text:
Source of Benefit of Formal Sitting
I've noticed (and have been told) that formal sitting meditation is required and beneficial, as opposed to merely being mindful or compassionate in daily life. What aspect of formal sitting causes this?
Is it the relaxation? The recurrent location or time? The stillness? The consistency?
Thank you

Formal sitting will set up the process of mindful and compassionate daily life much better. It's not a either/or situation. Consistency has some value as well, since the goal (if you want to call it that, but it's a problematic term) is equanimity.

Formal sitting practice is the most direct and simple way to gain real insights into the nature of reality and become enlightened.
There are two main types of meditation that are benifitial in this regard.
The first is training in concentration. You sit attempting to focus your attention on a single meditation object for as long as you can. Over time, your ability to focus will increase, and that will assist you in your second type of meditation.
The second is training in insight/wisdom. For this practice, you use your ability to concentrate to sit and observe a specific aspect of your experience in an attempt to see it for what it truly is.
Through gaining insights into the nature of reality and who you really are, you will gain benefits such as compassion, mindfulness, peace, happiness, disillusionment, and true knowledge. These ultimate understandings, once known clearly in your own experience, brings about the meaningful benefits of Buddhist teachings.
Enlightenment is possible for everyone this lifetime. I wish you nothing but love and hope you find what you are looking for.

Stillness. Whereas the other elements are also beneficial, sitting is about reaching the pinnacle of stillness. The methodology is very simple, because it's mostly one of letting go. Caveat: it always seems dubious until it proves it's efficacy, and then doubt is removed.

A short and sweet answer. We may soon discover the benefits of sitting by trying it, but may not get far by just asking about it. It is a medicine, after all, and we don't learn much by just reading the label on the botle.


text:
Buddhism and Novelty of Persons
I realized that, when I meet new people and especially people I have a romantic interest in, to value and idealize them disproportionately. This seems very ingrained in my personality. Here, cemetery contemplation seem less pertinent as its novelty rather than lust.
What does Buddhism have to say about such novelty? What are the potential ways to reduce it or alter one's perspective about it?

From AN4.163 we have:

It’s when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions

Paradoxically, observing ugliness is a great antidote for the seduction of attractive. The perception of ugliness develops equanimity. To see this yourself, simply look at any pair of people. Invariable, one will attract your eye and one will not. Now rapidly look at each one in turn, switching to the other when any feeling (good or bad) arises. As you do this, also acknowledge that, "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self."
What happens as you do this is that your mind gets exhausted trying to make coherent sense of it all and collapses eventually into equanimity. Be careful when doing this with real people because nobody likes being stared at. However, you can practice this with any movie or video that you can stop mid-play. Simply scan back and forth repeatedly until equanimity returns. When you do this, the scene will always be equanimous to you in the future. Eventually you will be able to do this in real time without bothering others.
The nice thing about dealing with others in equanimity is that you will earn trust and friendship. Out of those friendships, deeper connections will naturally evolve. And those connections will always enrich your life.

Firstly, if you have romantic interest in a person, then most likely sexual lust is in it too. So, the contemplation on unattractiveness could work here. Too much of it may result in depression. The antidote for this kind of depression is given in Vesali Sutta.
Secondly, you have to remember that nothing is permanent. The same person who was a baby, and then a child, then a teenager, is now an attractive adult in front of you, with what seems to be an attractive personality. The same person can change and become aged or ugly or diseased, or change to have an irritating personality the closer you get to them.
All things in the world are not as they appear to be. Some people romanticize the monastic life, but you can find that it is not as it appears to be, in the book "The Broken Buddha" by S. Dhammika.
The following excerpt from Therigatha 14.1 about a nun who was pursued by a man, is interesting for this context:

"What wrong have I done you
  that you stand in my way?
  It's not proper, my friend,
  that a man should touch
  a woman gone forth.
  I respect the Master's message,
  the training pointed out by the one well-gone.
  I am pure, without blemish:
  Why do you stand in my way?
.....
"You are young & not bad-looking,
  what need do you have for going forth?
  Throw off your ochre robe —
  Come, let's delight in the flowering forest.
.....
"What do you assume of any essence,
  here in this cemetery grower, filled with corpses,
  this body destined to break up?
  What do you see when you look at me,
  you who are out of your mind?"
"Your eyes are like those of a fawn,
  like those of a nymph in the mountains.
  Seeing your eyes,
  my sensual delight grows all the more.
  Like tips they are, of blue lotuses,
  in your golden face — spotless:
  Seeing your eyes,
  my sensual delight grows all the more.
.....
Like a mural you've seen,
  painted on a wall,
  smeared with yellow orpiment,
  there your vision has been distorted,
  meaningless your perception of a human being.
  Like an evaporated mirage,
  like a tree of gold in a dream,
  like a magic show in the midst of a crowd —
  you run blind after what is unreal.
  Resembling a ball of sealing wax,
  set in a hollow,
  with a bubble in the middle & bathed with tears,
  eye secretions are born there too:
  The parts of the eye are rolled all
  together in various ways."
Plucking out her lovely eye,
  with mind unattached
  she felt no regret.
"Here, take this eye. It's yours."
Straightaway she gave it to him.
  Straightaway his passion faded right there,
  and he begged her forgiveness.

Your question suggests an attachment to the notion of persons, significantly the notion of your own ego-self.
While there are various flavours of Buddhism, at least most of them proclaim the illusory nature of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
Source:  The Diamond Sutra

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Self-Worth and Engaging in Detrimental Behaviour
I've long felt that some people engage in unskillful behaviour as a consequence of not valuing themselves. For example, they engage in drugs to numb or detrimental sexuality, seemingly because they feel unworthy or undeserving.
Would Buddhism link such a behaviour to self-compassion or self-esteem? Is there such a thing in Buddhism as instincts of self-harm?
Or, even, can such self-impeding behaviour be linked to some other cause, such as not seeing the consequence of actions or something of the like?
Thank you

The origin of detrimental behavior is the "self" itself. Because self is ultimately an illusion and doesn't exists, and people's belief and identification to self makes them trapped in the cycle of suffering. The "self" can never feel worthy, because it is an illusion and an illusion is always incomplete and insecure. That's why the people who have deep narcissistic personality disorder always need to cause trouble for themselves and others because their identity is always based on the "self", which means their identity is always based on an illusion. Also the identification of the self always makes people have lack of awareness and most of the people are acting their conditioning from their birth to death. So most people literally don't know what they are doing and they are completely under control of the thoughts, emotions and feelings.
The only way to become free from this never-ending cycle is to become free from the self itself. Trying to build a self esteem can temporarily work but it would collapse sooner or later because a sand castle can't live that long. A person who becomes free from the belief of the self and completely becomes free from the identification from it would have great peace and contentment and would not identified with the thoughts, emotions and feelings again so it would be impossible for him/her to act as an ordinary egotistical person again.
That being said, denying the identification with the self is not beneficial either because until a person completely becomes free from identification with the self-which happens in the once-returner stage-the identification with the self would continue for a person. So even that the self is ultimately an illusion, the nature of being a human is being identified to this illusion. That's why Buddhism gives the humanity the roadmap to become free from this illusion. And the core of this roadmap is mindfulness and staying away from the unwholesome actions.

These are beings who are suffering from passion / greed (raga) and delusion (moha). If they are denied their object of passion, they will suffer from aversion (dosa).
The following sutta quote shows how unenlightened beings who indulge in sensual pleasures, burn with sensual fever, and try to indulge in it even more. It's an addiction.
A person who is continuously suffering from delusion (moha) will not be able to see the consequences of their actions. Delusion intensifies passion / greed or aversion, and clouds one's mind and judgment. For e.g. it converts anger to rage, or converts sexual attraction to becoming overcome with sexual lust.
From MN 75:

"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were
  painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the
  future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual
  pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching;
  but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures —
  devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their
  faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures
  are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of
  'pleasant.'
"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

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


text:
What is the process for cleansing a very negative action?
Several years ago I did something that was totally legal, but very much against my upbringing, my world-view, and my ethics. It was a spur of the moment thing and I have regretted it massively ever since. However, it has haunted me mentally (and to an extent physically, due to tension) ever since.
I might add, this event didn't hurt anyone else.
What can I do from a Buddhist perspective, to completely cancel out this action and its resultant negative thought-stream once and for all?

