text:
Attachment and Aversion Continuum
When we consider attachment as something we want to stay present with, and aversion as something we try to push away, can we say there is a continuum present?
More specifically, does reducing attachment simultaneously reduce aversion, and vice versa? I have diminished a lot of attachments lately, and I still dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks and engage in effort.
Are they completely unrelated?
EDIT: Also, what is the best way to tackle aversion?
Thank you.

From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, which views mindfulness meditation that generates insight to be the only way to Enlightenment, detachment has a very specific purpose. It is viewed as a preparation or enhancement of upacara samadhi, which is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering and achieve Enlightenment). From this point of view, the only kind of attachment that needs to be temporarily suppressed is one that prevents the meditator from gaining upacara samadhi. This kind of attachment cannot be equated with pleasure. For example, some people experience the physical world and the physical presence of their body in that world as the only reality. This experience can be pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, depending upon the circumstances. Such a person is “attached” to this physicality because he or she experiences it as the only reality. When such a person practices mindfulness meditation, the only insights that make sense to him or her are those that make sense in the context of this experience. The kind of insights needed for Enlightenment are beyond this frame of reference. Such a person may be advised to practice the contemplation of the stages of decomposition in order to detach from this frame of reference. Perhaps surprising to the person who has no understanding of the psychology of this contemplation is the fact that often results in a blissful state of mind. If not practiced correctly, it can result in a morbid state of mind. In contrast to this sophisticated understanding of detachment, there is the common, ignorant, and false view that all forms of pleasure are forms of attachment and that progress towards Enlightenment consists of suppressing (becoming detached from) all forms of pleasure. Unfortunately, the suppression of pleasure does not generate the psychological insight needed to make real progress. The same can be said for the suppression of aversion. There is no continuum between attachment and aversion because they are not opposites. If by “diminishing attachments” you mean the avoidance, suppression, or reduction of pleasure, then you are not practicing any traditional form of Theravadin practice. And, if you “dreadfully struggle to engage in effort” to meditate, then you may be undermining your capacity of upacara samadhi. But, in all fairness, I would need to know a lot more about your situation to offer you any advice.

When ignorance is present, from attachment as a condition, only two results can arise:

Suffering or
happiness that ends in suffering.

There are many ways in which we suffer.
One of them is being aversive when we don't want to be aversive.
You stated in your question that you "dreadfully struggle to tackle aversive tasks". From this, I assume, you're being aversive when you don't want to be aversive. Thus, this aversion that you have is creating a kind of suffering for you. Or lets just say that this aversion is not pleasant for you ... you want to get rid of it.
The aversion you're experiencing is because of your attachments.
To get rid of aversion, you must destroy attachments.
How?
Totally calm your mind. Empty your mind.
From total emptiness, make an effort to arise any thought you wish.
Observe how the thought arises.
Once the thought arises, observe it. Look at it. Note it.
Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the thought ceases.
Do the above many many times. Don't do it just with thoughts. Try it with anything you can feel with the mind sense.
Do it with sounds. Listen to a sound in your mind. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the sound ceases.
Do it with any mental formation, like a visual or sensation of smell or sensation of taste or an idea or a concept ... anything that you create in your mind. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the mental formation ceases.
Do it when you're hungry and you crave to eat something delicious. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the craving for food ceases.
Do it with your emotions, like fear or anger or sadness or nervousness. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the emotions cease.
Do it when you're bored to death. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how the boredom ceases.
Then, do it with aversion. Then, in the same way you made your mind totally calm and empty, repeat it and observe how aversion ceases.
If you can do the above successfully, as described, you'll see why aversion arises and why it ceases. You'll see it. You'll see it. Seeing it, you'll know. You'll know.
Knowing why it ceases, you'll make it cease whenever you wish. And no, you won't need to go in meditation in order to make it cease. You'll just do it. Like moving a finger.

I am offering this response from personal experience.
I feel craving and aversion to both belong under the term 'attachment'. If we are trying to hold onto anything or push anything away, we could say we have become attached to it. We are not allowing the continual rise and fall/coming and going of all experience to be as it is.
When working with aversion, I have found it helpful to use mindfulness of my body. When I notice aversion, I can usually feel a 'closing off' or a contraction in my body. I now know when I feel this, aversion is present.
The most helpful practise here has been to simply observe these sensations without reaction/judgement. When I do this, I allow aversion to be there, and I allow it then to go. Just as all experience does. It has taken time, but having a visceral understanding of this process has allowed wonderful insight!
Note: At the present I believe all attachment to arise from judgement of sensation. With awareness, all experience can be felt, therefore when we judge/label what we feel as good or bad, we plant the seeds for craving/aversion to arise. By being with/feeling all experience without judging, we allow whatever is there to simply be. No attachment, just peace.
I hope this is helpful!


text:
Mindfulness is leading to anxiety and depersonalisation
So I was doing breath meditation each day for 30 mins or so for around 2 years. Then over the past year I have found that it is causing me to feel strange and anxious when doing everyday tasks. When I meditate I don't feel the symptoms but during the day when I have to start thinking the symptoms come.
When its at its worst loud sounds can make me feel very odd (e.g. someone shouting or laughing suddenly and loudly). However, if I have to speak and have a conversation then the symptoms tend to go.
It's very frustrating because meditation has been such a great interest for me and has helped me so much in lots of other areas that I am reluctant to give it up completely. I am a pragmatist though and if the right move is to give it up completely then I will do that.
Has anyone else had any experience of this or got any advice. Obviously its a tricky thing to advise on as you don't know the entirety of the situation but any help would be really appreciated.
Cheers

Calm is our natural state. Please seek out an experienced teacher.

This adds to my suspicion about mindfulness meditation as a stand-alone practice. .

You said anxiety symptoms cease when you meditate.
A great opportunity for learning the cause of your anxiety has come to you. Once you see the cause, you'll become forever free of any form of anxiety.
Now it's time to put the hard work of meditation you've done in the past 2 years into practical use.
Try this:
Make the anxiety arise. How? You already know how. Go into the environment where you start feeling anxious.
Once anxiety arises, go quickly in meditation and observe how the symptoms cease.
Then, come quickly out of meditation and observe how the symptoms arise.
Then, go again in meditation, but this time slowly, and observe how the symptoms cease.
Then, come out of meditation, but this time slowly, and observe how the symptoms arise.
Then, do the above very very slowly and observe very very attentively. Then do it again, but veryyyyy veryyyyy slowly and observe veryyyyy veryyyyy attentively.
Do the above exercise many many times. Observe precisely, like a scientist observes things under the microscope. You'll see the cause of your anxiety. Once you know the cause, you'll gain total freedom from anxiety.

Thanks very much for this. I am trying to follow this approach. Aiming to observe the anxiety itself to understand it better. It is tricky as its the act of meditating that is making me anxious so the more I simply observe the more anxious I become. However, I am trying to keep sitting with it.

Simple answer: It's a phase, it will pass.
Detailed answer: Mindfulness meditation doesn't result in a strictly upward curve in terms of clarity or perceived well being. This is one of the reasons for getting guidance from someone experienced, so that they can give you proper feedback on whether you are making progress or not.
If you don't have a teacher/can't find one, I can give you some tools for self diagnosis, let me know in the comments. But be warned, self diagnosis has its own issues and assuming oneself to be in different stage can cause unnecessary and needless suffering that one can do without by just sticking to regular practice.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/5037f52d84ae1e87f694cfda/t/5055922624acbaa64592c1c3/1347785254496/
refer to rows 2 (possible current stage) and 3.1 (possible reason for worsening symptoms)

Yeah would appreciate tools for self diagnosis. Will use it with the necessary caveats. I'm not sure it is a phase because its been ongoing for around a year now. Also if I meditate through the symptoms they just get worse. Thanks for your help :)

So the situation is this: When you venture into the world you experience anxiety and a sense of depersonalization. When you return to your sitting practice everything becomes calm.
What is the problem?
The world is an anxiety-producing thing and the escape from it is to recognize that there is no personal-self there.
Sitting and examining and letting go brings forth the perception of things as they are. Recognizing things as they are (they change, they bring pain, they are not you or yours) one should become anxious ... to escape by recognizing the impersonal nature of a world that is nothing but a vehicle for inflicting pain.
Your mind has recognized both the problem and its solution. Your Persona fights tooth-and-nail to preserve the status quo by making you think the problem is solvable by going deeper into the world. It isn't. Your meditation is clearly telling you which way to go.
Read the suttas!

