text:
Buddha's relation to Hinduism
Q:

Did the Buddha copy Hinduism and add his own stuff? Why is Buddhism
  connected to thoughts in Hinduism if he didn't do so?

Similar topic: Is Buddhism just Hinduism stripped for export?

Dhamma4All — you've been asking a lot of very short, very broad questions. You'll get better results from this site if you ask fewer questions, and explain what you want to know in more detail.

@TedWrigley Yes...I understand it's just that I have limited time to submit my questions within a period of days and want to be able to understand the answers as soon as I can because I live in a household that doesn't support my following, so whenever I get the time to get out questions as fast as I can to read them, I do so. But I understand what you are communicating. It's just been tough to learn and get answers to many questions when I have very limited time and resources to do so.

It's all good. I'm just suggesting that you'll get more value out of your questions if you put more attention into your questions.

@TedWrigley I'll make note of that for my future questions. Thank you for the advice. :)

The Buddha didn't need to copy anyone. We all live in the same reality so inevitably Buddhism an Hinduism are overlapping doctrines and methods. The results of scientific study and meditation don't vary with which 'ism' we endorse.  .

'Hinduism' did not exist when the Buddha was alive, as follows from Wikipedia:

This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300
  CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 to 500 BCE), and
  flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in
  India
Wkipedia: Hinduism

When Buddha was alive, the religion of the Brahmin priests we call 'Brahmanism', which was far more limited in scope than Hinduism, per the stock description from the Pali suttas below:

Now at that time the brahmin...had mastered the Three Vedas, together
  with their vocabularies, ritual, phonology and etymology and the
  testament as fifth. He knew philology and grammar, and was well versed
  in cosmology and the marks of a great man.
MN 91

The Three Vedas are explained in Wikipedia as follows:

The canonical division of the Vedas is fourfold (turīya) viz.,

Rigveda (RV)
Yajurveda (YV, with the main division TS vs. VS)
Samaveda (SV)
Atharvaveda (AV)

Of these, the first three were the principal original division, also
  called "trayī vidyā"; that is, "the triple science" of reciting hymns
  (Rigveda), performing sacrifices (Yajurveda) and chanting songs
  (Samaveda). The Rigveda is the oldest work, which Witzel
  states are probably from the period of 1900 to 1100 BCE. Witzel, also
  notes that it is the Vedic period itself, where incipient lists divide
  the Vedic texts into three (trayī) or four branches: Rig, Yajur, Sama
  and Atharva
Wiki

If you read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, there was no Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism, as inferred by Wikipedia (in the 1st quote above), probably copied from Buddhism.
For example (while I am happy to be corrected), I do not recall reading in the Pali suttas any detailed discussion/debate between the Brahmins & the Buddha about respective theories/doctrines of karma & reincarnation. In the little I researched, I found no systematic doctrine of karma & reincarnation in the Three Vedas. Even when I browsed some later 'Upanishads', I found no mature systematic doctrine about karma & reincarnation (apart from the ideas of one certain individual philosopher).
Again, if we read the Brāhmaṇa Vagga in the Majjhima Nikaya, we find the Brahmins were similar to the Hebrews (and probably many other tribal groups), where their belief system was about how they were 'God's chosen people' or 'born from Brahma's mouth/breath' (while the other castes were born from lesser parts of Brahma's body).
Some useful links from Sutta Central, with lots of links, books & research, are:

The early Upanishads: a nice introduction to the pre-Buddhist tradition
Rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahman Vedas

Note: While the Pali suttas never mention the 'Upanishads', the reincarnation orientated leader of Sutta Central, namely, Bhikkhu Sujato, appears intent to follow conventional historians rather than follow the Pali suttas, in his efforts to back-date the Upanishads to prior to Buddhism. If we place our trust in the Pali suttas, we find what existed prior to the Buddha was the Three Vedas & their accompaniments.
An answer about this topic by Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo is here: Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas?
Lastly, if you wish to be a real Buddhist, it is not possible to believe the Buddha copied any of his core teachings from Brahmanism/Hinduism because the suttas say what the Buddha taught he "never heard before". "A Buddha" cannot copy other doctrines otherwise he/she cannot be called "A Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha" ("Sammasambuddha").

'Arising, arising!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light.
'Cessation, cessation!' — At this thought, monks, there arose in me,
  concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding,
  light."
SN 12.10

Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

'Hinduism didn't exist before buddhism' , can also be depicted from ,there are no temples found more than 2000years old by Archeology department ,other than paintings of animals ,rivers inside caves. AT that time only Aghori(sacrificing animals & humans as well) knowledge was there alongside Jainism.

[Even when I browsed some later 'Upanishads', I found no mature systematic doctrine about karma & reincarnation ] Just बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद itself has the word Karma (कर्म) 38 times.
When it comes to reincarnation: there is an entire yajna process for Rudra to attain a body to avoid rebirth (to escape recurring births and death) called the Prayaga yajna.
Not sure where you are reading stuff.
[ Pali suttas never mention the 'Upanishads']  What does this mean? Upanishad is a term used to denote certain sections of Vedic literature. For example, the attic is a portion of the house.

The Upanishads are later texts than Buddhism. I literally posted the Upanishads are never mentioned in the Pali Suttas. Only the Three Vedas are mentioned in the Pali Suttas. Please write your own answer to the question rather than make comments that are merely generalisations. Thank you

[The Upanishads are later texts than Buddhism] In your post you already confirmed Vedas were there prior, so how come Upanishads came later? it's a very specific question, the corpus of Upanishads is many but the primary one if taken into consideration, are you stating that someone wrote them as books later to Vedas? (Ignoring Buddhism being a part of this for now). This will answer your pali script reference.

[Please write your own answer] I have all the right to have a productive conversation within the guidelines since its written in a public forum and not in private

hello. obviously this comment is incorrect. i would suggest to raise your issues & ideas about Veda & Upanishad on the Hindu Stack Exchange

Anyway, at least for those who wish to know ( not those who just writing about Vedas that they haven't practiced or read but preach to others). Upanishad is not the title of a book. A section of the Veda itself is called in current terms an Upanishad. This means if Shukla Yajur has 500 hymns, out of which 'x' number of hymns from the Brahmana section and 'y' number of hymns from its Aryanka itself is today referred to as Upanishad, because Acharyas of sects labeled it so. The same goes for Taittirīya Upanishad which is nothing but the 7 to 9 th section of Taittirīya Yajur Veda.

Upanishad in Veda is added to Veda at a later time

pls ask help from someone to read my comment and help you understand.

Buddha used ideas common to the Indian spiritual circles of his time, including Hinduism, but was far from simply copying them. Some of these ideas he strongly opposed, like the one of eternal atman. Some of them he included into his teachings, like karma/kamma, but gave it different meaning, more in line with his stressing importance of ethical quality of our intentions and subsequently our actions.

In his introduction to the translation of the early upanishads, Patrick Olivelle writes-

The Upanisads were composed at a time of great social, economic, and religious change; they document the transition from the archaic ritualism of the Veda into new religious ideas and institutions. It is in them that we note for the first time the emergence of central religious concepts of both Hinduism and of the new religious movements, such as Buddhism and Jainism, that emerged not long after the composition of the early Upanisads. Such concepts include the doctrine of re-birth, the law of karma that regulates the rebirth process, and the techniques of liberation from the cycle of rebirth, such as mental training associated with Yoga, ascetic self-denial and mortification, and the renunciation of sex, wealth, and family
  life. Even though theoretically the whole of the vedic corpus is accepted as revealed truth, in reality it is the Upanisads that have continued to influence the life and
  thought of the various religious traditions that we have come to call Hindu. Upanisads are the scriptures par excellence of Hinduism.

Some of Buddhism's cardinal doctrines like karma, reincarnation and ahimsa, compassion are found in the pre-Buddhistic early upanishads.
First, let us take the Brihadaranyaka upanishad. Regarding the date of this upanishad, the following are the opinions of most scholars -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad

The exact year, and even the century of the Upanishad composition is unknown. Scholars have offered different estimates ranging from 900 BCE to 600 BCE, all preceding Buddhism. Brihadaranyaka is one of the first Upanishads, along with that of Jaiminiya Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishads.[13][14] The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad was in all likelihood composed in the earlier part of 1st millennium BCE, around 700 BCE, give or take a century or so, according to Patrick Olivelle.[11] It is likely that the text was a living document and some verses were edited over a period of time before the 6th century BCE.[13]

Thus, this upanishad was before the time of the Buddha, as per almost all scholarly opinions.
Further, there are about five pre-Buddhistic upanishads, according to scholars, and the Brihadaranyaka is one of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

The early Upanishads all predate the Common Era, five[note 6] of them in all likelihood pre-Buddhist (6th century BCE),[18]
[note 6] The pre-Buddhist Upanishads are: Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Kaushitaki, Aitareya, and Taittiriya Upanishads.[18]

Death and transmigration have been described in the Brihadaranyaka upanishad -
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc122058.html
I am referring to the above link only for the Sanskrit text. I will give translation of Patrick Olivelle in order to remove any possible accusations of hindu bias.

