text:
What is Modern Vipassana?
The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view. But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice.
It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality.
Is this the case? Have I got it wrong? What do you make of it?

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

The more I learn about the modern Vipassana movement the more I feel it promotes an incorrect or inadequate view.

The modern Vipassana movement started with the renewal of interest in meditative practices in Burma due to the work of Ledi Sayadaw. It spread to the west many due to contact of many westerners with the teaching of Mahasi sayadaw.
Vipassana movement has many lineages with diverse practices some instructions between lineages even contradicting each other. There may even be elements which contradict the teaching in the Tripitaka and commentaries in some practices. Some may slant towards the commentaries more than others. Some may slant towards the Sutta Pitaka more than the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Some are more orthodox than the other which does no have incorrect or inadequate views.

But I don't know the movement well so I thought I'd ask what others here think about this increasingly popular approach to the practice.

The onus is with oneself to study and see what confirms to the original teaching, than others pointing it out in an open forum, as there are reasonable following to may of the lineages.
I personally tried with the New Burmese method and Goenka's method and settled for the latter. You can try it out through a course:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

If you want to try out some of the other lineages you can try searching for a course or centre through:

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

It seems to discard much of the Buddha's teachings and focus on a quite mundane approach to living ...

Lineages try to justify their practice in terms of the Tripitaka and commentaries. Some slant more towards commentaries than the others. Some more towards the Suttas than the Abhidhamma. Nearly all of them accept the teaching of the Buddha.
Some lineages do have controversial practices which contradict the teachings but still, they nominally accept the teachings and confirms to reasonable parts of the teachings.

... that has no metaphysical justification or philosophical significance, ...

The Dhamma has the quality of open invitation for others to come and see and to practice for oneself. Dhamma does not have any mysticism about it.
Also, the Dhamma should be validated through experience than just being philosophical tenents.

... bringing some of the benefits of meditative practice without requiring the aspirant to commit to any particular idea of Truth and Reality.

One's knowledge of the Dhamma should be balanced with the meditative experience. So when one starts one does not need to commit to much other than there is something beneficial in the Dhamma.
As one progresses and the understanding deepens, as more theory gets validated by the practice and experience. This way one can progressively deeper truths and realities.

Thanks, Nice answer. But it doesn't quite put my mind at rest. I still feel, as you say. that much of the movement in fact ignores or misinterprets the Buddhas teachings  The complication, as you also say, is the variety of views taught under the same general heading. Perhaps it's not possible to generalise about Vipassana. It's just that I was rather horrified by the experience of a friend who went on a retreat, as was he.   .

I did not understand the last part of this sentence: I was rather horrified by the experience of a friend who went on a retreat, as was he. Also what happened?

Briefly, the leader seemed to promote a materialistic or at least not-fundamental view quite at odds with (what my friend and I see as) a correct interpretation of experience and the teachings. Indeed, he seemed to know little about anything much. I wondered if this was a characteristic of this approach since all that I've heard about it seems to suggest it is. I wondered if it is a false impression.

Best is keep an open mind. See if the practice works and compare it with the Tripitaka. If you think something is wrong leave it aside.

I know very little about it and no personal experience. I think I read on this site that it (the "movement") was started by people who wanted to [re]introduce meditation -- towards the beginning of the last century (e.g. early 20th) -- in Buddhist countries (e.g. Burma and Thailand) -- and, especially, to lay-people.
I'd suppose that:

The lay participants -- being brought up in Buddhist countries -- might have known some Buddhist doctrine[s] already -- and "metaphysical justification or philosophical significance" wasn't the whole point of the exercise (not I've been taught much metaphysics or philosophy, I understand there are people of whom you may be one who see those subjects as practical, important, fundamental).
You (personally) might be especially interested in "metaphysical justification or philosophical significance", but I'm not sure that's generally true or necessary -- is that the kind of topic that might interest a scholar ... and perhaps not people in general in lay society?
I don't know that it does "discard much of the Buddha's teachings" -- I'm willing to believe, though, that it doesn't teach all the teachings -- something similar might be true of other "schools", like Zen -- maybe true, too, of anything that is or can be taught primarily to lay-people, intended to be popular (see also e.g. "gradual training")
I can't comment on (I don't know) how the various lineages within the movement are self-organised, how the leaders are trained, and so on.

It's hard to say anything 'specific' and yet 'generally true' about choosing a teacher (or teachers):

There probably is a lot of advice on that subject, in the suttas, and in other literature
And it happens (more-or-less successfully) in practice, or it doesn't

... hard except, taking the Buddha and his doctrine as the summum bonum.
The topic Which type of Buddhism is for me? was thought to be too broad to be answerable on this site.
If I were trying to offer advice instead of an answer, I wouldn't know what to say, it could be almost anything:

You're wrong! You should try the practice, "Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books."
You're right! You should look for more-qualified teachers
You're wrong! You should let go of your view of Buddhism (and/or your "commitment to a particular idea of Truth and Reality")
You're right! You should learn, and focus, on more of the Buddha's teachings

Also you said, "a mundane approach to living", as if that were a bad thing.
I think that some of "the Buddha's teachings" are that people fabricate elaborate fantasies about what's real and what they want and who they are and so on -- and then "suffer" when "life isn't like that" -- and cause others' suffering -- so in contrast maybe "a mundane approach to life" isn't all bad as an idea ... or as a remedy ... a middle way, even.
Similarly non-attachment is praised, and (as you may understand) one of the types of craving or attachment is to a view or views. So the doctrine talks of Right View -- but also sometimes of not holding to fixed views, warns against a fetter of views and so on.
My guess -- this isn't personal, just paraphrasing some doctrine about how craving and attachment are said to arise -- is that at some time you learned something (a view) which you might have found pleasing or delightful, and now you hold to that, and use that as your benchmark.

This is definitely the rudest thing anyone has ever said to me on a forum. But I can see why you might believe it. I don't expect teachers to be metaphyscians but I do expect their teachings to be metaphysically meaningful and sound. The Vipassana teachings seem to me incomplete and non-reductive, unlike those of the Buddha. The replies I'm getting here are inconclusive but suggest I'm not wrong. I'm keeping an open mind for now but am very suspicious. . .

I'm sorry, Peter. Would you like me to delete it? I don't know what metaphysics is, you and I might be as if talking different languages.

It's okay. No worries. To suggest I'm attached to my view and fight for it only because of that attachment is a pretty fierce comment, but you can't know it's not the case. By 'metaphysical' above I just mean 'fundamental'. I'm suggesting that these teachings are partial and inadequate, unlike the teachings of the Buddha. They seem to just cherry-pick a few ideas.

@PeterJ As I said I don't even mean it personally, they're just "shots in the dark" -- not "shots" in the sense of trying to injure, but shots in the sense of throwing multiple lines into the dark, to see whether any you may catch and find useful. I think it's axiomatic that the different "retreats" are different and that different people may benefit (or not) in different ways. The teachings of the Buddha may be fairly vast, too, even just by concentrating on (any) meditation, and for laypeople, however they do that, might be cherry-picking (as you said).

The modern 'Vipassana' and herein i mean just that Mindfulness practice associated with the observation of the arising, persistence & cessation of Thoughts, Feelings, Mental States & Perceptions, as it is could be generally presented in brief to a person; can be incomperhensive & insufficient.
In brief this is because;

here are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful —
  putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he
  remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not
  become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not
  take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused on feelings in & of
  themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of
  themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
  with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental
  qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated,
  his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.
  As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now,
  nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish,
  inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html

The modern Vipassana if one could pin such a thing as the practice of mere Mindfulness establishment without picking up & making adjustments to accommodate the theme of mind, would to that extent be incopmrehensive.
There is nothing wrong with the mindfulness practice itself, the problem arises due to lack of learning and exclusion of the necessary aspects needed for development of the various types of concentration.

Personally I have attended 6 vipassana retreats and plan to attend one in the near future. I also studied the teachings of J Krishnamurti for 30 years. K never mentions the Buddha, rather he promotes the necessity of buddha-lIke self exploration without depending on any technique. I find K's teachings to have the purest quality. Vipassana depends on a technique. Mindfulness meditation seems to take the technique on its on. Yes, a materialistic approach, but, hey, everyone's path is different.

Thanks. This is the impression I have, that Vipassana takes a technique and removes it from its wider context. It may nevertheless still be a useful technique. .  . .

