attend the study program at Sera monastic "university". In addition, contrary to Sera, it is not exclusively monastic. The Program includes a bit of meditation (45 minutes day is not much indeed), and sometimes formal debates. Normally, the 45 minutes session has to be Lam Rim meditation.
On the importance of studying, there is a Zen nun (ven Myokyo) who said:

Real acquaintance with the Dharma is necessary because, being what we
  are, we are prone to stray. If we do not have the framework of the
  teachings, and continuously test ourselves against it, we will very
  soon be off and away down a blind alley. Training and the teachings
  need to match, need to go hand in hand.

On a more personal level, I feel studying helped me read (in a general sense) on my own. I believe I got rid of the grossest misconceptions I had. Studying also helped me dig channels for my mind to flow, like a river (of course, it stills wanders off... finds its way to unwholesome places and dwells on what has to be abandoned). It supports meditation. The more I studied, the more I understood it can lead somewhere but it is a question of how we relate to study and how we use it.
Attending the 5 years BP is one of the best things I have done in my life.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that the FPMT Basic Program covers just a few texts belonging to one tradition in particular. I would suggest that, once grounded in one tradition, entertaining diversity is an antidote to sectarian stances and over-simplifications.

Thank-you for your explanation. I am not a westerner. I'm from India. Have you benefited from the 5 year study?

Welcome. It's okay if you are not a westerner, I will correct my initial answer. I had in mind that most Tibetan-speaking monks in the Gelug tradition study at Sera, not in a FPMT center. I will add in what I benefited from the 5 years study.

@Tenzin Dorje. Thank you for this great answer.

The Buddha taught the Dhamma is a free gift. Assuming you live in India, if the Root Institute is too expensive for you, you could possibly consider travelling to Sri Lanka, where you can probably stay & learn in a Buddhist monastery for no financial cost.
Also, FPMT teaches Tibetan Buddhism, often focusing on more modern teachers they consider to be important, such as Atisa, Manjushri, Shantideva  & Pabongkhapa ; and also focusing on deity yoga, such as Tara. While my personal experience with FPMT is they are very nice people, the teachings are very Tibetan and often very different to classical Theravada Buddhism.

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. AN 9.5

Yes, I am from India. I know education comes at a price; I've no issues paying for it too. I don't mind travelling anywhere to learn. :) Can you guide me if you have a monastery in mind?

Sorry. I cannot guide you to Sri Lanka. I studied Buddhism in Thailand. However, there are numerous Sri Lankan members here, who could help you. You can ask a new question about where to study Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Kind regards.

I don't mind travelling anywhere. Sri Lanka or Thailand or Pluto (Elon Musk must help in this case!). Or somewhere in India too. :) Thank-you for your insights. :)

where in india do you live ?  do you have buddhist teachers next to you ?

@breath I live in Bombay. I tried finding out local teachers, but couldn't find any. I even went to local Buddhist temples, but no luck :(

I practice meditation theravada style ven mahasi sayadaw technique  -  spesificly  ven ajahn tong sirmangalo   - who teaches in chom tong town that is in Thailand    ..........   but as far as i know usually lay people go there to do a 21 say course than for 10 days each time and not for long
and than report to their tecaher at their country  ---- so if you had some teacher of this type at mumbai i would have recommended it to you

@breath I couldn't find a teacher here. And I'm in for a longer time period.. like a year or so. :) Thankyou :)

A member here recommends to contact Diliup Gabadamudalige to ask about study in Sri Lanka. He is a Sri Lankan pianist: https://www.facebook.com/Diliup  and connected to a monk named Meewanapalane Dhammalankara Thero living at in Mirigama Parama Nibbana Dharmayathanaya. (Tel: 071-365-29-48; 077-450-37-00.). Best wishes

I contacted him. Thankyou so so much for that.

Kalpesh Mange

Genuine spiritual teachings
  cannot be separated
  from the manner in which they are given.
True Dhamma is like friendship: if you are being charged for it,
  you already know you are not getting the real thing.
Buying Dhamma, taking ungiven, stealing, and so on is like seeking for a heart of gold and then try impatiently not willing of real sacrifies satisfy one self just in redlight districts, prostitution, or abuse. Even it might satisfy shortly, it will hardly ever become ever a real, intimate and fruitful relation.
Is that what you seek for, all you can, could effort?