Mindfulness is just awareness of whatever is there now.
Why would be truly aware of things (non-depressedly or attachedly) ever lead to anything but greater clarity and energy?
Try breaking down the sensations that you are feeling in and out of meditation.
You are holding onto some concept either in Practice or normal life.
More calm but consistent awareness is best following the Five Faculties. An in-depth study of this subject will be of great benefit to Practice and may help you find out what you are doing wrong with your attention.

When I am meditating and am aware then I am fine. It's when thoughts come back that the issue arises. I sub-consciously don't like the sense of calm and the experience of no-thought. I am having a reaction to it.

Some people have an anxious attachment to activity, and others have an attachment to nothing and peace. Neither are ultimately good because (1) what use is activity? everything is empty anyway, sands on the ocean of time and on the other hand (2) nothing does not have an ostensible immediate benefit as activity does. Anyway, whatever reaction you are having it is transforming you in an ultimately good way. I'd suggest to spend an equal amount of time studying meditation as practicing and that will be informative to achieving specific points in meditation.

In order to understand why you "feel strange and anxious" you need to understand a bit about the psychology of mindfulness meditation and about the psychology of sankhara (schemata according to Emmanuel Kant) in particular. As an unconscious cognitive process, sankhara is a fundamental adaptive and very intelligent process whereby we make sense of our experience (and form beliefs, feelings, wishes, attitudes, and the like). This process results in the formation of a set of relevant dispositions (beliefs, desires, fears, motives, perceptions, and other adaptive strategies). In the Pali language, this set of dispositions is also called a sankhara. Hence, the term sankhara has two but closely related meanings. There are several types of sankhara. The type that is relevant to your situation is the kind of sankhara that infants and young children form when they are forced to adapt to other people or circumstances they do not understand. In extreme cases, this is the means by which children adapt to physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse. This kind of sankhara always has a history of adaptations to the recurrences of the same problem. I my view, you are re-experiencing a childhood adaptation to a very difficult situation. An advanced form of mindfulness meditation was suggested by the Buddha in the Satipattana Sutta called meditating on "the body in the body." This process was re-discovered by Eugene Gendlin, a clinical psychologist. He called it the process of "focusing" in his book called Focusing. I recommend you read it. In my own book on the subject, I would suggest that you are experiencing the effect of a safeguard process that has the function of detecting, revising, or correcting poorly informed or maladaptive sankhara. In your case, you are probably in the process of recalling a very distressing childhood situation, such as a very angry, indifferent, violent, unloving, or unaware parent or caregiver. The safeguard process causes you to gradually recall a distressing situation bit by bit. This allows you to become unafraid of the original experience. Eventually, whether you try "focusing" on it or continue to meditate, you will fully recall a very troublesome or traumatic experience to which you needed to adapt without understanding it. At the time, you were forced to make a decision (a mental action or karma in Buddhist terminology) as to how adapt. The process of this imposed (by the safeguard process) recollection is to give you a chance to recall and then revise this decision and thereby free you from a painful or distressing emotion (a form of suffering in Buddhist terminology). It is important that you recognize this safeguard process is trying to help you. Safeguard processes are your best friends once you understand them. They are innate forms of intelligence (sankhara) that come from your core intelligence (Bodhicitta). But that is another story.

I actually have the same experiences and symptoms as you do:
* Passion on Meditation
* When you talk to somebody you feel relief
* Dream like state
* You frightened when you hear a big noise etc etc
May be you could help me. May be You have discovered something good to overcome it in these years. Please contact me.
Warm Regards
Rajesh

Mindfulness meditation will not cause any anxiety or stress as the very nature and purpose of it is to help people to come out of anxiety. This is provided:

you practice the right technique
you practice the technique properly

In meditation, one has to maintain equality and terms of experience and progress. There many who get frustrated in doing meditation when one is expecting a certain result, experience and progress. From what you say this might be the case of what you are experiencing. See if this is the case and the instruction one is to practice and then continue.

Do you have any expectation as to what meditation should be, or expected results of meditation? Do you think of meditation as a "task" or a "chore" to do in order to accomplish X, Y, or Z objective?
Anxiety is rooted in expectation, as it is ultimately a result of the mind feeling unfulfilled, and to be unfulfilled implies that we're holding onto some sort of expectation as to the way things "ought to be". It's like trying to take a drink of water by clenching your hands at it, instead of cupping your hands and allowing the water to gently flow in and be collected.
To rigidly create a distinction between meditation and "not-meditation" can further exaggerate anxious symptoms as these separating, polarizing definitions form an expectation around what meditation is and is not.
It is helpful to draw less of this distinction, and understand that beneath the loudness of the outer world, that meditative presence is eternally present, the calm stillness that is our true nature.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhism and Procrastination
I have two simple questions.
1) What is the Buddhist view on procrastination, and its solution ?
2) What is the solution to a specific lack of motivation, e.g. school work ? Something not related to an overarching goal, or even linked with spiritual values. In other words, how does one prime oneself to do something ?

You get a lot of support and nobody has an inherent duty to give that suppot. All is given by others. It's a matter gratidute at least to care about you duties timely.
To say "oh it's not of great value" is fine, but than one should also stop to receive for that paticula task. And it's for sure not so, that at times one does not work on "low" duties, one is actually practicing for the higher.
If not able to manage simply tasks which are given with generous exchange of all requisites for life-maintaines, even including certain sensual pleasure, if that lazy, if lacking that much on persistance, how would you like to be able to master the Dhamma?
Those high and noble aims require people with effort who master the hindrances. If not able to master them even on this level, being busy with doubt, sensuality, lazyness, ill will... all this "spiritual-monster-ego"-things, how to master anything?
It would be certainly good to get known the sacrifies need to be done, which are done, by one self and others, to get the value of that understood.
There is for sure no problem in living a live of a "beggar" but are you sure that you might receive enough to maintain a life for higher purpose? Would a live of required arosen persistance, effort and no wordily rewards at all be possible to be lived by one constantly giving improper attention to feelings, thought... what ever leads to be astray?
It's good to be very honest to one self and do not misuse high truth for low aims and leave a lane build on defilements cheating.
As for the case that one really takes on the "burdens" of a special beggar, is really willing, than there are always aims.
Don't become one in big debts, don't be or become a so called "(derogative) welfare parasite". It brings joy if free of debts. It is a "hopeless" way if just accumulating debts. So work where you are and what's you duty for now and even a little more.
Having, having enjoyed rightly gained wealth it not only a joy to share it but also to let go of it later, out of wisdom, without any remorse and not based on possible excusses.
See: "AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless" for more on that.
"(only skillful) labor makes free", and only if done Voluntary.
So good to stop certain "ego-trip" and start to work at the actually state and place where one is, because:

"These two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools. (AN 2.98)

On procrastination and delay:
What ever is not done at proper time, what ever has not been made suddenly, one will later be very sad having not done this merits. What is gone, chances, are gone... just think of how less beings have that much "luck" you have and now, what do you do with that?
See also (especially the later part of the topic: Delayed deeds
"In the youth not managed whealth, in the age not renounced, such is indeed a wasted life", which does not mean that it's not even the best to renounce the fist part in the youth, if honestly. Today many accumulate debts by pseudo-renouncing and feeding on given in the youth and when older they have become really burdened slaves.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]
(Possible extended and modified answer, als well as place for discussion and questions here: [Q&A] Delayed speech as right speech (delay of skillful deeds))

The reason for procrastination can be you really don't know for sure what YOU want to do.
You should have a clear vision of your future. You should know exactly what you want to do in your life. You should know what type of life you want to live. You should know your goals in every detail. You should know how you'll achieve what you want. You should have a clear plan how you'll do it. You should know the necessary steps to achieve what you want. When you know all this, lack of motivation and procrastination vanish.
Because you don't know what you want to do, you lack motivation to do things you do.
If you want to do things without procrastination, you must know one hundred percent what YOU want to do.
If, on the other hand, you know one hundred percent what YOU want to do, but you still don't do it, then the reason for not doing it can either stem from:

suffering or from
wisdom.

If it's from suffering, think about fears, doubts, lack of self esteem, lack of self worth, depression, craving for sensual pleasures, and similar. If this is the case, you should learn to minimize your suffering. You should read and listen to great people who have overcome their suffering and realized all their goals. You should learn the teachings for achieving your goals. Read books about how to motivate yourself and achieve your goals. Find role models that you respect and listen to. Read read read study study study and learn how to achieve what YOU want.
Once you'll achieve whatever you want or during your learning period while striving to achieve what you want and if you'll not become lazy or indued so much in sensual pleasures to stop thinking about suffering and its cause, sooner or later you'll learn so much about life, that meditation will come naturally, which is a clear path towards final liberation.