.....tena pradyotenaiṣa ātmā niṣkrāmati—cakśuṣṭo vā, mūrdhno vā, anyebhyo vā śarīradeśebhyaḥ; tamutkrāmantaṃ prāṇo'nūtkrāmati; prāṇamanūtkrāmantaṃ sarve prāṇā anūtkrāmanti; savijñāno bhavati, savijñānamevānvavakrāmati । taṃ vidyākarmaṇī samanvārabhete pūrvaprajñā ca || 2 ||

Here I am giving Patrick Olivelle's translation (not from the above link).

Then the top of his heart lights up, and with that light the
  self exits through the eye or the head or some other part of the body. As he is de-parting, his lifebreath (prana) departs with him. And as his lifebreath departs, all his vital functions (prana) depart with it.
  He then descends into a state of mere awareness and develops into one who is thus endowed with perception. Then learning and rites, as well as memory, take
  hold of him.
tadyathā tṛṇajalāyukā tṛṇasyāntaṃ gatvānyamākramamākramyātmānamupasaṃharati, evamevāyamātmedaṃ śarīraṃ nihatya, avidyāṃ gamayitvā, anyamākramamākramyātmānamupasaṃharati || 3 ||
tadyathā peśaskārī peśaso mātrām apādāyānyannavataraṃ kalyāṇataraṃ rūpaṃ tanute, evamevāyamātmedaṃ śarīraṃ nihatya, avidyāṃ gamayitvā, anyannavataraṃ kalyāṇataraṃ rūpaṃ kurute—pitryaṃ vā, gāndharvaṃ vā daivaṃ vā, prājāpatyaṃ vā, brāhmaṃ vā, anyeṣāṃ vā bhūtānām || 4 ||

Olivelle's translation again -

"It is like this. As a caterpillar, when it comes to the tip of a blade of grass, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it, so the self (atman), after it has knocked down this body and rendered it unconscious, reaches out to a new foothold and draws itself onto it.
"It is like this. As a weaver, after she has removed the colored yarn, weaves a different design that is newer and more attractive, so the self, after it has knocked
  down this body and rendered it unconscious, makes for himself a different figure that is newer and more attractive—the figure of a forefather, or of a Gandharva, or
  of a god, or of Prajapati, or of brahman, or else the figure of some other being.

Now, let us look at a different section of the upanishad -
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc120049.html

tadyathānaḥ susamāhitamutsarjadyāyāt, evamevāyaṃ śārīra ātmā prājñenātmanānvārūḍha utsarjanyāti, yatraitadūrdhvocchvāsī bhavati || 35 ||
sa yatrāyamaṇimānaṃ nyeti—jarayā vopatapatā vāṇimānaṃ nigacchati—tadyathāmraṃ vodumbaraṃ vā pippalaṃ vā bandhanātpramucyate, evamevāyaṃ puruṣa ebhyo'ṅgebhyaḥ saṃpramucya punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati prāṇāyaiva || 36 ||

Patrick Olivelle's translation -

"It is like this. As a heavily loaded cart goes along creaking, so this bodily self (atman), saddled with the self (atman) of knowledge, goes along groaning as he is breathing his last.
   36
   Now a man grows feeble on account of either old age or
  sickness. "It is like this. As a mango or a fig or a berry detaches itself from its stem, so this person frees himself from these bodily parts and rushes along the same path and through the same opening back again to a new life (prana).

The above quotes show that the doctrine of reincarnation is present in the pre-Buddhistic brihadaranyaka upanishad.
Now, let us come to the doctrine of karma in the same upanishad. (The bold highlighted Sanskrit below shows that the exact word karma was used in this upanishad. So not only is the doctrine of karma found here, but also the exact word karma was used to describe the doctrine).
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc122058.html

yathākārī yathācārī tathā bhavati—sādhukārī sādhurbhavati, pāpakārī pāpo bhavati; puṇyaḥ puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati, pāpaḥ pāpena | atho khalvāhuḥ kāmamaya evāyaṃ puruṣa iti; sa yathākāmo bhavati tatkraturbhavati, yatkraturbhavati tatkarma kurute, yatkarma kurute tadabhisaṃpadyate || 5 ||
tadeṣa śloko bhavati |
                tadeva saktaḥ saha karmaṇaiti
                liṅgaṃ mano yatra niṣaktamasya |
            prāpyāntaṃ karmaṇastasya yatkiñceha karotyayam |
            tasmāllokātpunaraityasmai lokāya karmaṇe ||
        iti nu kāmayamānaḥ; athākāmayamānaḥ—yo'kāmo
  niṣkāma āptakāma ātmakāmo na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti,
  brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti || 6 ||
What a man turns out to be depends on how he
  acts and on how he conducts himself. If his actions are good, he will turn into something good. If his actions are bad, he will turn into something bad. A man turns
  into something good by good action and into something bad by bad action. And so people say: 'A person here consists simply of desire.' A man resolves in accordance
  with his desire, acts in accordance with his resolve, and turns out to be in accordance with his action.
On this point there is the following verse:
  A man who's attached goes with his action,
  to that very place to which
  his mind and character cling.
  Reaching the end of his action,
  of whatever he has done in this world—
  From that world he returns
  back to this world,
  back to action.
  "That is the course of a man who desires.

A different translation is given in wikipedia, but the essence is similar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad#Karma_theory

One of the earliest formulation of the Karma doctrine occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[46] For example:
Now as a man is like this or like that,
  according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;
  a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
  he became pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;
And here they say that a person consists of desires,
  and as is his desire, so is his will;
  and as is his will, so is his deed;
  and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Hymns 4.4.5-4.4.6[48][49]

Another instance of the doctrine of karma in the same upanishad -
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118304.html

....tau hotkramya mantrayāṃcakrāte; tau ha yadūcatuḥ karma haiva tadūcatuḥ, atha yatpraśaśaṃsatuḥ karma haiva tat praśaśaṃsatuḥ; puṇyo vai puṇyena karmaṇā bhavati, pāpaḥ pāpeneti | tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma || 13 ||

Patrick Olivelle's translation -

So they left and talked about it. And what did they talk about?—they talked about nothing but action. And what did they praise?—they praised nothing but action. Yajnavalkya told him: "A man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by bad action."

It has been shown above that two of the cardinal doctrines of buddhism - karma and reincarnation - are already present in the pre-Buddhistic upanishads.
PS: This can become a long post, so I will either write a separate answer for other points or will extend this later.

Thanks. Very useful. The truth was true prior to the Buddha's time

What was before the Buddha? The Vedas and the earliest Upanishads (Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya) came before the Buddha.
A few other Upanishads (Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki) and the Nyaya school of logic may have developed around the same time as the Buddha.
If you look at the scholarly dates given in Wikipedia, all Vedanta schools, Samkhya, Yogasutras of Patanjali, Purva Mimamsa school, the rest of the Upanishads (Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka, Prasna, Mandukya), Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita all came after the Buddha's time.
The closest Hindu school of philosophy to Buddhism, appears to be Advaita Vedanta. Gaudapada and Adi Shankara who founded Advaita Vedanta lived around 6th to 7th century CE. The Buddha lived over a thousand years earlier.
I imagined that Advaita Vedanta influenced Indian Mahayana schools, but it turns out that it may be the other way round. Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamaka school, lived around 150 - 250 CE. Asanga and Vasubandhu, the founders of the Yogacara school, lived around 3rd to 4th century CE.
All this info can be found in Wikipedia.
So, who copied who?

The Buddha certainly used terms like karma and dharma from the culture around him, but he redefined those terms based on his teachings.
Let me give you an example. The term "karma" (which simply means action) originates from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad that predates the Buddha by at least a century. It introduces the idea that doing good makes you good and brings good results, and vice versa.
Later, the Bhagavad Gita (in chapters 2 and 3), which comes 2 centuries after the Buddha, says that the dharma (here meaning duty) of a warrior is to fight for a just cause. If a warrior fights and kills another, while performing his duty, but does so as a sacrifice or offering to God, without any kind of attachment, including to the fruits of action, then the warrior will be freed from sin. On the other hand, if he shirks his responsibility and duty, he would incur sin. This is called karma yoga, which is the title of chapter 3.
On the other hand, in Buddhism, karma is always related to an individual's intention which starts as a thought but is later manifested and exerted through thoughts and actions. The intention is the most important thing.
From the AN 6.63:

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

In SN 42.3, a warrior asks the Buddha whether he would go to heavan if he dies in battle. The Buddha states that he would instead be reborn in hell because of exerting the intention to violently kill another human being. It's all about the mind. Please also see this answer. Killing because of duty violates the first precept. Pure self-defense may be acceptable for lay people, though.
The term dharma could mean righteousness, duty, order, religion in Hindu texts. In Buddhism, the term dharma or dhamma could mean teachings, phenomena, complex mental concepts. It's slightly different, but related.
With these examples it should be clear that although Hinduism and Buddhism share the terms karma and dharma, they are actually not quite the same.

One thing is clear. Anatta or Anatman is uniquely Buddhist, and it clearly separates all Hindu philosophy from Buddhism. There can be no Vedanta without Atman, and there can be no Buddhism without Anatman.

