text:
Arising of Contact, Feeling, Perception, Thinking
I have seen in many places the description of the phases of contact, feeling, perception, thinking and etc. upon this site. I have three questions:
1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination?
2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?
3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?
Thank you.

1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of
  dependent origination?

It is called 60 piyarūpaṃ-sātarūpaṃ in saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.
It is a present part of dependent origination, nothing difference.

2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

Contact = metting of a sense + a sense-organ + a sense-data.
Feeling = result of contact.
Perception = memory of feeling for recollecting next time to
take/avoid the memorized feeling.
Thinking.

3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha Chapter 8.

Why is perception memory when in the sutta is said "it perceives red, blue, yellow"

Sañña = memorizing, marking to recollect/remember/recall again next time.

That definition is not from the suttas

It is very generally use in pāli, but pāli-skill-less student can't not notice. i.e. " Idha, bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti sañjānanti - Bhikkhus, in a certain state the bowl is known (remember) as Pātīti, in another .... (M.N. Araṇavibhaṅgasutta). In this context, it means "everyone in some state identically memorize bowl as Pattaṃ, some state as Pātī..." Sañjānanti, in everywhere of tipitaka, is used like this case, too. It can connect the word in context better, especially 5 aggregates and paticcasamuppāda.

Yogakara, expounded by Asanga, and more famously Vashubandu that integrates the Theravada masterwork Abidadhamma with the emerging Mahayana thinking and teaching is a great source for study in this area I find it a better discourse on the earlier dependent origination. Some early Theravada texts in which the Buddha designates the conditions for arising of one of the five first senses, say sight, needs the object, the proximity of the object to the eye, and the seeing of the eye. Yogakara has a more nuanced take on this. Yogakara by the way, is a foundation thread in Mahayana and Cha/Son/Zen as is the Lankavatara, though some American Zenists are unaware of the history of their practice.

You are mistaken, there's no such named "Theravada" in the Early 18/20 Buddhist Schools, Theravada is used only recently no more than 100 years ago, to rename the different sect from Mahayana, existed in SE Asia. This modern Theravada has only the Abidhamma in their Canon called Visudhimagga from what they can recite from their oral keeping, how could it develop the Yogacara that existed at least 1000 years ahead of it?

Any book recommendations on books by Asanga and Vasubandhu? I can't seem to find books by such authors anywhere, and I don't know which specific ones to seek.

(1) What is the name of this chain?

This chain should be held distinct from dependent origination (as explained below). In this chain, contact-feeling-perception are inseparable and will always arise together (refer to MN 43 quoted below). Vitakka (thinking) is optional however to undertake ordinary life & social activities, a Buddha, for example, must think. Therefore, thinking (vitakka) can be included in sutta that mention feeling & perception.
The above said, different teachings in the Pali suttas use names approximating this chain, such as:

The eighteen mental examinations (manopavicārāti) - AN 3.61
The six sets of six (chachakka) ayatana - MN 148

The above two teachings are not dependent origination because they are not about the origination of suffering.

Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination?

This chain of mental cognition can be distinct from the links of dependent origination because contact, feeling, perception & thinking can be undefiled, enlightened & non-suffering; where as dependent origination refers to the 12 links leading to suffering, in which every link is defiled, tainted or polluted by ignorance, as follows:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mind-&-body. From mind-&-body as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering. SN 12.2

For example, the quotes below are not dependent origination because dependent origination refers to the 12 links leading to suffering:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38
Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding
  to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does not sorrow,
  grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become
  distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie
  within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible. MN 148

2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

I explained it broadly above as a "cognitive" chain because these mental phenomena must occur in all people, including enlightened people.

3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

The book called The ABCs of Buddhism may possibly be relevant.
There are Pali suttas that include contact, feeling (vedana), perception (sanna) & vitakka (thinking), such as:

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one
  thinks about. MN 18

There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to
  him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside.
  Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known
  as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. AN 4.41

Feeling, perception & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
  to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one
  perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. MN 43

Bhikkhus, in dependence on an element there arises a perception, there arises a view, there arises a thought. SN 14.13

Bhikkhus, sensual thoughts arise with a source, not without a source; thought of ill will arises with a source, not without a source;
  thought of harming arises with a source, not without a source. And how
  is this so?
In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises
  sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises
  sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises
  sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a
  sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling
  conducts himself wrongly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.
In dependence on the ill will element there arises perception of ill will...
In dependence on the cruelty element there arises perception of harming...
In dependence on the renunciation element there arises perception of renunciation...
In dependence on the non-ill will element there arises perception of non-ill will...
In dependence on the harmlessness element there arises perception of harmlessness. In dependence on the perception of harmlessness there
  arises intention of harmlessness; in dependence on intention of
  harmlessness there arises desire for harmlessness; in dependence on
  desire for harmlessness there arises passion for harmlessness; in
  dependence on passion for harmlessness there arises a sensual quest.
  Engaged in a quest for harmlessness, the instructed noble disciple
  conducts himself rightly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.
SN 14.12


text:
Sutta Question about 4 ways of debating
There is a sutta where the Buddha discusses four ways a debate can go between two people: a person could be hard to convince, causing either torment to the speaker but not the listener, torment to the listener but not the speaker etc.. the Buddha makes the final point that it is always worth undertaking the discussion so long as there is a possibility of coming to an understanding, if not, heed mindfulness. What is the reference please?

There are 4 related suttas, but they may not fit your description precisely.
Pañhapuccha Sutta (AN 5.165) describes 5 types of motivations for asking questions:

Stupidity and bewilderment
Evil desires and greed
Contempt
Desire for knowledge
'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

The last type of motivation for questioning usually applies to the Buddha and Arahant teachers toward their students.
Pañha Sutta (AN 4.42) describes 4 ways of answering questions:

There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
There are questions that should be put aside.

Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 3.67) describes 4 types of persons who are fit and unfit to talk with:

A person who does not answer a question with the type of answer that is fitting to it (based on AN4.42), is unfit to talk with.
A person who, in his answer, does not stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true, doesn't stand by standard procedure, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then he is unfit to talk with.

A person who is fit to talk with, is the opposite of the above.
The Buddha concludes the purpose of teaching and discussing, as quoted by Samana Johann in his answer:

For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel,
  that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear:
  i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.

The Kesi Sutta (AN 4.111) describes the four approaches the Buddha has towards a student:

Gentleness or mild training.
Harshness or harsh training.
Both gentleness and harshness, or both mild and harsh training.
Give up teaching the student for whom the 3 methods above do not work.

My person guesses that Ilya Grushevskiy might mix up two Suttas, how ever, here the one in regard of discussion:

Kathavatthu Sutta: Topics for Discussion
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality. Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.

Ilya: "Buddha makes the final point that it is always worth undertaking the discussion so long as there is a possibility of coming to an understanding, if not, heed mindfulness."
That part seems to be very far and based on own ideas. My person does not think that such as "always worth undertaking the discussion" would be supportable by dhammic ways of seeing right. See also the Sutta linked, which opposes that right away.
How ever, for one who is attentive, not for one who is inattentive; for one who is discerning, not for one who is not discerning:

"'It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.'
Ud 6.2

And since this is the way to find out if one is a Noble one or good in its direction, and the Buddha advised not to seek after others for benefit, it's hard to think that he had the view that all discussions are conductive. That in regard of the person. Not to speak about the certain topic. There is a long list of which topics should better not be talked.
How ever, mindfulness on the frames of references is required to do not judge wrong and discriminate probably on preoccupations. So when one is not aware of ones feelings and ones mind state, one would easy and fast become either one who avoidsconductive discussions or gets aversive if involving.
It's then like the OP question here, one mixes up a little bit of this and that, what ever seens tasty for the defilements, e.g. supportive to identify oneself with it.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Type of Energy from Meditation
I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya? Would samatha meditation, despite not being a physical exercise, give one more energy and fight fatigue?

