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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Jean. ; )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Your answer seems to confirm my fears.

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

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

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


text:
Is kamma the driving force behind dependent origination
I hope someone could help me clarify something about dependent origination, is Kamma the driving force behind dependent origination ?

I think there may be two relationships:

DO is a detailed description or analysis of kamma
Kamma is one small component or link in the DO chain

Firstly people see "kamma" is a big cycle, birth and death and rebirth and so on -- I think that DO is detailed analysis or description of how that works.
For example you look at kamma and say, "that's kamma", like you might look at a car and say, "that's a car". A more-detailed analysis says that a "car" is "wheels, an engine, doors, fuel, a driver, a road" and so on.
Similarly an analysis of "kamma" might say that it's "ignorance, formations" and so on.
One thing to note about DO is that it doesn't presuppose a self, it's not a self-doctrine, it allows you say e.g. "craving exists" without saying also "there's a 'self' which is doing the craving, the 'who' who is craving".
DO (and kamma) don't need to depend on a view that there's a permanent self.

Secondly I think that "kamma" might be one small component or link within DO.
The Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63) includes something like:

"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.
"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of kamma.
"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play... The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said.

I think that its saying, "Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play", means that one or more of the links shortly after "contact" is "kamma, coming into play".
And saying that "kamma is intending" places it -- it's mindfulness-(or-not), it's guarding-the-senses-(or-not).
I'd say that kamma is a link within the cycle, like the steering wheel and accelerator pedal are links within a car.
If you want to identify a "driving force" perhaps that would "attachment". I think the Pali word for attachment -- Upādāna -- is also the word for "fuel" (i.e. like what causes or nourishes a fire to continue):

Upādāna is a Vedic Sanskrit and Pali word that means "fuel, material cause, substrate that is the source and means for keeping an active process energized". It is also an important Buddhist concept referring to "attachment, clinging, grasping".

Ignorance is the driving force. Ignorance is an element of nature & something impersonal.
Ignorance creates kamma (actions), Kamma does not create/drive ignorance.
Since dependent origination explicitly describes ignorance as its 1st condition, why would anyone think "kamma drives dependent origination"?

Ok , what about Kamma the law of kamma says if I (understood it) we are getting the same results as the actions we perform with body,speech and mind, isnt the craving in dependent origination  the result from our past actions (Kaya,vaci,citta Sankhara) , and how is kaya sankhara (breathing) a kamma action that is producing vipaka or result and what is the vipaka we get from breathing

Maybe I have missunderstood what Kamma is , if I have please correct me.

Dependent origination explains the impersonal arising of personality view and suffering. As written in your comment, "kamma" already includes the explicit assumption of personality. In Buddhism, "kamma & result" is a "mundane" doctrine where as dependent origination is a "supramundane doctrine".

You seem to be engrossed in superstition. I suggest to focus on what is real. Craving arises in the present moment with the mind sees an attractive object and does not understand the drawbacks or dangers of the attractive object.

Thanks I got it "kamma & result" is a "mundane" doctrine where as dependent origination is a "supramundane doctrine"., I didnt know about this that helped!

In your comment, it can be seen how you frame kamma as "my", "we", etc. Your comment is loaded with the self-views of a puthujjana. The doctrine of kamma is for puthujjana (ordinary unenlightened people); so they do not act in ways causing self-harm. Regards

I thought because I can see the same patterns in my mental world from past mental actions that I did (feelings and thoughts) therefor I thought because I am experiencing now in the present the same thoughts and feelings as before it means I am stuck by my past kamma and it made sense that this is what drives new cycles of Dependent Origination to happen automatically

In short, you are saying "you" or "the self" drives dependent origination. This is wrong.

thanks for the insight , you are right about that so there is nobody that "carries kamma" or experiences the result of past kamma nor is there somebody that does kamma , is this what you mean dhammadhatu.

No. What I mean is ignorance creates the idea or hallucination of "someone doing kamma". As long as this hallucination exists, it keeps doing kamma.

But when the view of "self" ends, kamma also ends.

When you act, you act due to a view of self. For example, the mind sees something and the thought arises "I want that". If there was no thought of "I", there would be no acting (kamma) to gain the object of the wanting.