The Vedas were composed not all at once and over hundreds of years.
The end part of the Vedas, Vedanta ([end]anta+Veda); the Upanishads, are the first texts that in detail focus on metaphysical iquiry, general mysticism and esoteric development.
These principal Upanishads would lay out a doctrine of a self atman and relation of atman to the 'primary self' brahman.
They also introduce the idea of Karma as something that is result of moral acts and a baseline for the doctrine of energy chanels in the body.
The earlier part of vedic scripture more or less describes rebirth in heavenly realm being the goal achievable through ritualistic meritmaking, this idea is complemented and reformed as general theory of reincarnation based on the supposedly correctly inferred purity of one's acts based on the doctrines of the Vedanta.
The Upanishads come to stress the importance of having a correct understanding of how things work for a correct result and inquiry into these for some sort of liberation of mind.
Pre Buddhist period, as the Vedas are composed, there are various Shramana communities of ascetics in India region, at the time these communities are contemplating all these ideas found in Vedas and practice various yoga.
Out of these communities the Buddhist philosophy eventually emerged as a correct line of inquiry leading to ultimate purification of intellect.
Buddhism explained that the doctrine of self is untrue , why it is untrue and stressed the importance of dismantling the adherence to a doctrine of self.
Thus The Bodhisatta, being among Shramana analyzed and rejected many Vedic philosophies & assertions which were more or less popular among people at that time.
You can study history of yoga here https://ochsonline.org/

Buddhism is not what you can see today. Once the real dhamma is translated and written in Sanskrit, the real meaning has disapeared.
Due to this when reading dhamma today, people get a closer meaning to hindunism. (Since they know hindunisn) Which is not the case. Buddha had advised not to translate dhamma to sanskrit, but someone has done. That's how it is.
So just because it seems like the same thing, it is not what budhha taught...!

Can the down voters tell me why this is down voted. In pali cannon, its clearly mentioned that dhamma should not be translated to Sanskrit. This is the problem with this community. It's not the problem with the stack overflow, but the community thinks they know everything. Only thing that I can pray for you is, you may find the truth soon, otherwise with the work that you do, you will get the doors closed to the enlightenment.


text:
How to cultivate good
q:

1) How do you cultivate good?
2) what is good?

See also can you help translate dhammpada 183?

Elsewhere in the Dhammapada it suggests to cultivate good "drop by drop":

Think not lightly of evil, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it little by little, fills himself with evil.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

Buddhism is called a "gradual training" -- and I think that's because it's taught gradually, step by step -- but I also think it's practised gradually, e.g. you might learn from moments of kindness or moments of suffering.
As for "what is good" one hint might be found in MN 61

Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it:

'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?'

If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

There are different Pali words being used in different verses, for example puñña
, kusala, and sampadā

MN 61.. yes....

We cultivate good the same way we cultivate anything: by giving light and water, and carefully weeding out anything undesired. 'Light' in this sense is conscious attention, which focuses the source of energy for everything we are. 'Water' is compassion (for ourselves and others), that soothes and smooths over every conflict. 'Weeding' means seeing our attachments and delusions for what they are, so we deprive them of the unconscious energy they need to survive.
You don't need to worry about what 'good' is. The seeds of it are already present, and you just need to tend it so it will grow naturally.

Good is peace and what leads to peace (i.e. not to pain).
Good is harmony and what leads to harmony (i.e. not to discord).
Good is understanding and what leads to understanding (i.e. not to confusion).
Good is health and what leads to health (i.e. not to sickness).
Good is acceptance and what leads to acceptance (i.e. not to aversion).
Good is love and what leads to love (i.e. not to hate).
Good is freedom of being oneself and what leads to freedom of being oneself (i.e. not to fear).

Our every action sows the seeds that will become the causes and conditions of future results. An apple seed grows into apple-tree, it doesn't grow into cucumber. Similarly, actions of certain kind grow into results of the same nature, they don't become something completely different.

Violence and anger is a seed that grows into problems, it does not grow into peace.
Lies and divisive speech are seeds that grow into problems, they do not grow into peace.
Consuming junk physical good and junk mental food are seeds that grow into bodily junk and mental junk, they do not not grow into health.
Indulging into vulgar pleasures is a seed ...
Making friends with people who do the above is a seed ...
Watching movies and TV series about people who's goal in life is all of the above is a seed ...
Thinking negative and egoistic thoughts is a seed...
Thinking "I am (we are) good and they are not" is a seed ...

It is kind of simple. Do not sow seeds of conflict. Be selective about what you consume. Do not feed your ego. Whatever remains - be strong and don't doubt yourself.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Kamma and the Physical
Does kamma bind or work with the physical realm? Such as a tsunami will kill you, but you will also die in such a way due to past kamma?

Previous & current kamma can only effect(bind) if mind is impure.  It doesn't mean that such kammas are of no effect rather these form a certain pattern which generates sankharas at subconscious state. If Ignorance still remains, clinging affect is generated due to sankharas, if not then there is no clinging affect.
This is the reason why arhants don't get disturbed by previous kamma ,cause they have no ignorance left(as only full awareness) hence sankharas cannot affect their mind rather their subconscious mind starts cleaning itself by 'letting go & to never let them come back'.
Regarding punishment through nature , if Arhant has made a commitment to do something , no nature or power can stop ,otherwise ,Arhants always remain ready to give-off their body to remove all suffering a.s.a.p. ... Still whatever the punishment is given to such Noble ones , that doesn't let their mind fickle by even a single bit. They remain at peace.
 That's why , effect of kamma within body remains to the degree/amount of  Ignorance present.

The operation of Kamma is a difficult thing to fathom.
There are five Niyamas in operating the world. Kamma is only one of them.

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


text:
Woman touch Buddha
q:

Can a woman touch a Buddha? And if so, what would happen, how would
  the Buddha react?

Haven't you read/heard about story between Buddha and brahmin of kuru pradesh(of ancient India) ,who wanted buddha to marry his beautiful daughter.

Yes, if that woman touch Lord Buddha with good intention, she accumulates good kamma and if that woman touch Lord Buddha with bad intention, she accumulates bad kamma. Since Lord Buddha has no defilements, there would be no reaction.

No one can touch the Buddha, Tatagatha, good householder, if not gained Arahat-ship, or at least the Dhamma temporary by oneselves, not even see.
If a woman touches, was able to touch the Buddha, she is called a Arahat, or at least Noble One, if just temporary.
(Note: This is not given for stackes, exchange, other trades, binding in the world, but to escape from this wheel)

Nothing would happen to buddha, as he has understood the reality of this world, in other words as he has realized the four noble truth. Buddha will just pay sad for this woman as she is blinded with klesha in her mind.
But for that woman, she will get bad karma if she does it with bad thoughts (ragha, dwesha, moha).

Any one can touch buddha but there is nothing happening special.
Buddha haven't "Keles" means
No attraction
No feeling (sad love ext)
No any impression only patient
meaning is likely can our|you mind mix with Water or any material.this is only simple description .and what are you asking is very deep but simply buddha is treat all living thins same.no any touch only patient


text:
Arguing of Buddhists?
Q:

Do Buddhists argue over topics? Wouldn't that be unwholesome and view
  clinging?

Suggestion: 'Debate' may be a better word to phrase your question to maintain neutrality. ('Argue' may not be the best word to use if I am correct about the context of your question)

Ddebating is an effective method for learning. The word 'arguing' suggests something more egotistical than debating, and as you say it can spill over into clinging and dogmatism.

@Krizalid_13190 Call it "arguing" or "debating" as you wish -- if you think the difference is important you could explain that in an answer.

Arguing depends upon person to person. Buddha always forbid arguing. Even at time of buddha , few of his disciples used to argue & he ,by many Upmas(lessons), used to forbid everyone to argue.
By wearing a tag of buddhism or any other tradition , doesn't mean person has become an enlightened one. If somebody is not ready to accept , it's good -let this go otherwise ,if accepts ,it's good ,still ,whatever the case is ,one must be ready to learn(if same is unenlightened) ,mustn't stick to blind-faith.
Moreover , dhamma-discussion can be done peacefully , buddha never restricted dhamma_related_discussion. You are your own master , you cannot force anyone to accept your views ,if you are forcing or arguing that means you are clinging & this is unwholesome.
Above is for full_time meditators.
For house holders::
Sometimes ,it becomes necessary to argue ,not to fulfill your desire but saving someone's life ,taking important decisions for benefit of large amount of people,etc. In such cases , arguing becomes necessary ,still this must be done while maintaining basic 5 Percepts at body & mental level.


text:
Alms and questions
Q:

1) What is the proper thing to do if you, as a monk, were to accept
  alms but have stomach issues so can't eat all the food?
2) What would a monk do if they are allergic to the alms given?
  (lactose and tolerant, alergy)
3) What is the procedure for alms?