Nyom Eugene,
it's most needed to speak with an "admirable" friend", a teacher (one who actually knows), at least not only to know if it was a fault and which kind of. As your words here give much doubt in regard of whether it even wars or if "you world-view" has something to do with what is right or wrong, and since it is not a proper enviroment here, it's good when Nyom seeks for refuge at proper place.
All my person can offer are proper places here. Amends & confession or Uposatha/Sila ceremonies.
The pattern to come out of a fault is simple: recognize it clear as fault, be ashamed and express it, firm resolving not to ever engage into such again. That's it. Clean. Yet of course does not make deeds undone, but when effects ripe later, easy to bear and one can after cleaning move on, having been lifted out of the hole.

The Buddha taught every negative action arises from "the element of ignorance" rather than is performed by "the self". "You" did not perform the negative action. What performed the negative action was "the element of ignorance". This is the path of cleansing of Noble Practitioners.
Refer to suttas SN 45.1, SN 12.17, Dhp 172 & 173 & MN 115.

Excellent readings @dhammadhatu. Thank you for referring me to them. And the words "You" did not perform the negative action. What performed the negative action was "the element of ignorance" is an important truth for me to remember. I think I need to get that tattoo'd up my arm to make sure I never forget it.

I'm not a professional or anything like that. I don't have a bunch of garbage to text. Simply forgive yourself.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. For information on how to write a good answer, please see "How do I write a good answer?". Answer needs to be revised and provided with further context and explanation.

Don't really like what you're implying with "I don't have a bunch of garbage to text." It comes off like you're looking down on people who give long answers, which isn't cool.

My bad didn't mean to hurt your feelings. That's not what I was implying. I read the question and the answer to me was simple. But I am not that person and it may not be simple for him. I was implying that I don't need to type a ton of stuff for such a simple answer. Apparently there are rules for that. I don't like rules made by man. They are useless.

I am curious, @user15082. When you say that you "don't like rules made by man", does that includes the teachings of the Buddha? If so, curious that you would be here in this exchange. If not, I did not understand your answer. (Note: I am not 'baiting' you, I am genuinely trying to find out what you meant.) Best, Jim

According to SN 7.21 (quoted below), one could purify oneself of sins, not by water purification (as practised by Brahmins), but rather by dipping oneself in the lake of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings) which has the shore of virtues (sila) - in order words, by practising the teachings, we can purify ourselves.

The Buddha said to Sangarava:
“Is it really true, brahmin, that you practice purification by water,
  believing in purification by water; that you live committed to the
  practice of immersing yourself in water at dawn and dusk?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“But brahmin, for what reason do you practice purification by water?”
“It’s because, Master Gotama, whatever bad deeds I’ve done during the
  day I wash off by bathing at dusk; and whatever bad deeds I’ve done
  during the night, I wash off by bathing at dawn. That’s the reason why
  I practice purification by water.”

“The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, brahmin,
    unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
    There the knowledge-masters go to bathe,
    and cross to the far shore without getting wet.”

When he had spoken, Saṅgārava said to the Buddha:
“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may
  Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge
  for life.”

According to the Salt Crystal Sutta (quoted below), the notion of purification by practising the teachings is expounded further, through the explanation that one should be "developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable". If you dive deep into what this phrase means, that's all you need to cleanse your negative past completely. You can find some useful commentary by Piya Tan here.

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

The teachings on the Brahmaviharas in particular are further elaborated in AN 10.219.

An excellent and very appropriate answer for me personally @ruben2020. I do not always do my best to focus on the dharma on a daily basis. If I read correctly what the sutras you have quoted say then I can dilute my 'evil deed' to the point of non-existence (like the salt in the Ganges) by expanding my immersion in the teachings. Is the right?


text:
What might be the long therm effects of ignoring ones duties?
There are those who not only deny one's faults as a "Dhammic" approach, but  also are very anti-social (absence of gratitude and dutyfullness), with tendencies found in "I don't like people but I like buddhism" and certain answers. This attitude seem common given modern consumerism and individualism, yet ignores the fact that material goods have no goodness but are dependent on people's voluntary or forced sacrifices.
So is it with some "Buddhists". There is no Buddhism without gratitude for people who sacrificed a lot that is not possible to repay. How can such an attitude of "I don't like people but I like 'food'" ever justify itself?
What might be the long term effects for people of such wrong views and trained to consumerism/householder-equanimity?
What will be the bill to pay, sooner or later, for grave wrong view?
(note that this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or nourishing bonds to the world but for liberation)

Your being unable to comment or edit is a result of your using an unregistered user account.

In AN6.54 there was an ungrateful monk Dhammika, who craved solitude and was not hospitable to visiting monks. Eventually his kamma caught up with him and:

Then the local lay followers went up to Venerable Dhammika and said to him:
  “Sir, please leave all seven monasteries in our native land.”
  Then Venerable Dhammika thought:
  “I’ve been banished by the local lay followers from all seven monasteries in my native land.

Because of his lack of gratitude and sense of duty, Dhammika was forsaken by all.
Distressed and woeful, Dhammika went to the Buddha, who scolded him:

“When someone abuses, annoys, or argues with an ascetic, the ascetic doesn’t abuse, annoy, or argue back at them. That’s how an ascetic stands by an ascetic’s duty.”

And Dhammika acknowledged his fault:

“I was not standing by an ascetic’s duty when the local lay followers banished me from all seven of the monasteries in my native land.”

The Buddha then directed:

But someone who abuses and insults a single person accomplished in view with malicious intent makes even more bad karma. Why is that? Brahmin Dhammika, I say that any injury done by those outside of the Buddhist community does not compare with what is done to one’s own spiritual companions. So you should train like this: ‘We will have no malicious intent for those who we want to have as our spiritual companions.’ That is how you should train.

These are some of the long term effects of ignoring ones duties.

At the very least one will be lazy and sluggish and this will be feeding a hindrance of drowsiness and without concentration it will be hard to remain contented with the Holy Life.

"Monks, there are these eight grounds for laziness. Which eight?
"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I have done this
  work, my body will be tired. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down.
  He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained,
  the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought
  occurs to him: 'I have done some work. Now that I have done work, my
  body is tired. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. He doesn't make
  an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of
  the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This
  is the second grounds for laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I
  have gone on the journey, my body will be tired. Why don't I lie
  down?' So he lies down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of
  the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the third grounds for
  laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The
  thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. Now that I have gone
  on a journey, my body is tired. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies
  down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for
  laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he
  needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone
  for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or
  refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is tired &
  unsuitable for work. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. He
  doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the
  reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the
  as-yet-unrealized. This is the fifth grounds for laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a
  village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs
  to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for
  alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food
  as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is heavy & unsuitable
  for work, as if I were many months pregnant. Why don't I lie down?' So
  he lies down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the sixth grounds for
  laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness.
  The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness.
  There's a need to lie down.' So he lies down. He doesn't make an
  effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the
  as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is
  the seventh grounds for laziness.
"Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness,
  not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have
  recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. This body
  of mine is weak & unsuitable for work. Why don't I lie down?' So he
  lies down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the
  as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the
  realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for
  laziness.
"These are the eight grounds for laziness.
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.080.than.html

Although the question goes actually further, it seems that most are not aware of their duties at first place. Corrupt minded, poisoned by modern ideas and corrupt teacher which did them lot of favors for their own belly's sake, people are caught in the illusion that claiming and calling for rights may be the way out and so they focus on others rather then on their own, yet others might be actually already far beyond. Since the mode of communists or pseudo-liberalists is that destruction of all sublime might bring them freedom, it's hard that they will ever start to work. How ever, for those having possible Nissaya toward those who having left any Nissaya, a reminder and may you have the possibility to get the "snake" Dhamma not caught on its tail again and again:
A selection of duties for good dwelling in the world and to come near borderlands to the Noble domain:

"In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith:
(i) by lovable deeds,
  (ii) by lovable words,
  (iii) by lovable thoughts,
  (iv) by keeping open house to them,
  (v) by supplying their material needs.
"The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil,
  (ii) they persuade him to do good,
  (iii) they love him with a kind heart,
  (iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
  (v) they clarify what he has already heard,
  (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.
"In these six ways do ascetics and brahmans show their compassion towards a householder who ministers to them as the Zenith.