When it comes to motivation or the lack thereof, Theravadin Buddhist psychology is based upon the concept of sankhara, which equivalent to the philosophical concept of schema. That is to say, motivation is determined by past experience in a way that makes sense. Hence the solution to a specific lack of motivation is to find a new motive that makes sense to you.

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


text:
Should I hate them who else hates me?
I wasn't sure if someone hating me but I could smell it, recently I heard that person hates me, unreasonably hating me don't like me. Hesitant to see me around, but don't know why.
Even I didn't any wrong and no mistake.
It because just that person build new house so don't want anyone there in new house like me or even my granny.

Person had small house and had big loving heart now person had big house and hesitated hateful heart that became narrow in biggest house
Two persons aren't different just because skin or race there's same flesh under skin, blood color same, vessels are same, bones are same, even marrow in bones are same so there's no different in two persons

I had gave upon visiting big house but last time I was there I got that hates me. So now I will never be there.
For sure.
Still I remember was calling me to ask my health progress when I was sick and weak before I wake up.
Sorry I put so much personal.
So just let me know If I need reflect to person like a mirror or boomerang?

Ajahn Fuang, Nyom Swapnil, once said:

"If people hate you, that's when you're let off the hook. You can come and go as you like without having to worry about whether or not they'll miss you or get upset at your going. And you don't have to bring any presents for them when you come back. You're free to do as you like."

This brings one to think about why one whould be touched if another bears unskillful thoughts against one. Why does one like others to love them? To get something? Expecting something?
To give goodwill is very skillful, to expect goodwill from others, demant it, is that skillful?
Isn't fear that drives? Someone not bound to me, not depending on me, not mine, not able to contoll, not listening to me, might not do what I want. That's why one likes others that they love him.
But as we know, as we have possible tryst in, if we keep precepts, maintain a heart of goodwill torward others, not only fear has no ground and reason in us but we are also best protected.
It's importand to understand goodwill (metta) well. It's not a thought that binds, but a thought that gives way, gives release and respect ways of others. "Like to hate? Hate, if you feel fine.", "Like to love. Love, if you feel fine." Having no possibility to (if feel the need, and have the will, to help) to explain the way to release: "May you find the way to happiness for you self with ease." Demand from others that they like one? Think just on the fact that you will have to leave on day, for sure, wouldn't those who possible even love you, like you very much, not terrible sad and touched, when they lose you? So why want them to love you when you knkw that you will not be there for ever for them?
The Sublime Attitudes is a beautiful chant and "Mettā means Goodwill" a good teaching on metta.
Don't make youself busy making other love you, that is actually very selfish. Act good, correct and with proper respect. When not taking side, beings see that, and naturally give certain respect in return. At least, not only that just oneself is to some extent able to chance his/her mind, you will at least not know if another really hates you. Think on a child that believes that daddy hates him, because he uses harsh words for his welfar. In your case here, it was even told by other. So what is the value to be greedy after honor an love? Be a rich person and give, especially the poor, those who are greedy after be loved, but take care that they do not really love you to much ;-) that's actually really a burden, since you are, that what they love, sighn, sound, smell, taste, touch, thoughts, getting from you, is not for sure, not secure that it can be lasting be provided.

(UPEKKHĀ — EQUANIMITY)
Sabbe sattā kammassakā kamma-dāyādā kamma-yonī kamma-bandhū kamma-paṭisaraṇā.
All living beings are the owners of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions.
Yaṃ kammaṃ karissanti kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā tassa dāyādā bhavissanti.
Whatever they (or you) do, for good or for evil, to that will they (or you) fall heir.

Is good to think and say, especially in cases which are not under your controll at all. Your own thoughts are. So give and live best in a way of: "not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange"
Of course beings can accumulate much of demerits, debt an future remorse if even hating or dislike people who actually really care of them, being father and mother for them, but thats their kamma and the outcome at least: who knows... "Do you like to suffer? Suffer, if it makes you fine."
Just to let you know: "My person really does not love you." :-)
Mudita!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Doesn't mean expectation or greedy relations it just metta. And I didn't because heard by other that person hates me cause I realized. I;m not selfish for sympathy or love. I like companying good people not greedy and selfish narrow minded like this one. Eventually I'm afraid why being like this with that person and feel pity. So thanks for your invaluable time.

Mudita, Nyom @Swapnil. It's not a kind of gross greed if liking to be honored and beloved. actually it is kind of support to be kind to others. Nevertheless it's good to think about this subtile fear to stand possible soon above wordly dhamma between gain and lose.

Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world, only through non-hostility. This is an eternal law.

But how? I mean when someone blinded how they can realize their mistakes. And here Samana Johnan explained in his answer of my question - Does love mean crime? that it doesn't cease or conquer.

Should I hate them who else hates me?

If you want to retain and multiply hatred, then yes keep cultivating hatred.
If you want to diminish and eventually purify hatred, then no. Fighting fire with fire is not beneficial. It will not put out the fire. Use water instead, i.e. replace hatred with its opposite; loving-kindness.

So just let me know If I need reflect to person like a mirror or boomerang?

Cultivate compassion towards a being filled with hatred. Such a being is in great suffering, even more so if they are not aware of the damaging effects of hatred. Show them loving-kindness. If one is radiating loving-kindness, harmlessness and non-hostility, it will eventually affect people in the vicinity.

But how? I mean when someone blinded how they can realize their mistakes. And here Samana Johnan explained in his answer of my question - Does love mean crime? that it doesn't cease or conquer.
I think that Andrei was answering the question, "Should I hate them?": and that the answer was, "No, you shouldn't."
Samana Johann was trying to answer a question about "love". "Love" is a complicated word, which can include good-will, attachment, lust, all sorts of different meanings good and bad.
Instead of "love" the verse Andrei quoted is more precise than that, it uses the word avera which means "absence of emnity/revenge/hatred/hostility"
(and this sutta fragment too uses the word, averena).

The verses just before the verse that Andrei quoted are like,

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

I fear that your concentrating on asking, "How can they realize their mistakes?" is similar to insisting that they made a blind mistake which hurt you. You might find it easier if you:

Stop trying to insist they made a mistake
Stop trying to insist that they hurt you
Stop trying to insist that you can change them or change that
Stop viewing your relationship as a relationship defined by hurt

So just let me know If I need reflect to person like a mirror or boomerang?
I don't think so, no, because that sounds to me like you're suggesting making everything all about you: you might only see your own reflection, and not see them at all.
If you were following the brahmaviharas, for example, then "equanimity" would have you see them, as "heir to their own kamma".
Or (on the subject of relection like a mirror), sutta #17 from Non-violence -- A Study Guide shows how the Buddha reacts to hatred or insults -- i.e. he doesn't accept the insults offered to him.

Yes I know there's no respect or insult that one could feel and it's never when we do not accept. I didn't mean insult. I mean other person isn't animal or slave one must treat others like human being, that's it.

No.
Hatred, even if well-reasoned and rationalized generates negative kamma and negative energy nearly the same as someone injuring their own body.

“… Hate is that one thing, bhikkhus. Abandon that and I guarantee you
  non-returning.”
Beings corrupted by hate Go to rebirth in a bad bourn. But having
  rightly understood hate, Those with insight abandon it. By abandoning
  it they never come Back to this world again. (Iti 2)

“Bhikkhus, one who has not directly known and fully understood hate,
  who has not detached his mind from it and abandoned it, is incapable
  of destroying suffering. But one who has directly known and fully
  understood hate, and who has detached his mind from it and abandoned
  it, is capable of destroying suffering.”
Humankind is possessed by hate, Bound by hate and delighted with
  being; Not fully understanding hate, They come again to renewal of
  being.
But those who have abandoned hate, And who by destroying hate are
  freed, Have conquered the bondage of hate And overcome all suffering.
  (Iti 10)

Hate is a cause of misfortune, Hate agitates the mind; People do not
  understand this As a danger produced within.
A hater does not know the good, A hater does not see the Dhamma;
  Blinding darkness then prevails When hate overwhelms a person.
But one who has abandoned hate Is not angered by what incites to
  anger. Hate drops away from him As a palmyra fruit from its stalk.
  (Iti 88)

"Any kamma fashioned through hatred, born of hatred, caused by hatred,
  originated by hatred, ripens wherever the individual is reborn.
  Wherever that kamma ripens, it is there that one experiences its
  result, either in this very life, or in the next rebirth, or on some
  subsequent occasion."
...
  Whatever kamma an ignorant person has done
  born of greed, hatred, and delusion, whether what was fashioned by him
  be little or much, it is to be experienced right here: there exists no
  other site for it.
Therefore a wise person should abandon any deed born of greed, hatred,
  and delusion. A bhikkhu, giving rise to knowledge, should abandon all
  bad destinations." (AN 3.34)

It's very dangerous to encourage or rationalize hatred.
Now I understand that many (if not the majority of people) will be incapable of stopping hatred even if they really want to because of unconscious impulses in them causing aggression.
In that case I recommend practicing certain mind-exercises to stop hatred.
But I also know that many will not be good at mind-exercises, in that case I recommend massage therapy. Lots of independent unrelated research has shown that massage therapy reduces aggression...it may be one of the most effective methods to reduce aggression and anyone can do it.