Hello Jean. ; )

Learning to see things as they are. Truthfulness. By being mindful one can gain insight into the nature of reality. It is not the centers, books, lineage, quotes, anything other than the natural reality as it pertains to  your observation of the truth.  The centers, books, and fellows, are certainly helpful. The foundation of morality, can certainly help stable and calm the mind so one can explore the changing impermanent reality; as does being around concentrated people, in a conducive environment.

Hmm. You are reinforcing my deeper fears about this movement. .

I have been a Trustee of one of the meditation centres. So the specific guidelines that pesticides and traps should not be used. If any of the ATs or Trustees have a "meditation partner" or do not adhere to the 5 precepts an inquiry is made and removed if true. Goenka's teacher was an accountant, which does not involve killing any being. There is no reference to which he has killed any beings.

Dear Suminda, the actions of the ATs and/or center management to use chemical poison to kill or deter beings may be done without the express consent and direct support of the trust members. This is the issue, should one do it so others don't have to be involved in this unwholesome kamma? Or is this delusion of self, or the idea that our actions are  limited to ourselves baseless.  The original question is very important, and should not be pacified. Question everything! Find out, don't take a pat on the neck and aimed at the comfortable pile behind the bull, steamy and warm.

The suggestion of meditation partner, is just referring to a regular sexual partner. This isn't forbidden but can cause great disturbance to a serious Dhamma path/practice and might be encouraged to conform to a householders sectarian ideal. I am not here to judge, but know from experience that this can lead to the arising of aggression, violence, pleasure, pain, attachment, aversion. But so can doing the dishes... But don't take my word for it

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Sorry but on stack exchange a moderator shouldn't usually delete an answer which is 'factually wrong', instead you can comment, downvote, and/or post an answer of your own. I realise that this answer is scandalous, and you have your own personal experiences and knowledge and the OP ("Crystal Ship") has theirs -- the parable of the elephant (Ud 6.4), perhaps.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Perhaps you'd like to post a comment to explain how in your experience, the policies as they're understood by a trustee might contradict the behaviour which this answer is reportedly observing. But, I don't think it would be right of me to intervene, to edit or delete this answer.

I had the same worries at first, and wrote Vipassana off for several years until I gave it a thorough effort and testing. I grew up in a cultish/fundamentalist environment, so my cult detector was set to high!
As mentioned in one of the earlier answers, there are several schools or lineages that fit under the banner of modern Vipassana. However, what one encounters online is people taking the experiences and teachings with one school or teacher as representative of the whole, leading to a distorted and incomplete view of what Vipassana is or can be. I often see people try it out for a couple of days, make some quick judgements, and then post it on YouTube as though they are some kind of authority based on one short experience.
Most people encounter Vipassana through the Goenka tradition, as it is highly popular and has a very successful system of propagation. It is designed to reach the largest number of people possible by staying as secular and denuded of religious or contentious aspects people may have with practicing Buddhism or meditation as possible. It's designed to allow Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc. to all be able to give intensive  meditation a shot. So when viewing this part of modern Vipassana, that's something to keep in mind.
Now, if viewing other lineages of Vipassana, one may encounter a very straightforward and familiar form of Buddhism, such as found in the Mahasi lineage, or the Forest Ajahns of Thailand, or among certain schools in Sri Lanka. Vipassana teachings include morality, karma, dependant origination, devas, etc., as seen in the suttas and commentaries. You can find as much or as little metaphysics and philosophy there as you like, and can practice a very direct path toward enlightenment based on the Sattipatthana Sutta.
It is simply a path to seeing reality more clearly, as taught by the Buddha, to bring about the end of suffering. It's worth a test at least. ;)

Fair comment. The Goenka tradition is the only one I've come into contact with so there's a lot a I don't know about this.  .

The three characteristics are ever present realities. 'Vipassana' is 'clearly seeing' the three characteristics. The more clear and empty of self the mind is, the more clearly it can see these ever present realities.
However, because the three characteristics are ever present realities, an individual may 'partially see' them or one of them rather than 'clearly see' them.
Yet because one or all of them are partially seen, this is sufficient for the common spiritual materialism of 'over-estimation' and the creation of new religious cults based on individuals whose ego needs to claim they are enlightened.
Thus in 'modern vipassana', there are thousands of 'certified' stream-enterers up to Arahants belonging to these overestimation cults.
Video here: Ven. Sujato - Goenka, Mahasi

Thanks. Your answer seems to confirm my fears.

Perhaps this answer is part of the story, but, not the whole story: kind of one-sided. The video ends with Ven Sujato also saying, "I don't want to be one-sided about these things, I mean I'm talking about what happens when they go wrong, obviously they go  right a lot of the time, I personally have very good experiences doing Mahasi practice and I always have tremendous respect and appreciation for what I learned there, but, you know, not everybody has those kinds of experiences."

Vipassana simply means to see things as they are. Like reality exists independently of any idea about it. I have heard a monk say Vipassana is the 8 Fold Path. I would say the 8 Fold Path is the 8 Fold Path. Vipassana is a Pali word. Sattipithana means the foundations of mindfulness.  Buddha says anyone observing breathe is observing body sensation. Mindfulness leads to understanding. One can develop one's own be insight to s into the nature of reality, better to question everything even if Buddha said it or any unenlightened teacher or fellow student. There is a conflict inherint in lay xlife if you have the wisdom to peruse enlightenment but are unable to let go of the trap of mundane life. I wouldn't be able to be monk without have a sworn duty to point out to other monks that Buddha said it was foolish and childish to stay for the rains and think satay for the other seasons as well. Disagreeing with this 3 times and they might not be able to say Buddha is their teacher and the Dhamma their path. Yes the purity of the practice is not completely preserved, by householders or many monastics or enlightenment would be much more common. There are monks who still don't meditate, maybe better than meditating deeply and throwing the world into defilement of killing, sex, ambition, money, etc.

Usually we'd prefer one answer. You can include a horizontal rule if you want to split an answer into several sections. Someone flagged this to say it should be merged with your other answer. I'll let it stay (as separate answers) because I see the two answers are very different, only don't make a habit of it please, i.e. usually prefer to post one answer per topic.


text:
Can One Evaluate the Effects of Meditation?
I have been doing compassion meditation for a bit (about 13h of sitting meditation). I think perhaps I haven't meditated enough to see benefits, but I wonder:
When beginning, is it possible to have benefits, but not see them? In other words, that one's behaviour or attitude changes despite no conscious awareness of this?
Is sitting practice at the beginning less fruitful but still establishes the basis for (in this case) compassionate attitude?

Don't forget the Sila part (observance of precepts/virtues), which is fundamental to any type of meditation cultivation. The stronger and more solid the Sila, the more effective and possibly even quicker results in one's meditation practice.

@Eggman Measuring behavior is done all the time in applied behavior analysis. However, it would be offtopic to go into details here... Regardless of whether you practice ABA or metta bhavana, you need to have a clear idea of the desired goal behavior in order to assess change.

Meditation is like a knife. Every use it wares out but you only notice it one fine day.
So you are making progress which you do not notice until some later date.

this is a very complex question. And the effects are immediate! Right now, your efforts to be more compassionate are admiramable but what sticks out to me here is the opportunity for patience. I don't mean waiting till next week to see results, I mean forbearance, feeling the reality as it is and enduring the complex mental and emotional challenges that might be present, and don't just try to make sensations with a mind based in apathy, but based in compassion and understanding. Let's take a look at our left thumb... It's movement, it's fragility, it's impermenance.  Have compassion for ourselves, not how we want us to be happy, immortal, whatever, but as we are, no matter how we are, the absolute truth. I am ignorant, my mind is foggy, I am anxious and can't sit still, as soon as I become aware of the reality of it I can have compassion for myself, without condemning myself or the reality of the world... Also try the Dr. Emoto water experiment with cooked rice. Look on You tube.  You will see results and your question will be answered from your experience. Do the expirament. I did peace, love and thank you. To the rice, and don't do a hate rice just do an ignored rice.          I am glad you are here on Earth during this unique time.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Venting and Right Speech
I'm wondering whether to lament or complain bitterly about some situation contradicts right speech. Also, I'm wondering from the Buddhist view what the effect of venting is. Personally, I noticed venting from a low mood / discouraged mood seems to reinforce and worsen this low mood.
Thank you

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."
— SN 45.8

Right Speech
Venting may fall under abusive speech. So be mindful of that. Otherwise complaining strongly would be OK.