For those seeking after refuge in the Three Gems, again as told here:

‘We will have no malicious intent for those who we want to have as our spiritual companions.’

No one can help you out i you are neither see all the debts and also not willing to work for what you desire eagerly, falling for Mara and his host again and again.

This didn't answer the question, i.e. "What might be the long term effects...?"


text:
Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me?
Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me?
I've read a few books of secondary literature on tientai and tendai, a few translations of Zhiyi, the lotus sutra, some of the hua-yen sutra, some translations of hua-yen, some seconadry literature on hua-yen, and assorted scholarship (both ch'an based and otherwise) on east asian Buddhism.
I'm at a complete loss though!

sorry i mean i must come off as slightly simple there haha

I know nothing about Tendai or Hua-yen, but when I googled I found this link fascinating, to put it mildly. The stuff it says about four dharmadhatus and the principle/phenomenon relationship is literally eye-opening. Thanks for the educational question /|\ @user3293056

also makes me wonder where @dharmadhatu got his nick. There must be more to that guy than meets the eye...

This academic article seems on point

also, this SEP article seems worth reading.

i am a student of Hua-Yen philosophies, have read a handful of western derivative works and am currently working my way through Cleary’s translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra.  I have, however, no experience with TienTai.  I know how difficult it can be to find perspectives on Hua-Yen so I wanted to volunteer my effort here, but I need a little more to work with in terms of a query.  Avatamsaka Sutra is a very large collection of work, as you know.
Regarding the metaphor of Indra’s Net, this spiderweb analogy is a good one.  The idea is that of an infinite net with glass beads at every node.  As light shines through the beads one can examine any bead and see the reflection of all other beads in this single bead...and also the reflection of all beads that appears on each bead is visible if we have strong enough perception.
This also relates to a Fazang teaching regarding li and shi.  The absolute interpenetrates all phenomena non-obstructively AND all phenomena interpenetrate non-obstructively.
So, my personal interpretation here is not that identity is annihilated by the light of the absolute, but despite the uniqueness of each bead (even if all beads are clear glass, they may have random bubbles or chips and scratches) any and all other beads can be discovered by studying only one.  But none can be found at all that does not have the light of the absolute shining in and through it, no matter how chipped, scratched, cloudy or colorful it may be.  For me that light represents Tathagatagarbha...Buddha Nature.
I hope this is somehow helpful and if not that you will forgive the clumsiness of my effort.

Welcome to the site. :-)

The Hua Yen comes from Flower Garland Sutra - wikipedia says " The Huayan or Flower Garland school of Buddhism (traditional Chinese: 華嚴; ; pinyin: Huáyán, from Sanskrit: Avataṃsaka) is a tradition of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy that first flourished in China during the Tang dynasty. The Huayen worldview is based primarily on the Avatamsaka Sutra (Chinese: 華嚴經; pinyin: Huáyán jīng). The name Flower Garland is meant to suggest the crowning glory of a Buddha's profound understanding of ultimate reality.
The Huayan School is known as Hwaeom in Korea and Kegon in Japan. This tradition also had a strong influence on Chan Buddhism."
This teaching is the basis of Thich Nhat Hanh's terminology substituting "Interbeing" for Sunyata (Emptiness) - because sunyata isn't simply an "essential nature" of everything. Viet Chan/Zen is very strong in this teaching.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra
Full text of Flower Garland Sutra:
https://archive.org/stream/TheFlowerOrnamentScriptureATranslationOfTheAvatamsakaSutraByThomasClearypdfdtyxxytd/The+Flower+Ornament+Scripture+A+Translation+of+the+Avatamsaka+Sutra+by+Thomas+Cleary+%5Bpdf%5D+%7Bdtyxxytd%7D_djvu.txt
Tiantai, on the other hand is based on the Lotus Sutra. Again the Wikipedia summary is sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai
"Tiantai (Chinese: 天台; pinyin: PRC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntāi, ROC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntái) is a school of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam that reveres the Lotus Sutra as the highest teaching in Buddhism.[1] In Japan the school is known as Tendai, in Korea as Cheontae, and in Vietnam as Thiên thai.
The name is derived from the fact that Zhiyi (538–597 CE), the fourth patriarch, lived on Tiantai Mountain.[2] Zhiyi is also regarded as the first major figure to make a significant break from the Indian tradition, to form an indigenous Chinese system. Tiantai is sometimes also called "The Lotus School", after the central role of the Lotus Sutra in its teachings.[3]
During the Sui dynasty, the Tiantai school became one of the leading schools of Chinese Buddhism, with numerous large temples supported by emperors and wealthy patrons. The school's influence waned and was revived again through the Tang dynasty and also rose again during the Song dynasty. Its doctrine and practices had an influence on Chinese Chan and Pure land Buddhism."
Also very big influence on Chan/Zen, as in these traditions an idea of Pure Land teaching is probably encouraged, particularly among the laity. Tiantai is credited with being the first truly Buddhism of Chinese origin.
Full Text Lotus Sutra: http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf

this reads more like things i should have said in my question, but thanks!

everything is interconnected, inter-related, hence temporal, and lacking a true self. The Vedic Story of Indra's Web is mentioned, but as i read it in translation seems a bit vague. The actual Vedic myth isn't what the Buddhist texts refer to, so it's a bit ambiguous. What I have heard is that a drop dew on the spider's web has the reflection of all the other drops of dew on the web in it, as an analogy of this principle. I too would like more explanation to compare it to "as above, so below" "as on earth as it is in heaven" quantuum mechanics notwithstanding


text:
Internet and Mindfulness
I am wondering a simple question: In what conditions can we surf the internet mindfully? For what purposes is this possible or impossible?

I think it is akin to going to town for alms for monks. One should be aware that by doing so one might come into contact with various perceptions which may be agreeable or disagreeable and are a danger to the training. One should resolve on guarding the senses and maintaining the perception of abandoning (not tolerating arisen thoughts associated with ill-will, greed, delusion) so that one does not regret it later.
One should also reflect on one's intentions before, during and after doing a deed with mind, body or speech. Thus one should remain mindful of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha in general, not only when using the internet.

"Man finds himself in a perilous position…A far greater danger threatens [than the outbreak of a third world war]: the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking. What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing, indifference towards ‘meditative’ thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature – that he is a meditative being. Therefore the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive."
Martin Heidegger
Speech commemorating German composer Conradin Kreutzer in 1955

As an employee or contractor, I'm paid to spend time working.
I keep a timesheet, in which I log the times when I start and stop work, and a brief description of what I did when I was working.
I start and stop several times during a day.
And it's a habit, I've been doing it for years -- it's part of how I use a computer when I'm working.
The point is that I know when I am "on the clock" (i.e. working, at work, logging time) -- and I don't want to steal time from my employer (by doing non-work activity during working hours).
If I want to do some non-work then I can (by "clocking off"), but when I'm on the clock I use the internet for work-related activity.
This is the best example I can think of of "using the internet mindfully":

Knowing when I'm supposed to be working (e.g. "now" or whenever it is I'm on the clock)
Knowing what I'm supposed to be doing (e.g. because I've agreed the deliverable with someone else)

You could try a similar approach e.g., "This is an hour during which I'll use the internet to study Buddhism", etc.