I'm guessing the issue is with one of your siblings or a close relative. If you want to fix the relationship, there are couple of things you can try.

Ask yourself first if you are doing anything that irritates the person. If yes and if the fault is yours, stop doing it.
Ask the person directly why he/she is treating you differently, discuss the issues and resolve them.

If the above 2 methods fail, respect their wishes and stay away or do not try to get involved with them unless it is necessary.
One thing you have to stop doing is expecting other people to behave according to your liking. Try to maintain your moral standards without worrying about how others behave. Be good without expecting others to be good to you in the same way.

Thanks a lot Sankha person is my aunt. And as far as I examine myself there's nothing wrong I did. She because of my face what I look like.

Ask her directly and try to get it sorted. If that doesn't work, stay away and just let her live her own life

I don't think this will ever sorted. Also she gave up talk with me. So I really need to stay away. Thank you so much.

You're welcome!

I don't know, when you take a step back it all comes back to your own suffering, sometimes when someone is mad at me I seem to suffer, I think the reason of my suffering is that someone is mad at me, so I try to change that situation , it results in more suffering and frustration..
But what i learned over time is that deep down , without knowing it, if I were to be happy in the middle of that person being angry, sad or hateful, there is nothing i would change about this moment, maybe compassion would arise for this person suffering.
I know this is hard to accept because we just feel bad and cant ignore our own suffering but deep down being happy is just enough, you really dont care deep down about if that person hates you, its just your thoughts making you feel not enough, believing your judgments about the whole situation , its very complex.
dont take your self too hard, its common human suffering, but realize, there is nothing to change about the situation, maybe you will learn something about it, maybe not but it is how it is, wanting to change it is a thought, that usually rises from your own suffering..
realize there where people in history anad there still are that dedicate to politics maybe or something else, thousands of people hate them , should they hate everyone of them? no, maybe they dont even know someone else hates them, the other person hating you doesnt mean anything to you unless, you believe they hate you, they hate YOU, that YOU, is theone believed to be hated so it creates anxiety, sadness for you.
its just thouhts your actually allright.
I dont know your life and your history so how could i judge that? its all knowledge of the thoughts, reality gets very confused with the mind many times, a baby seeing a trive man moving its hands up and down with a spear, may seem ineresting, but actually the man with the spear may be very mad at the baby for some reason.
its a matter of perspective.
Also remember some suffering moments actually change you for the better you never know, it might even teach you something to make you stop suffering.
it comes down to what one person think its bad, some people may think something is wrong or shouldnt be the way it is , some might just accept it as it is.
you can also imagine some other things, you say the house is big, maybe to donald trump its a normal house, its not a rich house, its a house he wouldnt want to be in because its modest for him , just to put things in perspective, who knows maybe its better for you if you dont go to that house anymore, maybe youll have other experiencies you like better ,you dont know


text:
Why is there so little emphasis on "mundane" mindfulness?
Mindfulness has been getting some bad press of late, seemingly fallout from a wave of people selling mindfulness products that make all kinds of claims.  Note that this is not the only article on this subject I've come across.
It bothers me that in these valid critiques (the clinical analysis on mindfulness is still in progress, so the conclusions promoted by profit-motivated hucksters is warranted,) I never see mention the mundane benefits of the basic practice of mindfulness.
Meditation and concentration on breathing are all well and good--I utilize them myself, and find them particularly helpful in times of stress or extremity--but my most common practices of mindfulness are not related to the present experience of suffering, but avoidance of suffering thought mindful interaction with in the mundane sphere:

I haven't lost my wallet or car keys in decades because I am always mindful not to put them on a table when I'm out, and always put them in the same place when I come home
I always check for traffic before crossing the street, particularly bike lanes, a mindfulness habit I've been cultivating since I was a small child, but especially since a close call with a hurtling bus
I am aware of where my body is in space and it's relationship to other bodies, on the sidewalk, in venues, etc., which allows me to navigate efficiently and reduces the probability of being attacked

What gives?  Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?

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

DukeZhou, and those interested,
That (outwardly mindfullness) is actually the fist step and most needed not only for one self but also for society: virtue (sila), which is aside of the most importand five precepts very broad, incl. such as paying respect, render help, doning ones duties, take care of what is in ones own sphere.
A person not having mastered outwardly "mindfulness", thinks like even how to wear cloth, how to eat... how will such a person ever come to mind? Able to trace bad habits back to defilements. Not possible. How ever, outwardly does not mean to "contoll" others but oneself.
So remember watching after oneself/others not wrongly.
As far a able to see, less, especially in the sphere of "Buddhists" are really training even the basics of the path but think they can be even Buddhas having a behaviour like kids from the street, feeling obligated like kings, taking care like if handicaped, being generous like dogs... if looking to their teaches, things become clear... "Wie der Herr, so's G'scheer", is it said." Not restrained in their sense faculties and behaviour at all but teaching mindfulness: the fool pay it.
Let them train their "householder-equanimity" since when all the fruits of their behaviour ripes, it will require much of equanimity (which is actually the reason why doing the "high" first, not capable to master even the low)
On denying Defilement, is maybe good on topic.
Since they would often just say things like:

The Buddha's Teaching is about ending suffering completely, ie. to reach Nibbana. Sure there are mundane benefits but that is not really the goal of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth is.

Maybe good to know [the unruly eight kinds of men] (AN 8.14), to understand the usual approches of "Buddhists" generally. Right?

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.
"In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore. (AN 11.2)

Having not mastered, doing not have unspotted virtue (mundane mindfulness) at fist plase, the path is actually still far away. Those telling different either deny their defilements or deliberatly cheat.
Ajahn Chah:

The Lost Wallet
It's as if you leave home and lose your wallet. It fell out of your pocket onto the road away back there, but as long as you don't realize what happened you're at ease — at ease because you don't yet know what this ease is for. It's for the sake of dis-ease at a later time. When you eventually see that you've really lost your money: That's when you feel dis-ease — when it's right in your face.
The same holds true with our bad and good actions. The Buddha taught us to acquaint ourselves with these things. If we aren't acquainted with these things, we'll have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad.

Take care and maintain your virtues, all mundane conducts, merits fast get lost.
Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?
Because they are not capable, yet there is good ground to make just business, anyway. It's a matter of marked, that's it.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Thank you for this wonderful answer.  You really get to the heart of the matter and show how "outward mindfulness" links to the greater practice.

Can I ask if you know when these ideas came into being--it reminds me very much of the emphasis on conduct and benevolence/humanity in Confucianism, for instance.

Mudita! My person does not think that the "mindfullness"-boom and broadly practice has long history but is simply a modern trend, made accessable, a matter of marked, for many. The training of mind in a way that is not directed of letting word behind is surely as old as their are recluses, Nyom @DukeZhou. The emphasy on conduct is basic to all humanitarian teachings and religions, was ever the reason for good life and success also in the world. It's just today that it is believed (because people might have currently plenty) to be not so importand. Propably just a opulence phenomena.

What gives? Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?

The Buddha's Teaching is about ending suffering completely, ie. to reach Nibbana. Sure there are mundane benefits but that is not really the goal of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth is.