It would be rather inhumane to prohibit oneself or others from speaking about troublesome things.
In a broader perspective, another way of looking at complaining is to see it as vaci sankhara, meaning that one can see it as fabrications. Tracing our discontent speech back to the thoughts that causes them allows us to further investigate and take care of the suffering/dukkha that the complaining originates from.
In other words, being mindful of the reasons for our complaints allows us to exercise samma vayama, right effort.
Going back to your original question, venting discontent without deeper understanding isn't necessarily wrong speech, but it will likely maintain status quo as long as it lacks mindfulness and right effort.

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


text:
How does dependent origination and the skandhas fit together?
I’m having trouble seeing whether the idea of the five skandhas is meant to fit within dependent origination in any way, or whether the two theories  are meant to be applied as complements to each other.
Is there a sutta elaborating on the correlation between the two of them? (Please note that my question primarily regards suttas that addresses the relationship between the two, instead of  details of either concept).

The Skandha is the same as Nama-Rupa. Nama-Rupa is a 2 fold division. Skandha is a 5 fold division. Nama-rupa in Dependent Origination is the same as Skandha.

Rupa in Nama-Rupa is the Rupa in Skandha
The Nama in Nama-Rupa are the following in Skandha

vedanā
saññā
saṅkhāra
viññāṇa

And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. - Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering (sorrow, grief, despair, etc) that comes from ignorantly attaching to the khandhas as 'self' ('upadana') and as 'a being' ('jati'). Not only is attachment itself a mental state fraught with anxiety & stress, but the sorrowful traumatic idea of 'aging-&-death' occurs when the khandhas attached to as 'self' or 'a being' are inevitably subjected to impermanence. SN 12.66 says:

‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’

The word "acquisition' ('upadhi') above is a synonym for 'attachment' ('upadana'). SN 12.66 is one of many suttas that shows the word 'jati' in Dependent Origination does not mean 'physical birth'. Instead, 'jati' ('birth') means 'identifying' with something as 'self', 'mine' or 'a being'. MN 26 says:

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

For a more simple explanation of how attachment to the khandhas results in suffering when the khandhas change due to impermanence, SN 22.1 says:

"Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is
  seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he
  is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change &
  alteration.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or
  'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these
  ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change &
  alteration.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.

We should study the whole of SN 22.1 thoroughly until we understand it clearly. SN 22.1 is spoken in simple language and is not rocket science.
All of the above is reflected in the most brief explanation of Dependent Origination, from MN 28, below:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’

As for the khandhas, they are merely the components of life. To help give up attachment to the khandhas, SN 22.59 explains the khandhas are unsatisfactory (cannot bring true happiness) & not-self because each khandha, when examined closely, is impermanent and selfless.

In my opinion, the Buddha used different models to explain different aspects of the subjective experience and the existential condition of unsatisfactoriness.
There are some points were some aspects of each model intersect, but you always have to remember that they are explaining different (but related) phenomena.
For example, the khandhas may be used to explain that nothing about what we use to consider as "I", "me", "myself" or "mine" is permanent and satisfactory, and so, nothing of that cannot be called "self". Basically, it uses our common knowledge about ourselves against "our"-"selves".
On the other hand, Dependent Origination is used to develop that idea of "not-self", and explains that instead of talking about selves that suffer, we should instead talk about impersonal processes that, conditioning one another, give rise to dukkha.
All the processes of DO are occurring because of the contact between khandhas and sense-stimuli. That's where they intersect. The cool thing about this superpositions is that each model does not contradict the other, but they complement each other.
Kind regards!

I will try to answer to the best of my abilities!
The Buddha found that all dhammas (phenomena, reality, things) depend on other dhammas to arise.
That is how True reality works. Conditioned dhammas (conventional reality) arise beings as well.
This is from the Khandhas, by clinging to them. By fully letting go of them, the Rebirth chain breaks.
Ignorance (Past Life)
Due to ignorance of the Dhamma, one cannot fulfill the Four Noble Truths.
Kammic Tendencies (Past Life)
With ignorance, Kammic imprints continue and certain accumulations of it cause certain Rebirths
Rebirth Consciousness (Past-Current Life)
“Carrying” Kamma, prior consciousness ceases, “propelling” into its new existence, “occupying” a shell.
Mind & Body (Current Life)
Through consciousness within a new shell, Khandhas arise, all depending on each other.
The Six Senses (Current Life)
With the establishment of the Khandhas, the six internal sense bases arise with sensual consciousness.
Contact (Current Life)
With the internal sense bases arising, it contacts its external counterparts due to its consciousness.
Sensations (Current Life)
This contact arises sensual feelings of either pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality.
Desires (Current Life)
Pleasure-causing sensations begin to be naturally desired.
Clinging (Current Life)
These desires develop into clinging as one works to get the pleasure-causing sensations & avoid all else.
Becoming (Current-Future Life)
The Kamma formed within this life through clinging has not been extinguished, prompting Rebirth.
Birth (Future Life)
Because of becoming, a being cultivates decay that will not lead to the liberation, but another Rebirth.
Decay (Future-Past Life)
The Five Aggregates begin to slowly fail, and ignorance remains, fueling the continuity of Kamma.
Hope this helps!!!
Metta to all!

the exposition of dependent origination points out the root and conjoinment.
The doctrine of 'aggregates' is a system of language based on what can be known about the referable reality.
It is inferred from the beginning, of agreeing on that there is that which can be thought about, that which is thought about is whatever it is and what we think it is is merely thinking.
So in other words if agree that there is "something" and that we can call "referable reality" or "existence" or "being". Whatever we call it, that is only a name for it. Whatever we know about it is merely knowledge and knowledge is not that which is the object of knowing.
So this "something" we can say it is "All" and point out that reality as it is experienced is in 6 ranges; imagination, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, bodily sensibity. So we can say that these are to be discerned and agreement can be reached on this.
Furthermore one can know that the word "Seeing" is not that which is called "Seeing" because "Seeing" does not exist when "Eye" doesn't exist.. when "Forms cognizable by the Eye" don't exist, when there is no "Consciousness".
Now we introduced 4 new elements to this language system but all of these words have a demonstrable basis.
The complete inference of the doctrine of Aggregates would in brief continue like this;
 - Infer Contact to be discerned as a separate condition coming into play
 - Infer that Allness of the All is absolute and if All is conditioned it is not conditioned by something outside of it's range; Allness is absolute, if All is directed it would be self-directed; That which directs and supports the All is included in the All.
If this can be agreed upon then one has inferred Intention which is Formations Aggregate. From Intention one can infer Knowledge & Discernment as requisite condition. From Discernment faculty one can infer Ignorance due to lack of development. Here one infers "power of discernment" and so on.
What is left is only the pointing out of the root condition by means of dependent origination and similes to illustrate the conjoinment.


text:
Analysis and Compassion
I understand that compassion meditation uses in great part feeling and the generation of affect. I wonder: Are there aspects of compassion only accessible through meditating on compassion analytically?
Thank you

Metta is to be friendly. If one is friendly to people without discrimination them you are developing compassion. This element does not need meditation but meditation can also be used to develop it.
What Metta meditation tries to do is to:

adjust one's perception, thoughts and views so one does not discriminate against a class of beings or particular beings - one may be classified living being as: me, friendly, indifferent, foes or any other classification and draw boundaries and identify certain attributes one favours or disfavors. Metta breaks the discrimination due to classification, attributes or groupings so one can be friendly to any being.
develop friendly thoughts


text:
Meditation for Work Anxiety
I started a new job, and when I get anxious my cognition turns to pure incoherence. I second-guess everything, doubt, double-check unnecessarily, make more errors, etc.
What is the best type of meditation to deal with such anxiety-related problems?

If the anxiety is light yet bothersome, gentle restrain anxiety by relinquishing attachment to outcome:

This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. MN62

If the anxiety is heavier and a bit overwhelming, a firm restraint can be achieved by slowing the breath--rapid breathing promotes anxiety. Regular practice of mindfulness of breathing helps.

When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial. MN62

Generally, the more you practice the Noble Eight-Fold Path, the more equanimity emerges with the fading away of attachments to identity view. However, that practice and its fruition are gradual. For the longer term, precepts can be enormously helpful.