Good man,
generally a monk could reject certain food and leave it open (of course "risky") to the giver to seek and ask for reason or to try to give else. Bhikkhus are not allowed to ask for certain food for themselves and only if sick there would be certain openings.
to answer the questions direct:
1) What is the proper thing to do if you, as a monk, were to accept alms but have stomach issues so can't eat all the food?
One does not need, is not bond, to eat all what has been given and one can leave it for others, what ever kind of being.
Food which is left should be at least abound on places where are no plants or in water without animals.
2) What would a monk do if they are allergic to the alms given? (lactose and tolerant, alergy)
Generally, since certain well-being out of food is importand for one in training, the Sublime allowed change of location out of reason food for monks, even in the rainy season. If certain food isn't found in an area, not given, or just food that's not enough for ones farewell, one might move on. How much one is bound to certain food is certain a matter of gained liberation, of course. Nevertheless, food, weather, people, dwelling... this are all matters of Upanissaya, strong causes of past, strong developed tendencies, not easy to overcome by common folk.
3) What is the procedure for alms?
Usually, if not a receiver of food in ones dwelling, if an almsgoer, a monk would leave his remote dwelling toward a settlement and walk from house to house with bended head, looking just some meters in front. He may stop word-less at entrances and wait a little (the bowl is covered with the robe in front of him), and if there are signs that someone desires to give, he would then wait. Not really beggging, but giving wise the possibility to make merits actually, is the livelihood of a disciple of the Buddha. When someone approaches to give, he would de-cover the bolw and open the cover a little, looking at the bowl. After that he would walk on, or give an encouragement (some think it's a blessing)/ approve, by a recitation or short teaching. Once he feels that's enough, latest if the bowl is full, he would leave the settlement into remote areas and either return or take his meal somewhere remote. After this he would wash his bowls, after having abound the rest he did not eat, and go on with his usual tasks.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape and release from this wheel]

What a strange question!!
I heard a story about a MONK who found a way to lie without lying and so when he was collecting food on his alms and someone gave him his fill and gave him extra (but set aside specifically for a new rival monk in town) he threw it away rather than give it to someone who did not need it and to whom he did not personally want to stay. Even a monk could find a way to lie skillfully.
As lobg as u do no harm with the food what does it matter what is done with it and to whom does it matter if anyone??


text:
Without formal refuge?
An unknown contributer wrote

Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?
Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?
Maybe worthy to give reflective answer.
[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]

Your question is posed mainly from a modern Western/Capitalist perspective where seclusion from economical "responsibilities" for spiritual practice is - to say the least - not encouraged. Also, the West doesn't have a tradition of handing out food to begging monks, in fact, in many countries this practice is illegal. It was very different in Asia before the industrialization.
During the Golden Age of Buddhism in China, the Ch'an (Zen) school actually consisted to a large extent of 行者 (wandering monks), who would travel throughout China, searching for the "right" master, entering into a discussion with the master of every temple they came across. This is still a common and widely accepted practice in many Mahayana traditions.
The mythological monk Bodhidharma, claimed as their founder by several Chinese Buddhist schools, would definitely qualify as a wandering monk, as does the mythological Budai.
Also in the Ch'an tradition, there are a series of drawings called the Ten Oxherding Pictures, the tenth picture is entitled "Return to society":

Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

As for laypeople, Huineng was a layman, but is considered to be one of the most important Ch'an masters.

Don’t forget about Han Shan either.  He was your archetypal wandering monk!  And he actually existed!

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?

Seems the yogi's idea of contemporary masters are making  assumptions.

Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?

If one gains Dhamma then how can it be improper? Nothing   inappropriate with recycling by itself but if it's being done out of some fear or anger towards the contemporary masters then that is wrong view.


text:
Important Commentaries?
Q:

1) Can someone name the most important commentaries, sub-commentaries,
  etc. I should read while reading the Tipitaka?

In my opinion commentaries and sub commentaries are important. Even the Tipitaka is a tabulation by certain Arahants.
In any case, I ask a similar question in the Dhamma Wheel.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=35754

in short
What are the Important Commentaries?
Buddha, his teams, and his teaching memorizers.
Everyone can read and teach without standard, but  the Tipitaka Memorizers keep that standard. He can comment Tipitaka in standard like the Judge memorized the law and keeping adjudicate in law.
7 questions for this topic

What is the commentary?
Who are those teachers?
What are the Important Commentaries?
Who are their teams?
What is the qualification of the teams?
How to choose one?
What should the practitioner do to his teacher?

What is the commentary?
The commentary is the description from teachers.
Who are those teachers?
Buddha and his teams, the great disciple (Asītimahāsāvaka, Etadagga, Sakya Family, etc.)
What are the Important Commentaries?
Those teachers and their teams.
Everyone can read and teach without standard, but  the Tipitaka Memorizers keep that standard. He can comment Tipitaka in standard like the Judge memorized the law and keeping adjudicate in law.
Who are their teams?
The noble one and the Tipitaka Memorizers.
What is the qualification of the teams?
From my answer here : How to find the right Dhamma teacher
in my opinion, the significant quality of a teacher is paṭisambhidā: because all ariya must have paṭisambhidā, at least in his kammaṭṭhāna. So he should have these qualities:

His teacher descent, he must derived from a tipitaka memorizer (buddha-sāvaka, suta-buddha; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His enlightenment, he must achieved at least upacāra-samādhi and balava-vipassanā (4 paṭisambhidā; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His tipitaka memory, he must graduated through at least
nissayamuccaka-course (V.N. Pācittiyakaṇḍa Ovādakasikkhāpada's commentary).
His tipitaka understanding, he must not cut tipitaka off or make
tipitaka conflict each other. Because tipitaka was memorized by
single commentary teacher group at 1st saṅgāyanā, so it  must be a
single package that compatibility with each other (pro in tipitaka relation, dhamma-paṭisambhida&attha-paṭisambhidā).
His pali skill, he must understand pali in advance (nirutti-paṭisambhidā).
He must be a genius one (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).

Furthermore, in tipitaka and commentary tradition, since mahākhandhaka of vinaya mahāvagga is completed authored by upāli in 1st saṇgāyanā, all layman's teachers must have all of these qualities, that concluded by upāli in bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada's commentary (which I translate below as follows):

Qualities of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu (teaching lay people)

Proficient to recite pāṭimokkha-pāli and to understand it's commentary.
Proficient to recite and to understand 4 bhāṇavāra (~1,000 syllable) of sutta and their commentary, to teach laymen on uposatha
  day.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for bhikkhu's life such as andhakavindasutta, mahālahulovādasutta, ambaṭṭhasutta, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for teaching in 3 chances: banquet for saṅgha by layman (nidhikaṇdasutta), funeral
  ceremony (tirokuṭṭasutta), and auspicious ceremony (maṅgalasutta).
Enough understand to judge/to decide about saṇgha's ceremony such as uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand his kammaṭṭhānā throughout the nibbāna-course.
5 years experience in monk hood as a monk.

Qualities of bhikkuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-bhikkhu (teaching bikkhus)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhus (ūpajjhā-ācāriya, nissaya-ācāriya), they must increase their skill level to all of the following qualities.
These are for abhivinaya teaching:

Proficient to recite mahāvibhagha and bhikkhunivibhaṅga (first 3 books of thai 45 books pali-tipitaka) of vinaya-pitaka-pali. At least, he
  can relay with the other 3 bhikkhu. Proficient to understand it's
  commentary, too.
Proficient to recite all saṇgha's ceremony in vinaya-pitaka mahāvagga and julavagga.
Proficient to recite 14 vatta in vattakhandhaka.

These are for abhidhamma (kammaṭṭhāna) teaching:

Proficient to recite one of this suttanta-pali: mūlapaṇṇassa (1st/3 parts of M.N.) for student in M.N. faculty, mahāvagga (2nd/3 parts of
  D.N.) for student in D.N. faculty,
  sagāthavagga+nidānavagga+khandhavāravagga of S.N. or  mahāvagga of
  S.N. for student in S.N. faculty, before half of A.N.  or after half
  of A.N.  or ekakanipāta+dukanipāta of A.N. for student in A.N.
  faculty, jātaka+commentary  (because kammaṭṭhāna was described in
  commentary) for student in jātaka faculty.

Qualities of bhikkunovdaka-bhikkhu (teaching bhikkunīs)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhunī, they must increase their skill level to all of these qualities:

Proficient to recite whole tipitaka-pali and commentary-pali. Or at least, he still must recite whole tipitaka, but he can recite just one
  commentary of suttanta, first 4 parts of commentary of 7 parts of
  abhidhamma. However, vinaya-commentary is what he must recite it all.

Reference: tipitaka and commentary of vinaya pācittiyakaṇḍa bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada and vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka.

(I still find it difficult to reference the tipitaka and commentary using english resources: there's no translation, very long pages, confused categories, cutting some parts off the tipitaka, cutting commentary off from pali canon, etc.)

Related topic: Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma?
How to choose one?