I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya?

It probably refers to the balancing of the Five Spiritual Faculties, especially
Concentration (samadhi) and Energy (viriya).
If the Energy faculty is unbalanced, leading to the 3rd Hindrance of Sloth and torpor (thina-middha), one needs to arouse energy. This can be done in a number of ways such as;

One can splash cold water in the face before a meditation session
One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation
One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice
One can make a firm determination to practice effortly and sincerely
One can practice Death-contemplation (Maraṇasati ) to arouse a feeling of urgency
One can reflect on the 5 daily recollections, i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions.

In the book "The Way Of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, it's described how to overcome to the hindrance of Sloth and Torpor. Here he writes about the perception of light. I have made highlights in the quote:

3. Sloth and Torpor
Through wrong reflection on a state of boredom and the like, sloth and torpor come to be. Boredom is just dissatisfaction. Lassitude is bodily laziness. Languidity of body is the bending of the body torpidly in getting up and in similar actions. Lethargy after a meal is a dizziness or slight faint which is due to eating a principal meal. It is also called the discomfort which follows such a meal. The mind's sluggishness is the dullness of the mind. An abundance of wrong reflection on boredom and similar states of mind produces sloth and torpor. Therefore the Blessed One said that much wrong reflection on boredom, lassitude, languidity of body, lethargy after a meal, and the mind's sluggishness, is a condition for the production of fresh sloth and torpor and the increase and expansion of sloth and torpor already come into being.
Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor.
There are six things which lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor: The seeing of the reason of sloth and torpor in the fact of eating too much or gluttony; the changing of the postures completely; reflection on the perception of light; staying in the open; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists in dispelling sloth an torpor.
There is the following explanation of these six things: The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously is assailed by sloth and torpor while doing his recluse duty of meditation in his day or night quarters as by a mighty elephant pressing down on him, but that one who practices moderation in food is not troubled thus with these hindrances. In one who thus sees the characteristic of sloth and torpor in gluttony there is the casting out of sloth and torpor.
Sloth and torpor disappear in him who changes over from the posture which induces sloth and torpor to another; in him who reflects on the brightness or the light of the moon, a lamp or a torch by night, and on the light or brightness of the sun by day; in him who lives in the open; in him who associates with sympathetic and helpful companions, like the Elder Maha Kassapa, who have dispelled sloth and torpor; and by stimulating talk connected with a strict recluse-regimen.
Therefore it is said: Six things lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor. The yogi understands thus: sloth and torpor cast out by these six things are stopped from arising forever in the future by the attainment of the path of arahantship.
The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously after the manner of the well-known types of Brahmanical gormandizers mentioned in ancient Indian books. There are five kinds of these greedy eaters: (1) He who eats until he has to be raised up by the hand from his seat. (2) He who lies rolling just where he has eaten and eats as long as he likes. (3) He who eats until he slips off his waist cloth. (4) He who fills himself with food in such a way that it seems as if a crow could peck at the food in him. (5) He who having filled his belly full and vomitted eats more food again, or he who eats until he vomits.
On the light or brightness of the sun by day: The meaning should be understood thus: Sloth and torpor vanish in him, too, who at night is reflecting on the image of the perception of the brightness of the sun he got by day.
Here it may be helpful to state the eight ways of dealing with torpor taught by the Master to the Elder Maha Moggallana: (1) One should neglect to mind the thought which says that drowsiness is descending on one, or (2) one should reflect on the Dhamma, or (3) repeat or recite the Dhamma, or (4) pull both earlobes and rub or massage the limbs with the hands, or (5) getting up from the sitting position, apply water on and rub the eyes, and look into the distance, at the constellations in the starry sky, or (6) reflect on the thought of light, or (7) fix the thought on the ambulatory, aware of the ends of it with the controlling faculties of sense turned inwards and the mind kept in, or (8) sleep conscious of the time of waking and on awaking get up quickly thinking that one will not give oneself to the comforts of lying down, reclining and languor, when all other seven ways fail.

May this be of use to you.

Energy arises from purification, similar to how a rain gutter cleaned of leaves flows more efficiently.
In contrast, fatigue (sloth) is often systematic of the mind weighed down by defilements.
Therefore, the energy or refreshment related to genuine samatha (tranquility) is due to mental purity; which requires bodily purity as a foundation or cause.
The suttas (AN 10.61) say the three types of unwholesome actions (by body, speech & mind) are the nutriment (food) for the five hindrances (of which sloth or fatigue is one of the hindrances).

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be
  said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct,
  too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what
  is the nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said:
  non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense
  faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
  And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It
  should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of
  mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it
  is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of
  mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless
  attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be said: not associating with good persons.

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


text:
Identification with Negative States
I have noticed a certain phenomenon.
When I am in a positive mood, I don't identify with the mood. I don't cling to it, I am aware of its impermanence.
When a negative mood occurs -- as anger, or despair -- I completely and absolutely identify with it. I am this state, I believe it. I do not recognize its impermanence: I think about this mood as if it won't end.
Seemingly, negative moods make me unaware of non-self and impermanence, based on what I said.
My questions are:
(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?
(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?
Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way.
Thank you.

Old saying: "This too shall pass."

@nocomprende The story I heard with that phrase was of "a king who asked for" something that would "cheer him when he's down" and ... something, I forget what ... "calm him when excited" or something like that ... and so he was given a (finger-) ring with that phrase on it.

There is a good analysis of this, with regards to negative states of mind, in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta (MN 138).
Concerning the external scattering and diffusion of consciousness:

"How is consciousness said to be scattered & diffused? There is the
  case where a form is seen with the eye, and consciousness follows the
  drift of (lit.: 'flows after') the theme of the form, is tied to the
  attraction of the theme of the form, is chained to the attraction of
  the theme of the form, is fettered & joined to the attraction of the
  theme of the form: Consciousness is said to be externally scattered &
  diffused.

And the same applies to the other senses.
This describes how external sensual inputs can trigger a chain reaction resulting in the consciousness becoming consumed and following the drift of the theme. But why does this happen?