A mendicant might wish: ‘May I prevail over fear and dread, and may fear and dread not prevail over me. May I live having mastered fear and dread whenever they arise.’ So let them fulfill their precepts … AN10.71

Also consult with your doctor for additional recommendations. Some anxiety disorders can be quite crippling and medical assistance can be of great benefit.

There are 2 main types of meditation:

Samatha
Vipassanā

Samantha increases concentration. If you have concentration problems which lead to mistakes then this will help.
Vipassana meditation can help with stress and anxiety at work.

I guess the way I try to deal with it is

Ethics e.g. being careful about what I say, not promising what I cannot deliver
Having an altruistic attitude (metta), trying to cooperate and to provide what other people want

Also I kind of know that every job is temporary. The longest I worked anywhere was 12 years, and I have had contracts to do just a few weeks' work.
So I think you have to do a bit of what Oyamist said, i.e. "relinquishing attachment to outcome" -- sometimes there's work for me somwhere, and sometimes there isn't -- and whether and when that's so (i.e. whether people have a job for me) is somewhat outside my control.
So instead of concentrating on outcome ("what will happen?"), you concentrate on process ("how am I doing, am I communicating well?") -- then perhaps you develop a reputation, and so be able to find more work even after this job ends for whatever reason (but of course concentrate on one job at a time).
On the subject of meditation (which you asked about) I find walking ("walking meditation?") helpful. If "cognition turns to pure incoherence" then maybe walk around the block and breathe a bit. I do that, stand up, breathe, swing my arms a bit, use both feet, see a streetscape -- and without thinking about it too hard, and idea might come up like, "maybe I'll trying doing X next" -- and that seems like an idea that might work so I go back and try it.


text:
Does emptiness & no-self work together?
Emptiness seems to be very prevalent in Dhamma after Theravada.
But I have seen that it still exists in Theravada, it has just been ignored compared to other teachings.
Why is emptiness ignored so much in Theravada & can emptiness be harmonious alongside the teaching of no-self?
If my question is not clear, please inform me. :)
Metta to all!

Yes the buddha says that conditioned things are empty, which means they are empty of self like he says so in https://suttacentral.net/sn35.85/en/bodhi or even https://suttacentral.net/sa273/en/choong
In fact he even says that knowing that things are empty, not self, dukkha and all that is the trigger for liberation

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’
  https://suttacentral.net/an4.124/en/sujato

Thank you for your answer! It is appreciated!

Emptiness is most clearly taught in SN 35.85 and means:

Empty of self and of what belongs to self.

'Emptiness' is essentially the same teaching & reality as 'anatta' ('not-self').
'Anatta' was taught in the Buddha's second sermon SN 22.59. Being the second sermon, SN 22.59 is a 'gradual teaching', where the Buddha first teaches about impermanence. The Buddha logically teaches because all of the five aggregates are impermanent, they cannot be a 'self' or cannot be controlled or possessed as 'mine'.
'Emptiness' is a later teaching, where the Buddha comprehensively says everything, be it conditioned or unconditioned, impermanent or permanent,  is empty of self.


text:
How do I deal with Aversion?
I practice the Dhamma & I try hard to show loving-kindness, but I end up sometimes getting very mad at people or irritated.
I try Metta meditation, but is there anything else I can do to try and calm the poison of anger? I don't want to be snappy or hateful at times, people just cause me to arise my anger at times.
Metta & Appreciation!

well there is the 4 four divine abodes like you said, and beyond that, there is becoming an arhant.
For metta and the opposite, ie anger, ill will you can find out why you get angry towards somebody. Generally, people get angry at somebody or something because they care about a thing, then somebody does something and the angry person imagine that this action of this somebody will  threaten the thing he cares about.
Then the method is that you must determine if what you care about is indeed worth caring about. It runs out that puthujjanas care about bad things and do not care about good things. So that's probably a good start for improvement. So first see if you think that caring about the thing is good or bad, then see if the buddha says it is indeed good or bad.
If the buddha disagree with you, then you better follow him, rather than whatever false ideas  popping up in your mind.
so if you want something else than metta, you have to look at wisdom, ie panna, and with the buddha, the way to get wisdom is always the same, ie this
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.126.wood.pts.htm#p1

Herein, monks, a certain person lives irradiating one quarter (of the
  world) with a heart possessed of amity; so also as to the second,
  third and fourth quarter of the world; and in like manner above,
  below, across, everywhere, for all sorts and conditions, he lives
  irradiating the whole world with a heart possessed of amity that is
  widespread, grown great and boundless, free from enmity and
  untroubled.
There, whatsoever conditions arise by way of form, feeling,
  perception, the activities, consciousness, those conditions he comes
  to regard as impermanent, as Ill, as a disease, as an imposthume, as a
  barb, as pain, ill-health, alien, transitory, as empty and not of the
  self.
When body breaks up after death he is reobrn in the company of the
  devas of the Pure Abodes.
Monks, this rebirth is not partaken of by ordinary men.

Of course getting metta is hard for anybody clinging to sensuality, ie most people. So the beginning of that and more generally of ''mediation'', ie samadhi, is always to see thoughts as you see ''objects'' of the 5 usual senses, ie just things which come and go and do not get infatuated with ideas, thoughts, dreams, fantasies and all that.
Do not base your actions on thoughts. Base your actions, ie what you do and do not do, only on what the buddha says is wisdom. (since puthujjanas do not have any wisdom, they have to memorize what wisdom is, from the buddha , then cultivate it)
it turns out that the buddha says that there are good thoughts and there are bad thoughts.
First you must memorize what are good thoughts and what are bad thoughts, which is explained here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
Second you must be judging all the time, all the thoughts which pop up in the mind. This is really hard for most people, only because people think that when they have an idea, they have to act on it, that their ideas, opinions, thoughts are always good, (and ideas of other people are mostly bad).
Third, you must judge a good thoughts as good thought and bad thought as bad thought . Some people do not even do that. for instance they say that thoughts of anger sometimes are good. THe buddha says thought so anger are always bad.
fourth, you must get rid of bad thoughts and keep only good thoughts. This is hard too as long as you see thoughts, opinions, ideas, dreams as important, as above.
Fifth, the way to get the citta in samadhi is actually to keep the good thoughts and then, with the faith in the buddha, you must manage to get piti, sukha, joy (ie that the things that the buddha calls good are indeed good, which is the way to tranquilize all the stuff that the buddha says is bad.
for instance, to calm the ''bodily formation'' you have to ''enter'' the 4th jhana

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

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

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.
"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html
now back to metta
first the buddha says that to avoid aversion, you have to cultivate ''Good will as an awareness-release''

"[Then if they ask,] 'But what, friends, is the reason, what the
  cause, why unarisen aversion does not arise, or arisen aversion is
  abandoned?'
'Good will as an awareness-release,' it should be said.
'For one who attends appropriately to good will as an
  awareness-release, unarisen aversion does not arise and arisen
  aversion is abandoned...'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/03_threes/an03.068.than.ati.htm#p1
but then there ''two kinds of view'' about metta. the view of the puthujjanas and of course the way better view of the non-puthujjanas because it is wisdom and not really a view,
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/04_fours/an04.125.than.ati.htm

"There is the case where an individual keeps pervading the first
  direction[1] — as well as the second direction, the third, and the
  fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will.
Thus he keeps pervading above, below, and all around, everywhere and
  in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued
  with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from
  hostility, free from ill will.
He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that.
Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away
  from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the
  devas of Brahma's retinue.
The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon.
A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the
  life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the
  state of the hungry shades.
But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up
  all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of
  being.
This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the
  distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones
  and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination,
  a reappearing.

Do not confuse the view of the puthujjanas with the wisdom about metta.
now concretely the good will is explained here
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/kd/snp/snp.1-08.than.ati.htm

Do not do the slightest thing that the wise would later censure.
Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever
  beings there may be,
      weak or strong, without exception,
      long, large,
      middling, short,
      subtle, blatant,
      seen and unseen,
      near and far,
      born and seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through
  anger or irritation wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
  beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
  heart: Above, below, and all around, unobstructed, without enmity or
  hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down,
      as long as one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is called a sublime abiding here and now.
Not taken with views, but virtuous and consummate in vision, having
  subdued desire for sensual pleasures,
      one never again
      will lie in the womb.