[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."
[The Buddha:] "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy... The Way to Stream Entry

Better to Give than to Consume
Related aspects in similar questions:
[Q&A] Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student
Where can one find guidance from a teacher next year in 2018?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

If I understand their web site properly, it's a not-for-profit organisation; and donations are to defray running expenses, i.e. for accommodation and food when staying there. Is that usual or unusual? I think the OP is saying that he has to travel (and stay) somewhere, because he hasn't found local teachers even in local temples. Shouldn't he expect that (accommodation and food when away from home) to cost something?

Thankyou for your answer. But how does a lay person like me even find a teacher that is willing to impart Dhamma to me?

@KalpeshMange : "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities..." Canki Sutta. Nyom Chris. Buddhas real non profit "organisation" is called Sangha. Why deal and trade with "thieves" and disregard Buddhas way? It's not possible to gain Dhamma in this way, as hard one may try and ignore the Juwels. What "you" do here, at large, many, is just cut yourself off step by step...

Respect, Confidence & Patience

@SamanaJohann looks like I'll have to just searching, and reading until then online. :)

Try to turn around this usuall attitude and look where you can give, time, skill... "invest" into what is directed to Nibbana,not the world, what goes a walk of letting go and leave behind. From the first till the last step, it's all about giving, shaing (without expecting anything in return) at first. If focusing on the causes, effects will come. If focusing on fruits and effects, then (since not knowing what) it will be always wrong (and unskillful intended), @KalpeshMange . Don't think in ways how to get this or that, but what are you able to simply give and this not like a costumer,

Not like a beggar or a poor after something, but one who walks already the path of Dana, Sila, Bhavana.

@SamanaJohann. Yes! Rightly said :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Is jhana taught in Pure Land Buddhism?
Most of the books I have read really don't cover the Pure Land segment. There is a local Pure Land group and I was wondering if they (Pure Land Buddhists in general) teach and practice jhana as part of the path to awakening?

Pure Land practice survived only in the Chinese lineage, for only the Chinese Canon has the totality of the Twelve Sections of the Sutras. The other lesser lineage has only one section of the Sutra (Sutta) with large portion missing, could be due to their lack of writing media relied only on oral memorizing. Example, Madhyama Āgama [Wikipedia has most of the articles on Buddhist topics written by Theravadin sympathizers with distorted accounts or misleading narrations] has 222 Sutras but the counterpart Pāli Majjhima Nikāya kept barely 152 Suttas. The Twelve Sections of Sutras such arrangement of all the Buddha's teachings were recorded in the Vinaya(s) recounting the historical event of the 500 Arhats collecting the Sutras:

Mahisasakas Pratimoksa

迦葉即問阿難言。佛在何處說增一經。在何處說增十經大因緣經僧祇陀經沙門果經梵動經 (Do these Sutras exist in the Pali Canon?? Anyone without bias knows the correct answer)。何等經因比丘說。何等經因比丘尼優婆塞優婆夷諸天子天女說。阿難皆隨佛說而答... 名雜阿含。此是從一法增至十一法。今集為一部名增一阿含。自餘雜說今集為一部。名為雜藏。合名為修多羅藏 (Sutra Treasure)。我等已集法竟。
(A Vinaya existed in Ceylon belonged to Mahīśāsaka School, collected by
Faxian (337-422CE). However, it's so unfortunate we found none this Vinaya existed in the Theravada Pali Canon, who self-claimed the oldest tradition or of the "Early School" - how does it relate to the old Sthavira apart from holding a name that meant "elder"?)