"And how is agitation caused by clinging/sustenance? There is the case
  where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
  noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
  no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. His form changes
  & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of form, his
  consciousness alters in accordance with the change in form. With the
  agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in
  form and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities,
  his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness,
  he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

And the same applies to the other aggregates.
For example, deep within you, you take the form to be your self. If you get a minor injury like a splinter in your foot, this would trigger despair and agony in you, because you take your foot (which is essentially part of the form) to be your self.
Another example is, you may take the mental fabrication of your ethnicity, to be your self. You may strongly associate yourself with your ethnicity. So, when someone insults you with a racial slur, it goes in through your ears, and triggers anger and rage in you, because you take your ethnicity (which is essentially a mental fabrication, specifically a mental concept) to be your self.
So that makes complete sense. Agitation is caused by clinging/ sustenance.
Now if you become angry as in the second case, as I'm sure you have previously experienced multiple times in your life, did you assault or kill someone? I guess not. Somewhere along the way, you came to your senses and gained control of yourself. You just need to ponder this chain reaction and how you gained control of yourself.
The method to control yourself here, is by practising heedfulness (or appamada), to watch your mind carefully. Please see this answer for details.
I'm trying to convince you here that you have managed to control your anger before in your life, so you surely can do it again. And the same applies to other negative states of mind.
There are details regarding the use of heedfulness (appamada) in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205) as follows:

"Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.
(and the same applies to the other senses)
"Suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedless. A
  corn-eating ox, invading the corn to eat it, would intoxicate itself
  as much as it liked. In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, not exercising restraint with regard to the six media of
  sensual contact, intoxicates himself with the five strings of
  sensuality as much as he likes.
"Now suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedful. The
  corn-eating ox would invade the corn to eat it, but then the watchman
  would grab it firmly by the muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the
  muzzle, he would pin it down by the forehead. Having pinned it down by
  the forehead, he would give it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having
  given it a sound thrashing with a stick, he would let it go.
"A second time... A third time, the corn-eating ox would invade the
  corn to eat it, but then the watchman would grab it firmly by the
  muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the muzzle, he would pin it down
  by the forehead. Having pinned it down by the forehead, he would give
  it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having given it a sound thrashing
  with a stick, he would let it go.
"As a result, the corn-eating ox — regardless of whether it went to
  the village or to the wilds, was standing still or lying down —
  wouldn't invade the corn again, because it would recall the earlier
  taste it got of the stick.
"In the same way, when a monk's mind is held back, thoroughly held
  back, from the six media of sensory contact, his mind settles
  inwardly, grows steady, unified, & concentrated.

Disconnecting the chain reaction above by watching your thoughts heedfully is one solution, but the other, is to gain compassion out of empathetic understanding or empathetic insight. Why did someone insult you? It's because he did not have control of his mind, because he is deluded. This way, you can grow compassion towards other people and tolerate their shortcomings. However, this method is only applicable when there are other people or other sentient beings involved. You cannot grow compassion towards a splinter.

(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?
(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?

The answer is pretty simple; be mindful and guard the sense-doors.
If one is not mindful of an object impinging on the sense-doors, craving will arise, i.e. liking or disliking. If one is not mindful, insight into the Three Marks of Existence, cannot occur.
Here is a quote by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw on exactly this topic;

"If one does not observe mental and physical phenomena every time they arise at the six sense doors, one cannot realize that there is nothing to them but mind and body, which are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. As a result one will develop an attachment to the objects that one fails to observe.
If, on the other hand, one observes mental and physical phenomena the moment they occur, one will realize that there is nothing to them but mind and body, which are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.
As a result one will be free from attachment to objects that one is able to observe. Thus the wholesome (kusala) action of insight liberates one from attachment and thus is considered renunciation. This renunciation, in turn, liberates noble ones from the cycle of suffering (saṃsāra) by developing insight step by step until nibbāna is attained. And so the wholesome act of insight is called “the great liberation of noble ones” (ariyanaṃ niyyanaṃ) because of its liberating effect".
-- Manual of Insight, p. 58, by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

"(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?"
"(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?"
Here, I think @Lanka and @ruben2020 answered these.
"Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way."
When one easily gets caught up and have a hard time being mindful in these circumstances, I believe one particular problem might be weak samadhi.
When samadhi is practiced, when tranquility and unification of mind is a bit more developed, there's a natural "delay" when unwholesome states such as anger arises, and there's a natural inclination for rejecting it.
By "delay" I mean, instead of being taken by it at the spot, one sees the anger arising. Not only does it feel "slow", but it also feels detached, "far away". Feeling detached, and "far away", one notices right there that it did not invade his mind -- though it is right there in the "vicinity".
And at that moment, it's as if it needs one's decision and active engagement to make it grow. If on previous occasions one would be taken by this sort of state almost instantaneously, now it requires effort to be taken in, though one may still be seduced to engage.
Against that seduction, one notices the natural underlying inclination to rejecting it. Perhaps because samadhi is found in one's mind at that moment, perhaps because one can bring to mind and remember what samadhi felt like recently and one instinctively (or objectively) knows that engaging in these negative states of mind sacrifices that very wholesome state. Be as it may, it's a precious thing to sacrifice and likely one can feel it.
In other words, and to put it simply, when samadhi is made stronger negative states are made weaker. When samadhi is stronger, it becomes harder to engage in unwholesome states. It's naturally harder for them to invade the mind, in the sense that it doesn't require special efforts to oppose them, as it would otherwise.

The Pali suttas say unwholesome states are caused by ignorance (rather than by a person or self). You can reflect as follows: "this anger & despair are produced by ignorance".

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."
Avijja Sutta: Ignorance

why has this answer got so many negative scores (6 in total)? thanks

I don't know; I see a score of +2/-3 at the moment. It's short but answers the question, I could only add more more sentence to it, as a summary: "So it's not aversion but ignorance (the root of the 'Three Poisons'), and that's how to stop identifying with it too ("It's not 'me', it's 'ignorance'")." OTOH it didn't answer the question about why it's more difficult "when they occur" during a "negative mood" and what to do about that (nor about impermanence).


text:
Is it common for Buddhists in eastern countries to be close-minded and lacking in diversity?
I have noticed a definite tendency for Buddhists east of Great Britain to be very narrow-minded and conservative compared to those further west. The same effect is noticeable in the United States among the extreme Protestant affiliations of Christianity in the deep south and I wonder if the origins have similarities.
Is this typical? Do all lineages share similar conservative and non-diverse views? I have seen a few Chinese Buddhists and they seem much more open minded. Wondering if this is a geographical thing or political or just a difference in Buddhist schools of thought.
Please advise.

I have visited monastic Buddhist communities in Thailand, Vietnam, Tibet, and Nepal as well as France, Great Britain, and the United States. I actually lived in the Kopan monastery in Kathmandu as a visitor for a period as well. So yes I have traveled to many Buddhist communities east of Great Britain. I ask this question as I search for a Buddhist community that will not call me names or regard anyone as a heretic who does not believe exactly as they do.

On the subject of people who "call me names", I hope you may find this helpful: Akkosa Sutta: Insult

it is helpful. thank you. I tend to follow the advice given in the brihadaranyaka upanishad as well as TS Eliot's The Wasteland - damyata, datta, dayadhvam. self control, give of yourself, and compassion. I am trying to isolate the cause of their demeanor so I can understand it and avoid it in the future.

"Is it common for Buddhists in Eastern Countries...lacking in
  diversity.. ... ... The same effect is noticeable in the United States
  among the extreme Protestant affiliations of Christianity in the deep
  south"

Huh??!! Only Eastern Buddhists and Protestants in the American South?
Have you looked around "Western" Buddhist Centers in North America?
Here is an article about the overwhelming whiteness of American Buddhist Centers
Here is one about the decades-late recognition of it and some attempts finally being made to rectify...
A report at pluralism.org which says
"People of color are negotiating spaces within predominantly European American sanghas (Buddhist communities)."
I guess problems are easily seen everywhere except in one's own backyard.