Because of the words beginning, "Ananda, it is owing to my being a good
friend to them that living beings subject to birth are freed from birth" (S I 88), it is
only the Fully Enlightened One who possesses all the aspects of the good friend.
Since that is so, while he is available only a meditation subject taken in the Blessed
One's presence is well taken.
But after his final attainment of Nibbana, it is proper to take it from anyone of
the eighty great disciples still living. When they are no more available, one who
wants to take a particular meditation subject should take it from someone with
cankers destroyed, who has, by means of that particular meditation subject,
produced the fourfold and fivefold jhana, and has reached the destruction of cankers
by augmenting insight that had that jhana as its proximate cause.
But how then, does someone with cankers destroyed declare himself thus: "I am
one whose cankers are destroyed?" Why not? He declares himself when he knows
that his instructions will be carried out. Did not the Elder Assagutta [99] spread out
his leather mat in the air and sitting cross-legged on it explain a meditation subject to
a bhikkhu who was starting his meditation subject, because he knew that that bhikkhu
was one who would carry out his instructions for the meditation subject?
So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If not, then
one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a stream-enterer, an
ordinary man who has obtained jhana, one who knows three Pitakas, one who
knows two Pitakas, one who knows one Pitaka, in descending order [according as
available]. If not even one who knows one Pitaka is available, then it should be
taken from one who is familiar with one Collection together with its commentary
and one who is himself conscientious. For a teacher such as this, who knows the
texts, guards the heritage, and protects the tradition, will follow the teachers'
opinion rather than his own. Hence the Ancient Elders said three times, "One who
is conscientious will guard it."
Now, those beginning with one whose cankers are destroyed, mentioned above,
will describe only the path they have themselves reached. But with a learned man,
his instructions and his answers to questions are purified by his having approached
such and such teachers, and so he will explain a meditation subject showing a
broad track, like a big elephant going through a stretch of jungle, and he will select
suttas and reasons from here and there, adding [explanations of] what is suitable
and unsuitable. So a meditation subject should be taken by approaching the good
friend such as this, the giver of a meditation subject, and by doing all the duties to
him.
Chapter III Taking a Meditation Subject page 94
cr. http://www.bps.lk http://www.accesstoinsight.urg

What should the practitioner do to his teacher?

If he is available in the same monastery, it is good. If not, one should go to
where he lives.
When [a bhikkhu] goes to him, he should not do so with feet washed and
anointed, wearing sandals, with an umbrella, surrounded by pupils, and bringing
oil tube, honey, molasses, etc.; he should do so fulfilling the duties of a bhikkhu
setting out on a journey, carrying his bowl and robes himself, doing all the duties
in each monastery on the way, with few belongings, and living in the greatest
effacement. When entering that monastery, he should do so [expecting nothing,
and even provided] with a tooth-stick that he has had made allowable on the way
[according to the rules]. And he should not enter some other room, thinking, "I
shall go to the teacher after resting awhile and after washing and anointing my
feet, and so on."
Why? If there are bhikkhus there who are hostile to the teacher, they might
ask him the reason for his coming and speak dispraise of the teacher, saying, "You
are done for if you go to him"; [100] they might make him regret his coming and
turn him back. So he should ask for the teacher's dwelling and go straight there.
If the teacher is junior, he should not consent to the teacher's receiving his
bowl and robe, and so on. If the teacher is senior, then he should go and pay homage
to him and remain standing. When told, "Put down the bowl and robe, friend," he
may put them down. When told, "Have some water to drink," he can drink if he
wants to. When told, "You may wash your feet," he should not do so at once, for if
the water has been brought by the teacher himself, it would be improper. But when
told "Wash, friend, it was not brought by me, it was brought by others," then he
can wash his feet, sitting in a screened place out of sight of the teacher, or in the
open to one side of the dwelling.
If the teacher brings an oil tube, he should get up and take it carefully with
both hands. If he did not take it, it might make the teacher wonder, "Does this
bhikkhu resent sharing so soon?" but having taken it, he should not anoint his feet
at once. For if it were oil for anointing the teacher's limbs, it would not be proper.
So he should first anoint his head, then his shoulders, etc.; but when told, "This is
meant for all the limbs, friend, anoint your feet," he should put a little on his head
and then anoint his feet. Then he should give it back, saying when the teacher
takes it, "May I return this oil tube, venerable sir?"
He should not say, "Explain a meditation subject to me, venerable sir" on the
very day he arrives. But starting from the next day, he can, if the teacher has a   habitual attendant, ask his permission to do the duties. If he does not allow it
when asked, they can be done when the opportunity offers. When he does them,
three tooth-sticks should be brought, a small, a medium and a big one, and two
kinds of mouth-washing water and bathing water, that is, hot and cold, should be
set out. Whichever of these the teacher uses for three days should then be brought
regularly. If the teacher uses either kind indiscriminately, he can bring whatever is
available.
Why so many words? All should be done as prescribed by the Blessed One in
the Khandhakas as the right duties in the passage beginning: "Bhikkhus, a pupil
should perform the duties to the teacher [101] rightly. Herein, this is the right
performance of duties. He should rise early; removing his sandals and arranging
his robe on one shoulder, he should give the tooth-sticks and the mouth-washing
water, and he should prepare the seat. If there is rice gruel, he should wash the
dish and bring the rice gruel" (Vin I 61).
To please the teacher by perfection in the duties he should pay homage in the
evening, and he should leave when dismissed with the words, "You may go." When
the teacher asks him, "Why have you come?" he can explain the reason for his
coming. If he does not ask but agrees to the duties being done, then after ten days
or a fortnight have gone by he should make an opportunity by staying back one
day at the time of his dismissal, and announcing the reason for his coming; or he
should go at an unaccustomed time, and when asked, "What have you come for?"
he can announce it.
If the teacher says, "Come in the morning," he should do so. But if his stomach
burns with a bile affliction at that hour, or if his food does not get digested owing
to sluggish digestive heat, or if some other ailment afflicts him, he should let it be
known, and proposing a time that suits himself, he should come at that time. For if
a meditation subject is expounded at an inconvenient time, one cannot give attention.
This is the detailed explanation of the words "approach the good friend, the
giver of a meditation subject."
Chapter III Taking a Meditation Subject page 94
cr. http://www.bps.lk http://www.accesstoinsight.urg

There are no important commentaries & sub-commentaries. The Buddha did not teach his Dhamma for there to be a necessity for commentaries & sub-commentaries. Commentaries are heretical to what the Buddha taught. If you place faith in commentaries & sub-commentaries then you do not have faith in the Buddha & the Dhamma. Instead, you have faith in other individuals, who often misunderstood the Dhamma. The Buddha taught:

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in the here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.
SN 16.3

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain,
  open, explicit and free of patchwork
MN 22

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
  saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
  Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
  esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
DN 16

In future time, there will be bhikkhus who will not listen to the
  utterance of such discourses which are words of the Tathāgata,
  profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world, connected
  with emptiness, they will not lend ear, they will not apply their mind
  on knowledge, they will not consider those teachings as to be taken up
  and mastered. On the contrary, they will listen to the utterance of
  such discourses which are literary compositions made by poets, witty
  words, witty letters, by people from outside [the Dhamma], or the
  words of disciples, they will lend ear, they will apply their mind on
  knowledge, they will consider those teachings as to be taken up and
  mastered. Thus, bhikkhus, the discourses which are words of the
  Tathāgata, profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world,
  connected with emptiness, will disappear.
SN 20.7

However, if you are that keen:
http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/atthakatha/index.html
http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/tika/index.html


text:
Doubts and Meditation
I am usually filled with common doubts (not necessarily doubts towards the dharma). My mind keeps forming thoughts that say: "Maybe things are like this! Maybe things are like that!" without much certainty.
I wonder: Does meditation help with such doubts, namely by preventing them from arising? I noticed when I am concentrated in meditation, on the breath, that thoughts rarely arise, and that I'm focused on sensory perception rather than this type of speculation.
Hence, does meditation remedy such hesitation and doubtful thoughts? If so does it do so by preventing them from arising? Or, does it do so by another mechanism.
Thank you.

When you are exploring an unknown land you don't waste time wondering 'Is it like this?' or 'Is it like that?', you just explore.

You can practice the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness:

These, bhikshus, are the four focusses of mindfulness that are to be cultivated for the abandoning
  of these five mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta
Also,

one understands and sees, as it really is, one’s own benefit,
one understands and sees, as it really is, others’ benefit,
one understands and sees, as it really is, the benefit of both

(Nīvaraṇa) Saṅgārava Sutta
One also can try developing the 7 Enlightenment Factors to overcome it. See: Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta
Wise attention can be used to overcome dought:

Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen doubt does not arise,
  and arisen doubt is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, wise attention.
Bhikshus, through wise attention, unarisen doubt does not arise, and arisen doubt is abandoned.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga
Also, do not feed dought. See: (Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta
Also see: Nivarana and Vicikiccha by Piya Tan

There is a wonderful sutta, SN24.4, which discusses stream-entry and beyond:

sn24.4: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
sn24.4: What do you think, mendicants?
sn24.4: Is form permanent or impermanent?”
sn24.4: “Impermanent, sir.” …

And one of the interesting things about meditation is that one notices that very impermanence. Yes, doubts will arise. And just as surely they will fade away and disappear all on their own.
Unless you follow them.
But if you just watch them, minding your breath, you may notice that the breath keeps going while the doubts come and go. With constant awareness of breathing, we become more satisfied and settled in the impermanence of doubt. We become less prone to pursuing doubts. We simply just breathe and meditate.

What is to remedy as long as you don't  cling to the doubt? If you practice with momentary  concentration then you see the doubt  come and go. You won't see the doubt if you are too concentrated. If your attitude is, "Well, there it is,  that's what is there" then there is no attitude of clinging. There is nothing to do. There is no distraction because the distraction is what is.

A doubt is no different than a pain in your knee, a loud noise, or a cold room.  Simply turn your attention back to your object of meditation and any doubt will disappear on it’s own.  The only things that take us out of concentration are the things we give attention to.  Pay them no mind.
Meditation teaches the mind to avoid obstacles.  Over time, these things will lessen or cease to arise entirely.