Buddha says non Kamma is the best Kamma. This can be most apparent in renunciation. Try, less sugar, no meat, maybe skip a meal once in a while. Give up very spicy foods, try not killing plants, yoga or stretch regularly...
       I hesitate to say try more mindfulness of body, annicca, impermenant changing, and have by having a humble compassion for "ourselves"  may be more beneficial than sending out, especially if we are agitated. Also, better to contemplate the qualities of Buddha, than to contemplate the qualities of Tom, Dick, and Harry. I am very grateful for those who are respectable.


text:
What are the different meditation types & how to do them?
I know there are many types of meditation, but can someone help clarify the following questions on meditation:
- What types of meditation is essential for the practice & why?
- How do those types of meditation work (like what am I suppose to be doing)?
- Why do we do meditation (why is it such an essential thing)?

If you also have any extra information to add, it would be well appreciated!
(And if possible, please cite sources in the Pali Tipitaka for your answer)
Metta to all!

What types of meditation is essential for the practice & why?

The Buddhist path to liberation is divided into 3 trainings:

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta
Moreover, there 40 types of meditation (Kammaṭṭhāna) which is aimed at fullfilling the 3 trainings:

Sila - recollection of morality (Śīla)
Samadhi - Samatha
Panna - Vipassanā

How do those types of meditation work (like what am I suppose to be doing)?

Sila - recollection of morality (Śīla)
The recollection of virtue reminds oneself of the moral contents one has to follow. Say one gets the motivation to do something unwholesome. The frequent recollection reminds oneself of what one has to follow.
Samadhi - Samatha
This uses and object and one develops one-pointed concentration on it.
Panna - Vipassanā
One examines the realities of phenomena and develops insight into it.

Why do we do meditation (why is it such an essential thing)?

To realise the 3 training meditation is the tool.

You will want to memorize and think about the Dhamma a lot to develop insight, motivation and conviction. Then one would split thinking into two and constantly try to entertain themes which are good, being sensitive to the mind, adjusting to accommodate the various hindrances and contemplating a lot.
Id advice you to do your own learning and get mastery of the 4 nikayas first but you should also use commentary where it makes sense and have a general idea of origin & points of controversy.
here are various perception developments; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit
here on factors of enlightenment;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18b57EkdwyqsmER1dS5MPqpeWSjj82A7qvqYlXrhkCPQ/edit
here on anapanasati meditation;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hRy-g6o8yKsDQnR6_sbBbY5ZVpDbQ5-_LURXqwxS7YU/edit?usp=sharing
here on dhamma terminology;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NHDYCBjXLKwCxEUqbqvk7ui9fPfUx6oKxibjXcEH2CM/edit?usp=sharing
here on hindrances;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVz1XtntivxPRsxycsrH0_sgILcMbcghdpxoKuxlLYo/edit?usp=sharing
It is best to find some teachers and experiment a lot.

The third link is the same as the second (i.e. it's not about anapanasati).

thanks, i fixed it.

I would only reccomend meditation that uses pure nature, no imagination, no foreign objects. Yoga asanas, anapana, Sattipithana, or just mindfullness.
An orientation toward virtuous and compassionate behavior is an important foundation. Not because some beings say we must obey, nothing to do with it. It is because we start to understand, through contemplation and observation that particular energies from certain behaviors and Kamma(actions) cause agitation in ourselves and environment around us. You can make your own moral code adding and subtracting if you are honest with yourself.
        Awareness of the breath body, sitting still, feel the whole body as you breathe in, as you breathe out.
      Eat mindfully without distractions. Sit and feel the texture movement, ¿flavour?  The arm shoveling.
      Get the Sattipithana, but get the version written. By Buddha.
     I reccomend keeping the contemplation to a minimum and meditate more. Like two wings of a plane, theory and practice. Better to not get too much of one without the other. Or there will be ...trouble?

The 4 most popular and indispensable meditations in Early Buddhist meditation: All 4 of these should be in your tool kit. http://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/4meditations/index.html
And a complete set of references for breath meditation: http://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html


text:
How do I practice the Dhamma in an environment where it's not supported?
My parents, try to hinder my practice of the Dhamma by verbally & aggressively putting the Dhamma down to me, almost every day. They believe I am being "brainwashed" by monks I watch online or people I talk to about Buddhism.
They also express that they are concerned when I meditate, which itself is not negative at all, I just don't want them to worry about my practice.
My practice in no way interferes with their life, I keep the Dhamma to myself unless one is curious or respectful about it, but my parents always seem to bring it up & they aren't very respectful.
How do I prevent this from happening while at the same time respecting their beliefs in the Abrahamic God? I only want love & practice, it's just hard to communicate, for them to understand, the truth of the Dhamma to them.
Metta to all

There's one answer here: As a Buddhist with a Muslim family, community, and background… how do you integrate/cope?

There's another topic here (about "communicating the truth of the dhamma to them"): How to explain what Buddhism is?

Firstly, I assume that you reside in a jurisdiction where converting from your original religion to Buddhism and the practice of Buddhism are not illegal.
I suggest that you can explain the following to your parents, assuming that it is possible to reason with them:
I understand and respect your beliefs and your practice of religion X. This religion X teaches one to have morality, respect, kindness and compassion for your fellow man. The founder of this religion also displayed these values. (cite examples here)
I would like to announce to you that I do not belong to religion X any more, although I still greatly respect it and its founder. I have now accepted Buddhism, as my religion and my way of life, by taking refuge in the Buddha, his teachings and his community of disciples, as well as by undertaking the training of the Five Precepts of Buddhism.
The Buddha also displayed the same values of morality, respect, kindness and compassion, that the founder of religion X did, and he taught his followers to practise these values. (Cite examples from the Buddha's life that parallel the life of the founder of religion X)
The Five Precepts of Buddhism are not very different from the Ten Commandments (or some other equivalent teaching of religion X). It teaches me not to kill, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to speak the untruth, and not to consume intoxicating substances. The Buddha is not God and Buddhists are not required to make idols of the Buddha, or worship him. Taking refuge in the Buddha simply means that one accepts the Buddha as his teacher, and has faith in his teachings.
The Buddha was a normal man, who became an enlightened teacher, who guided his followers away from living an immoral life that leads to suffering, just as the founder of religion X did.
The Buddha also taught his followers to respect and cherish their parents. He taught that it's very difficult for children to repay the love and kindness shown by parents towards their children.
I want you to understand that your insulting and belittling of Buddhism or the Buddha will not change my mind. I am now and for the foreseeable future, a committed practising Buddhist.
The founder of religion X did not prevent or hinder people from following other religions. The Buddha too did not prevent or hinder people from following other religions.The founder of religion X did not force others to practise the religion that he brought. The Buddha too did not force others to practise his teachings.
Similarly, I will not force you to practise my religion, and I ask you not to force me to practice your religion. I will not insult or belittle your religion, and I ask you not to insult or belittle Buddhism.
Even if you insult or belittle my religion, the Buddha taught me to show metta (loving kindness) towards you. By metta, I mean I would always wish you to be happy and free from suffering. (Cite similar examples from the life of the founder of religion X, if possible)

The Buddhism as a religion which can be seen practiced nowadays is often and in many ways quite different to the practices in the texts. Therefore your group is right to worry about you imo. There are several sects even within the Theravada and a variety of disagreements, chances are they already got you:)
Perhaps try approaching the whole Buddhisms more like an academic pursuit and experiment with meditation, shouldn't be a big deal if someone wants to explore those things. The problem arises when you come of as a lunatic and they are unable to communicate because they are not trained in that system of language (dhamma).

If we understand the non secterian Dhamma, we can use judeo-Christian language, or  or find simple common ground with them. Dhamma is virtue, morality is Dhamma. Non secterian, even set aside Pali language, who will have issue with not killing, not using intoxicants, not stealing, not undertaking sexual misconduct, not over indulging in sleep and comfort?
Many monastaries and meditation centers don't follow the precept of no having ornaments, decorations, etc. This precept might be important to keep purity of Dhamma in a non sectarian way. Not putting up these walls, barriers attatchments will be good for one and all beings. Don't take my word for it, question it. Find out with your own faculty of dicernment. Fancy Pagoda tops, and decorations and even statues of sidartha gotoma the body are not in alignment with the Dhamma. These jewelery, and chanting outloud, in front of them are better left undone. Meditation in secluded area, in a room preferably clean or empty, or in a park at the base of a tree.
Who will take issue if you simply state I am trying to take time to develop concentration. Lengthen my attention span. It may help me to improve studying, reduce stress, enjoy a richer fuller life. A calm mind might appreciate the song of a bird, the beauty of sunset, etc. Develop wisdom and insight into the nature of reality.
Have compassion for living beings, I try to develop compassion for living beings, know that People and animals are all subject to sickness, death, impermenance. I don't want to unnecessarily cause I creased harm. But it takes practice... Who will take issue?
Better not to argue with them but try taking deep breaths and o serve how you feel when this is happening. If you react as soon as you can realize it come to your senses and try to not respond verbally. If you react 15 min. Before you realize I am reacting, arguing, etc. Know it is a huge improvement from 16 min.