I think it's also important to reflect after you used it: "Did I use it well?"
If the answer is "no", if you feel remorse about how -- or how much -- you use it, if you develop a bad habit, then it's good to deal with that.
For example there are many ways to modify your computer's configuration, to block its access to any given web sites. If I find I spend too much time on a web site, if it becomes a bad habit, if it's unprofitable, then I block my computer's access to it.

In the high spiritual stages this is possible. Before that, internet can only pull a person down to complete thought identified state. But in principal, a meditator must try to be mindful every moment in his/her daily life.
The best way is not using internet in most part of the day(If it is possible). If the internet using is necessary for long periods of time then a person must bring gaps to his/her internet using. Few minutes or few seconds of short meditations can make a difference. Otherwise internet would completely pull a person to unmindful state, would constantly feed greed, anger and delusion in a person and would make it impossible to make progress in the path. And it is inevitable for a person with such a life-style to transform to something that is very difficult to cure:
https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/man-loses-will-to-live-during-gentoo-install/
The link that I posted above is the truth If you look around mindfully LOL.
To sum up, the best is not using internet in the most part of the day and the second best approach is bringing gaps to the internet using and doing short meditations whenever it is possible.

Some extended explainings: Googlyana - a Dharma practice approach on internet-realm

Internet realm is a place where many very sensible beings decided to rest. It's a little aside of the whole spectrum of Dukkha but still contains everything for a beneficial practice. Many beings which appears in this realm have no good possibilities for practice and often seek it as a window for their normal recluse beside business as usual....


text:
Is Mindfulness the Opposite of Multitasking?
I realized that my use of social media always involves doing something else, and if I am on the internet I might also be on social media. Thus, I am always multitasking seemingly.
How does the mind process multitasking? Is it possible to be mindful of each task (e.g. social media and writing a text) one after the other, or is such a thing impossible?
EDIT: By one after the other I mean for a short amount of time, going back and forth between the tasks.

Mindfulness(Sati) and one-pointedness(Samadhi) are 2 different things. Technically speaking, the mind cannot take multiple objects at once. So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind. You feel like you are multitasking because the mind keeps switching so fast. So it is possible to be mindful while you are on so called 'multitasking'.
On the other hand, in the realm of mindfulness, the internet does not exist! Social media does not exist! 'I' does not exist! There are only four types of mindfulness: mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of sensations, mindfulness of mental activities and mindfulness of phenomena. So be careful of what you consider as 'mindfulness'.

Exactly correct what you've said sir! "So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind." +1 Sir, I've heard that more bhavanga citta are arisen in between citta veeti in an ordinary being. That's why we feel we are slower than others who are spiritually in a higher level than us. And also I've heard that Lord Buddha was/is/will be able to switch between two Jhana with one bhavanga citta in between. That's the reason for only Lord Buddha can do Yamaka pātihāriya (The Twin Miracle). Am I correct?

Not sure about that @Damith. But I've heard that the Buddha is able to attain the Jhanas between each word he speaks. Bhavanga cittas are results of your birth Karma. So I'd think that the quality of the Bhavanga cittas and the level of intelligence you possess at birth has something to do with the strength of the birth(janaka) Karma. But that is something we cannot change now. So I would say Panca Nivirana(five hindrances) are the main reason to slow down a person's spiritual progress.

I'm just wondering: what exactly is entailed by 'phenomena' for that type of mindfulness?

Buddhism aside, your representation of human mind is nonsense. You basically claim that the brain is a single CPU doing time sharing based multitasking. This is completely and utterly wrong. Human brain is a massively parallel system, more similar to the Internet than a single CPU. It ABSOLUTELY does not work by assigning time slices to individual thoughts, it is running millions of process independently in parallel.

@Eggman 'Phenomena' here refers to 'Dhammas'. There's no completely accurate English word to capture the meaning of this word. You could also translate it as realities. This category contains many groups of mindfulness objects. Ex: the 5 hindrances, the 6 senses, 5 aggregates, 7 factors of enlightenment etc.

@Davor the brain does not exist in the realm of mindfulness

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

I'm multitasking right now, spinning disks on Dharmawheel Media Music thread, and writing on one of my favorite topics. Multitasking puts things in a stereo or synesthesia effect, it's why you can't remember even how you got there later, it's the conjunction of several streams of experience at once. It's got an important value at the opposite end of the spectrum and is maybe just as important as sati in my opinion.
Sati, often translated as "Mindfulness" actually only means "remember". Remember the breath. Remember to look both ways when crossing the street. Remember your order of operations in maths. It's not a mental function we don't already possess. What's unique in Buddhist meditation is remembering what? The object of meditation. It's a single thing. It's using the object to exercise the remembering. This is how rigorous training in sati leads directly to insight and Wisdom, because it trains us in remembering the Dhamma, and it's lessons. Useless to an untrained mind.
But back to multitasking for a minute: it is the corollary of play, what we did as children. When we were children, we exercised the ability to lose ourselves in play, which is essentially shedding the ego. Nothing in the Dhamma is without the elements we have in ordinary life, but it is having them discipline us in skillful means. Gradually, everything becomes the Path, because it is the Path.
In the Rose-Apple story, both sati and play are elements leading to jhana. Eventually, Siddhartha remembered this.
MN 36 PTS: M i 237
Maha-Saccaka Sutta: The Longer Discourse to Saccaka translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

The mind can't take multiple objects simultaneously. But the ordinary mode of the human mind is to try to do everything at once, be restless and go to the future as soon as possible. That's why ordinary human mind is in the confusion mode and is stressfull, suffering most of the time. Humans must do simpler things and must do things slowly. Humans are living in such a way that is completely out of the ability of human body and mind, that's why human suffering is increased in the last centuries and especially with the internet and with the increase of using technology. The abrupt climate change with it's catastrophic results is also a great proof that the "normal" way of living is insane and not suitable for humans and the world.
Mindfulness is knowing that ordinary human mind is crazy, therefore, do one thing at a time without trying to finish it.(If the desire to finish the task arises then observing the desire to not get into the restless mode again).
Also mindfulness leads people to take part of their attention to within body(but it transcends the "physical" body because the physical body is just a concept)-no matter what they are doing. In the high spiritual stages this becomes continous and is natural/spontaneous but it can't be described as multitasking because it is the most natural/ordinary thing and it must be all of the humans ability-in order to get out of the ordinary human suffering mode and to have peace and happiness all the time.

I am wondering if this could reply to my question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35948/samatha-while-studying?noredirect=1#comment61642_35948

Honestly, I don't believe so, because the concept of multi-tasking is fundamentally at odds with the concept of single-pointed concentration. It's impossible to truly be mindful of the present task if at least part of your focus is on whatever the other task(s) are. (If you could be, then you wouldn't really be multi-tasking.)

I read elsewhere that, when you're supposed to be doing something and you do something else instead, then the cause for that (doing something else) may be an unwillingness or inability to handle a "bad mood".
For example:

You're supposed to be "on-task" (whatever that task is).
Something happens -- e.g. you reach a difficult or repetitive bit of the task, or something you tried didn't work, or a subtask which you were enjoying ended, or you start on a new bit where you risk failure
That "something" threatens a bad mood -- e.g. anxiety, failure, boredom, social conflict
To avoid that you switch to something else (e.g. social media) which you find (or used to find) easy and relatively or reliably "rewarding" -- e.g. because you enjoy it, or because it's non-threatening

If that's so, then doing social media -- in order to unconsciously avoid a mood like anxiety or boredom -- maybe wouldn't be considered "mindful".
And it's not "multi-tasking", it's "half-tasking" -- i.e. instead of staying on-task full-time, you switch away or switch off frequently, in order to try to replenish or to sustain your mood with input from (i.e. depending on) interacting with social media.
Also, in a Buddhist context, the word "mindfulness" might imply a mindfulness of something -- "mindfulness of breathing", for example. I find that if I'm absorbed in a task then I don't notice, I'm not paying attention to, other things. If you engage with social media perhaps that's instead of being mindful of whatever it is you ought to remain mindful of -- for example the main task, and/or some Buddhist doctrine, and/or breathing -- if you're engaged in a task and encounter an emotional setback, e.g. some anxiety, perhaps it's better to keep breathing for a little while, than to turn your attention to social media.