Sarvāstivāda Vinaya

三轉十二分法輪行 (Three turning of the Twelve Dharma Wheels)... 得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。(The Twelve Dharma Wheels are the Twelve Sections of the Sutras, with Prajna Paramita as the 2nd Wheel, which reconfirmed if one read the Prajna Paramita Sutra in it said as the 2nd Wheel)

Dharmaguptaka Pratimoksa

大迦葉即問阿難言。梵動經在何處說。增一在何處說。增十在何處說... 如是生經本經善因緣經。方等經 (方等: Vaipulya, meant deep deep very profound teachings = Mahayana teachings, survived only in the Chinese Canon, one of the Twelve Sections) 未曾有經譬喻經。優婆提舍經句義經。法句經... 集為阿毘曇藏 (Collected as Abidharmas Treasure)... 時即集為三藏 (at that time there collected Three Treasures (Tripitaka))。

Tibetan Buddhism has practice based on Amitabha, and very high level of visualization meditation related to Amitabha (very few got such knowledge) - correct me if I missed something.
All cultivation the fruition must come through some form of Dhyana (Pali: Jhana), even dealing Koan the mind must be in a state of Dhyana so that the clarity of mind be obtained to see beyond the conceptual contriving.
Therefore the real Pure Land practice is a Dhyana practice, in short. However, I cannot know what you saw of that local group, since most of the real Buddhist practices are done in the wrong way the meanings are lost these days.
Pure Land the practice method is generally called 念佛 (Niànfó, Japanese: Nembutsu). The real meaning of this character 念, is remembering, or recollecting, even with a sense of missing (missing like missing someone dear to you, here the dear one is Buddha Amitabha, in simplicity). This remembering most common expression is by chanting the name. Chanting can be a loud chanting, or chanting for your own self to hear, or chanting in your heart silently. By this very method, the practitioner's thoughts (fetters) are abandoned, focusing only on ONE thought, that is Amitabha. He should chant and hear his own chant, he should "lose" himself, the chanter and chanting becomes one... This the most effective for modern man to achieve Dhyana, since human faculty in general is in declining cycle from the Buddha's time. Of course there are exceptions.
More sophisticated practice is related to visualization meditation, taught in  Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, of 16 scenes. Each of these scenes has profound effect, and meaning.
A related post is here. There are more important Sutras related to Pure Land, also the higher meanings, however it seems here to keep this simple is just right. Often time, Ch'an (Japanese: Zen) may incorporate Pure Land, or vice versa.

Who is Amitabha? For modern man who incapable of relating to immaterialistic existence this can be explaint neatly with modernized materialistic etymology, same as Avalokiteshvara, or Manjushri...

Well, I am not an expert in entire Tibetan Canon, but since it exists, just like many Pure Land practices in many Tibetan lineages do, and since Tibet is culturally different from the mainland China, I suppose the Chinese Canon is not the only source for this Practice.

@Manjusri neither am I familiar with Tib. Canon, but historically part of Chinese Canon bought to Tib. during Tang Dynasty, vested in. Post. My insight is, Tib. Canon contained many "sophisticated" practices, or calling in "demons" (they called wrath deities, protectors, etc.) due to their cultural background; also they prefer texts from later development of Buddhism, mixed in their tribal belief. It could be an asset if one an adept, also poison for some. Amitabha practice in Tib. is related to extending life, too... a mystic practice.

Not everything that comes from Tibet is Buddhism. There many lineages, just like there are many Pure Lands, and the lineages are, roughly, Bon ( 'BlackHats'),Old School Buddhism ('Red Hats') and newer lineages of Yellow Hats. The wrathful deities are often thought of as manifestations of peaceful ones, and many Vajrayana wrathful deities come from the Hindu tradition (in fact, I suppose that only Red Hats accept Bon spirits as parts of their practicies, of which not all are classified as wrathful ones).

In short, I think Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of practicies to learn to distinguish between reality and illusion, or a superficial  impression made by an object from its true nature.

Encompassing and objective, good @Manjusri :) (Manjusri the wisdom embodiment, one of my favourites. Have you read the 《佛說魔逆經》? About Mj made Mara spoke how to defeat Mara himself. Likely no eng. transl. Maybe I should do this one :)). My understanding of TB is general but more than general. Not details about the schools but I read the real Buddhist school is Jonang wiped out by 5th D. Lama - they reappearing but not sure if the same. Only this school taught real understanding of Tathagathagarbha.

@Manjusri Trimondi is informative I'm reading, insider knowledge. But it got too obsessed with explaining everything in the framework of Male/Female struggle or Female Sacrifice. I'm not sure if TB got the correct interpretation of Emptiness (reality/illusion), still investigating...