I have seen limited diversity in local Buddhist groups ... but mostly from a lack of acceptance of Buddhism. The sangha here are mostly vietnamese or korean or chinese. Few white anglos convert to Buddhism with the exception of secular atheists. And those vietnamese, korean, and chinese sanghas are actually very progressive in their open-mindedness because they originate from different communities within their own countries. I considered this when asking this question.

Buddhism is a discipline with a clearly defined principles about what it considers to be the truths or realities related to the arising & ceasing of suffering. Therefore, the question about "narrow-mindedness" is illogical or irrelevant.
For example, Buddhism teaches suffering arises due to ignorance, craving, attachment & egoism and this truth of causal arising is held to be absolutely true & unchangeable in Buddhism.
Or, on a moral level, Buddhism teaches about actions that lead to harm. These actions that lead to harm can never ever be changed.
Like any authentic science, Buddhism is about accurate, specific & narrow principles of causation.
The Dhammapada states:

273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
  passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
  best.
274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.

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

It's just a matter of the object, of the food, but at it's root, if observing well, there is no different. Views, either greedy, aversive or defuse appearing are views.
And for politics increasing greed and pleasure is more conductive. One can say that it is like controling the markted of drugs. Sometimes east did it, sometimes west. Currently Asia has it under control, made it their tool.
When ever on hears that people of certain geografic or birth are inherent different, one can be sure that the observant is/was not very attentive and took either this world and views or that as real.
Wordlings from Buddhist Countries are interested in the marked like popular Western teachers. An all tolerating, all serving business bring fast costumers, since the mass is not very smart but greedy and full of conceit.
Since many eastern still learn service and devotion as a tool from child on, they have it generally easier in this regard, but on the other hand, those rejecting service and devotion are fastly winning people in the east. So so called "open-minded" comes generaly for a certain purpose and was always a good tool acting smart to again just win.
So no hope for refuge in regard of realm of certain birth, because their conditions change as well by time, better by deeds.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Paths of Buddhism & Possibility of Compassion
I have read about different types of paths for spiritual aspirants. Namely:

Śrāvakayāna
Pratyekabuddhayāna
Bodhisattvayāna

Of the first, Asanga states their faculties are limited:

"These people are described as having weak faculties [...]"

Of the second, he states they have medium faculties:

"[T]hey are said to have medium faculties [...]"

Finally, he describes the bodhisattva as with sharp faculties. In the Sutra on the Ten Levels, it says the sravaka will have practised:

[...] through fear of cyclic existence and without [great] compassion, [...]

I know that this is mainly a Mahayanist view. Nevertheless, my questions are :
(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?
(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even  at some later point?

see also Is there a compassion only Buddhist path?

also, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8200/why-cant-private-buddhas-just-tell-people-what-they-did-to-achieve-enlightenmen

I always feel guilty giving interpretative answers with no references, but since that's exactly what you seem to be asking here, here we go.
Sure, there are people of different skills and capacities. I wouldn't blame it on them, it's just a matter of circumstances, previous lives karma, old ignorance, we all were ignorant at some point.
But yeah, as my teacher explained, there are people who get it immediately, people who never seem to get it and just keep worshiping it as religion, and most of us in between, who get it with enough instructions and practice. As Buddha said, it is for this category that we teach.
Enlightenment is feasible in one lifetime if one makes it a priority and stays honest with oneself. I can't say some people are hopeless, that would not be fair. But yeah, for some it's more difficult, because of conceptual stereotypes, karmic inertia, or emotional blockages.
Traditionally, it is said that Buddhist path does not always result in awakening of compassion. Traditionally, you can be an isolated Buddha, who just can't stand the pain of engaging, and keeps to the peaceful abiding at all times.
However in practice, I just don't see how someone who really gets it can help but develop grand,  immense compassion for all sentient beings. So if you ask me, I'd say, if you're honest with yourself, compassion always arises. But then again, I'm a Mahayana guy, maybe it's my bias, maybe I should learn to feel less pity for everyone :))

Let's consider the scenario of students in university.
The ordinary student, just studies what is taught in the lectures and does not put in extraordinary effort. Along the way, he might help one or two of his fellow students, who are his close friends, but he does not have the capacity or willpower to help many students. He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 3 years, but with a mere pass. He is now liberated from the student life.
The outstanding student, puts in extraordinary effort, including additional research and project work. Although not required, along the way, he helps many fellow students as a teaching assistant. He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 4.5 years, with first class honours or summa cum laude. He graduates at the top of his class. He continues further for another 5 years to complete his doctorate with high honours, and becomes a lecturer. He too is now liberated from the student life.
The goal for most people is to simply become liberated from the student life and start working. For this, becoming an ordinary student is good enough.
However, for the select few who are very ambitious, they would go the extra ten miles to graduate at the top of their class, earn a doctorate and become a lecturer, to teach others.
Similarly, the sravaka is like the ordinary student, and the Bodhisattva is like the outstanding student.

"(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?"
The faculties definitely are different between people and some practitioners do have greater facility for somethings than others, dharma topics included. This is both modern understanding and buddhist understanding. There are many suttas talking about "X kinds of people in the world" where some of these talk about people who understand quickly and people who understand slowly, etc.
There are also a suttas describing difficulties peculiar to certain disciples -- drowsiness, sensual delight, difficulties attaining jhāna, etc.
But any conclusion about the possibility or impossibility of enlightenment in one lifetime is pure conjecture. I believe thinking about this only serves to convince ourselves we can't, or try to convince others that they can't. These don't sound like beneficial thoughts.
"(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even at some later point?"
I'm don't think it's possible for an arahant to not have compassion developed, though this is just my opinion. I can't remember texts that clearly state either way.

(1) The motivation and meditative ability of a practitioner generally depends upon past experience acquired in previous lifetimes. If a person has experienced Enlightenment many times in previous lifetimes, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make rapid progress in the present lifetime. If a person has never meditated in a previous lifetime, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make very slow progress in the present lifetime. Indeed, enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime.
(2) As infants, we all have an innate capacity for compassion. If a person has experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse as a child, then the capacity for compassion can be very suppressed, making compassionate feelings or relationships almost impossible to achieve.
Part of developing compassion consists of becoming a friend with integrity towards everyone. This is the deeper meaning of the fourth vow (sikkhapada) taken by the novice monk (Samanera) to “refrain from lying (musavada).” It is one of the ten precepts (dasa-sila). To refrain from lying means to value truth, honesty, and the well-being of others (the opposites of lying). This vow consists of a contemplation on the impact of one’s actions upon others and making appropriate adjustments. It means putting others first on the basis of compassion and the support of others. It means carefully taking into account the views, feelings, motives, and experiences of other people. It means you actively look for ways in which you can be helpful to others.


text:
Concentration as a Trait
I have a simple question. Concentration occurs in the context of samatha meditation, but does the regular practice of samatha generate a trait-like concentration in daily life?
In other words, is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of samadhi? Or, is concentration mostly restricted to samadhi in formal meditation?
Thank you.

I'm not certain it can be said that jhāna itself extends to daily life after meditation, with all the different interpretations of jhāna going around.
At the same time, consider the following excerpt from AN 3.63:

“Here, brahmin [...], I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the third jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna [...].
“Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed”

So, the Buddha is describing a certain quality persisting after the meditation, referring to it as "celestial" (dibba). This might be the trait your are asking about.
Note also that, if after samatha meditation one were "just like before the meditation", then for every single meditation, the difficulty to practice samatha would be the same. However, it's expected that it gets easier with time and practice.
I would claim it gets easier because the mind acquires the qualities of samadhi, even though arguably these qualities may not be in their most potent state -- say, during jhāna.
This might not be surprising from a neurological point of view, since the chemistry and behavior patterns of the brain are bound to change with any kind of repeated practice.