For example, if someone says to me: "You are stupid & ugly", this does not bother you because you are not being called "stupid & ugly". But if someone says to you: "You are stupid & ugly", you might get angry at them & punch them. You do this kamma of anger & punching because you have the idea of "I" or "self" or "me". Therefore, there is always the "self" doing kamma.

aha I got it. So kamma and its results depends on ignorance of not self and ultimately is not real. So is it possible to bee completely free from kamma and its results when the self view has been eradicated.

But when the view of "self" ends, kamma also ends Is that plausible? Are you saying that kamma is conditioned by self-view? And saying that kamma -- the fruit of old kamma and the creation of new kamma -- is non-existent for a stream-enterer (who by definition has no self-view)?? I thought it was, canonically, an attribute of an arahant -- even then old kamma continues to fruit, but no new kamma is created -- it's conditioned not by self-view but by ... by conceit, and by desire-for-existence, that kind of thing ... isn't that the doctrine of the suttas?

Newbies should ask new questions rather than discuss on comments. regards. As for what you think, often, it is unrelated to the suttas but only related to what you read from gossip. Regards

I read this which seems to confirm what Dhammadhatu is saying
§ 27. "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
That seems to mean kamma is only possible when there is ignorance and a self view

Yes. This is what I said to you. "Kamma" is a mundane (moral) teaching and not related to the supramundane holy life. "Kamma to be felt" means "kamma not identified with".

could you help me understand what the Buddha meant by this sutra passage
"What is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

Karma in this case sankhara is what creates the future cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).
Sankhara / Karma is created due to craving. Caving is due to our habitual reaction to sensation/stimuli due to ignorance. If one develops wisdom one does not react to sensation which leads to unwholesome mental states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta
When one creates Sankhara this intern creates the future round of rebirths. If one equanimous while seeing impermanence without generating craving one does not create sankhara / karma.
To train your mind one can try the following a course of meditation:

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

Thank you for your answer , I have problems with the number 2 , i am reacting with aversion towards painful feelings , is the solution for sankhara/karma that creates future cycle of dependent origination wisdom and is this through meditation if yes what kind of meditation would you suggest, I have habitualy reacted with aversion towards pain , could you please also describe to me how this kamma or in this sankhara creates the future cycle of DO, so I can understand it

Thank you for your answer

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
3 marks of existence
Is this person describing the 3 marks of existence in the right way.
What the Buddha showed was that the actual reality of “this world” is described by the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta: No matter how hard we try, we cannot maintain things to our satisfaction in the long term (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).

The three characteristics are characteristics of phenomena and are not related to mental reactions to things. "Dukkha" here does not mean "getting distraught". "Dukkha" meaning "getting distraught" pertains to the subject of the Four Noble Truths but not to the subject of the Three Characteristics.
For example, a motor car is impermanent. Because a motor car is impermanent, the motor car cannot bring lasting happiness. Therefore it is "dukkha" ("unable to bring happiness"). The impermanence of the motor car also makes it "not-self" because it cannot be permanently owned, possessed or controlled. To view a motor car in this way does not mean the viewer "gets distraught". For the Enlightened, it is the opposite. Their minds attain peace when understanding a motor car cannot bring lasting true happiness.

Ok thank you that made it clear for me. How would you describe impermanence does it mean that everything is constantly changing without stop or is it only changing when conditions that it depends on change and then when the conditions it depends on doesnt change it stays unchanged for a time until the conditions it depends on change again. Thanks for your answers they are really helping me understand. This is a beginner question but I recently started learning about Buddhism so all answers are valueable for me

The Buddha was concerned with what is visible & knowable. Impermanence refers to the change that can be experienced. This said, impermanence is both of what you described: (i) constant change; and (ii) change when conditions change.

what category do my body belong to constant change or change when conditions change in what sense is it considered impermanent because while I can get that thoughts and feelings can come and go my body is here always never coming and going. Or is it meant by impermanence of my body that this body will die or is it meant that it changes every second like atoms etc. Also what about the times when a feeling is problematic and it cant leave does it mean that it is permanent during these times because it cant leave. is it permanent during that time until a condition changes and makes it impermanent

Its both. If you are able to constantly observe your breathing coming & going, you will see the body is constantly changing. This said, there are times major events happen to the body dependent on conditions (such as getting sick). Regards

Above should be revised as:
Everything that is conditioned is impermanent (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).