There are eighteen different types/interpretation of emptiness concepts in Tibetan buddhism; the Gelug-pa lineage often describe the emptiness as interdependence.

@Manjusri I did not study those, but my insight tell me if there eighteen, then all are partial, not the ultimate interpretation. I read the Classical Chinese Prajna-paramita Sutra (not finished yet) there investigating the Emptiness - very profound, translated by Kumarajiva. I again the insight those translations (Edward Conze, etc.) are with faults; or corrupted when translated to Tibetan, or corrupted when back-translated from Chinese to Sanskrit... like Heart Sutra... too complex to explain here...

The male/female dihotomy is described in
Vairocanabhisambodhisutra as follows: 'What is the mind of a man? It means What is the mind of a man? It means to think about benefiting others.What is the mind of a woman? It means to conform to the dharma of desire.'  http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0848_Vairocana_2005.pdf

See also the Chinese version (in symplified characters, sorry): http://www.fodian.net/zjj/view.aspx?file=T/08-mijiao/T18-j/T18n0848.TXT

An ultimate interpretation would be the completely identical texts in  a source language and in a target anguage, wich would mean the identity of  the both forms, which is impossible, because forms are different. Hence, there is no corruption (in my opinion), because 'emptiness is the form' and a permanent ultimate trouth cannot be rendered by impernmanent words and/or languages.

Will read those links, thanks. Simplified characters are ok for me (if you learn Chinese better the classic for then it's easy to understand simplified but classic much complex to memorize). It seems we have misunderstanding on "ultimate interpretation". Anyway in many levels of emptiness it could be realized, the Ultimate is the real Emptiness which I doubt if it's understood in the TB, that's why there are faults in them... complex ...too complex... @Manjusri

I don't see any faults in my persons and/or Tibetan texts of sutras.

It seems to be clear that Pureland practice focuses nearly exclusively on Jhana and refined becoming while teaching in regard of wisdom, incl. the explaining of Jhana and becoming seems to be merely total absent. Isn't the main aim, or general objected aim there a becoming in a refined sphere of being in the Immaterial World and joy in concentration their main focus?
Of cause, my person is not really into those spheres of undertakings by the Westernland-seeker and those being, dwelling there.
Maybe an answer: "No, just, merely uninstructed and not noted/know, practiced" might be proper.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Is Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra later creation?
I was thinking to read this big text because the chapter claims to be the teachings of Gautam Buddha while departure from the Earth. Before buying I wanted to be sure whether the text is authentic or not & actually contains last teachings of Gautam Buddha or not. Can anyone shed light on the authenticity of the text Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?

I have a somehow long text from a scholar in a (controversial) discussion, but in German - and would not attempt to translate it. Unfortunately I don't find a link using Google only (it sems from a buddhist forum but seemingly not been captured by Google). If you find someone being able to translate I'd put it on some webspace to be accessible. The main line in that comment is that it is of later creation date (than the assumed initial canonization on first council shortly after the death of the Buddha) and also has been subject to various alterations

@GottfriedHelms I have in PDF in English.

what does it mean: "I have in PDF in english"? (forgive, I'm not native in english)

@GottfriedHelms I mean I have this sutta in English but not in hardcopy.

Here, I've even a question based on the text. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21126/what-gautam-buddha-said-about-self-in-chapter-three-of-the-mahayana-mahaparin

For instance a short excerpt on the authenticity of the Sutra by S. Hodge: "(...) It seems reasonable from the chronological data alone  to  deduce  that  the  MPNS  was  formed  during  the Úâtavâhana  era.  The  Mahâmegha-sûtra,  which  is  a  precursor to the MPNS itself, mentions a Úâtavâhana king  who  was  the  “restorer  of  the  lineage”  and  this
must  be  none  other  than  Gautamîputra  Úâtakarn.i  (r106- 130 CE), (...) " It is a time ago when I engaged in a discussion about this and cited this (and more) S.Hodge statements, but as well that is mainly in german.