Supposing one multitsasks with social media from loneliness, would waiting things out make such socially-oriented states pass?

From DN22, we have:

Furthermore, a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl, and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.

In this manner, one can practice Right Mindfulness in situations encompassing many tasks.
First consider that if I am studying a sutta while driving, that would be wrong mindfulness.
However, if study the sutta by simultaneously searching many websites, having conversations on different forums with many people that all converge towards the goal of right understanding of that sutta, then that would be right mindfulness.
In this way multi-tasking is fine in some situations.

good point but I am not convinced. But is difficult to me to elaborate the reasons why I do not fully agree, Maybe would be better find a priority  and be in that priority and then select one web site per time


text:
Sutta request: dedication of offerings in another ones name
This is a request for sutta references.
I'd like to know the sutta's that describe how one can dedicate offerings in the name of a dearly departed one so that (s)he can, hopefully, have a better rebirth.
Does anyone know of sutta's describing dedicating of offerings?
Thanks.

AN 10.177 could be what you're looking for, in addition to Tirokudda Kanda.
From AN 10.177:

Then Janussonin the brahman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
  exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly
  greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there,
  he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, you know that we brahmans
  give gifts, make offerings, [saying,] 'May this gift accrue to our
  dead relatives. May our dead relatives partake of this gift.' Now,
  Master Gotama, does that gift accrue to our dead relatives? Do our
  dead relatives partake of that gift?"
"In possible places, brahman, it accrues to them, but not in
  impossible places."
"And which, Master Gotama, are the possible places? Which are the
  impossible places?"
"There is the case, brahman, where a certain person takes life, takes
  what is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false
  speech, engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages
  in idle chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views.
  With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in hell. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  hell-beings. This is an impossible place for that gift to accrue to
  one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what
  is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech,
  engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the
  break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the animal womb. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  common animals. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to
  accrue to one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of human beings. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  human beings. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to
  accrue to one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  devas. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to accrue to
  one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what
  is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech,
  engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the
  break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the realms of the
  hungry shades. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever
  is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by
  means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him.
  This is the possible place for that gift to accrue to one staying
  there.
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that
  possible place, who partakes of that gift?"
"Other dead relatives, brahman, who have reappeared in that possible
  place."
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that
  possible place, and other dead relatives have not reappeared in that
  possible place, then who partakes of that gift?"
"It's impossible, brahman, it cannot be, that over this long time that
  possible place is devoid of one's dead relatives. But at any rate,
  the donor does not go without reward.
"Does Master Gotama describe any preparation for the impossible
  places?"
"Brahman, I do describe a preparation for the impossible places. There
  is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not
  given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech, engages
  in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. But he
  gives food, drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed,
  lodging, & lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of elephants. There
  he receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments. It's because he
  took life, took what is not given, engaged in sensual misconduct,
  engaged in false speech, engaged in divisive speech, engaged in
  abusive speech, engaged in idle chatter, was covetous, bore ill will,
  and had wrong views that he reappears in the company of elephants. But
  it's because he gave food, drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans & contemplatives that he
  receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life... has wrong
  views. But he gives food... lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With
  the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of
  horses... in the company of cattle... in the company of poultry. There
  he receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments. It's
  because he took life... and had wrong views that he reappears in the
  company of poultry. But it's because he gave food, drink... & lamps to
  brahmans & contemplatives that he receives food, drink, flowers, &
  various ornaments.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. And he gives food,
  drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, &
  lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With the break-up of the body,
  after death, he reappears in the company of human beings. There he
  experiences the five strings of human sensuality [delightful sights,
  sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations]. It's because he refrained
  from taking what is not given, refrained from sensual misconduct,
  refrained from false speech, refrained from divisive speech, refrained
  from abusive speech, refrained from idle chatter, was not covetous,
  bore no ill will, and had right views that he reappears in the company
  of human beings. And it's because he gave food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives that he experiences the five strings of human
  sensuality.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life... and has right views. And he gives food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives. With the break-up of the body, after death, he
  reappears in the company of devas. There he experiences the five
  strings of divine sensuality [delightful sights, sounds, smells,
  tastes, tactile sensations]. It's because he refrained from taking
  what is not given... and had right views that he reappears in the
  company of devas. And it's because he gave food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives that he experiences the five strings of divine
  sensuality. But at any rate, brahman, the donor does not go without
  reward."
"It's amazing, Master Gotama, it's astounding, how it's enough to make
  one want to give a gift, enough to make one want to make an offering,
  where the donor does not go without reward."
"That's the way it is, brahman. That's the way it is. The donor does
  not go without reward."
"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place
  upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the
  way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that
  those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama —
  through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to
  Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks.
  May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him
  for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

Thank you, that sutta contains indeed useful additional info.

This being a gift of devoted and faithful ancestors of yours, having it once dedicated that you might be able to nourish and grow to a better with it:
The most common, (guessing Nyom Medhini asked with kusala and devoted heart) is: 7. Tirokudda Kanda — Hungry Shades Outside the Walls
If further understanding is searched anonymously like a hungry shadow, may it be understood to be dedicated toward the many donors lost ancestors behind the walls: [Q&A] Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead and Sharing merits - Freude teilen (pattanumodana & pattidana) [Forum Guide]
Common one tries to reach ones departed ancestors in states where they could rejoice with ones deeds and so it might be that they find better rebirth. That is why there are made certain funeral fests and long ceremonies. The dedication toward the Sangha "secures" that they might meet the Sangha in other existences and with it the Dhamma at later time, and by nourishing it"s existence, making each other familiar, Nissaya and possible meeting increases.
Dedication for and offerings toward the ancestors is one of the laymans duties, if wishing after good and better.
Good if being aware of the many goodness many did by sacrifices for you and use it for good and best, never hurting or harming, misguiding others and become another of the Sages step by step. Anumodana! and Mudita.
So powerful is this,
    the accomplishment of merit.
Thus the wise, the prudent,
    praise the fund of merit
    already made.
In the case one or another has a hard to nourish and swallow it: Not having done merits in the past, even if given by ones previous beloved, one would be incapable to receive/take it. Something to think about if possible to do.
(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, although hungry ghosts are incapable even for such, but for getting out of bondages)

Thanks. It got me started; meaning using your links I could find some English texts that are useful for me.


text:
Whatever bad deed done with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here
In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - "whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along" (yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti)
This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas.
How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)?
What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?
Also related is the phrase "A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core." (Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco.). What does this mean?
From AN 10.219:

“What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the
  liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion,
  altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a
  bad deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
  on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”
“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity).
  A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals
  have mind as their core.
“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and
  also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in
  this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does
  not penetrate to a further liberation.

Related (another question about this sutta): All kammas have to be experienced or not?

What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?
It appears to mean "body born of causing".
It's a compound, e.g. kara ("causing") ja ("born of") kāya ("body").
The PTS dictionary entry for Kara includes ...

Kara (p. 195) Kara Kara [fr. kṛ] 1. (adj.) ( -- ˚) producing, causing, forming, making, doing

... and ...

ja "born of kamma" in karaja -- kāya the body sprung from action, an expression always used in a contemptible manner, therefore=the impure, vile, low body A v.300; J i.5; Vism 287, 404; DA i.113, 217, 221; DhA i.10; iii.420; DhsA 403. karaja -- rūpa Vism 326.

Also ...

Ja (p. 277) Ja Ja ( -- ˚) [adj. -- suffix from jan, see janati; cp. ˚ga; gacchati] born, produced, sprung or arisen from.