Hello with much metta!!!
The Buddha taught three truths
that are omnipresent in Samsara.
These are:
- Impermanence
- Suffering
- No-Self
IMPERMANENCE
With every thought moment, everything in Samsara is never the exact same thing it is, nor different than what it is.
Some conditioned things might seem the exact same for a while, but be assured, it is changing & with time, one can come to see this, it’s only very slowly changing. Nothing can ever be lost, only changed, just like us with our awareness & Rebirth!
SUFFERING
Dukkha is caused by the lack of accepting impermanence. Everything you cling to dearly is but a debt that will be payed fully with, ultimately, every death. When one comes to see the nature of Samsara suffering will end & peace will take its place.
NO-SELF
Nothing in Samsara exists independent of the mind or as an intrinsic thing. All things are dependent on each other. Rid one thing, and all cannot exist. This also includes you. You do not have  “self,” you are but five impermanent aggregates mixed together: Consciousness, form (body), sensations, perceptions, & mental formations. There is no you. What continues for a Rebirth you say? Awareness, ever changing consciousness, streaming though Samsara until it finds a way to evaporate into Nibbana.
Hopefully this helps!
Thank you Venerable Buddha
for showing us the Dhamma in this time!
May you have loving-kindness, generosity, & wisdom!

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


text:
Do the suttas say the "old kamma" of an Arahant continues to fruit?
I read the following on the internet:

But when the view of "self" ends, kamma also ends Is that plausible?
  Are you saying that kamma is conditioned by self-view? And saying that
  kamma -- the fruit of old kamma and the creation of new kamma -- is
  non-existent for a stream-enterer (who by definition has no
  self-view)?? I thought it was, canonically, an attribute of an arahant
  -- even then old kamma continues to fruit, but no new kamma is created -- it's conditioned not by self-view but by ... by conceit, and by desire-for-existence, that kind of thing ... isn't that the doctrine
  of the suttas?

Do the suttas say the "old kamma" of an Arahant continues to fruit?

Quoting this comment

Also clear to me. Same is true of a Buddha. Karma and the law of cause and effect does not stop. The universe proceeds.

Angulimala -- A Murderer's Road to Sainthood

Yet there were still a few who could not forget that Angulimala the bandit, with his superior prowess, had shown them in their weakness and thus had humiliated them. Out of that resentment, as an act of revenge, they were mean enough to injure the venerable Angulimala by throwing stones and sticks which struck him when he had gone for alms. They must have done so from a safe distance.

Then with blood running from his injured head, with his bowl broken, and with his patchwork robe torn, the venerable Angulimala went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming, and he told him: "Bear it, brahmana, bear it, brahmana! You have experienced here and now the ripening of kamma whose ripening you might have experienced in hell over many a year, many a century, many a millennium."

Being a saint, his mind and heart were firm and invulnerable. But the body, the product of former craving, the symbol and fruit of previous kamma, was still there in present existence and was still exposed to the effects of former evil deeds. Even to the Buddha himself it happened that, as a result of former deeds, Devadatta was able to cause him a slight injury. Also his two chief disciples had to experience bodily violence. The venerable Sariputta had been hit on the head by a mischievous demon, and the venerable Maha-Moggallana was even cruelly murdered. If this occurred in the case of these three Great Ones, how could Angulimala have fully avoided bodily harm — he who in his present life had committed so much evil! Yet, it was only his body that received these blows, but not his mind. That remained in invulnerable equipoise.

The above sounds like gossip rather than sutta teachings. Also, it is totally unrelated to any type of visible teaching here & now that can be verified by the wise. It appears to fall outside of Dhamma and fall into the sphere of "folk religion". I suggest the basics of Taking Refuge in the Dhamma. Kind regards

Thanks ChrisW but I have been a Buddhist for a long time and have read the superstition of this answer many times. Its just a old wives tale, similar to what is described in MN 95 as the rantings of a string of blind men. I suggest to provide a thoughtful answer that assists personal mental development rather than post blind faith teachings similar to Christianity. Often people convert to Buddhism from Christianity but continue the same old kamma. With metta. Kalyanamitta DD