Ah, Tamas, thanks for the link to the earlier question. What I can contribute are the mentioned (german) comment of the zen scholar(?) Ralf Boeck ("SoGen") in one discussion and my (german) controversial discussion from 2007 but where I have cited some (english) statements of the scholar and translator of the MPNS S. Hodge. I don't like to get involved again into this discussion because it has been -all in all- a much displeasing experience in that mentioned controversy.

I cite here from my older discussion, where I copied&pasted from a website on the MPNS but which possibly does no more exist, didn't check it (but noticed such a remark in a more recent discussion found via google).
(my original compilation should be findable using google on the newsgroup de.soc.weltanschauung.buddhismus beginning at 10.apr.2007)

(...)
  Historical Background (2)
  There follows a fascinating, informative and thought-provoking
  lecture (originally delivered at the University of London, SOAS, in
  early spring 2006) by Buddhist scholar and translator, Stephen
  Hodge, on the Tibetan version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. I here
  hand over to Stephen!
  [S.Hodge]
  (...)
  It seems reasonable from the chronological data alone to deduce that
  the MPNS was formed during the Úâtavâhana era. The Mahâmegha-sûtra,
  which is a precursor to the MPNS itself, mentions a Úâtavâhana king
  who was the “restorer of the lineage” and this must be none other
  than Gautamîputra Úâtakarn.i (r106- 130 CE),
  (...)
  Virtually 90% of the remaining text of the MPNS involves this person
  as the untiring interlocutor who by his questioning draws out of the
  Buddha a wealth of teachings concerning the permanence of the
  Buddha, the importance of preserving the authentic Vinaya, the need
  to purge the San.gha of miscreant monks, the importance of upholding
  and promulgating the MPNS, and most of all the tathâgata-garbha
  doctrines. Is it possible that we are hearing the actual voice of a
  historical individual , called Sarvasattva-priya-darúana by his
  devoted followers, his words transformed into a sûtra format to
  ensure the preservation and dissemination of his teachings ?
  THE ICCHANTIKAS
  (...) help, who are excluded from this message of hope: a group of
  people collectively known as the icchantikas - the “extremists”.
  In the later strata of the text, the MPNS fulminates stridently
  against these people, repeating statements like
  “apart from icchantikas, the cause of enlightenment will become
  present in everybody”
  or
  “even those who commit the downfalls or perpetrate the heinous deeds
  and those who believe that the generation of the aspiration to
  enlightenment to be unnecessary will be established in the cause of
  enlightenment - apart from icchantikas who are like death”.
  So who were these people that the MPNS calls “virulent serpents” ?
  This question is succinctly answered thus - “any person, no matter
  whether they are a monk, a nun, a lay-man or lay-woman, who rejects
  this sûtra with abusive words, and does not even ask for forgiveness
  afterwards, has entered the icchantika path . . . . Those who have
  no concern about the
  (...)
  And make no mistake about this - the fate of the icchantikas is
  indeed terrifying, for the sûtra says,
  “the cause of enlightenment will not be and cannot possibly be
  engendered in icchantikas”,
  “they resemble burnt seeds because they have extinguished their
  wholesome roots”,
  “the icchantika has no seed and there is no possibility of him
  having any thought of confessing and begging for forgiveness”.
  In other words, the MPNS is quite emphatic in its view that these
  icchantikas will never awaken the potential of their
  tathâgatagarbha, never achieve liberation and never become Buddhas
  throughout all eternity.
  CONCLUSION
  There is one final twist to the story. As we have seen, the sad-
  dharma and the bodhisattvas who uphold it were predicted to
  disappear around 220CE, if our calculations are correct. It seems
  likely that the MPNS was circulated as the final life- belt for the
  sinking raft of the Dharma - those who had ears to hear had this
  last opportunity to save themselves. But what then ? No more
  authentic Dharma, no more true teachers and no hint here of future
  Buddha-saviours to come in this corner of sam.sâra. In fact, there
  is this chilling passage in the MPNS:
  “Who do not see the goal ? It is the icchantikas who will not see
  the goal, for they will not see the goal as long as cyclic existence
  lasts. I have summarized and taught the significance of this, but
  you should fear what is extremely fearful ! Supposing that all
  beings in unison were to become fully awakened to supreme and
  perfect enlightenment, then even if it were possible for the sinful
  icchantikas to become fully awakened to supreme and perfect
  enlightenment, they would not see the goal. In that manner, you, o
  hero, should understand things !
  “Whose goal does not end in failure ? The Tathâgata's goal does not
  end in failure. When all beings who dwell in the cycle of existence
  have become fully awakened to supreme and perfect enlightenment,
  then the Tathâgata's goal will not have ended in failure and then,
  having passed into parinirvân.a eternally, the Buddha will become
  impermanent, like the flame of a lamp whose wick has been consumed.”