So it's literally or etymologically kara-ja-kaya i.e. "body born from kara", where kara is defined as "producing, causing, forming, making, doing".
I don't see exactly why kara and kamma are being equated, but they're obviously pretty similar.
Given this translation ...

Whatever bad deeds I have done in the past with this deed-born body I will experience here.
yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ

... I think the literal word-for-word translation is something like ...

Whatever my something in-the-past I have with this body-born-of-causing bad-deeds done, entirely in-this-world I will know them.

Perhaps you might as well just read it as kaya (i.e. body).
There are other bits in the sutta which just refer to body, e.g. ...

For neither women nor men take this body with them when they go.
Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa  vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo.

Ven. Bodhi's note citing Comy's explanation:
"[The noble disciple] understands: "Whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here"[2190]  Karajakaya. I translate the expression literally but it may imply much the same thing as such English expressions as 'this mortal body' or 'this corporeal body.' DOP sv kara, says: 'A body produced by action, the physical body.' SN 12:37, II 65,1, speaks of the body as 'old kamma' (Puranamidam - kammam). The Chinese parallel has nothing that corresponds to this term.
" It will not follow along"[2191]  Mp: 'By means of loving-kindness, the feeling that would have been experienced upon rebirth is cut off, and thus it does not follow one along. This is the reflection of a noble person who is a stream-enterer or a once-returner.' Presumably, the bad kamma is all to be experienced here (Sabbam tam idha vedaniyam), in this life, and will not follow along (na tam anugam bhavissati) because his next rebirth will be in the form realm, where there is no painful experience, and he will attain nibbana in the form realm without returning to this world.
"A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by loving-kindness. A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core"[2189]  Cittantaro ayam bhikkhave macco. Mp: 'They have mind as their cause, or their interior is due to mind (cittakarano, atha va citten-eva antariko). For with the mind at rebirth that follows without interval the mind at death, one becomes a deva, a hell-being, or an animal.'

If after liberation rather that to find something to grasp on either:
It simply empathizes, approves, that what ever body/kaya/stand is taken on comes into being by deeds (kamma). Nothing that one should puzzle one thought into and and "end" up in papanca anyway.
The certain sequences deal also with cases where one still clings to a merely mental kaya, stand. That is why there is no final liberation at this point.
"Just" cetovimutti but try it, right here and now (Brahmavihara), rather to seek for another kaya. It's a Sublime host, that of the Brahma.

...it leads to non-returning for a wise person here who does not penetrate to a further liberation

(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for getting independent from relations and bonds.)

First, AN 10.219 appears to be fake dhamma because loving-kindness cannot end the suffering of birth, aging, illness & death. The following verse appears to be adhamma:

What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the liberation
  of mind by loving-kindness from his childhood on, would he do a bad
  deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
  on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”

However, about past kamma, AN 10.219 appears to correctly say:

Bhikkhus, I do not say that there is a termination of volitional kamma
  that has been done and accumulated so long as one has not experienced
  its results, and that may be in the present moment, or in the near future,
  or on some subsequent occasion
The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along [into the future].’ When the liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness has been developed in this way, it leads to
  non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does not penetrate to a
  further liberation.
This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion … with a mind
  imbued with altruistic joy … with a mind imbued with equanimity,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  equanimity, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill
  will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’

In other words, the results of "past deeds" were experienced as the "five hindrances"; that we cleansed; per the below:

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? You should say:
  ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’
AN 10.61

What is correct in AN 10.219 is explained in SN 12.37 and SN 35.146:

Bhikkhus, this group [of aggregates: "kaya"] is not yours, nor does it
  belong to others. This is old kamma, to be seen as mentally constructed by [past] volition, as something to be felt [in the
  present].

.............


text:
Is Samadhi mentioned in Jhana Suttas?
Do the Pali texts on jhana actually mention Samadhi and/or One-Pointedness by name in the jhana descriptions or is this mention apocryphal?

The terms 'jhana', 'samadhi' & 'one-pointedness' ('ekaggataṃ') are all found in the sutta passage below:

And what is the faculty of concentration? Katamañca, bhikkhave,
samādhindriyaṃ?
It’s when a noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains concentration,
gains unification of mind. Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako
vossaggārammaṇaṃ karitvā labhati samādhiṃ, labhati cittassa
ekaggataṃ.
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption... So
vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ
vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.
SN 48.10

perfect - this important term is in there too - samādhindriyaṃ - this should settle all debates on the subject

From SN 40.1:

Then, friends, the Blessed One came to me by means of spiritual power and said this: ‘Moggallāna, Moggallāna, do not be negligent, brahmin, regarding the first jhāna. Steady your mind in the first jhāna, unify your mind in the first jhāna, concentrate your mind in the first jhāna.’ Then, friends, on a later occasion, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered and dwelt in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion."

I appreciate that he is asking that one trains in the first jhana, not the fourth! Thank you


text:
Which sutras are most directly relevant to the virtue of courage?
If I want to read through the origins of western (really, Greek) thought about the virtue we generally call courage, I know exactly where to go: Laches, Republic, Nicomachean Ethics, etc. Meanwhile, while courage has played a central role in many of the dharma talks I've listened to, if someone asked me where to look for a Buddhist theory of courage I wouldn't know any particular place to start.
Within the most widely accepted Buddhist scriptures (especially but not limited to the Pali Canon) are there are any "go-to" sutras on the subject of courage? (Especially from a philosophical, psychological, or theoretical standpoint - whether or not that theory is grounded in narrative or discourse.)
This question gives several interesting references for modern writings about courage, but said I'm particularly interested in the older premodern stuff.

Jataka Tales are all heroic stories

@brothereric Do you feel confident in recommending any particular tales, re: a Buddhist view of courage? There are quite a few.

"Courage" isn't listed as one of the 37 factors.
So, wondering how "courage" is defined, I found this (non-Buddhist) definition on Wikipedia:

Courage (also called bravery or valour) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss.

I guess two suttas I admire are (according to the above definitions):

"Physical" courage: Punna Sutta (SN 35.88)
"Moral" courage: Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2)

And the Dhammapada is interesting too, some verses for example:

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

and

He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached — him do I call a holy man.

The essay Freedom From Fear suggests that "fear" is a mixture of other emotions:

Think of a deer at night suddenly caught in a hunter's headlights. It's confused. Angry. It senses danger, and that it's weak in the face of the danger. It wants to escape. These five elements — confusion, aversion, a sense of danger, a sense of weakness, and a desire to escape — are present, to a greater or lesser extent, in every fear. The confusion and aversion are the unskillful elements. Even if the deer has many openings to escape from the hunter, its confusion and aversion might cause it to miss them.

Later it says ...

The Canon lists these mental strengths at five: conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment.

... and tries to explains the role of each of these.
I think that "courage" isn't defined as a primary strength -- perhaps courageous acts are understood as being a consequence of other mental "strengths".

Do you feel confident in recommending any particular Jataka tales, re: a Buddhist view of courage? There are quite a few

There's one about the tigress and her cubs: the prince throws his body off a cliff to feed a hungry tigress, who would otherwise have eaten her own cubs. A moral aspect of that tale is that her eating her cubs would have been a grave "sin", a moral transgression -- it was that which he was saving the tigress from, I guess the moral being that ethics and compassion are more important than life.
Another is about the Bodhisattva as the captain of a ship. There's a pirate on board who's about to kill the other passengers, so the captain kills him. The moral aspect is that the other passengers were themselves Bodhisattva, killing them would have been a great sin, so the captain compassionately guarded the pirate from the terrible consequences which the pirate would have suffered as a result of killing Bodhisattvas.
That story is kind of famous because I think it's the only bit of Buddhist (or some might say pseudo-Buddhist) literature which appears to condone killing for some reason -- conversely for example see Getting the Message which includes ...

When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.

Anyway I think that the name of the captain in that story is "Captain Compassionate".