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

Couldn't finish the linked article. Mindfulness, either this is a wrong etymology for the Buddhist practice; or, if accepted it's the term, than the technique told by those marketers were wrong.
Wrong etymology: this Buddhist practice, in Chinese: 繫念, doesn't simply mean mindfulness. It means rein in the mind, and fasten it to the present moment. Ever since the so-called Vipassana Movement let out by Mr. Goekna in his croaky videos in his centers, declaring "Dhamma this... Dhamma that", the secular meditation world is obsessed with body scanning; and from body scanning to scanning the body touching the chair... scanning chair touching the body, called mindfulness... as described in the linked article :).... 囧. (speechless)
When taking photo of fast movement, if chasing the movement the photo will always be taken one second behind. The right method is anticipating led to one second ahead of the movement triggering the shutter. How does it work? If one reined in the mind, fasten it to the present moment, one will act one second ahead. Chasing the movement is reaction; capturing the movement is action, achieved when the mind is empty and ready.
The car key things maybe are mindfulness, but can be achieved with minimal of strict Buddhist [meditation of mindfulness] practice. It's just be heedful, pay attention sort of can arrive there. Perhaps that's why these mundanes (benefits) not emphasized. Of course it would be good if mindfulness is a minute to minute, second to second habit - an accomplished master mastered, like the Buddha did. For instance, those older ladies doing dancing in the piazza after dinner, they are doing kind of Chacha, Salsa... but it's not the same as a professional doing Tango, or Ballet. The emphasis for dancing in the piazza is the benefit of health; the Tango performance is the art. It will confuse people if one teaching Tango, but emphasizing the benefit of health. Mindfulness practice marketed maybe are largely corrupted practice of mindfulness, got the name only.
Yet in a strict training environment, all acts are types of training; like Martial Art, even using chopsticks picking up the rice, is training of Neigong. I just read in the Chinese Vinaya, due to certain accidents, the Buddha set out discipline of mindfulness going washroom:

佛言。不應散亂心上廁。散亂心上廁突吉羅。今為諸比丘制上廁等初應學法。是中比丘應盡形壽學。若不學突吉羅... (shouldn't be mindless/heedless when going to the washroom, or else committed Duṣkṛta)
若比丘上廁時應一心看前後左右。至廁前欬彈指令廁中人非人知。廁中人亦應彈指欬。既入廁復應看前後左右仰視屋間。無蛇蚖毒虫不。不應以衣突戶兩邊。好收歛之一心安足。勿令前却以污廁上。若先有污及己所污皆應治事。須洗洗之。須拭拭之。須除草穢除之。然後出去。徐下護衣勿使污穢。往小便處及洗大小便處亦應如是。若用水時。應先看水有虫無虫。不得多用水。然要使周事。以器捲水極令安徐。不得使器相撐以致破損。用水若盡。應更取使滿。若有急事。要應取令得一人用覆頭 而去... (a detail step to step instruction, from snapping the finger to acknowledge, to arranging the clothing... using the water... etc., there were additionals when some Bhiksus violated the basic setup)

Example, Mahisasakas Pratimoksa (survived only in the Chinese Canon) recorded an event, Buddha and his Bhiksus were invited by a famous courtesan to her manor for the meal. When setting out, Buddha reminded the Bhiksus, "繫念在前" (reined in and fasten the mind to present, or be mindful), because they were about to enter into a house of great temptation. In this event, the mindfulness, contrast to the marketers' advice, doesn't have an object to be mindful of. Another example, also in the Chinese Vinaya collection, recorded when Devadatta stolen 500 Bhiksus from the Buddha to set up his own Saṃgha, Sariputra and Maudgalyāyana sent by the Buddha visiting him. Devadatta, thinking they were coming to join him, mimicking the Buddha, ordered Sari. to deliver the teaching while Maud. do the Rddhi show, said his back was kind of aching (like the Buddha's back), then laid down on his right for a rest (also like the Buddha did). However, he forgot to "繫念在前" (be mindful) (the Buddha always did) soon fell asleep, snoring noisily and drooling, when the two led away the 500 Bhiksus. Here again, there would not be any object to be mindful of if Devadetta really practiced mindfulness to prevent fallen asleep.
According to records in Chinese Canon, if mindfulness - 繫念 practiced correctly, one will easily be a genius, from simply having photographic memory, to preforming psychokinesis.

Very good answer!  Remembering the car keys, checking traffic, awareness of bodies in space are definitely Buddhist mindfulness--the whole point is that they requires being present in the moment with no "sort of"  (the last comes out of long-term Wudang practice;) but definitely distinct from "no-mind" applications.  Partly what I'm getting at is the value of Buddhist thought and methods in a non-religious context, because the type of Buddhism these practices arise from are deeply process and psychologically based.

It definitely bothers me that marketers latch on to concepts in a manner that is not even minimally practical, which then reflects negatively on the practice in general, even where it has been misrepresented.  (Possibly teaching compassion would be of more benefit in an office environment than "mindfulness" because it would lend insight, and help people contextualize and be less affected, in regard to the negativity often surrounding them.)

I think mindfulness is the herald of "no-mind", if there is "no-mind" there is "no-forget", @Duke; as emptiness is indestructible for nothing could destroy the formless. For a gross understanding recalling from my "past" learning, Wudang practice is fractal very fine, the Buddhist is more like heading the correct direction eventually one arrived. Like the Daoist having those routes for Qi, but Buddhist just "the Four Greats (body) are empty".

I'd agree that traditional taoism is somewhat misdirected in emphasis on physical immortality, and that Zen purifies the approach, but that emphasis in Taoism resulted in superior physical training, by which I mean not simply sitting in meditation, but integrating meditation into a system of physically navigating reality.  (Much easier on the knees;)  For the vast majority, who won't achieve enlightenment in a single lifetime's practice, it's probably more beneficial not to harm the body.

It always intrigues me, these two camps, rivalry also complimentary. In a way, both are searching for the deathless, even myths in Greeks many themes are searching for immortality. The Chinese in a way is very worldly, hence immortality is living in the world forever, this needs a body. The Indian mind regards the world an illusion, immortality achieved by destroying the illusion, included the body. Yet the dilemma is Chinese thinking they came from the "sky", eager to dab in the Red Dust for the thrill of life. The ancient architectures and dresses were said copying the Celestials.

More dilemma, the Zen patriarch Huineng left his immortal (indestructible) body behind, his full body Sarira, but I don't recall any Taoist did, I used to like Zhuangzi a lot :). As a personal experience, it's much easier to "empty" the body, than to direct the Qi. I never really try the Qi thing though, I would be too worry going the wrong route. The fact is, sometimes the later Zen flocks or later Mahayana too indulged in acquiring Prajna, or Monks "talking Sutras", ignoring the physical training, leaving too many treasures collecting dust.

Buddha taught dāna, sīla, and bhāvanā for a layman, and taught sīla, concentration-bhāvanā, and insight-bhāvanā for a monk.
So, general “mundane” mindfulness is sīla, virtual. There are many sutta that teaching you to practice virtual mindfulness.
But, concentration-bhāvanā and insight-bhāvanā are the mundane path to leave out the whole mundane.
Because the natural mundane is five strands of sensuality, that the practitioner try to leave out first by concentration-bhāvanā. And the supernatural mundana is  concentration-bhāvanā, that the practitioner try to leave out by insight-bhāvanā. See mahādukkhakhandhasutta for more information.
In detail as abhidhamma, concentration-bhāvanā and insight-bhāvanā still being mundane, lokiya, just magga, phala, and nibbāna are super mundane, lokuttara.
Note: super natural mundane, lokiya, is not super mundane, lokuttara.


text:
Is nibbana the only next world in reality?
As in, nibbana is not impermanent, not unsatisfactory. It is still not-self, but in being different with respect to two out of three marks, it satisfies the notion of some fundamentally 'other' world more than any of the heavens in Buddhist literature. Does nibbana make more sense as the 'other world' mentioned in the stock description of right view?

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the next world." MN117

Ud 8.1 says Nibbana is not a "world" (loka) or "other world" (paraloka). Any "world" includes suffering (SN 12.44). Nibbana is the cessation of the world (lokanirodhañca; AN 4.45).

Tasmā have lokavidū sumedho, Lokantagūlokantagū vusitabrahmacariyo; Lokassa antaṃ samitāvi ñatvā, Nāsīsatī lokamimaṃ parañcā
So, truly, the wise one,  an expert with regard to the world,  a knower of the end of the world,  having fulfilled the holy life,
calmed,  knowing the worlds’ end,  doesn’t long for this world or
for any other world.
AN 4.45


text:
Are bhanga and sotapatti synonyms?
Is it correct to say that the vipassana experience of bhanga is a synonym  of stream entrance (sotapatti)?

See also What is bhanga?