Anapanasati will distance you from those thoughts due to exertion of effort to create a wholesome state by stilling the unwholesome formations. When you attain the first jhana thinking about doubt will be stilled on account of the power of wisdom, power of exertion and power of composure.
The distance is a thing and a wholesome is close to the wholesome and it is far from the unwholesome. Details on this are in the Abhidhamma.
The stilling of doubt can be tricky but the memorizing of expression so that one can penetrate the meaning is to an extent a must do.
Here on doubt from Sutta and the Vsm;
Doubt
A. Nourishment of Doubt
There are things causing doubt; frequently giving unwise attention to them — that is the nourishment for the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and for the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.— SN 46:51
B. Denourishing of Doubt
There are things which are wholesome or unwholesome, blameless or blameworthy, noble or low, and (other) contrasts of dark and bright; frequently giving wise attention to them — that is the denourishing of the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and of the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.
Six things conducive to the abandonment of doubt are as follows:

Knowledge and pondering of the Dhamma
Asking questions about the Dhamma
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct)
Firm conviction concerning the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
Noble friendship
Suitable conversation

In addition, the following are helpful in conquering Doubt:
Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).
C. Simile
If there is a pot of water which is turbid, stirred up and muddy, and this pot is put into a dark place, then a man with a normal faculty of sight could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by doubt, overpowered by doubt, then one cannot properly see the escape from doubt which has arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized — SN 46:55

This is called state of confusion( शंका or संदेह in hindi).
It usually arises due to lack of oxygen in brain. You need physical exercise like jogging or yoga in Open(not in Gym) area.
When Meditator put focus on breathing, s/he might put too much pressure without awareness of such. This pressure can be felt inside wind-pipe ,nearby Adams apple. Pressurized sticking of tongue with muscles behind upper jaws can also be observed. Brain might feel like heavy.
Good blood circulation, 1st exercise in fresh air then do meditation will help. Otherwise, good to do some free service involving hard physical work in shifts with meditation work.

This looks Off topic (not a Buddhist answer)

AndreiVolkov♦ May be , may be not. If questionnaire doesn't see it a right suggestion ,can be deleted. Above depicts physical relation with mind and remedy for same problem.

Well, we don't normally allow science answers, yoga answers, Christian answers - unless they also speak from Buddhist perspective.


text:
Choose option in suffering?
Hair fall suffering..
Breakup suffering.
Self criticism suffering.
Separation suffering .
Not to  get what is want .
....................................................................................................
Option:
1.run from suffering.(escape from suffering)( drink alcohol)
2.face suffering..
3.Effort to overcome suffering.
4.Accept what is suffering..
Your opinion

Are you asking what is the right way from the listed options?

You are right.. Choose option

The one and only option which closer to the one and only answer is
4.Accept what it is.
But Accept what? what's the meaning of what it is are the things that we should understand first.
First of all to Accept we need to understand how the world behave. Answer to that is paticcasamuppadaya. This is a very highlevel answer so you need to find out what's the meaning of paticcasamuppadaya. Once you realize that -> you would know that everything in the world behave as a result of a cause.
Cause -> Result. So when you understand (realize) this the nature of the world, you have to accept the flows (way of things happening) of the world.
Next let's see why we have to accept it as it is. Why we can't change it. Why we can't apply new causes and change it to the way we want it to be.
As you know

Causes -> Results.
Causes + new Causes -> Some other results ; (We add new results)

If I take an example : breakup suffering -> let's assume

Girl want to stop the affair -> Breakup
Girl want to stop + Boy pleads not to do (or buy some expensive gifts ) -> No Breakup

Now in the second step the new causes (pleading or buying new gifts) are caused by the greed (love) of the boy to that girl. So that greediness will cause the boy another results which is not good. In buddhism Raga, Dvesha, Moha (greed, hate, delusion) are the causes for bad results. So when trying to change the flows of the things happening in the world, always done based on greed, hate or delusion, which will results in a new bad things. Because everything is Causes -> Results. (This is what explains in the paticcasamuppada)
Understanding this nature of the world explains in dhamma yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan -> Not getting what one desires. This is also meant by the Anicca. A very closer word to this meaning in english is insatiable
Note: Most of the people thing Anicca means impermanence which is not true. Actually impermanence is a subset of anicca. I'm not going to change what people think about this, because nothing is icca -> (getting what one desire : opposite of anicca) Everything is anicca in this world. This impermanence misinterpretation is a result of sanskrit translation (which buddha advised not to translate to sanskrit )
Below are the proof for my points from the pali cannon. And also please note there are some conflicts / mistakes in english translations. I've highlighted that in the latter part.
Below is the core of buddhism which extracted from Saccabihanga sutta

What is meant by not getting what one desires, that too is suffering?
  To beings subject to birth there comes desire: 'O might we not be
  subject to birth, and birth not come to us.' But this cannot be
  attained by mere desiring. So not getting what one desires, that too,
  is suffering. To beings subject to aging there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to aging, and aging not come to us...' (as
  before). To beings subject to disease there comes the desire: 'O might
  we not be subject to disease and disease not come to us...' To beings
  subject to death there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to
  death and death not come to us...' To beings subject to sorrow,
  lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and
  despair, and sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair not
  come to us.' But this cannot be attained by merely desiring. So not
  getting what one desires that too is suffering.

But in above translation it is written with the word too (that too is suffering). But in pali cannon there's nothing like that. It just say, not getting what one desires (yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan).
Therefore accept things as it is, trying to change things won't give you positive results. And also this doesn't mean that when don't save someone when he is about to hit by a bus even though when you have a chance to save him. As I mentioned earlier if the thoughts are based on greed, hate or delusion then there's a problem. If your thoughts are against those then go for it (this will also become useless as it keep you in sansara It's a different topic to talk about). With the understanding of insatiable state of the world, trying to changing things will be decreased.

Bro you give great answer .. Accept

If you accept this is as the answer, you may mark this as the answer by clicking the right mark on the left of the answer :)

Beware that "anicca doesn't mean impermanent" is a controversial theory (i.e. a lot of people think that theory is wrong). In this comment Isuru seemed to accept that "anicca" doesn't mean "an+iccha", instead it means "a+nicca",

According to SN 56.11 e.g. as summarised on page 46 of this analysis:

Suffering should be known
Craving should be abandoned
Nirvana should be realized
The path should be cultivated

I think that means something like,

Experience suffering (or sufferings plural)
Understand that suffering co-arises with (and ceases with) with craving and attachment
Abandon (don't attach to) cravings

Perhaps "accept what is suffering" isn't a good description of what to do. More specifically something like, "accept without craving so that suffering doesn't arise".

Are you saying  .suffering dependence

Suffering is "dependently originated" -- by understanding how and why it arises (e.g. craving, also conceit), you should avoid its arising -- and, by choosing not to attach to cravings and so on when they arise, allow suffering to cease when suffering co-arises with cravings. There's also the opposite i.e. "skilful virtue" (doing good things well) which causes "no remorse", from which may arise "joy", etc.

Thanks  guide suffering more deeply


text:
Relaxation of Mind
I've noticed what limits my activities in the day is a kind of mental saturation. I believe it's a kind of attention fatigue because when I walk in nature, I am more likely after to engage in projects.
Does meditation produce the same kind of relief from attention fatigue? What kind of relaxation does meditation on the breath provide?

The mind generally oscillates between attachment, aversion and ignorance due to experience of pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations. This causes metal fatigue.
In meditation, one stops this oscillation of states by not reacting to stimuli with unwholesome states of mind. This is relaxing.
Breath meditation results in:

concentration which suppresses certain unwholesome states
insight which eradicates unwholesome states


text:
Objectification in Buddhism
Is there such a thing as objectification in Buddhism? Namely, objectification here means treating someone else as an object, or for their appearance. However, it means also many other things, so I'll just leave the question open. Hence:
What does Buddhism say about objectification?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu equates papanca with objectification:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/ArrowsThinking.pdf
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SkillInQuestions/Section0008.html#sigil_toc_id_14

"Jati" is objectification. The mind "produces" ("abhinibbatti") the notion of "beings" ("sattānaṃ") based on the "appearance/manifestation" ("pātubhāvo") of various "aggregates" ("khandhānaṃ") and their pre-occupation (paṭilābho) with sense spheres (āyatanānaṃ).
For example, some aggregates manifest a buxom 38-24-36 hour-glass figure and these aggregates are pre-occupied with looking in mirrors, putting make-up on their faces & getting men to give attention to them. As a result of this appearance of aggregates & pre-occupation with sense spheres, your ignorant mind sexually objectifies deluded aggregates as "sexy women".

Ironically I feel objectified by this answer - it suggests that women with hour-glass figures are always pre-occupied with looking in mirrors, putting on make-up and getting men to give attention to them.

I did not say "women" with hour glass figures. I said "aggregates" with hour glass figures. It follows your mind might be engaging in self-objectification. Regards

You linked to images of women. Anyhow, my point is that you suggest that anybody (that is: any aggregage) with an hourglass figure is obsessed with their looks.

@KatinkaHesselink   Actually he says 'some' not all for the purposes of his example. Some aggregates have six-packs and beards and behave the same way.