Hieran anschließend folgt die Einschätzung:

in this world - and eventually in the entire universe. Then, those
  who by definition can never be liberated - the icchantikas - will be
  left behind to wander lost life-time after lifetime for all
  eternity. What a bleak scenario !

So it is very less likely to be the last teachings of Gautam Buddha?

I also listen Osho almost daily and Read  Krishnamurthy occasionally. Can you suggest me some good enlightening books? :)

Tamas: I can't speak with authority here, just with common-sense. "Gigantism" - things like the orgiastic large numbers of Arhat & monks at the Parinirvana-event - if it is more than, say, 1000 or 2000 then in my private view result of some sick phantasy and nothing worth to think long about. In the Pali-canon the Buddha is painted as a normal human -who, of course, has achieved high, perhaps the highest, level of enlightnement, but still is a touchable human being,with consent and common sense. -- About Osho, Krishnamurty: I began with the same :) then went to Hakuin, finally Thich Nhat Hanh.

A book which I value much is that "Cutting the spiritual materialism" although it seems to be somehow "too dry" to be a real "revelation" - anyway I rediscover many thoughts which I was thinking on and found them put in a well and modern way. I liked very very much Osho's books about the (Zen) patriarchs and later the simple but very usable books of Thich Nhat Hanh: "old path, white cloud (...)" and "the heart of the buddha's teaching" .From another approach: that of Sister Chan Khong "Learning true Love". But basically I reread very often the sutras in the Pali-canon online & offline...

Thanx, will be looking forward to read those books. :)

I'd add Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sadhguru, Mooji and Rupert Spira. Krishna Prem's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is wonderful. Philip Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen' is a good read. There are so many good books (and these days videos) that we're spoilt for choice. Nagarjuna's ''Letters of a Friend' might be helpful, or 'Become What You Are' by Alan Watts. There's so much that is good.       ,


text:
Music and Buddhism
Why is music (sorta) frowned upon in Buddhism? Or it isn't?
For people like me, music really helped me get into spirituality.
What I'm really trying to understand here is, is there any specific format or type of music that we're not supposed to listen to, or is it just music in general?
-Noob here. All help appreciated :)

Further reading: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0136.xml

Music is a tasteful sensation, in Buddhism we learn to realize (understand the truth, see things in their true forms) and listening to music is breaking that understanding. We listen to music to entertain ourselves, which will break our practice of “Sila” and “Samadhi”, two of the eightfold paths/practices.

Dang. I now know what will be one of the most difficult things to do while practising Buddhism. Thank-you!

Can you please tell me about the music used during meditations? For example, music generated using Tibetan Bowls and such. :)

These training rules are observed by laypeople during periods of
  intensive meditation practice and during uposatha (lunar observance)
  days. The Eight Precepts are based on the Five Precepts, with the
  third precept extended to prohibit all sexual activity and an
  additional three precepts that are especially supportive to meditation
  practice.
The Eight Precepts:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
  I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not
  given.
Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs
  which lead to carelessness.
Vikalabhojana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after
  noon).
Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music,
  going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and
  beautifying the body with cosmetics.
Uccasayana-mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

The Eight Precepts

It is very easy to attach music. Then music will waste practitioner's time, because music is inserted into practitioner's mind instead of meditation object, while the  practitioner listening/singing/thinking of a music. So the practitioner's 5 power can not meditate, increase level up, while attaching music.
While listening music, one can feel joy. But it is the worldly joy [sāmissa=5 cords+5 hindrances]. So, it will hinder one from meditation. therefore, according to Niramisa Sutta, the practitioner can increase his meditation level up, just after he can perfectly & completely quite secluded (=stop) from sāmissa, such as music, etc.