With 'bhanga' I mean 'bhanga nana', the 5th insight knowledge, also called  'bhanga-nupassana-nana'. Is it correct to relate this 'experience' with what The Buddha says in verse # 374 of the Dhammapada: 'Fully knowing the arising and passing of the khandhas, One attains joy and delight. For those who know, this is the deathless'.

Not! Bhanga nana is just the 5th of the 16 stages of insight. Sotapatti starts from the 14th, i.e. Magga nana.


text:
Ideal Experience in Buddhism
Sometimes, I tell myself that a moment wherein I'm devoid of craving, ignorance and aversion is a moment inherently good. I tell myself that if I remove the addictive (and aversive) states within myself , then the right choices within my experience will naturally be made.
So, with the example of social media -- which is addictive for me -- I cannot easily pay mindfulness while doing this activity. However, I view every other moment free of affliction as naturally and effortlessly conducive to mindfulness. While doing almost anything that is not afflicted in terms of mental state, mindfulness and curiosity towards experience leads to diverse virtuous results.
Oddly, however, I do not get attached to such virtuous experiences, but return to addictive and pleasurable states. It's like an irony: what is detrimental is naturally addictive and what is wise and virtuous more difficult.
QUESTION 1: Is this view of a 'normal' affliction-free state -- i.e. not a meditative absorption or compassion filled state -- as virtuous correct? Just normal awareness?
QUESTION 2: Wouldn't virtuous states, perhaps in time, become addictive in themselves? For now, they are more akin to equanimity, whereas I'm neither drawn or averse to them. Or, would they remain like equanimity?
Thank you.

Eggman,
One starts to get free of addiction simply by keeping Silas: abstain, if there is no real penetration to right view (stress, cause, cessation, path).
It is pointless to try again and again a "short-cut". And there is no such as gaining world and Nibbana together. All undertakings to build equanimity around the cause without removing it, lead to even bigger unpleasant results.
Do the work to be done! and keep precepts.
It has it's cause, it's reason, why one falls in bad realms, becomes a hungry ghost.
If caught there, in the realm of hungry ghost, in internet: Use the practice of Mindfulness practice and meditation in Googlyana, starting with Silas.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
What is the deal with "instant" Karma?
Over the years, I've noticed that the idea of karma is quite popular in the USA.
 Specifically, specifically this is the idea "karma" means that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you in this life.
I recall coming across the idea that the more advanced a Buddhist practitioner becomes, the more immediate the repercussions of negative thoughts or actions.
Experience leads me to believe that negative thoughts and actions do have fairly immediate repercussions in terms of personal suffering for a given individual.  This seems to hold both in cases where suffering is the goal of the individual, whether consciously or unconsciously, and in cases where the individual is seeking release from suffering.  This may be distinct from the popular idea of "karma", but nevertheless is immediate.
Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma"? Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?

"...Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma" in a Buddhist context? Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?..."

Kamma is fourfold and is divided into sections, i.e. by "way of function, order of ripening, time of ripening and place of ripening".
Kamma by "time of ripening" is further subdivided into 4 types according to the time of taking effect:

(i) Immediately effective (ditthadhammavedaniya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the same existence in which it is performed; otherwise, if it does not meet the opportunity to ripen in the same existence, it becomes defunct. According to the Abhidhamma, of the seven javanas in a javana process, the first javana moment, being the weakest of all, generates immediately effective kamma.
(ii) Subsequently effective (upapajjavedaniya) kamma is kamma which, if it is to ripen, must yield its results in the existence immediately fol- lowing that in which it is performed; otherwise it becomes defunct. This type of kamma is generated by the last javana moment in a javana proc- ess, which is the second weakest in the series.
(iii) Indefinitely effective (aparapariyavedaniya) kamma is kamma which can ripen at any time from the second future existence onwards, whenever it gains an opportunity to produce results. This kamma, gen- erated by the five intermediate javana moments of a cognitive process, never becomes defunct so long as the round of rebirths continues. No one, not even a Buddha or an Arahant, is exempt from experiencing the results of indefinitely effective kamma.
(iv) Defunct (ahosi) kamma: This term does not designate a special class of kamma, but applies to kamma that was due to ripen in either the present existence or the next existence but did not meet conditions con- ducive to its maturation. In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives becomes defunct with their final passing away.
-- "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 200-220.

The scriptures (AN 6.63) say there are three results of kamma: (i) instant; (ii) at a later time; (iii) at a further later time.
For example, a person drinks a lot of alcohol. The three results of this kamma are: (i) immediate pleasure; (ii) a headache or feeling sick the next day; (iii) craving for alcohol in the future.

Buddha talked about Immediate results of karma often, for example, if remember correctly, King Pasenadi Kosala (or could be someone else) asked Buddha what were the right here right now for giving.  Buddha said, givers are generally loved by others, their good reputation spread, enter congregation without fear (confidence) , etc.  Another one I can remember when king Ajatashatru asked Buddha what would be the gain for someone enter a holy life.  IMO, King Ajatashatru was not much of a philosopher or a scholar but a warrior.  Any deep difficult answer would have flown above him.  SO Buddha gave him simple here and now gains for entering a holy life such as exempt from tax, exempt from military services, etc.  This is an example of how Buddha would evaluate his audience before he gave an answer.

The term you are looking for is kamma-vipaka (karma-result). It is the result of a very rare and poorly understood causal relationship (vipaka-paccaya) between past action and future result. First of all, it must be said that we suffer plenty from poor judgement, ignorance, and unfortunate circumstances that there is no need to consider this unusual caused relationship. It is important to not confuse it with usual process of learning in which we make sense of experience through an unconscious mental decision-making (that constitutes a form of mental action or karma) called sankhara (that results in a learned disposition also called sankhara). Having learned to make sense of things in a particular way, we act in a particular way, make mistakes in a particular way, and suffer in a particular way. Eventually, we learn to avoid suffering. This kind of learning is not kamma-vipaka.
Kamma-vipaka type of learning involves one’s own Bodhicitta when we happen to perform an action that is exceptionally harmful or beneficial without consciously appreciating its extreme nature. The classical example is that of Moggallāna, a major disciple of the Buddha, who had killed his parents in a previous lifetime and suffered an extremely painful death (he was killed by robbers), even though he had the psychic power (siddhi) to escape that death. He (unconsciously) allowed himself the painful death in order to unlearn his belief that killing his parents was justified (at the time). Even though he undoubtedly had understandable reasons at the time, his Bodhicitta realized how profoundly harmful it was to his parents. According to Theravadin psychology, he could have mitigated the harm to his parents by sincerely apologizing to them for his mistake, but, of course, had no opportunity to do so. (On another level of awareness, he apologized to his parents by allowing himself the pain. Hence, the act of allowing himself to experience such pain was a profound act of compassion.) Conversely, a person who performed exceptionally beneficial action in a previous lifetime may be exceptionally “lucky” or happy in this lifetime.

DukeZhou, and those interested,

Is there validity to the concept of immediate or "instant karma" in a Buddhist context?

...was asked.
On a level of materialism, outwardly appearance, that what science merely observes, it might look as reasonable, but in terms of effects on experiance level, there is neither a linear nor a instant pattern to be found.
To understand the nondeterministic law of kamma, it's useful to give it a deeper read.

The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH
Suttas and works on kamma
Kamma and the Ending of Kamma
"Kamma" (Study Guide)

And it is not so, as suggested in an answer here, that a deed has a share instantly, later and much later in terms of the law of kamma. It's either this or that.
Generally "be careful", since

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma... is unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them." (AN 4.77)

...

Is there a distinct term for this type of intra-life cause and effect?

...was asked: Probably materialism or cosmology would be the therm for such views.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
Upekkha and Non-attachment in Buddhism
I have read on Wikipedia, after an enlightening answer on here, that upekkha signifies not total indifference, but that:

The "far enemy" of Upekkha is greed and resentment, mind-states in obvious opposition. The "near enemy" (quality which superficially resembles Upekkha but is in fact more subtly in opposition to it), is (cold) indifference or apathy: one is not neutral after having engaged deeply with the wordly winds, but due to having closed oneself off to many emotions related to these worldly winds.

Can anyone expand on this paragraph, and especially on that last part?
Thank you.