This is about grammar I guess. He says some aggregates have a buxom figure and they (which suggests all such aggregates) are pre-occupied etc.

Yup, Dhammadhatu has definitely stereotyped there.

Its not about "grammar". It is about reality. Obviously the comments here are by minds that have no familiarity with not-self (anatta) that are engaged in objectification.

It's not mentioned directly, but through logic you can see that if craving/desire (tanha) is eliminated, then there is no room for using others as objects.

many times the perceived object has a nature to it.  that is, the feeling of beauty or ugliness is associated to some rendering of some particular.  this is not going to agree with the objectification, rather, impulse to do so is warranted by the free will.  therefore, if solidification is occurring via association of form and mind, that is only the way for a clueless person to gain the satisfaction of momentary bliss.  now, you have to deal with the surrendering of that formalization, which is surely known as duhkha.  thus one must eventually learn to choose the suffering paradigm or the paradigm of liberation. note: i object to the buddha, as he has already given too many good answers in so many quadrants.

Various schools of Buddhism have asserted different philosophical assertions regarding the path, reality, etc. Objectification can be in 2 ways- objectifying appearances as real and objectifying the knowledge, which as a consequence leads to 'essential (as one and only)' justifications.
Therefore, an answer to your question in short, early schools of Buddhism assert dharmas to be real existents while Madhyamika school of Buddhism are a critique of objectivity in general. They do not assert dharmas to be objectively real. The concept of emptiness is a critique of objective reality objectification.


text:
Why do people pretend or show off?
Why do people pretend or show off? For example:

Show off their new girl friend

Show off their new job, on Facebook and their friends circle

Show off a new dress

Show off a new iPhone
"show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments

"Envy feeling" --
is this ego?

I think this question is asking about "show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments".

Yes . You are correct

We are nothing in ourselves, so we pretend. My dear friend. Am I right

Puthujjanas love 2 things

sensuality
being told that they are good people, precisely for craving sensuality. If nobody tells them they are virtuous for craving sensuality, they build a little story in their head where they are good people for craving sensuality.

puthujjanas who crave sensuality will tell other puthujjanas who have good items and fame that they are good people.  Everybody wins, according to those people.
It gets even worse. The western humanists even say that envy of wealth will make people compete, for jobs for instance, and by making people compete, they will produce and buy good quality goods and services but for cheap, as long as the people who run their republic will break monopolies. Those people call this progress.
When those people want to feel compassionate, they will mix their cravings for sensuality with some social fight they found. For instance, they love to organize concerts where they will listen to songs for several hours, exactly like when they want to be purely entertained, but in order to feel righteous (and not selfish like when they feel when they get entertained), they say that they organize this entertainment not be  entertained but to ''make society aware of'', or ''in the name of'', or ''denounce'' some situation that they call ''unfair'' like some misery of some people living far away from them (like in third world countries).
This is the best life for puthujjanas: they get all the entertainment they crave and they feel like good people making a change in society, when all they do is listening to music then going back home...
Puthujjanas who break the 5 precepts do exactly the same thing.

You're very dismissive of puthujjanas. Are you quite sure there are no exceptions?

Why do people pretend? Or show off

The cause is something called "Asmi-māna", meaning "I-am-conceit". It's one of the 10 fetters (samyojanas) that bind a being to Samsara.
As seen in the illustration below, this fetter is only done away with at the attainment of Arahantship meaning that unless one is an arahant one has this fetter of conceit.

My dear friend.. I Need your experience.Beacuse I Need  your thoughts and your are intelligence . fresh answer young answer. You are buddha

You are saying right

Sexual lust. Most beings want to be loved; want to receive attention; do not want to be and feel alone. Women (plus Cultural Marxist boys/men) are known to be vulnerable to political correctness & obedient conformity. It is easy for Corporate advertising to socially engineer women because women often struggle to deal with criticism & rejection (where as men are used to being criticized, rejected & trashed).

The Blessed One said: “A woman attends inwardly to her feminine
  faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine
  poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is
  excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that,
  she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures,
  masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine
  voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that.
  Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is
  outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on
  that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into
  bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend
  her femininity.
AN 7.51

There is an inverse to what you are asking, there are some who show off their progress.
So, instead of showing off with a new phone or nice cloth they show off with their poverty, their ability to forbare, etc... in short, they show-off their progress.
Only because you tagged this in philosophy I will give you an example from Western Philosophy, but the truth is just the same.
Socrates gently mocking Antisthenes for a kind of inverse snobbery: taking too much pride in his austerity.

... when Antisthenes turned his cloak so that the tear in it became visible, Socrates said: “I see your vanity through the tear in your cloak.”


text:
Understanding compassion fatigue from a buddhist point of view
For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue).
My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas.
A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors:

an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to
akusala padhana/unwholesome effort.
upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper.

I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework?
(This is a sutta reference request)

I don't know the definition of "compassion fatigue", or who defines it.
The link you posted includes,

People who experience compassion fatigue can exhibit several symptoms including hopelessness, a decrease in experiences of pleasure, constant stress and anxiety, sleeplessness or nightmares, and a pervasive negative attitude.

Why do you say, "there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas"?
Perhaps there's some traditional Buddhist practice which provides occasion for that experience -- Maraṇasati.
The "fatigue" aspect of the condition may be less than ideal -- maybe let's say, "unenlightened". There are suttas about caring for the sick, as a duty, maybe in the vinaya too, and about being sick.
But mightn't some of the other "symptoms" in that definition -- for example "decrease in experiences of pleasure" -- be to some extent or in some ways promoted by Buddhist doctrine, which might call that "dispassion" or something (depending on how you define "pleasure")
If one names a mental state or "symptom" -- for example anhedonia -- it might be difficult to say in isolation whether that state is pathological. I think that any serious diagnoses might require meeting in person (a Buddhist teacher or, like, a psychiatrist). So far as I know, practicing clinicians have their own mentors.

Regarding your question "Why do you say...", i ask with emphasis on the specificity, not as a general form of dukkha. I'm asking if the fact that compassion can have a draining effect is mentioned in the suttas at all.

I think I've seen contemporary commentary that you're supposed to balance the four brahmaviharas -- so if compassion is becoming exhausted/exhausting then more of the other three.

If so, then it fits with the idea of balancing indriyas/pancabalani

The other two or three are often appropriate also (and maybe all, always).

Not sure how far this conversation should go, but i'd say that the first three brahmaviharas are all contained in the healthcare definition of compassion above. As such they all collectively run the risk of being conducive to compassion fatigue, as opposed to balancing each other (if that's what you're suggesting). My point is that these factors are not an endlessly benificient cornucopia in their own. I lean towards a balancing of brahmaviharas would have to be weighted against other factors apart from those particular three (with the exception of upeksha).

that wikipedia article on maranasati  is completely wrong. http://lucid24.org/sted/maranassati/index.html  .  the practice you're referring to in your post is corpse contemplation, whose purpose is contemplating impermanence and not self (AN 6.29). MN 10 satipatthana sutta labels the practice as "
1.6. Kāyā-nu-passanān-nava-sivathika-pabba" body contemplation - nine charnel ground stages

Here's my two cents: I used to be a nursing assistant. I did that for about seven years. I had to quit and change careers eventually due to burn out, stress, not wanting to be complicit with the ugly side of health insurance, etc.
After I quit I found that I had a lot of trouble feeling compassionate towards other people i.e. compassion fatigue. I had spent so much time and energy with so many people with extremely bad health, many of whom didn't really have a hope for recovery. It's like my compassion was used up and here it lay now like a strained muscle.
There are a lot of different angles to it. For one thing, it can be hard to identify with other people who aren't from that background when you've been in medical for so long. Other people complain about so many little things while I spent years helping nurses bandage bed sores, toileting people, washing dead bodies, talking with people about their own mortality, etc. After that, it was almost unbearable to hear people complain about getting served the wrong ice cream or having to deal with subpar customer service. Asymmetrical points of view between yourself and other can exacerbate alienation.
Also, just being around SO MUCH INTENSE SUFFERING(!) for so long is traumatic. It changes everything about how your nerves and adrenaline react to stimuli. Even a small trigger can cause you to feel so overwhelmed because your body is so used to responding to life and death situations with adrenaline. It's hard to regain a level perspective and your nerves don't know how to react to most situations.
Also also, I had seen so many cases where health insurance agencies were more interested in how to make money that how to provide compassionate care. The MOMENT somebody died, it was my job to empty their room of possessions as QUICKLY as possible so as to get a new patient in that room immediately because insurance companies don't make money on empty beds. I would hear people talk about how much money they could get from having a paralyzed patient on a ventilator because they'll be kept alive for extended periods even though there's no hope for improvement of their health. Dealing with this stuff makes you feel complicit; it makes you feel violated, like your own compassion is being used for unethical means. It makes you wonder if you're ever even doing the right thing when you exercise your compassion. It can break you.
Sorry, that's a lot to take in but it's all true. I talk about all of this to provide context and perspective. Now, how can you come back from that?
My answer is with baby steps. I find I am re-learning how to be a caring, compassionate, emotionally available person from the ground up. Acting with the level of openness and compassion you are used to right away is simply not realistic. You've got to take time with yourself to deal with these feelings and to stretch your emotions out gradually until it's no longer so draining and painful to open your heart again.
It's important to be compassionate and patient with yourself. I've had years to rebuild my sense of compassion and I STILL feel the strain sometimes. I just remember where I've come from and I remember that I'm in a learning process, or a re-learning process. I remember that it is okay to ask for help and to reach out to other people. It's also okay to fail sometimes as you make your way back.
All of that said, I'm not sure I've found a sutta that deals with this aspect specifically. Suttas have a lot to offer in terms of lessons and wisdom but it's important to be dynamic and finds ways of filling the gaps as it were. If you have an Abbott or monk you can talk to about it, do it! Someone like this with extensive practice can offer more dynamic support for something as specific as this and can offer wisdom that works in conjunction with the words you've read.
That is all for now. Thank you for your time :-)

What you are describing is EXACTLY empathy fatigue and not compassion fatigue. You state it right in your answer that you found it increasingly harder to IDENTITY with those who were under your care or in bad health. But IDENTIFYING with others is mark or empathy, not a mark of compassion. Thank you for clearly showing the difference.