There is a Mahayana Sutra about the same captain I believe: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/47607/13375

Each and every Talk by the Sublime Buddha.
To get the "point", sorted a little to confused ways of thinging, and be able to understand real courage, and not pseudo or modern, the essay Wisdom over Justice will help to overcome confusion and understand Dhamma. Do you have the courage to step down for your stand to give it a view?
And to challenge: "Whom who cares only for himself, is praised by the Devas and wise" Courage meaning to totally abound corruption caused by self-identification?

Who told you that the courage is a virtue? How do you know that the courage is a virtue?
When somebody follows the dhamma, it is more about energy and diligence, being steadfast on the dhamma which counts. Courage is a word which means being faithful to one's principles, to owns heart, but of course, for the dhamma it means faithful to the dhamma, not some moronic wrong view invented by some puthujjanas... so it is a good word in a text like this:

Now I said:
"It is in time of distress that a man's courage[8] is to be
  understood, and that too after a long time, not casually; by close
  attention, not by inattention; by a wise man, not by one weak in
  wisdom."
Owing to what did I say this?
[198] In this case, monks, a certain one, afflicted by the loss of
  relatives or loss of wealth or by the misfortune of sickness, thus
  reflects:
Verily thus-come-to-be is this living in the world.
Thus-come-to-be is the getting of a personality.
According to this coming-to-be of living in the world and getting a
  personality eight world-conditions keep the world a-rolling and the
  world keeps a-rolling eight world-conditions, to wit: - gain and loss,
  disrepute and fame, blame and praise, happiness and unhappiness.
So he, afflicted by loss of relatives, loss of wealth or the
  misfortune of sickness, sorrows, laments, is distressed and knocks the
  breast, wails and falls into utter bewilderment.
But in this case, monks, a certain one, afflicted by the loss of
  relatives or loss of wealth or by the misfortune of sickness, thus
  reflects:
Verily thus-come-to-be is this living in the world.
Thus-come-to-be is the getting of a personality.
According to this coming-to-be of living in the world and getting a
  personality eight world-conditions keep the world a-rolling and the
  world keeps a-rolling eight world-conditions, to wit: - gain and loss,
  disrepute and fame, blame and praise, happiness and unhappiness.
He, afflicted by the loss of relatives, loss of wealth or the
  misfortune of sickness, does not sorrow, does not falter,[ed1] . . .
  nor falls into utter bewilderment.
Owing to that did I say this.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.192.wood.pts.htm
People love the idea that courage is more about a physical ability, but that's  because their mind is weak.

Although the Buddha is associated with many heroic deeds throughout the Pali canon, one of the simplest instructions deals with prejudice (see AN4.17-19). In particular, it takes courage to overcome the prejudice of identity view. Lacking courage, we act and suffer the kamma of our actions. Lacking courage, we act out of prejudice of cowardice.

If you act against the teaching out of favoritism, hostility, cowardice, or stupidity, your fame shrinks, like the moon in the waning fortnight.

The Buddha's instruction on this is clear, simple and direct. Per AN4.18, one should focus on:

Making decisions unprejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice.

Following this instruction requires courage. I was surprised when I first read this, but have found this instruction quite helpful every day.


text:
Nature of Aversion
I was reading this answer, in which an essay is cited. In this essay, Freedom From Fear, an example is given of a hunted deer which experiences anger, and thus aversion. In contrast, the desire to escape isn't aversion, but considered potentially skillful.
I have always thought aversion involves aversive states such as avoidance from painful experiences.
Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?
In sum, I wonder what the nature of aversion actually entails and encompasses.

Both fear and disliking are unskillful as they are forms of aversion. However there is a mental state which appears as fear or disliking, but it is a form of wisdom that understands the danger of something.
Ex: if you have the knowledge that a hot iron will burn your hand if touched directly, you are not going to touch it directly. But you do not have a fear or a disliking towards hot iron. The driving force there is wisdom. This is indeed skillful.

Like desire (and aversion is just the other side of the same issue=tanha & avijja), aversion is required for the path. The matter is just for what desire, for what aversion. Nyom has a lot of aversion to listen, since this question was similar raised some times ago...
What, if I hold on, will be for may long term benefit...? and vici versa. As long as not asking serious such and listen, there will be steady aversion toward useful for long term happiness.
Does Nyom see the fool behind, the nature of aversion (and greed)? The "not-knower"?

Truly, friends, for the arising of greed these two are the cause. Which two? An agreeable object and unwise (conceit) thinking.
Truly, friends, for the arising of aversion these two are the cause. Which two? An disagreeable (or fading of agreeable)1 object and unwise (conceit) thinking.

1: (Sadhu for the imput Nyom Chris!)

I think there's a mistake in the quote: it says that an "agreeable" object causes the arising of aversion (which matches e.g. this translation), however here in verse 124 it's Paṭighanimittañca (which Ven. Sujato translates as "feature of harshness") not Subhanimittañca.

Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?
No, desire and aversion should both be understood in an abstract sense, sort of like the magnet's attract and repel forces.
Aversion includes avoidance as well as an overall negative attitude towards something.
Of course, as Samana Johan correctly said, aversion is just the other side of attraction (or attachment. Again, understood abstractly). We usually avoid something because we're attached to its opposite. Something like that.
In Mahayana, the nature of aversion (as well as desire) is understood to be reification or ignorant generalization. We feel aversion to the lump, once it is analyzed into its underlying causes and processes and we understand why it looks/works that way, in that frame of reference the aversion is gone.

There's some doctrine about the three poisons, which is quite neat: i.e. desire on the one hand, aversion on the other -- a pleasant symmetry.
(I think these two, might be the two 'mice' in the zen story of the tiger and the strawberry).
I wouldn't be surprised if "the three poisons" feature in the Pali canon, even so I think that in the suttas "aversion" maybe takes a back seat compared to "desire" -- i.e. it's not a big part of the doctrine -- the suttas mostly talk about desire (and ignorance, wrong view, conceit, and so on) as the problem, rather than aversion.
Also I think people don't agree on exactly what vibhava-taṇhā means -- but if "aversion" is in the four noble truths, it's not there explicitly or literally so I guess it's either implicit in dukkha or implicit in vibhava-taṇhā (and I think it's the latter).
My guess, my personal impression, is that maybe doctrines abut "aversion" were more fully developed in later forms of Buddhism, and the suttas found it sufficient to teach about desire and so on (except to teach a "middle way" doctrine instead of asceticism -- and, separately i.e. in the vinaya, a lot of discipline!).
Note there are several Pali words for desire or greed (i.e. tanha and raga which are invariably bad, and chanda which might be a desire for something wholesome). Anyway all three of these words appear in e.g. this abbreviated glossary, but dosa (i.e. "aversion") isn't there.
A dictionary entry like this translates it as,

dosa
(m.) ill will, evil intention, hostility, anger.
(mfn.) exhibiting ill will, hostile, angry.

I think the way to understand it is that if raga is a desire to keep, to increase, to continue (an experience), then dosa is the opposite in the sense that it's a desire to be rid of, to decrease, to end.
It's negative (advesha or adosa) seems to be defined as "non-aggression":

Advesha (Sanskrit; Pali: adosa; Tibetan Wylie: zhes sdang med pa) is a Buddhist term translated as "non-aggression" or "non-hatred". It is defined as the absence of an aggressive attitude towards someone or something that causes pain. It is one of the mental factors within the Abhidharma teachings.
The Abhidharma-samuccaya states:

What is advesha? It is the absence of the intention to harm sentient beings, to quarrel with frustrating situations, and to inflict suffering on those who are the cause of frustration. It functions as a basis for not getting involved with unwholesome behavior.