I don't understand the whole quoted text, because my english is terrible, however I understand upekkhā-brahmvihāra's enemy, so I will explain just it:
Near enemy = fake-upekkhā = unwholesome mind that acting like upekkhā, but it is just a lazy and a fool mind that don't has any knowledge to manage that situation, so fake upekkhā just acting like upekkhā, but the real mind is difference.
Far enemy = appeared enemy = antonym of upekkhā. upekkhā mind factor is in the middle way between unwholesome mind especially lobha and dosa. So lobha and dosa are an opposite of upekkhā.
I am not sure that you already knew this:
In path of purification, visuddhimagga, said that there were 10 difference phrases that upekkhā is used in tipitaka.
Your quoted text is upekkhā-brahmvihāra, tatramajjhattatā mind's factor. It is not upekkhā-vedanā mind's factor.

“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means stability in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

We can experience the Upekkha stage in meditation.
At this stage, our mind is very clear and it is neither disturb nor attach to the arisen of the phenomenon, no matter how painful is the phenomenon of the body, the mind is still very peaceful and unshaken.  The mind knows that the pain is only on the body but the mind is not disturb by the pain.

Good question. This appears to be talking about the distinction between indifference and Equanimity. When one has engaged deeply with that which arises, one sees it for what it truly is - impermanent, incapable of truly satisfying, and Not-Self. However, if one is simply indifferent, one is not seeing things clearly but is remaining in a subtle state of aversion and ignorance. One who is indifferent to an arising state, feeling, thought, etc., will not be motivated to use wisdom or mindfulness in regards to the arisen object. One then may become subtly affected with this cool aversion and ignorance, proliferating into the fruits of such.
The Buddha taught to be mindful of feeling - the basic charge of any arisen object - to be mindful of if it is pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant (neutral). The neutral, when one isn't mindful of it, leads to ignorance, the unpleasant to aversion, and pleasant to clinging. Equanimity comes when one sees them all as equally unsatisfying/impermanent, conditioned by seeing them deeply, without judgement, the moment they arise.
Feeling can be difficult to see directly, as it happens so fast. Getting the mind still in meditation, sharpening one's mindfulness, one can come to actually experience this and know this difference between true Equanimity and indifference. Good luck.

Again about the "upekkha" of people not having done their homework, Eggman:

An Analysis of the Six Sense-media
"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results of action [2] & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye. Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
[2] A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.
[3] A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

The eight Winds (loka dhamma) are:

"These eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.
"For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?" ...The Failings of the World

Wolf keeping Uposatha or The Fox and the Grapes are sample-stories to "having closed oneself off to many emotions related to these worldly winds"
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

You want to know how later Theravada understands upekkha, or how upekkha is understood according to EBT (early buddhist teachings)?
Detailed collection of EBT passages here:
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/upekkha/book/index.html

Emotions are difficult, not least strong emotions. A common tendency (and also a very human way) of dealing with emotions is to distract oneself from them, or trying to ignore them entirely (vibhava-tanha). It results in a seemingly calm state of mind - that can be mistaken for upekkha -  but only for so long.


text:
Did Siddhartha Gautam become Buddha using Vipassana alone?
I am an old student of S.N. Goenka Vipassana treat. I want to know whether Vipassana alone is sufficient to achieve Nirvana or not? Did Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha using Vipassana alone? Or If he employed some other techniques what were those?

See also Does samatha practice always come before vipassana practice?, and, What is dry insight?

It's  unlikely.
It's reported that Gotama spent 6 years training all sorts of things before he achieved Nirvana. This training involved studying under other ascetics and practicing austerity. Presumably he learned a lot during these times, though emphasis seem to be on things he learned that weren't fruitful.
But things that aren't fruitful aren't the whole story of this period. For example, he found some teachings of his previous teachers useful and kept teaching and exercising them even after Nirvana (e.g. meditation on nothingness/suññata) -- though these practices, by themselves, were remarked as insufficient for realizing Nirvana.
Another example of useful practice is the time when he decided to divide his thoughts in two classes:

“Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.
[...] “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of cruelty  arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty  has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty  arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
-- MN 19

An insight (no pun intended) on the kind of person Gotama was before Nirvana can be seen from the following passage, where he was training severe ascetism:

“I would make my bed in a charnel ground with the bones of the dead for a pillow. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears. Yet I do not recall that I ever aroused an evil mind of hate against them. Such was my abiding in equanimity.
-- MN 12

That is, even in extreme circumstances he already had some extraordinary domain over his mind or such a virtuous persona that unwholesome states of mind would not invade him in these circumstances. Also, the whole narration of the ascetism period shows how deeply dedicated he was.
That much can be read in the suttas from the period pre-Nirvana.
Many buddhists believe that this is due to his many previous lives acquiring merit and becoming such a person that would be able to, by himself, become the Buddha -- the Jataka stories illustrate that.
A complementary point of view could be to take the Dharma that he started teaching. As far as we know, he didn't taught vipassana for some 40 years, he taught the eightfold path. He also implied that the eightfold path is intrinsically the path Nirvana -- seeing one is seeing the other. In other words, this same path was discovered by all Buddhas.


text:
Equanimity in extreme disturbance cases
Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice. I am curious what would happen to that state in cases of extreme disturbance.
Imagine that you were in immediate danger, like being killed by someone , robbed or raped.
I guess Equanimity would not be helpful on those cases, unless we are talking about calmness to think better how to counter-attack.
But that would require action, and not only being observer, how equanimity states.
With base of these circunstances, i would like to hear your opinions.
What would happen to an equanimity state in case of extreme disturbances?

Usually "opinions" (or "subjective" answers) should be based on references, or based on personal experience (something that happened to you personally).

i was robbed, and nowadays news about killings and raping are more and more common. Thats why my curiosity how to deal with those situations, in a buddhist perspective

Equanimity is not the central point of practicing the Dhamma but a high end tool. The central task is discrimination of phenomenas, mindfulness (on the four frames of reference).
In doing so, there is seen where a possible disturbance actually comes from, arises, and by uprooting the disturbance (inwardly), recognicing that one can be not really touched but it is just the grasping, of what is not real, by oneself, there such equanimity with phenomenas arise.
What is an extreme disturbance really? The perception of a mouse, news on TV, a day without food, an executor, a tiger in front, a lost leg, a wounded belly, sreeming child, broken computer? What disturbes? The own missing coffee or missing food for the third world? Minimum 50 years more to suffer here, and not to speak after, again and again?
My person found "Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice" merely disturbing, therfore:

AN 4.100: Potaliya Sutta: Potaliya {A ii 100} [Bodhi]. Here the Buddha points out to an wandering ascetic that alienation and equanimity are not the higherst virtues in regard of praise and blame.

and maybe: The Integrity of Emptiness
Because if having started practicing one will soon know for oneself, without building on disturbing thought constructions.
Enjoy solution, discriminatingly, direct perceived.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

My affirmation of "Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice", was on the base of The brahmavihāras (sublime attitudes, lit. "abodes of brahma"), series of four Buddhist virtues and the meditation practices made to cultivate them. They are also known as the four immeasurables (Sanskrit: apramāṇa, Pāli: appamaññā).[1][2] The Brahma-viharas are:
loving-kindness or benevolence
compassion
empathetic joy
equanimity

However, i lack a lot in knowledge and wisdom about budhism practice and i apologize if my text was not truthfull. I did not had bad intention.

However, if you were about to be raped or robbed or killed, how would you react?

The verses of Theras and Theris give expressions of reaction on disturbances like such. Or Bhikkhuni-samyutta — Nonnen But again, some times people fel disturbed by lack of chocolate and prever to dy, be raped... one is not touch-able when really aware. Ther is just "this phenomena has come into being" is it comes into being. The first level of rightous fearlessness is gained if virtue is complet. Eg. Sotapanna.

What does a fearless person fear? Look Bhayañāņa not to be confused with Ignoring the truth. The fearlessness of the fool.

Sadhu for adding link to satipaṭṭhānā, Nyom @Lanka

@Bhante. Welcome:)

Imagine that you were in immediate danger, like being killed by someone , robbed or raped.
I could answer this from theory (canonical references) or practice.
How closely a practitioner is able to attain the theoretical ideal might be another question, but here are some canonical references:

Theravada:

Punna Sutta
Non-violence -- A Study Guide

Zen:

The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
The Thief and the Master

i was robbed ... Thats why my curiosity how to deal with those situations
So maybe you should be interested in how you are now, after that fact:

Two Monks and a Woman - a Zen Lesson
Dhammapada -- The Pairs (note especially verses 3 through 5)

However, if you were about to be raped or robbed or killed, how would you react?
I think that Samana Johann is a monk and therefore has virtually nothing you could rob him of.
unless we are talking about calmness to think better how to counter-attack
I think that monks' code of behaviour includes elementary self-defence practices, e.g. trying to avoid places where thieves and murderers are known to be.
The recommendations for laypeople's behaviour include a lot of prudence: not going out drinking at night, avoiding bad friends, saving money to guard against future misfortune, etc.
By the way "think better how to counter-attack" sounds to me like it might be bad advice.