Here is a good article about the difference: https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

That article is from a western mind who has figured out the difference and discovered that nearly all of western culture is confused by not seeing the difference between compassion and empathy.

Puthujjanas addicted to sensuality base their life on emotions, or more generally on what they feel. For instance they base morality on emotions and knowledge on emotions. This is a big mistake, but very normal for people infatuated with emotions.
For instance, some people like to feel sad when somebody die, and when they see that somebody they expected to be sad is actually not sadden by the death in question, they become upset and ask things like '' how can you not be sadden by the death of this person''.
This is because Puthujjanas think that when they are sad, it means that they really liked the person who died, and really liking the person is a good thing in the first place, because it means ''they really cared'' about some other human (or animal). For instance, with the sutta about the death of the buddha, the Puthujjanas could not help themselves from crying a lot.. The non Puthujjanas apparently did not cry.
And Humanists are absolutely obsessed with showing how much they think and care about other people. They call this 'being selfless'' and they think that being selfless is good.
Then they even say that understanding a situation is only possible by living it. For instance, they say that it is not possible to know how it feels to do  base jumping, until there is the experience of basejumping.
This is why people in the entertainment industry keep asking people, like athletes, ''what does it feel like to win (or lose) some contest'' and ''describe your emotions'' so that ''the audience at home watching the tv live the thrill of the victory with you (the athlete)''. This is how insane those people are.
When it comes to suffering and compassion, people think that they are good as soon as they feel sad once they think that some person is miserable. When they do not feel sad when they see what they see as '' a suffering person'' they feel bad and they say something is wrong with them. Puthujjanas have only emotions in their life so they will always try to base their behavior on them and with their very flawed ideas about morality.
Their clinging to emotions carries over to the dhamma. When it comes to the dhamma, the usual perplexity is about sotapannas. Because sotapannas still have not destroyed the asavas, not yet ''abandoned them, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, obliterated them so that they are no more subject to future arising.'' , so how do they know that the destruction of the asavas exists, is possible and how do they know what to do in order to destroy the asavas (ie the noble 8 fold path)?
They ask the same thing with dependent origination: how do they know that ignorance is the condition for the sankharas, when they have not ceased. or how do they know that contact conditions cravings, when they still have not destroyed cravings? How do they know that rebirths exist when they have not experience rebirth?

Compassion fatigue comes from lacking the right view about morality. When there is wrong view or no view about right morality, there is no objective basis for the establishment of the equanimity required to avoid compassion fatigue. Instead, the mind of the social worker, not knowing the optimal behavioral solution, becomes emotionally caught up in the lost mind of the lost client.
For most Western Buddhists, compassion is an amoral Cultural Marxist orgy of self-acceptance; of condoning and drowning in each other's (often sexual) sins. This is why compassion fatigue occurs. Both client and therapist are swimming against the current of morality.
In MN 8, the Buddha said: "one stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mind". Jesus said: "when the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch". When both therapist & client are stuck in the mud, fatigue will occur when both don't know the way out of the mud.

Cunda, that one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out
  another who is sinking in the mud is impossible; that one who is not
  himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in
  the mud is possible. That one who is himself untamed, undisciplined,
  with defilements unextinguished, should tame another, discipline him,
  and help extinguish his defilements is impossible; that one who is
  himself tamed, disciplined, with defilements extinguished, should tame
  another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is
  possible.
MN 8

What sila are you referring to, specifically?

It all stems from a wrong understanding, not of morality but of equanimity
Here is a quote from Shantideva's Way of the Bodhisattva / the path of light highlighting the true meaning of charity; there is no way that one can help all.
Even Buddha's compassion to liberate other beings was extended with some hesitation only to the taintless at a request of a Brahmā.

If the Perfect Charity frees the world from poverty, how could the
  Saviours of old have had it, since the world is still poor?
The
  Perfect Charity is declared to be the thought of surrendering to all
  beings our whole possessions and likewise the merit thereof; thus it
  is but a thought.
Where can fishes and other creatures be brought
  into safety, that I may not slay them? When the thought to do them no
  hurt is conceived, that is deemed the Perfect Conduct.
How many can I
  slay of the wicked, who are measureless as space? But when the thought
  of wrath is slain, all my foes are slain.
Whence can be found leather
  enough to cover the whole earth? But with a single leather shoe the
  whole ground is covered.
In like manner the forces without me I
  cannot control; but I will control the thought within me, and what
  need have I for control of the rest?


text:
Meditative-self
Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo mentioned that one shouldn't build up a meditative-self while being a meditator.
How can I prevent this from happening, as I have been quite stiff and getting quieter and more serious lately. Or is that not have to do with a 'meditative-self' view?
Please help!

He probably means that one can attatch to the process of transcending attatchment. If one is always a meditator striving towards Nirvana when  how can they get to Nirvana? One may merely believe in the meditative self because it is against the flow of what one was. The only one who is heroic in this way is ego.
Prevent the meditative self by not clinging to preventing the process as it continues.

How can I prevent this from happening, as I have been quite stiff and getting quieter and more serious lately. Or is that not have to do with a 'meditative-self' view?

When thoughts about a self arises just note them. They all belong to the 4th aggreagate of mental formations. There isn't really anything to do other than being mindful of them and reminding yourself.


text:
Problems of a Lay Mediator
Questions:

Is it normal to shy away from your family when it is hard to interact
  with them because they are so caught up in defilement and shaming my
  practices?
And is it proper to not respond to other people's questions or
  comments such as "wasn't that so good" or "do you like/dislike that?"
  or even "you believe in God, right, and you're a good Christian,
  right?" I seem to get these questions and have a hard time putting
  together an answer.

The Buddhist practice revolves around 3 practices:

development of morality and ethics with a view to developing control over the mind
development of control over the mind with a view of developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience
developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience

There is no shame in doing any of the above. Regardless of if you are from a particular culture or religious background you can practice them.

It is important to focus on your education because obviously you will not be able to live with your parents, forever. Skilling yourself for a job or career is most important if you want independence.

Putting up an answer is not a concern .This is your current orientation ,so its normal people ask if they aren't accustomed to seeing that .Buddha wasn't ashamed to beg with a bowel ,because he understood the purpose of his action ,only when you aren't sure about what you are doing ,do you start asking such questions.
I read a story about Buddha when he came back to his town after enlightenment ,he came with his begging bowel ,and took his son Rahula as well to the path.He met his father on his death bed ,his father was so hurt and angry, telling him now I have no heir and started crying for minutes on end ,telling Buddha "what all this non-sense you're doing ,begging ,you have wasted your life",and Buddha felt compassion and just removed his tears ,after his father settled down ,opened his eyes,and saw Buddha's face in such peace and silence,he told him "I never saw you so beautiful".Buddha was in perfect harmony with his path ,because it was his experience ,not because he was blindly following some principles or Sadhanas.

They’ll get over it.  I come from a family of devout Polish Catholics.  At first, they were openly hostile.  Then they were upset.  Then they were accepting.  Now they just make fun of me.
And if your family doesn’t get over it, well, then you know where the problem lies.  And you get to learn first hand how to wisely handle conflict.

I do not think anyone shames you if you practice or observe the five precepts. However, if you want to meditate be a  bit more obscure about it as some people will find it strange. However, you can practice Satipathana without the attention of other people. What exactly are they shaming you?

Teaching good at the beginning, in the middle and at the end full of meaning even in the letter, complete in every way stating the pure holy life. Hearing this a householder or a householder’s son, born to some clan, gains faith in the Thus Gone One. With that faith he reflects. The life in a household is full of defilements, going forth is like open space. It is not easy for one living a household life to lead the holy life complete and pure without defilements. What if I shave head and beard, don yellow robes and go forth as a homeless. Later he gives up a little wealth, or much wealth, a small circle of friends, or a large circle of friends, shaving head and beard, and donning yellow robes goes forth as a homeless.

One intent on realization is distancing himself from those who don't. As one distances oneself from unwholesome perceptions by giving appropriate attention to wholesome perceptions, thus attaining seclusion, just so one will be distancing oneself from situations where inappropriate attention is given and people who give inappropriate attention.
In my experience you can try to teach friends and family but lest they become your equals or better there will be that proportional distance.