To separate text into paragraphs, don't use leading whitespace at the start of the first line, but do put a blank/empty line between paragraphs -- full details are here or here

I didn't understand what the last three sentences are saying -- "If you react 15 min. Before you realize I am reacting, arguing, etc. Know it is a huge improvement from 16 min."


text:
Sentience, killing, & extremes?
The Buddha always said killing, no matter the circumstance, is always unskillful & leads to negative Rebirths.

In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at
  all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to
  kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing
  them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds
  that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a
  recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk
  was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in
  self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the
  monks,
"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a
  two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at
  that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
— MN 21
  http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage_en.html

Three questions:
- What determines an animal's sentience?
- If killing is never allowed, how would one deal with a parasite infesting their body, or any other animal as so?
- Would not killing the parasite mean it is self-mortification, & thus an extreme, breaking the Middle Way (as it can hinder the practice of the Dhamma too)?
Please help! Metta to all!

These are new question being asked, in addition to the question-and-answers -- If a buddhist should not kill a mouse living in their home, what justification do they have to rid themselves of a parasite such tapeworms

OP: What determines an animal's sentience?

All five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) must be present, in order for a being to be considered sentient.

OP: If killing is never allowed, how would one deal with a parasite infesting their body, or any other animal as so?

Killing sentient beings is against the first precept. The Five Precepts are training rules and not divine prohibitions.
Killing an animal is considered a lesser transgression than killing a human being.
From the Bhikkhu Patimokkha (disciplinary rules for monks):

Intentionally bringing about the death of a human being, even if it is
  still a fetus — whether by killing the person, arranging for an
  assassin to kill the person, inciting the person to die, or describing
  the advantages of death — is a pārājika offense. (Pr 3)
Pouring water that one knows to contain living beings — or having it
  poured — on grass or clay is a pācittiya offense. Pouring anything
  that would kill the beings into such water — or having it poured — is
  also a pācittiya offense. (Pc 20)
Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pācittiya
  offense. (Pc 61)
Using water, or getting others to use it, knowing that it contains
  living beings that will die from that use, is a pācittiya offense. (Pc
  62)

Above, you can see that deliberately killing a human is grounds for immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order (pārājika).
However, deliberately killing an animal is an offense that requires only confession (pācittiya) within the monastic order, usually with the intention not to do it again. It's not as severe as killing a human.

OP: Would not killing the parasite mean it is self-mortification, & thus an extreme, breaking the Middle Way (as it can hinder the
  practice of the Dhamma too)?

Consuming medicine to cure oneself is acceptable for both monks and lay people. There are no prohibitions with regards to medicine. If a medicine contains some alcohol, that's also acceptable.

Mr Suminda here expressed well what is included in sentience.
The working out of the exact results of action & intention is not to be done, as far as i know.
The consequent origination is without a discernable beginning and the exact results of this or that action is not something that is easy to figure out.
There is no forumulae or a solver which can simulate two beginningless worlds, arrive at the same states of the world and split the desicion tree to compare outcomes; that would not be possible because if two systems evolve in exact same way with an infinite complexity then it is unreasonable to expect the decision tree to split in and by itself, as a matter of fact there is no decision tree either because world just evolves, it does not stop to think should i go this way or that way, become this or otherwise; it goes according to prior development.
However even if there was a decision tree there is no basis for a split if values are exact and same given that the systems simulate the same exact premises and conditions. This is not like simulating a move in chess or blackjack because these games have determined starting points and a "decision maker".
Therefore one can not evaluate actions in this way, there is no way to input values and simulate outcomes for action A comparing to action B, having solved for which one could say that 'one is better than the other because the better one has exactly this much estimated shorter time to Parinibbana'.
Therefore the exact values are difficult to work out. There are other circumstances where this comes into place, like the Parajika of stealing; "A bhikkhu must have stolen a certain amount for the circumstance to be considered an offence of defeat". Figuring out these values in their exacts & particulars is impossible at this point afaik.
Nothing else makes sense, the type of thinking; 'If i get maggots i will have found my assasin', is going to lead to inconsistencies and reveal hipocrisy imo.
This is because a person who says he will be devoured by worms rather than break his training, he is saying "lives of others are sacred, i can train even as i am devoured by worms", but at the same time this same person probably goes for walks to exercize his legs where he might step on an animal, drives a car that might kill even a group of people or he causes others to walk and drive even if it is for his training or the training of others, so why sacrifice beings when it is better to train even when devoured by worms?
It is going to be inconsistent because there is no way to say this life-form goes and this one's are ok to hit with a car on a way to make living or the supermarket. There are all sorts of problems with that thinking, it seems like a person like this would want to sit down and not break the sitting posture until arahantship and then go without food but maybe that is not an option as it might kill the bacteria, beings and worms currently in the body.

In case a reader doesn't know, an attitude that "I will have found my assassin" may be a reference to the Punna Sutta (SN 35.88).

There is also a story about monks said to have been wandering dangerous areas 'looking for an assasin' in reference to those looking for death and a murderer. Can't remember where it is from.

There's discussion between Buddhists of different schools about whether it's important to have a vegetarian diet.

Some say "yes" -- because eating meat involves farming and killing or hunting animals -- and even if you don't kill them yourself, your paying for meat contributes to that industry and cycle.

Some (as you probably know) say "no" -- that it's alright to buy already-dead meat in a market provided the animal wasn't killed specifically for you. They'd also point out that vegetarians too contribute to killing animals -- that ploughing the soil kills worms, that harvesting grain may kill mice, and so on.
The proper reaction to that, I've seen it argued, is samvega and so on.

Anyway, I wonder whether killing a parasite like a tape-worm (by taking medicine) for the health of "my" body is morally similar to killing an earth-worm by digging in "my" garden to grow food.
I think that Jains are a little more extreme about "harmlessness" than Buddhists -- and that they view fasting to death as ethical -- which as you might point out is not the Middle Way of Buddhism.
I'm not sure what the rule would be for Buddhist monks. Perhaps they're expected to be obedient in taking medical prescriptions when they're ill. I don't know in fact whether a monk or doctor who prescribes a medicine would avoid prescribing a medicine which would kill a parasite (or other infection). I think that a medicine which "purges" is one of the traditional types of medicine according to the Vinaya.

What determines an animal's sentience?

What determines a being:
From the Pali words: pana, pāṇāni:

Something that breaths (excluding plants). Also see: What is Prana according to Buddhism?

From Definition of Dependent Origination of Satta

Something that has consciousness
Something that has the 5 aggregates or Name and Form in full or in part (In asaññasatta - Unconscious beings - wold there is no sanna, and arupa-loka - The Immaterial World - there is no rupa, with these exceptions in other worlds all 5 aggregates must be present)
Something that has the 6 sense bases in full or in part
Something that feels
Something that perceives

From Abhidhamma:

Something that has the life faculty (Jivitindriya)

All being are sentient as when their faculties make contact they feel and perceive. So what determines sentience is if one is a being.

...

Source: P51 - 52, Pāli Buddhism By Hoffman Frank

I have added more details on where the definition comes from.


text:
Heat and Meditation
I was meditating and couldn't keep my eyes open. I wore a thick sweater, and when I removed this sweater, the lethargy dissipated and instead I faced distracted thoughts, but I meditated with much more alertness.
Is temperature a factor at all in meditation?

I say Yes, ...but how can we find out?
Temperature gives a great opportunity to develop the patience paramis, for the benefit of one and all, so we can reach enlightenment. Further, we can observe the warming effects of temperature sensations, by environment or hot sauce and garlic. Some meditators have renounced garlic and Habeñeros because of the phycho sematic effects. I have observed one overcome with heat, feeling like a whiney puppy, with the red rocket out desperate and agitated. Full of madness and siracha. The one was me. However, a hot environment is an opportunity to develop tolerance and patience, so when in varied temperatures we can remain balanced.  Also, intermittent fasting can greatly reduced heat accumulated in the body and agitation in the mind.  The study ofAyurveda offers many insights into how heat may affect us


text:
The Animal Plane & Evolution?
(Please Theravada perspective if possible)
NAMO TASSA BAGAVATO ARAHANTO SAMMA-SAMBUDDHASA (I am not fluent, forgive errors)
These are my following questions:

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?
What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?
How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?
How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Metta to all!