Is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused,
  outside of samadhi?

The simple answer to this question is "yes". The more developed is samadhi, the more it can be abided it at will & the more it will be prolonged, including outside of sitting meditation.

Speaking from experience, yes meditation improves the quality of everyday awareness. I'm generally super aware already, but after meditation my lucidity and peripheral awareness further increases. For example as I enter a room, I see more details at once without specifically looking for them. Emotionally, I feel deeply relaxed and at ease. Due to this deep feeling of "everything is good", my concentration improves too, I can focus attention on one thing and let the background awareness handle others, without worrying that I can miss something else. This increased lucidity is so noticeable, that two people who meditate will recognize each other in a room full of people who don't.
I don't know how much of this is a permanently acquired trait that lasts whether I meditate or not. I have a feeling that it slowly goes away after I stop meditating. Oh well, impermanence... ;)


text:
Correct Version of Meditation
I wonder if I have been practising wrongly all this time. I notice two patterns in my meditation:
(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused," etc.
(2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet." My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy.
Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?
I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience, but since both methods mentioned are easy for me, I am curious. I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness. I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?
Thank you.

"I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness": I think that's a great discovery :)

Indeed. Well-spoken comment Thiago.

@Thiago - Yay. There's the answer in a sentence. To the OP - In the first case I'd suggest ommitting the 'I' and replacing these thoughts with  'There is breathing', 'There is a thought' etc, and not inventing an owner of these things. But the second practice would be more advanced. . .    .

(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing
  with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I
  should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused,"
  etc.

This is OK for initial developing of meditative awareness or when the mind is exceptionally busy.
This is a way to slow down the discursive mind by replacing uncontrolled thoughts with controlled thoughts, as taught as the 4th method in MN 20.

(2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare
  thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet."
  My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy. Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?

Yes; this second instance is what one should aim for in meditation. The less thoughts the better.

I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience

When possible, the Pali suttas teach to control thoughts & to judge & replace any unbeneficial discursive thoughts with beneficial thoughts, as taught in MN 19 & MN 20.

I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness.

The 2nd method leads to calm & (if the non-verbal emotional hindrances can be calmed) to the joy of concentration.

I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?

To believe nothing happens is the hindrance of doubt rather than the spiritual power of faith/trust.
A person wishing to fully practise the Buddhist path should have faith in the teachings.
Before the mind can naturally energize & develop buoyancy & joy, it must settle down, which can appear stagnant for a time.

On the path to Nibbana, the most significant aspect is meditation. “Samadhi” (concentration) is the final element found in the Noble Eightfold Path is which derives from meditation. In this path to nibbana, Dana (generosity) ranks first, and Sila (morality) ranks in the middle, and culminates in the practice of meditation.
“Mindfulness on in-and-out breathing (anapasathi bhavana) enables one to identify the nature of the frame of mind within the Noble Eightfold Path. ‘Ana’ refers to the in-breath and ‘apana’ refers to the out-breath.  Being conscious of the process of in-breath and out-breath is known as “anapana sathi”. Mind which arises based on the object of breath is devoid of greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa) as one has unlimited access to air for breathing. Similarly, hatred (dosa) does not arise as one cannot do without air. Thus, consciousness without greed, hatred and delusion arises during the anapana-sathi meditation. This is a state of wholesome consciousness (kusala citta).
When one contemplates on one’s in-out breathing and observes the mind that is devoid of greed and hatred, one gets accustomed to apply the same wholesome mindset in respect of the objects perceived from the sense faculties such as eye, nose, ear, tongue and body. When this practice becomes intense one can deal with all objects with a happy, wholesome mind. This practice would ultimately lead to mundane nibbana. One who is adept at dealing with all sense objects with a happy, wholesome mind and is imbued with mundane nibbana would ultimately come to the final realization of supra-mundane nibbana (lokuttara nibbana). Afterlife would become a happy existence for one who leads a happy course of existence (sugati) in this life.
We need meditation to lead a life with happiness. Meditation enables us to deal with all sense objects with happiness. Meditation helps us deal with all worldly sense objects without experiencing any suffering while enjoying nibbanic bliss in the presence of these objects.
Subjecting one’s mind to suffering is an unwholesome deed. Getting rid of mind of suffering is a wholesome deed. One of the mental factors known as “thought” (savitakka) in meditation refers to the process of mind getting rid of these unwholesome mental states. “Sustained thought” (savicara) is to maintain these wholesome mental states in the mind. Piti (rapture) is the pleasure derived from maintaining these wholesome mental states in the mind. Sukha (joy) is pervading of the pleasure throughout the mind and body. Ekaggata (one-pointedness) is the culmination of the development of mind based on the convergence of mental factors savitakka, savicara, piti and sukha.
Success of meditation depends on the capability of mind to maintain the wholesome state developed through meditation in the face of worldly objects such as visual forms, sounds, odours, tastes, and tactile sensations. When one is at this juncture, Nibbana is attainable in this lifetime; present life itself becomes a happy course of existence.

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

My conviction is that it depends on what you are trying to do. For the aimless development i favor verbalization & thinking in general and if i have the goal of calming i favor a more passive approach. I've had successful absorbtion being preceeded by noting, therefore i don't worry about noting being bad but i've also come to see the value of developing the calm as well in times of restlessness.
Some people like Leigh Brasington favor the passive approach for the arising of pleasure, lights and forms. There should in general be no doubt that not noting is reported to work by many  and is possibly better for the attainment directed at tranquilizing of the breath. If one directs mind to a theme countering a hindrance then one is thinking as well until calmed and withdrawing from the theme when hindrances are supressed and one can further  just be mindful without not thinking.
I personally think both methods can be used to achieve the 1st absorbtion but if one is too active and is going from one theme to another it will probably hinder absorbtion.

Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?
Yes.
Verbalisation and commentary is Pannatti. This is something one should avoid in meditation.

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


text:
How many times has someone taken birth into samsara?
According to dependent origination I took birth (i.e I came into existence) due to ignorance.
My questions are :how many times it has happened that someone has taken birth into this samsara?
Since when birth of ignorance has been happening?
If there are no answers in the scriptures to the above questions then what is your personal opinion on the issues mentioned above?

My questions are :how many times it has happened that someone has taken birth into this samsara?
Since when birth of ignorance has been happening?

Buddhism does not answer such questions, since they do not lead to Nibbana. The Buddha said himself, that he teaches only the cessation of suffering.
The questions fall under the Four Imponderables (Acinteyyas), namely the third and forth Acinteyya:

The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha];
The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana];
The [precise working out of the] results of kamma;
Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

It's not that these questions are not interesting, they certainly are, but they will not lead one to Nibbana. They will only distract and agitate the mind, leaving it unfit for practice.
If you really want to know the answer to these questions, not only intellectually but experientially, then you have to become a fully enlightened Buddha (Sammāsambuddha).

According to the Assu Sutta:

There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes
  transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings
  hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating &
  wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears
  you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time —
  crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being
  separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great
  oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.