Upasaka Kalpesh Mange,
as told be others here, it's at large distruction for the mind, and given your intent here, you should best be sure about it.
How ever, even for monks, while my person nevertheless likes to give much appreciation to it, musik or singing, that increases or gives rise to samvega, is not unskilfull perse. For serious lay people the use of what is called smot, a special style of singing and proper text, is very usuall here in south east asia, and a specially used on occations of going forth, to increase gratitude toward parents. Usually giving a possible liberating lake of tears, being about suffering and taking leave at most.
But also this can become a distacting issue, if clinging on the pleasure of sound and certain upcoming emotions.
Singing yourself (even in mind), even if smot, especially when monk, is not as skilfull to be seen, and hardly bring on a base where it does not gets against certain precepts, if taken.
So, as mostly everywhere, one is also left alone here, to be honest about ones intent.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


text:
For a non-believer, what good does realizing impermanence do?
Does a realization or just thorough understanding of impermanence, as it appears in Buddhism, benefit a non-believer in the rest of Buddhism, at all, especially not karma?
I'm not asking if they can reach samadhi or be on the path, but if the effect of karma is really quite small and more a matter of character than empirical events, what good does an understanding of impermanence grant, in that sort of world?

hope that the question is not so badly worded as to be unclear. just let me know and i'll edit!

sure. @nocomprende any idea what's unclear about the question :)

i mean, i'm not just saying anything about "deities". i might be able to know where the beer garden is, that doesn't make that knowledge particularly useful important or refined etc. @nocomprende

Ok, so your question is basically: does this knowledge have any validity? Is it knowledge, and if so, what use is it to me? I guess I always thought that the basic premises of Buddhism were obvious. Whether they serve your ends depends on what your ends are, and whether your ends will serve you, ultimately. The problem with having a mind is that it can become impossible to change it.

Why "atheist"? I mean, does realising impermanence benefit a theist somehow? Perhaps if you explain why it benefits a theist, that would clarify why you're asking about the benefit to atheists?

You are asking something like "if Buddhism is wrong, is there a benefit to realizing impermanence for atheists?". It's such a strange and oblique question.

Look in to Nonduality, that is really what the question is about.

@SankhaKulathantille yeah good point, but it's an interesting question i think

What can one possibility gain by an answer to such a question? It's like asking  if Mathematics is wrong, is there a use to learning addition and subtraction for someone who does not believe in algebra :)

@SankhaKulathantille i just don't believe in rebirth, and while i believe in literal karma (after death) i am uninterested in it, on those grounds. you're right that it may just be bizarre to link that to buddhism.

Maybe you should rephrase the question as "Is Buddhism useful to people who faithfully believe that there's no rebirth?"

@SankhaKulathantille i think this is more specific, but thanks. :)

this question no way unclear!

I took several efforts in writing an answer, but it is hard for me.  I personally doubt that you can fully realize impermanence without "believing" in the rest of buddhism. At the end of the day, Buddha teaches a way to end suffering, so if you believe in his teachings, a benefit would be "being one step closer to end your personal suffering". But it is only one step. Can you reach the mountain top when you only take one step?  No, all you did is one step. You have to do the others eventually as well. But if you did one step, maybe the next one will also be obvious from where you (then) stand.

Realising impermanence is a big part towards ending dukkha. If you can see that all things must change then it'll be easier to see that these things don't bring happiness and you'll transition towards non-attachment. This will benefit you in this life.
Note that realising impermanence doens't necessarily mean you become unattached. For example, some people see and accept that they must die but this frightens them. You need to know impermanence and also see that impermanent things aren't worth clinging to.