OP: Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?

Even among humans, some are more deeply deluded by ignorance than others. Some humans can be easily trained and others are hard to be trained. This can be seen in the Kesi Sutta.
Among animals, you can find purely instinctual animals like mosquitoes, while other animals like dogs can experience emotions a little more like humans can. Anchovy is pretty much instinctual and unaware of human presence. But dolphins can interact with humans and display more complex emotions. Dolphins and dogs can also be trained unlike anchovy and mosquitoes. This shows that some animals are less deluded than others.

OP: What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

Humans generally have a much greater intellectual capacity and clarity of mind than animals, and this allows them to have the possibility to understand the Dhamma. Even then, some humans, especially those that have committed heinous crimes like killing their own parents, would not be able to fully comprehend the Dhamma.

OP: How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

This seems to be very rare, because it's very hard for animals to overcome their delusion.
From SN 56.120-122:

“… the sentient beings who die as animals and are reborn as humans are
  few, while those who die as animals and are reborn in hell, or the
  animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”

How animals can escape their situation is not very clear in the suttas.

OP: How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

The Buddha taught about escaping suffering by training the mind. He did not really concern himself with cosmology or biology, which he considered to be unimportant on the path towards the ending of suffering (see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow). Even teachings that appear to speak about biological evolution, is most probably metaphorical.

Seeing a difference in kind between e.g. mosquitoes and dogs -- is that traditional/scriptural that you know of, or is it only modern/personal/scientific opinion?

This is my personal opinion about animals, but extrapolated from suttas on humans.

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an
  instinctual level only?

AN 3.61 says "for those who feel, I teach the Four Noble Truths". Animals do not "feel". If animals could "feel", they would not be controlled by their cravings & emotions. They would employ mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact & feeling. But instead of "feeling", animals are driven by their emotions rather than "feel" their "emotions". If animals could "feel" their emotions, they could practise vedanupassana & cittanupassana and stop the arising of craving.

What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

In Buddhism, the word translated as "animal" is "tiracchāna", which means to "move horizontally" or not evolve on a spiritual level; to merely be guided by instincts of reproduction, sex, territorialism, etc. For example, "worldly talk" by monks in Buddhism is called "animal talk".
The word translated as "human" is "manussa", which means "high minded". Suttas such as SN 56.47 define the "human state" as moral righteousness, non-harmful & realised the Four Noble Truths.
For example, animals believe pornography, sexual promiscuity & other forms of liberal sex are OK. Where as "humans" see the danger, degradation & dysfunction of sexual liberalism. The Lokapala Sutta says:

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
  two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
  other honored persons.
Lokapala Sutta

How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

Animals leave the animal plane by realising the Four Noble Truths, as taught in SN 56.120, SN 56.47, etc, and abandoning instinctual lusts. This video (in English here) shows the animal named Angulimala realising the Four Noble Truths and having rebirth in the human realm due to abandoning violence.

How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Buddhism is about 'spiritual evolution' rather than 'physical evolution'. Sutta, such as MN 8, says wholesome states 'lead upwards'.

The Way Leading Upwards
Cunda, just as all unwholesome states lead downwards and all wholesome states lead upwards, so too:
(1) A person given to cruelty has non-cruelty to lead him upwards.
(2) One given to killing living beings has abstention from killing living beings to lead him upwards.
(3–43) One given to…to lead him upwards.
(44) One given to adhere to his own views, who holds on to them tenaciously and relinquishes them with difficulty, has non-adherence
  to his own views, not holding on to them tenaciously and relinquishing
  them easily, to lead him upwards.

Is it not obvious that animal feel, care about each other. Humans are also controlled by instinct aren't they? Humans creat tremendously more craving and aversion in the world than animals even the best non stream enterer, is likely producing much more craving, and greed than even the worst animal in this day and age. Read and quote all you want but can't you see this truth? This is a sign that more practice and less theory would be beneficial.

This reads as if it was meant to be a reply to (and therefore a comment under) Dhammadhatu's answer, right? It doesn't seem to answer the OP question.

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?

In hellish realms, beings experience mostly pain.
In the animal kingdom, they feel pain with emotions like greed/lust/fear. In the animal kingdom what is experienced is mostly instinctive as their perception and thinking is not developed. This is a reason they cannot realise the Dhamma.
In the human relm, it is a mix of pleasantness, pain with emotions like happiness/excitement, greed/lust/fear.
In higher planes, it is the most pleasure with emotion like happiness/excitement.

What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta states that karma is what decides the plane one is borns. In higher planes are pleasant and lower planes are unpleasant.
Also, it is karma which decides disparity among humans. [Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta]

How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

It is by death in any of the following ways:

the ending of their karma
the ending of their life-span
in material worlds accidents
in higher realms, it is said that one can descend to a lower realm by wishing so
the ending of their karma and life-span

Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

Karma is exsusted when it it felt.
In the context of getting out of a plane of existence, this is the exhaustion of the karma which created the birth or any of the other ways above.

How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Some of the creatures of light (the Abbhasaras) who had curiosity and a greedy nature began to dive and taste the savory Earth's substance. At that moment, the creature found out that it tasted so delicious. Thus, greed started to seep in and it ate the substance voraciously, greedily, also calling its comrades (who were flying above and on earth) to join in the feast. Not long afterwards, the creatures began to eat greedily, and due to the huge amount of the mud substance they could feed on it for a very long time.
As they ate and ate, their luminous body began to be coated by the mud substance, formed a coarser body, then suddenly, the sun and moon were seen, so were the stars, and also Night and Day began on Earth. The logical explanation of this was that the creatures were the self-illuminating, so blinding and luminous that they didn't notice the Sun. The Earth was covered in their light. So, when the materialization took place, the light faded inside their newly conceived 'body' of mud and thus the night and day became apparent to them. Then, as the night and day became apparent, seasons and years also appeared.
Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to be exhausted. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.
After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to be exhausted, replaced by cassava or turnip-like plants. They also began to devour them night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied between each other, the concept of difference arose. The concepts of the beautiful and the ugly were born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant because of their appearance.
Then, after the turnips, the earth was grown with rice plants. The first rice plants were without husk and kernels. The sweet and honey-like rice flourished seeds abundantly. The people consumed them for a very long time. But there are people who became greedy and lazy. They took more rice than they needed for one day's meals. They began to take two, four, eight, and sixteen days' of rice reserves as they were too lazy to take rice everyday. Owing to this, many other creatures began to store and hoard the rice. The generation time for rice plants became slower and slower. Usually, it took only one night for the plant to grow and be ready to be consumed, but by the karmic power the plant began to grow more and more slowly. Also the rice grew in kernels and husks, scattered, which the creatures must work, nurse, maintain, harvest, and cook in order to obtain the white rice.
By this time, the body of the creatures had become finely evolved. There was already the distinction between male and female. The man became preoccupied with women and vice versa. Then, as they were deeply attracted to each another, passion and desire was aroused, and they engaged in sexual relationships. The people who saw a couple engaged in sexual activity scolded them, and usually the couple were forbidden from entering the village for a certain period of time. Owing to this, the indulgent couples built closed dwellings where they indulged in sexual activity.

Aggañña Sutta

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?
I don't really understand the question.
It's taught though that animals react to (your) good-will with their being non-violent toward you -- see for example here:

Ahina Sutta (AN 4.67)
Metta Means Goodwill

Modern experience suggests they may react in a similar way (i.e. non-aggression) if you're not afraid.
Yet the monastic code tells monks to not attract laypeople into places where there are dangerous animals.
What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?
If they're unable to understand language, is one difference that they can't easily learn the Dhamma?
I think that's a reason why people are urged to take advantage of their having-been-born-human, i.e. it's a rare opportunity.
How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?
Perhaps that's answered by the sutta of the turtle and the hole, i.e. SN 56.47 and SN 56.48.
The Pali word adhicca has meanings like "fortuitous", and "unlikely" or "rare".
How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?
I don't understand what you're asking about (i.e. what you heard).
There is a sutta -- Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) -- which is described as being "an account of the origin of life and the world" ... so you might take it as an origin myth or as saying smething about the evolution of species ... but I think it may be allegorical.