According to this article, the total amount of tears a person sheds on average in a lifetime is estimated to be 64 litres.
According to this USGS estimation and this article, there is an estimated 1.332 billion cubic kilometers of water in the Earth's oceans. That's 1.332 x 1021 litres.
If I divide that by 64, I get 2.08125 x 1019 lifetimes.
According to the short scale, that's 20 quintillion (20 x 1018).
Hence, according to the Buddha, every person has been reborn at least 20 quintillion times.
However, since the Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident", I guess that it should be far greater than 20 quintillion times. Maybe a googleplex amount of times.

Where did Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident"? If beginning point is not evident then the world has been manifesting since eternity.

@DheerajVerma It's from the first quotation from Assu Sutta: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on"

Very importand question! Why? Because it's required to see the meaninglessness of being a recidivist to actually change ones ways. Such a question and remembering the answer is not one to put aside but to repeat till it bring fruits, till one sees the recidivist clearly! (speech can cause so much... this or that and best.) The question and answer around it teaches not only the terrible size of suffering, but also gives when clear the right amount of effort to stop this foolish recidivist-hood.
Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries/the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease/experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries/...blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off/...arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off/... — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

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

The traditional answer is that you have been reborn countless times. Ordinarily, I do not offer my personal opinion on this website. But only because you asked, based upon my meditation on the evolution of consciousness, this traditional answer is accurate because a sentient being is born with the intelligence of a tiny biological organism. Only by being reborn into a symbiotic relationship with progressively more complex organisms does a being acquire human intelligence.

Do you think that tiny biological organisms are lacking intelligence ? Don't they know how to save for the future? Don't they know how to compete for the mate ? Buddha had said that all organism are lacking a self. Realization of no self is the supreme intelligence which is part of every organism.

Clearly, I did not say tiny organisms lacked intelligence. Nor did I imply any had a self. I merely said organisms have conscious intelligence. From a scientific point of view, the notions of self and "supreme intelligence" are never considered to be true. Isn't the notion of a "supreme intelligence" a Hindu concept? Would not a "supreme intelligence" be a notion of a supreme god or a supreme self? From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, the notion of a "supreme intelligence" is a fantasy.

Where did Buddha says that "a beginning point is not evident"? If beginning point is not evident then the world has been manifesting since eternity.
I'm not sure that "not evident" is meant to imply "infinite" or "since eternity".
Even "5 minutes ago" isn't very evident, at least to me, "500 years ago" is even less evident, and "London and New York" are scarcely evident from here, etc.
It may be better to consider what's akalika -- timeless, eternal, ever-present.
If you're in a court of law and someone tells you that a fact is "not evident", I think that means that there's "no evidence": which I guess implies that it's a question that you cannot answer, perhaps therefore a wrong or useless question (unless you're adding some additional debatable context-specific assumptions, like "innocent until proven guilty" therefore "no evidence implies innocence"; or "everything that ever happened is evident" therefore "if it's not evident then it never happened").
Anyway that's how I reconcile ruben2020's answer ("from an inconstruable beginning") with Lanka's ("the cosmos is an imponderable"). I don't think it's meant as a cosmological or mathematical statement.

Logically speaking it remains a brilliant question to ask whether existence has been recurring finitely or infinitely ?  If you say finitely then it must have had a beginning. There are only two choices , one of which must be correct. Either the existence has been recurring since infinity or the existence has been recurring for last N numbers. If you say that a beginning point is not evident then it implicitly means that the existence has been recurring since infinity.

According to Lanka's answer it's a relatively useless question to ask. IMO the benefit of ruben2020's answer is (only) that although a beginning isn't evident, some cessation might be attainable in the here-and-now ... and the way it's phrased might encourage a feeling of "enough, too much, no more, let's stop." Also, logically, asking a binary question doesn't guarantee that either of the answers is true (e.g. "when did you stop stealing, was it yesterday or the day before?") or the more famous "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?".

Unfortunately I also agree with Lanka that it is a relatively useless question before a even more brilliant and practical question and that is " How to end the suffering?" I mean no disrespect to this question.. but I wanted to arrive at some conclusion before giving it up ... may be forever because I realize I should focus on cessation of suffering.

According to dependent origination I took birth (i.e I came into existence) due to ignorance.
Since when birth of ignorance has been happening?

Dependent origination is a cycle.
You cannot point out a starting point of a circle. There is always a point before a given point in a circle.
Likewise the main cause for the origination of ignorance has been mentioned in dependent origination.
Hence you cannot find the beginning of ignorance.

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."

~ Assu Sutta, Anamatagga Samyutta, Samyutta Nikaya, Tipitaka


text:
Questions on Attachment, Entertainment and Pleasure
Forgive me if I write many questions in a single post, but these all deal with the thematic of attachment. I hope to quit my addictions to pleasures, in major part social media, by gaining insight through these.

What are Buddhist ways to deal with attachment to entertainment? (And in this context, aside from deleting the social media account).
Is it better to tackle this problem as

stemming mainly from attachment to pleasure in itself
or to tackle it as a question of a specific pleasure, i.e. social media?

How does diminution of the activity work best? Namely, should one

quit immediately
or quit in increments? If by increments, how does one proceed?

Does multitasking or combining sources of pleasure -- e.g. listening to music and chatting, or chatting and watching a movie -- intensify the detrimental effect? How so?
Would engaging in a single activity at a time, without multitasking or distractions, deter one from the pleasurable activities? In other words, does mindfulness diminish attachment?
Should one try to engage in replacement activities, or should one actively diminish the addiction? In other words, should one find substitute activities to engage in first, or is abstaining from media more important?

Thank you.

What do we do depends on what we know and feel as meaningful.
If we have meaningful things to do, and some things know and feel as rather meaningless, then the correct choice comes naturally.
Due to habits we might lack awareness and we might dwell in habits. Then by regulating our priorities we can change our activities.
We can think of it as finding our wholeness, or "true self".
An illusory self is entangled in activities, conditions, attachments, submissions etc. "True self" is never there.
Think of it as not a real object, not a theoretical notion. Finding "true self" means the experiential discovery of the freedom.
There is nobody who could be attached. All things and their meanings are here, now.

What are Buddhist ways to deal with attachment to entertainment? (And in this context, aside from deleting the social media account).

Buddhism teaches pleasure or pleasant feelings is something important. The giving up of sensual pleasures (such as entertainment) generally occurs when the limitations of those sensual pleasures are clearly seen thus the quest arises for an alternative source of pleasure, such as the pleasure of Dhamma.

Is it better to tackle this problem as

stemming mainly from attachment to pleasure in itself
or to tackle it as a question of a specific pleasure, i.e. social media?

It depends on how unwholesome the pleasure is because some pleasures are more unwholesome (i.e., with more negative side effects) than others.

How does diminution of the activity work best? Namely, should one

quit immediately
or quit in increments? If by increments, how does one proceed?

Although it occurred before I found Buddhism & meditation, when I gave up gross sensual pleasures, I still relied on more wholesome sensual pleasures, such as more wholesome music & a very wholesome physical activity (body surfing). Therefore, using more wholesome sensual pleasures can help in giving up more unwholesome sensual pleasures.

Does multitasking or combining sources of pleasure -- e.g. listening to music and chatting, or chatting and watching a movie --
  intensify the detrimental effect? How so?

Multitasking does not sound meditative.