I think my definition (i.e. wanting an unpleasant experience to end) fits with this kind of observation.
The answers to the other topic tagged aversion -- i.e. Aversion and Mahayana -- suggest other aspects to aversion, for example:

Conceit ("I am better than they are")
Some kind of unwillingness ("I don't want to get involved")
Suffering ("I am feeble and ill")
Desire ("I wish I could be with other people at the festival instead of being alone in the forest")

The nature of aversion is the hidden energy that lives in human's subconscious mind. There are some low-frequency energies, tendencies, desires in each human's subconscious mind that causes aversion, stress, unhappiness, anger, fear, restlessness, boredom and even the desire for sensuality. The root of these emotions, feelings and desires are not seperate from the human history(and pre-human lifes). If you look to the human history you can at least have intellectual understanding of the nature of the human emotions and why they have such negative effect on most of the humans lifes. That's why most of the humans life can be easily described as "unhappy life" and the human civlisation/human created world is just the expression of this tendencies of the humans.
The only way to become free from this suffering cycle is to realize Nibbana/attain stream entry. Then gradually with the repeated entering to Nibbana, a person would more and more clearly see the root of aversion and it's root energies. And one day the root energies of aversion etc.(in the core of the subconscious mind) would start to dissolve by itself, and as the root energies of aversion diminishes, the person would enter to deep peace and calm more deeply and frequently and eventually the person would reach to a point where s/he would have permanent happiness and peace. Then occasional desires and irritations would not have any serious effect in one's life.
Until this becomes a person's reality, aversion and all kinds of negative states would continue to effect a person seriously. A meditator can become free from serious aversion and can have deep peace for few hours, days, weeks and in some rare occasions months but these states are destined to end. It is not possible to become fre from these energies until a person solves the core of the problem-which happens in a high spiritual stage. So it is better to not try to get rid of these negative states or try to escape them but to be mindful of them as much as possible.
Here is an explanation of a great mindfulness method that can take a person to Nibbana in a very short period of time that would eventually completely solve the problem of serious aversion, unhappiness and desires:
How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu


text:
Clarification on a different notion of Prince Rahula's parentage said to be in Mahayana buddhism
If we refer to Buddhist literature there are several versions of the same story. It differs between the branches Theravada and Mahayana and even within one branch the interpretation varies.
Recently I read about quite a controversial notion of Prince Rahula's (Prince Siddhartha and Princess Yashodhara's son) that was said to be a belief in Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. The story says that

"Princess Yashodhara had an affair with Prince Siddhartha's charioteer
  Channa and Prince Rahula is the son of Channa"

I googled about this and could not find any references. Can someone clarify this and if it's an accepted belief can you please provide a reference?

Never heard of anything like this in Mahayana. Any references at all, name of the book, or you just heard this from another person?

Just read about it in social media. Few people (credible sources) had commented saying it is true.

I don't mean to be rude but really, who cares? Mahayana philosophy is not concerned with the love-life of charioteers.

@PeterJ just out of curiosity :D and it's not about the philosophy but the literature

I don't know, I hadn't heard of this theory before.
You might want to read Wikipedia's Rāhula -- Other traditions.
It says that the Pali tradition is that ...

Rāhula is born on same day Prince Siddhārtha Gautama renounces the throne by leaving the palace, when the prince is 29 years old, [...].

... and ...

Other texts derive rāhu differently. For example, the Pāli Apadāna, as well as another account found in the texts of monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, derive rāhu from the eclipse of the moon, which traditionally was seen to be caused by the asura (demon) Rāhu. The Apadāna states that just like the moon is obstructed from view by Rāhu, Prince Siddhārtha is obstructed by Rāhula's birth. The Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition relates, however, that Rāhula is conceived on the evening of the renunciation of Prince Siddhārtha, and born six years later, on the day that his father achieves enlightenment, which was during a lunar eclipse. Further credence is given to the astrological theory of Rāhula's name by the observation that sons of previous Buddhas are given similar names, related to constellations.
Mūlasarvāstivāda and later Chinese texts such as the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra give two types of explanation for the long gestation period. [etc.]

Maybe that's related to what you're asking about, i.e. it's some theory about how Rahula could have been born six years after the Buddha left the Palace.
I'm not sure that's a mainstream or an important "Mahayana" doctrine.
If only you knew which school to ask about (e.g. Mulasarvastivada or Dharmaguptaka) then you might be able to ask and answer, "What did or does this school say about Rahula?"

"Just read about it in social media. Few people (credible sources) had commented saying it is true."

Without concrete backup references and literatures, any claim, even those from the world most renounced monks/nuns would need to be verified, let alone "few people with credible sources". Ever heard of the "Four Great References" taught by the Buddha in DN 16? (ref: https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#ref4 )

I agree with you about verifying what has been told and that is what I'm trying to do. I'm searching for a reference (if there is any) in Mahayana Buddhist literature about such a story as I'm not familiar with Mahayana Buddhism. However, this isn't anything related to Dharma but merely old age gossip. On a different note the Dharma we learn today have been written many years after Budhdha's demise. So how can one be certain that it has not been tampered with writers' personal interpretations? I mean the existence of different branches of Buddhism Mahayana and Theravada is a proof of that :)

Of course there's no way to know for sure with 100% certainty. However, there're great similarities between the suttas/sutras as recorded in the Mahayana's Agamas collections and the Theravada's Nikayas collections. If 2 separate systems recorded at different times and different places have a lot of things in common, then that's a good sign that the Buddha's Words have been transmitted and preserved accurately. For more details, see Ven. Analayo's comparative research work on the Agamas and Nikayas.


text:
Missing Dhyana/Jhana Sutras?
Are there parallel texts between Pali Canon Jhana Suttas, and Mahayana equivalent? Dhyana Sutras? I now that the theme is picked up again in Tiantai texts, but I'm thinking of between the Pali canon and the Tiantai? Does Asanga touch on this topic or skip over it? Kumarajiva?

Yes some texts of the pali canon have parallels in what people call the (chinese) agamas.
The links for the agamas is here:

Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agama in English translation?

Some people compare the agamas and the nikayas:

The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism --
A comparative study based on the Sutranga
portion of the Pali Sarpyutta-Nikaya
and the Chinese Sarpyuktagama
by Choong Mun-keat (Wei-keat)

... for instance, chapter 7 ...

... with the most famous one about breath mediation here:

Translations from the Taishō Tripiṭaka

bikkhu analayo is the most famous bikkhu for this kind of comparision:

Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo

Many of the Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras (chinese or tibetan), however, have no parallel in the pali suttas (i.e. they're unique to Mahayana or Vajrayana):

Chart Comparing Pali, Chinese and Tibetan Canons

Downvoiting without comment is harsh and divisive speech. Please add a comment and/or cancel your downvote

It wasn't my downvote. I edited to improve the format of the hyperlinks, and to reduce the last paragraph.

I don't know why it was downvoted. If it wasn't because the last paragraph, perhaps it's because the answer wasn't specifically about "Dhyana/Jhana Sutras" (and maybe "Asanga" and/or "Kumarajiva").

Although direct link to "jhana suttas" is not listed, the excerpt actually suffices for my purposes: Mahayana dhyana practice is identical to Pali Sutta equivalents. Divergence into separate practices is a mark of the current, decadent period. i can even find quotes in Zen of only 1000 years ago showing dhyana was still just this. Current Zen thinking about dhyana in the development of their tradition is suffering from historical revisionism.


text:
Meals in the afternoon and different time zones
How do Buddhist monks deal with meals while traveling across different time zones?

"Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 37; BMC p.362).
 Here the 'wrong time' is defined to be from noon until dawn the following day.
So regardless of which timezone a monk is in, he can consume food between dawn and noon. All you need to check is where the sun is.

@SankhaKulathatille Exactly sir, I know some monks who decide it by looking at the sun, because sun-rise and sun-set times may change during different seasons in the year.

It's not possible to have such problems when keeping Vinaya and abstain from using Yanas (vehicles, burden others with their traveling in not suitable ways), so the question is actually not proper but a result of wrong conduct at first place already. See also Pāṭimokkha for 21st century
When slight things are made wrong, it grows larger and larger and becomes pointless.