I marked this post down because the word adhicca is not found in SN 56.47 and to say such seriously misrepresents the sutta. SN 56.47 is straightforwards in its content while SN 56.48 (which contains adhicca) is not straightforward and subject to imaginative papanca by puthujjana.

What is "rare" (dullabho) is a person who teaches the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One https://suttacentral.net/an3.114/en/sujato https://suttacentral.net/an6.96/en/sujato

Ah yes, SN 56.48 is saying it's rare to attain human existence AND (or when) a Tathagata arises in the world (so the dhamma-vinaya is proclaimed and you can practice etc. for the ending of suffering).

The comment seem to be conflating words & imputing unwarranted meaning upon them. Regardless, SN 56.47 defines what the "human state" is and it obviously does not mean "homo sapien". How can 7 billion homo sapiens on Earth be "rare"? SN 56.48 appears to say it is mere "luck" that a rare individual (such as my good self) has the necessary mental faculties to comprehend the True Dhamma.


text:
Odd Effect of Breath Meditation
I tried breathing meditation a few times recently. I have noticed that every time I use the breath as object, I get a headache and I tend to fall asleep. This fails to happen during compassion meditation or walking meditation. I might even say I feel dizzy, as if I were drunk, after breath meditation.
What may be the cause of this?

Please check the following check list: do not force your breaths, breathe naturally; keeping the back straight but do not tense up; maintain focus on the the "touching area" (tips of the nose, upper lips, etc) where you can feel the sensation of the air coming in and out; use a cushion to keep the buttock about a few inches above the knees (to maintain good blood circulation and straighten the back naturally);

These expected/typical/common results of headache & sleepiness are due to wrong concentration or suppression. If practising Anapanasati, the primary object of awareness should be the relaxed clear quiet mind. The secondary object of awareness or 'sign' should be the mere knowing or noting of each in-breath & each out-breath. While a difficult practice for minds with hindrance, to truly practise Anapanasati, all possible craving must be abandoned. In other words, there is no need to direct the mind towards the breathing. All that is required is mental stillness & quiet. Sit upright, relax & surrender with faith to the Dhamma.

So if I understand correctly, too rigid and narrow focus on the breath is involved with grasping, while the right practice is merely awareness of the quiet mind and just nothing the breath?

If you are practising correctly

This can happen due to past conditioning. As you practice this will slowly wear off. If this pain arises set aside the breath meditation and look at the feeling until it subsides.

If you make a mistake in the techniques

If you are influencing the breath like breathing too slowly, holding a breath, etc., this might also happen. In this case, check your technique and correct it.

I feel this happens when I use the tip of the nostrils as focus, as then thinking really seems to stop. Should I use a wider or less narrow focus?

One should narrow down gradually.


text:
Permanent Matter?
My friend told this to me & now I am confused.

Isn't the amount of matter in the universe the same, no less, nor
  more, because nothing is ever lost, nor created, everything causes everything, and thus fixated and
  permanent?
If this is true, then how would that be possible if Dhammas are always
  changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

Please help! Metta to all!

According to physics matter is not permanent and once upon a time there was none of it. Clearly it is not permanent. Ask your friend how much matter there was at t = 0. .

A simple example, look at water, it's the same molecule but its state is constantly changing, it solidifies when it's cold, it liquefies when it's warm, and it vaporizes when it's very hot. Also, your friend needs to learn Physics again, it's not matter that stays the same, it's energy, and it's not even universal for it's bound within the constraint of an isolated system (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy).

The Venerable Buddha did not say everything is impermanent. The Venerable Buddha said:

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent"...
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory"...
279. "All things are not-self"...
Dhammapada

The element of Nibbana is permanent (SN 43.14-43).
The Laws of Nature (Dhamma Niyama) are permanent (AN 3.136).
It seems modern science says the law of conservation of energy has a permanent feature, as follows:

In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is
  said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither
  be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or
  transferred from one form to another.
Wikipedia

However, who knows if this scientific theory is true: How do people know the first law of thermodynamics is true?. It sounds like superstitious quibbling to me.

From MN147 the Buddha tells Rahula:

“Everything that has a beginning has an end.”

If we are born, we must die.
Matter can be born from energy (e.g., the Big Bang) and matter can die into energy (e.g., nuclear explosion).

Isn't the amount of matter in the universe the same, no less, nor
  more, because nothing is ever lost, nor created, everything causes
  everything, and thus fixated and permanent?
If this is true, then how would that be possible if Dhammas are always
  changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

All conditioned and/or compounded things are impermanent, in the sense that they would arise and cease, and also change. Only Nibbana is not impermanent. Everything else, including space, time, matter and energy are subject to arising, ceasing and changing.
Take gold for example. Gold atoms initially arose out of nuclear reactions in stars. Gold can be melted and molded using heat. Gold in its solid form can be dissolved in acid. This shows that gold is impermanent, arising, ceasing and changing. It is also compounded, in the sense that it is composed of subatomic particles like protons, electrons and neutrons. When gold is used to conduct electricity, it constantly replaces its electrons.
The total amount of matter is also constantly changing. Think about nuclear reactions in stars, radioactively decaying matter and nuclear reactors. Think of the burning of flammable objects. Think about decaying or digesting biological matter. Think about matter entering a black hole.
What about energy? Kinetic energy in a moving turbine of a windmill arose conditioned by another movement like wind. But then it ceases due to friction, and conditions the arising of other forms of energy like heat due to friction, and electricity due to electromagnetic induction. So, forms of energy too are impermanent, because they are arising, ceasing and changing. Forms of energy are also conditioned.
What about space? If you have 1 m3 of vacuumed empty space, is it permanent? If air or matter gets into it, then it's not empty anymore. According to quantum field theory, empty space is never truly empty, because quantum particles appear and disappear constantly. In cosmology, space in the universe is said to be expanding, causing galaxies to become further apart as time goes by.
What about time? Have you heard about time dilation? Time moves relatively a lot slower for an object that is moving closer to the speed of light. Therefore, time is conditioned.
The more we understand science, the more we understand that everything in the physical realm is impermanent, arising, ceasing and changing.
What about the laws of physics? Is that permanent? There is speculation among cosmologists that our universe may be one of many universes in a multiverse. They speculate that universes may be arising and ceasing like bubbles emerging and popping from a boiling soup. In each of these universes, the laws of physics may be different. So, even this could be impermanent.
Apart from Nibbana, it's almost impossible to find anything that is truly impermanent and unchanging for eternity.

According to Buddhism matter is like a wave:

it arises
it passes
arises again
passes again
arises yet again
passes yet again
...

While this happens there is also decay.
Impermanence here is that matter is not static. It arises and passes while decaying.

According to the law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. So the energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Also, we have a very limited understanding of dark matter and dark energy, we don't know as of now, what happens to the matter which goes into the black hole. So saying that 'matter remains constant' is incorrect.
Saying that;

...Dhammas are always changing, impermanent according to the Venerable Buddha?

You have to understand that every time the Buddha appears in the realm of Samsara the situation here is different, the audience of a Buddha will be different, what he will explain will be based on the time and circumstances, thus the Dhamma will be different and changing.
For an e.g. in the Heart Sutra the Buddha says to Ven Sariputta;
 >

... Nor is there pain or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path To
  lead from pain; Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is
  emptiness...

See the Buddha contradicted himself as now the audience is different.

As Dhammadhatu's answer pointed out, it's said that sankharas (not dhammas) are impermanent.

Three marks of existence
The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

The definition of "sankhara" is complicated -- see e.g. Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? -- but its meaning includes "a compound thing", "a thing that's put together composed of other things", "a thing that arises due to certain conditions".
An example is the human body -- made of different bits, happens due to certain conditions -- and is impermanent e.g. it lasts for a certain time and then disintegrates.
Sankharas can be mental too, i.e. things which -- having learned -- you put together or associate in your mind.

I don't know what physicists are saying these days (i.e. recently), about "matter in the universe" -- I think (i.e. what they say) that keeps changing too :-) -- have they theorised recently that there must be a lot of (unobservable?) dark matter (because otherwise their equations don't match their observations?)?
I don't think that has anything at all, really, to do with Buddhism though.