Would engaging in a single activity at a time, without multitasking or distractions, deter one from the pleasurable activities? In other
  words, does mindfulness diminish attachment?

It is important to feel pleasure, including from meditation. That is why the Buddhist practises include generosity, harmlessness & loving-kindness as things that bring spiritual pleasure. I think what is important is the quality or wholesomeness of activities.

Should one try to engage in replacement activities, or should one actively diminish the addiction? In other words, should one find
  substitute activities to engage in first, or is abstaining from media
  more important?

Meditation is a substitute activity however if transitioning to meditation is too extreme then, yes, replacement/substitute activities are beneficial & important. What is important is the wholesomeness of the activities. For example, doing a good charitable deed can bring happiness & inner contentment that lasts. Deeply knowing we do not harm ourself or others also brings a happiness that lasts. Or visiting Dhamma centres & meeting Dhamma people can bring happiness.

I think I gather -- and now agree -- that pleasure is essential, but of a wholesome kind. You have a great answer. I still wonder, then, if you would classify social media as wholesome?

Thanks Eggman. I do not really know what social media is. I had a Facebook for a short time  but this was not really entertainment for me but more became a social obligation, which I ended (having to say a bunch of "thank yous" to some old friends I hadn't talked to for 30 years).

FYI I think "social media" are media (e.g. web sites) whose content is primarily created by the public: so for example it includes Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, but also reddit, YouTube, and (less famously) any StackExchange sites and Discourse sites (including e.g. the forum on SuttaCentral), and even Wikipedia too, also DhammaWiki and so on.


text:
Wholesome Pleasures
from my last question I wonder: what provides wholesome pleasure and joy in a context of mental states and Buddhism? I wonder about:

Objective pleasure, i.e. engaging in meditation on compassion for example, or meditation in general, or engaging in "positive activities" as found in positive psychology
Subjective pleasure, i.e. engaging in an activity one enjoys which isn't harmful
Goal-oriented pleasure, i.e. fulfilling ambitions linked to one's aspirations

And, again from the perspective of mental states, is happiness always reliant on subjectivity to a degree? Here, I mean to ask whether one's mood, or personal interest, or one's personality always play a part in generating pleasure and joy (aside, perhaps, from in meditation)?

"what provides wholesome pleasure and joy in a context of mental states and Buddhism?"
In general, anything that weakens greed, aversion and delusion is a potential source of wholesome pleasure.
From the suttas....
Abandoning what is unwholesome is a source of pleasure (AN 2.19):

because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’

Similarly, the practice of sīla (the virtue group of the noble eightfold path) incurs in wholesome pleasures (AN 10.1):

“Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous behavior is non-regret.”
  “And what, Bhante, is the purpose and benefit of non-regret?”
  “The purpose and benefit of non-regret is joy.”

...which continues in a chain leading to jhāna and, further on, liberation. In the context of meditation, jhāna is specifically said to be a superior pleasure compared to sensual pleasures (SN 36.19) and, for example, seclusion and samadhi are sources of pleasure (in the first and second jhānas).
Also, the following are benefits associated with wholesome pleasure obtained when metta practice "has been pursued, developed, and cultivated, made a vehicle and basis, carried out, consolidated, and properly undertaken" (AN 8.1):

(1) “One sleeps well; (2) one awakens happily; (3) one does not have bad dreams; (4) one is pleasing to human beings; (5) one is pleasing to spirits; (6) deities protect one; (7) fire, poison, and weapons do not injure one; and (8) if one does not penetrate further, one moves on to the brahmā world.

Particularly, the abandoning of sensual pleasures (unwholesome) in favor of exclusive wholesome pleasures is taught in accordance with one's commitment. In this case, for those who enjoy sensual pleasures, the Buddha taught four kinds of happiness that may be achieved: "The happiness of ownership, the happiness of enjoyment, the happiness of freedom from debt, and the happiness of blamelessness" (AN 4.62).
Also, the Buddha said that "Longing and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind"  and taught them the proper way of gaining wealth, fame, long life, and a happy destination after the break up of the body (AN 4.61).
Thus, the preservation of the precepts, the practice of sīla, and teachings such as the ones above are the proper ways (i.e. according to the Dhamma) to engage in "an activity one enjoys which isn't harmful" and "fulfilling ambitions linked to one's aspirations".
"And, again from the perspective of mental states, is happiness always reliant on subjectivity to a degree? Here, I mean to ask whether one's mood, or personal interest, or one's personality always play a part in generating pleasure and joy (aside, perhaps, from in meditation)?"
Sure. For example, while a certain person may find herself delighting in, say, virtuous behavior, someone else may not. Some people may delight in concord while another may delight in discord (MN 41). Finally, some people find peculiar things as source of pleasure:

“What, bhikkhus, is the way of undertaking things that is pleasant now and ripens in the future as pain? Here, bhikkhus, someone in pleasure and joy kills living beings, and he experiences pleasure and joy that have killing of living beings as condition. In pleasure and joy he takes what is not given… holds wrong view, and he experiences pleasure and joy that have wrong view as condition. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. This is called the way of undertaking things that is pleasant now and ripens in the future as pain.
-- MN 46

Very good answer.

(I hope you don't mind this theoretical answer to a personal-practice question.)
Apart from meditation and the bliss (sukha) of quieting and cessation, I think that it (i.e. "what provides wholesome pleasure") may be "skillful virtue" or "wholesome action" (i.e. kusala sila) -- see for example What are the benefits of practicing Sila?
Maybe it does but I don't think that Buddhism teaches "subjectivity" in that context: instead it uses words like "virtuous", "skillful", "wise", perhaps "noble" (and, at least initially, maybe "blameless" or even "praiseworthy" too).
The "subjective pleasure" you defined sounds just about OK, however:

Harmless is virtuous and not bad, but maybe benevolent and unselfish is even better?
"An activity one enjoys" is all very well, but (for example) some of the suttas which talk to monks about food say that food should be taken not as a sensual pleasure or craving but rather with the intention of ending sensation (i.e. to end a feeling of hunger, not to replace a feeling of hunger with a feeling of fullness), and for the purpose of living the holy life.

To try to relate that to personal experience, I gather from previous questions that you're looking for activities which provide "wholesome pleasures", to replace other "addictions" which you don't feel are wholesome. Perhaps that hints at a definition of what you consider to be "wholesome activity": i.e. they're actions that you don't regret, action whose reward is "freedom from remorse".