Three words to help a secular accept of impermanence: Negative visualization, early retirement, and Hedonic adaptation.
Awareness of impermancence is also one of the basic pillars of Stoicism. Once you become aware of, and appreciate, impermanence you'll: find joy every day you get to spend with your children, you'll learn to appreciate your daily cup of coffee.
When you lose something, or break something, you'll have spent significant time understanding that the things was already broken or lost. Because you have internalized that the thing was going to pass away some day, you will not only have appreciated it more while you still had it, you have also spent time preparing yourself for its demise, significantly lessenning the suffering associated with the departure.
This day will end; what good have you done?
This job will end; what good did it do you?
Your life will end: what good did you do?
Your children will die one day; what good did you do them?
Amidst all this morbid speculation actually comes an amazing liberation, coupled with a new take on life: make the most of what you have, love what you have, appreciate what you once had, and live now. Live now, 'cause you're already dying.
Here's a capitalist kicker: Once you start to realize the impermanence of stuff, you also get a much more realistic picture of what it's all actually worth. Not what it costs, but what its value is. If you google financial independence you'll find two basic approaches.

Start a company and hopefully make a boat load of money
Learn to live well on very little money and invest your surplus.

Approach number two relies heavily on realizing the difference between price and value. Meditating on the impermanence of everything is an amazing way to gauge that difference.
You see, you become hedonically adapted to everything, and so in time your life starts to suffer from inflation. You want newer cars, bigger homes, more stuff, more everything. Internalizing the impermanence of stuff is a great way to internalize the futility of owning all that..... crap. Hedonic adaptation robs us of our appreciation of sunrises, indoor plumbing, vaccines, a warm seat, a roof over our heads, company, electricity etc.
When you start meditating on the impermanence of everything you'll start to reverse that hedonic adaptation and start to actually LOVE a simple life. This is part of the reason why those 'weird' monks and minimalists are so eerily happy with their lack of stuff, while 'the rest of us' are busy stuffing our homes.
Accept impermanence and you'll learn to love what you have, learn to release your fears when you're stuck in a bad spot (this, too, shall pass), you'll spend less money on things that you don't need in your life, you will get a better perspective on your day-to-day life, on and on.... Once you really grok it, it becomes a pillar of a good and robust life.

For these kinds of reason I think the question is still unclear (even though you replaced "atheist" with "non-believer in the rest of Buddhism"):

According to your definition of "realise", can you "realise impermanence" but still be unwise, fail to benefit, and stay attached, heedless, suffering?
Would your definition of "thorough" be that any sufficiently "thorough" necessarily understanding implies every other "beneficial" realisation?
What does "a non-believer in the rest of Buddhism" mean ... does it mean that you don't "believe in" the four noble truths, for example?
Conversely you said "at all", which might imply that even the faintest fleeting possibility of benefit should count as a "yes" answer.
Does the third noble truth imply that everyone benefits from impermanence, whether or not they even realise it?

I guess, depending on what you mean by "realising", it's not sufficient, and perhaps the answer is no: "impermanence" is not mentioned in Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones, which mentions more than a dozen other "one thing"s as being sufficient

i think you're being finicky

Finicky about not understanding the question? Even so the last paragraph (of answer) stands: realisation of impermanence isn't itself listed as a virtue. Unlike, maybe, the realisation of emptiness or anatta which is listed as beneficial.

Understanding impermanence is important for non-Buddhists.
You need to understand and realize that your life, youth, health, good physique, beauty, good looks, wealth, loved ones, friends, good fortune, happiness, reputation, career, skills, intelligence, ideologies etc. will never last forever. You can lose them suddenly at anytime or you can lose them gradually.
You need to understand and realize that you will grow older, you will get health problems, and eventually you will die.
You need to understand and realize that sensual pleasures that you enjoy and relish e.g. your favourite foods, tourism, music etc. may at some point be unavailable to you for any reason, and this might frustrate you.
You need to understand and realize that human companionship that you enjoy with others may suddenly vanish and you may become alone and lonely.
This will help you accept situations more easily without denial or depression, for e.g. if your spouse suddenly passed away or if you get diagnosed with a terminal illness or if your all possessions got destroyed in a natural disaster. Think of it as fostering good psychology.
Understanding impermanence will give you an underlying feeling of dissatisfaction. You will come to see that if you depend on anything that's not permanent for your happiness, then it will ultimately not satisfy you.
This underlying feeling of dissatisfaction is the realization of the first noble truth that there is suffering. And with that, you would have your first step, to cross over from being a non-Buddhist, to becoming a Buddhist.