Good (better) advice is maybe to be inoffensive (and so to avoid conflict)
Buddhism maybe doesn't teach much "self-defence" (instead it's more likely to teach a "non-self" doctrine)

A few little bits of "self-defence", which I learned not from Buddhism but from (Taoist) Tai Chi (as a "martial art"), included:

Run away!
Don't attack first
Defend yourself, when necessary, "without thinking"
Don't get stressed (stand, keep breathing, avoid getting hit, keep your equilibrium or balance)

If you can stay calm it may be better to think about how to de-escalate, how to avoid making things worse (making an enemy) -- not how to counter-attack.

Ohh, the current on-going wood cutting around the current dwelling somehow troubles my person, since one of the last proper forests in this world for future generations of Noble ones. But thats the way it is. Jhain used to cut it of to get ride of the Buddha. It's not good to stay longer on one place. :-) and better to do always the Ven. Puñña's way. Sadhu for most of the answers. No need to fear to be to less common. That is an unskillful fear, fearing to be not beloved, doing no favor, Nyom Chris.


text:
Is equanimity more sublime that an excellent act?
What might be more or real "cool"?
For example (in practice), seeing a spelling error or a typo:

Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

In summary, is equanimity more sublime that an excellent/skillful and beneficial act?
Side question: if beneficial help is more sublime, to what extend would a seemingly beneficial help be actually unskillful, lower than equanimity?

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

'Equanimity' is the last of the four brahmavihara (metta, karuna, mudita & upekkha) & is practised together with the other brahmavihara. For example, if there is good-will (metta) & the wish to help (karuna) but no possibility to help then equanimity (upekkha) is practised.
Therefore, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as practising equanimity as an alternative to performing a beneficial act. Equanimity is only practised when a beneficial action cannot be performed due to another person not capable or not willing to change or benefit.
For example, AN 4.100 says speaking praise &/or blame in the right situation is more advanced & exalted than equanimity. However, as said, the situation must be the right appropriate situation. For example, preaching & proselytizing dhamma when not asked & to people who don't want to listen is not a "right situation" to perform unwanted "beneficial acts". AN 9.5 says Dhamma, as a gift of benevolence, is only taught to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.

Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher?
Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)?

My two cents:
It is not easy to come to a conclusion from the behaviour alone.
Consider:
A1. Ignoring the error due to indifference/apathy, not caring for whatever the outcome or result.
A2. Not interfering with it, because there is good in everything and allowing the natural process to evolve - not siding with push or pull to change the outcome one way or the other, but staying with it, observing one's reactions as well as accepting things as they are.
And:
B1. Correction being done because one cannot accept the presence of an error, a reaction to correct things based on one's view of how things should be.
B2. Correcting because of compassion, in-order to benefit all the beings that may chance upon this.
To me, both A2 and B2 are equally good, as they are a display of true equanimity and compassion, respectively. A1 and B1 are not actions without demerit, but B1 is slightly better in a sense because there is a greater chance to learn from it than A1 (going ahead and committing even a mistake is better than totally ignoring it, in my opinion).
Of course, in a community managed site like this B1/B2 are the better options, but in regards to right action for mindfulness practice/self development both A2 and B2 should rank equally.


text:
How to use inner feeling (intuitive feeling) while taking refuge
Starting ngondro practice, taking refuge in 3 jewels. As we know most of the Tibetan schools use the pretty common attitude. So if we are not talking about the differences, but the inner feeling and its development during each stage of the practice. What are they? Could somebody experienced walk us through it or refer to relevant text?
Please try to avoid general answer - there is already plenty information in the literature.
This question is about the essential experience which I consider as the key of the successful practice.
Thanks in advance.

Does "inner feeling" mean "insight"?

I think you're saying (when you said, "not talking about the differences") that it's probably more-or-less the same answer for every Tibetan school -- and/but that you are asking a question about, specifically, Tibetan Buddhism.

Taking refuge in the Three Jewels means to make effort to receive the blessings of Buddha, making effort to put Dharma into practice in our daily life and making effort to receive help from our Sangha community and in particular our teachers.
Blessings are anything that transforms our mind from negative to positive, that increase  our faith etc. A great way to do this is to remember that we are always in the presence of living, loving Buddha.
There are a myriad of ways to put Dharma into practice such as simply being mindful of a verse of the teachings that has touched our hearts, developing equanimity and love, practicing patience, giving etc.
Taking positive advice and encouragement from our Dharma brothers and sisters and considering advice from our teacher helps with the last one. Also, seeking to clarify confusion by discussing and debating are good too.


text:
Is there a canonical reference for the story about the war between the Buddha's relatives?
I've been looking for a reference for the story of the conflict between Kosalan king Vidubhara and the Sakyans, that the Buddha tried to stop. There are several versions of this on the web, but none of them give any references. Is it canonical? Whether it's canonical or not, where does it come from?

I think this is in Jātaka texts.

Yes, these are striking stories given with varying details even though the 'lesson' is usually the same. I found this summary by a monk named Cittasamvaro;

'Within the Buddhist Scriptures, there is little evidence for collective karma, though the commentaries abound with karma stories. One such is the defeat of the Sakyan kingdom at the end of the Buddha’s life, and the subsequent destruction of the conquering army through natural disaster. Though the Buddha reportedly knew that the war would occur due to past karmas, he still tried to intervene peacefully. The conquering army also paid for its part in the bloodshed, by being swept away by a flood. (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā 1.46, Viṭaṭūbhavatthu). Despite the Commentarial stories, stories that are not part of the direct teachings of the Buddha, there is little in the Sutta/Vinaya to suggest that there is such a form of collective karma'.

Late Upasaka Goenka gave a very detailed teaching, based on cannonical references: Why Was the Sakyan Republic Destroyed?, Robert Michael.
On seeing the importance here: Dhamma is unwisely grasped, if used for politic and wordily gains:

One   should not make an effort everywhere,
      should not be another's hireling,
      should not live dependent on another,
      should not go about
          as a trader in the Dhamma.
ud 6.2

Topics and Speech that easy leads astray and goes straight to papanca, as this is here very close and inclined seemingly; involved.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

This article gives a commentarial source for another of the Buddha's peacemaking actions, between his relatives the Sakyans and Koliyans when they quarreled over water, which I found useful. It is also useful in giving an alternative name (Vitutubha rather than Vidubhara) for the Kosalan king who attacked the Sakyans and apparently found the Buddha sitting under a tree in the way. However, there's no source given for this latter episode.

"The fourth time, Viṭaṭūbha set out again in extreme rage, determined that he would not be dissuaded by anyone from avenging his humiliation by the Sakyans. The Buddha discerned his state of mind and also knew that the time had arrived for the past misdeeds of the Sakyans to bear fruit. Therefore, he did not intervene." Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā 1.46, Viṭaṭūbhavatthu, best asking @BonnWarapol for the text. It's good to read DN11, to understand Buddhas ways of intervention and nothing helps more than teaching people about gratitude, duties, right view, respect of what is worthy of it.

Mr. @RobertMichaelEllis . It might be difficult to get translated text of commentary, so here one might approach best a pali skilled, learned monk for detail side stories. My person "guesses" the matter certain lack of feeling obligated and gratitude will be a big obstacel to touch the heartwood here. Oh...1not dn11, DN16 "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare"

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/10950 and then you suggestion. That's classical malicious. Really ugly you guys here, again and again...

@SamanaJohann I guess that rejecting the edit was a mistake. I approved it, so the link is fixed now.

The evidence for this kind of Buddha's involvement is from the commentaries to the Pali Canon. Thus commentary for Attadaṇḍa Sutta (Sutta Nipata 4:15) says the this sutta was spoken by the Buddha in front of the warring parties in the dispute over Rohini River.
Translation of the commentary is in the Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Sutta Nipata, p. 1189:
https://books.google.com.mm/books?id=TYQ2DwAAQBAJ&dq=bhikkhu+bodhi+sutta+nipata&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY0JH49v3lAhUdyzgGHetFBisQ6AEILjAB
In the case you mentioned, regarding revenge Pasenadi's son Vidūdabha took over Sakyans, it is story from the Dhammapada Commentary.