The canonical reference case for "wholesome pleasure" is Buddha's entering jhana by remembering how he sat under blossoming trees back when he was a child (can anyone find the actual sutta?) In my understanding, before that turnaround occurrence Buddha-to-be was excessively strict to oneself and did not allow even a slightest indulging in pleasant mental states.
So in traditional Buddhism "wholesome pleasure" refers specifically to jhana, also known as "pleasant abiding in the here and now". (Specifically, the first jhana is about joy generated deliberately by reflecting on one's actual wholesome qualities and spiritual realizations. This reflection is what's technically referred to as vitakka/vicara. Vitakka is the act of deliberate recollection of a particular point, and vicara is the reflection moment, to let the effects of the recollection permeate the mind. And then the subsequent jhanas are progressively more refined states of pleasant abiding centered around subjective feelings of wellness.)
In Mahayana, wholesome pleasure can be defined more broadly as any activity that leads to harmony and well-being, such as recreation in nature, sports, or arts.
To answer your question, we need to go back to the first principles - the noble truths and more broadly the principle of "this-that conditionality" (idappaccayata). The sukha/dukkha modality of emotions is driven primarily by a measure of match or mismatch between one's expectations of how things "should be" and one's evaluation/interpretation of actuality. So both suffering and satisfaction are always subjective, always - and come from our own subjective interpretation not only of the expectations but also of the actuality.
So in theory, satisfaction could be generated by adopting a completely arbitrary set of expectations and interpretations, as long as they match. However in practice, Buddha recognized that sentient beings do not exist in isolation from their environment. The environment cannot be arbitrarily changed. Therefore, to achieve permanent Nirvana in practice, we have to find a way to match our expectations and interpretations that would be compatible with existing environment. If one's frame of reference goes against the reality and the laws of nature, one will inevitably fall out of Nirvana, since suchness cannot be contrived in the face of an obvious conflict with facts.
This is why Buddha said that his Dharma is good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end. For Dharma (here defined as a set of expectations and interpretations that frames a way of living and acting) to be holistic it must be in sync with the laws of nature, and the ethics&laws of society (assuming the latter developed from the seeds present in the first). This very important requirement is reflected in the unity between Buddha's ethical teaching and his primary, soteriological teaching. Buddha's suchness is holistic, because it sits on the foundation of physiologically/psychologically healthy and the socially "blameless".
I hope this makes sense. To summarize this in context of your question, pleasure is always subjective, and you are free to find your own creative ways to match "expectations" and "interpretation of actuality" - as long as you remain in sync with the reality of nature (i.e. you do not destroy your physical body) and with the laws/ethics of society (don't create causes for future suffering).
One last caveat. Buddha states very clearly in the 2nd Noble Truth that  attachment to any permanent state remains the primary factor of suffering, and this includes addiction to the pleasure of jhanas. So just remember that whatever contrived pleasure-generating mindsets you employ, they can at best only be used as a form of recreation, they are not the permanent liberation. That said, the ability to be independent of circumstances in generation of one's own pleasure, satisfaction, and peace, is an important step towards true homelessness/baselessness of suchness, the permanent unconditional Nirvana.

In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, the compulsive pursuit of pleasure is a hindrance (nivarana) to access collectedness (upacara samadhi) necessary for acquiring insight (panna, vipassana). Experiencing pleasure, strictly speaking, is not a hindrance. Instead, strictly speaking, a hindrance occurs only when it displaces or delays the experience of upacara samadhi. If the cemetery contemplations or the meditation on the repulsive parts of the body does not temporarily suspend your automatic pursuit of sensuous pleasure, then many months or even years of mindfulness meditation and monastic seclusion may be required to help you settle for more subtle sources of comfort and peace. There is no blame to be assigned because of a strong need for sensuous pleasure, because it is caused by a previous experience of great and tragic suffering. As you suggest, there are many meditation practices that are pleasant or even blissful. The answer to your question is “yes.” But, be certain that indifference to or “detachment” from pleasure of all kinds is not a path to Enlightenment.


text:
What is the difference between mano and citta?
What is the difference between the Pali-words mano and citta

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think this was answered already.


text:
Does everything happen for a reason?
If something unexpected (and incredibly unlikely) happens, should we take it as something deeper or just a fact of life?
Something highly unlikely and very positive happened at a very bad and negative point in my life, this event arguably showed a very different future to the one I imagined.
Don't know how to read into it, or how my actions should be after the event, should I embrace the change?

Does everything happen for a reason? No. But yes. Everything which happens, has already happened and we are living out the shadow of the reality in which we manifested. So if you take 'reason' to be a causal relationship between you and the universe, then no. But if you take reason to be the defining purpose for all living creatures in existence, then yes. Should you embraced the change? you either already have, or haven't. You can probably feel which one you chose, it just a matter of accepting the one you already chose, not 'choosing'.

"When you hit bottom, there's nowhere to go but up."

My teacher taught me that I must choose how I interpret such events in whichever way that produces the most wholesome mindstates.
So if thinking that this event was a sign from the hidden nature of things and held special significance makes you stronger, go for it with no hesitation. This is called, utilizing the power of faith.
In Varjrayana we learn to see hidden connections between things, hidden patterns and relationships. So having a sense of intuition for special events in one's life is important in our practice. In the absence of egoistic desires, and the baselessness of Emptiness, how else can we pick the course of action? So we choose to interpret things in a certain way, and act based on that. It's more an art than a science but there is a system to it.

Nothing happens for a reason. Reason is something given by us.
Everything except Nibbana happens & happens due to causes. Nibbana doesn't happen, it is existent. Thus not caused.

Everything happens for the reason it is done. All is caused by something. Nothing can be by 'accident', but then it really depends upon how you define the word, and your own freedoms.

@ParanoidPanda Everything does not happen for the reason it's done. Ex: People smoke to entertain themselves. They do not smoke to get lung cancer. But it happens.

Actually, they smoke to teach themselves. What you define as the actual 'people' though is a different matter.

@ParanoidPanda this is a reason made up by you. :)

Whatever is right for you. :)

If something unexpected (and incredibly unlikely) happens, should we take it as something deeper or just a fact of life?
Something highly unlikely and very positive happened at a very bad and negative point in my life, this event arguably showed a very different future to the one I imagined.

The Buddha taught that there are 5 natural laws (Niyamas), that causes physical and mental events to take place;

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

Don't know how to read into it, or how my actions should be after the event, should I embrace the change?

You could treat it as you would do in Vipassana meditation, i.e. to treat all physical and mental objects the same way.
You can also use it to further deepen your practice. If you have increased time and energy, you could practice Dana and do e.g. volunteer work. Its really up to you.
The Buddha taught that one should do good, practice the Dhamma and lead a pure life.

In the Sivaka Sutta (SN36.21), the Buddha explains that not all experiences are caused by kamma. Sometimes, it's just the weather or something else that's not extraordinarily significant. Not everything happens for a reason.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama,
  there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine,
  this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done
  before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"
[The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on
  bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on
  bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view
  that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

People normaly act "for a reason" but to put it right, phenomenas arise "out of reason", have causes. So by focus just on giving right causes, phenomenas appear likewise, are experianced according the causes given. The highest cause to go beyound being subject to causes, is the fullfilment of the Eightfold path. There is just one unconditioned Dhamma, yet not to be found without giving the right causes.
All beyond that, beyond the all, is just philosophy.

'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

One saying: "Not everything happens for (better 'out of') a reason." would not speak in accordiance with the Dhamma, does not flow in the stream of Dhamma. Since: By touch dhammas are experianced. Every explaining else is not really possible and subject to errors. Suttas have to be readed carefully, with proper attention, seeking release not something to grasp. Otherwise the Dhamma is like a snake grasp on its tail.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

In general, of course, unlikely events are accidental. And physical events, such as an earthquake, are always accidental. But, if an event, such as meeting someone seemingly by accident, is caused by somebody making decisions, it is remotely possible that karma may be involved. Old friends for previous lifetimes sometimes seek one another out by unconsciously making the right decisions that lead to an “accidental” meeting. Such events are rare. And, when they do occur, there is usually supporting evidence, such as finding one another very familiar in the case of a meeting of old friends. I would suggest that you look for substantial evidence before “embracing” such an event, especially if it requires significant cost or sacrifice.

Yes. Everything happens because of a reason, a cause. Otherwise there can be no enlightenment.