The question asks about the suttas: "Do the suttas say...?" So see e.g. MN 86 ends with, "And thus Ven. Angulimala became another one of the arahants", and then in the next paragraph, the Buddha saying, "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

AN 3.76 appears to say becoming is "kamma ripening" and, for kamma to ripen, craving provides the moisture. Given an Arahant has ended craving & becoming (which are both "asava" or "mental defilements"), it would appear kamma is not ripening or fruiting for the Arahant.
AN 6.63 says the Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma. Since an Arahant has fulfilled the Noble Path, it would appear old kamma is not ripening or fruiting for the Arahant.
SN 12.37 says the five aggregates ("kaya") is not-self and that it should be seen as "old kamma" that is to be "felt" rather than identified with. Since the "kaya" is not identified with but merely felt (as Arahants experience feeling at sense contact), surely there is no becoming (per AN 3.76) therefore there is no kamma ripening or fruiting when Arahants experience merely what is felt.
MN 86 (possible mythical fake dhamma) is often the go-to sutta for the old kamma adherents. In MN 86, it appears quite obvious it was not Angulimala watering & fruiting his old kamma (given AN 3.76 says "craving is the moisture" but Arahants are free from craving) but the anger in the people who stoned him that were fruiting kamma. For example, that King Pasenadi forgave Angulimala (unlike the stoners) shows the reactions towards the Bhikkhu Angulimala were not related to internal fruiting of kamma. Surely, we cannot say "forgiveness" is a fruit of the evil kamma of mass-murder.

There are several types of Kamma. There are some types of Kamma that ends with the attainment of Arahath while there are some that doesn't. ex:- Kamma of Mugalan Thero.
Also no Kamma is created after attaining Arahath. Kamma is only created by attachments & attainment of Arahath breaks all attachments & therefor no Kamma is created afterwards.


text:
Is forgiveness a fruit of evil wicked kamma?
I read the following on the internet:

Yet there were still a few who could not forget that Angulimala the
  bandit, with his superior prowess, had shown them in their weakness
  and thus had humiliated them. Out of that resentment, as an act of
  revenge, they were mean enough to injure the venerable Angulimala by
  throwing stones and sticks which struck him when he had gone for alms.
  They must have done so from a safe distance.
Then with blood running from his injured head, with his bowl broken,
  and with his patchwork robe torn, the venerable Angulimala went to the
  Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming, and he told him: "Bear
  it, brahmana, bear it, brahmana! You have experienced here and now the
  ripening of kamma whose ripening you might have experienced in hell
  over many a year, many a century, many a millennium."
Being a saint, his mind and heart were firm and invulnerable. But the
  body, the product of former craving, the symbol and fruit of previous
  kamma, was still there in present existence and was still exposed to
  the effects of former evil deeds. Even to the Buddha himself it
  happened that, as a result of former deeds, Devadatta was able to
  cause him a slight injury. Also his two chief disciples had to
  experience bodily violence. The venerable Sariputta had been hit on
  the head by a mischievous demon, and the venerable Maha-Moggallana was
  even cruelly murdered. If this occurred in the case of these three
  Great Ones, how could Angulimala have fully avoided bodily harm — he
  who in his present life had committed so much evil! Yet, it was only
  his body that received these blows, but not his mind. That remained in
  invulnerable equipoise.

In the sutta about Angulimala, King Pasenadi forgave Angulimala of his evil deeds. The sutta says:

"Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"
"We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense. But how could there be such virtue & restraint
  in an unvirtuous, evil character?"
Now at that time Ven. Angulimala was sitting not far from the Blessed
  One. So the Blessed One, pointing with his right arm, said to King
  Pasenadi Kosala, "That, great king, is Angulimala." Then King Pasenadi
  Kosala was frightened, terrified, his hair standing on end. So the
  Blessed One, sensing the king's fear & hair-raising awe, said to him,
  "Don't be afraid, great king. Don't be afraid. He poses no danger to
  you."
So King Pasenadi Kosala went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having
  bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "It's amazing, lord. It's astounding, how the Blessed One
  has tamed the untamed, pacified the unpeaceful, and brought to
  Unbinding those who were not unbound. For what we could not tame even
  with blunt or bladed weapons, the Blessed One has tamed without blunt
  or bladed weapons. Now, lord, we must go. Many are our duties, many
  our responsibilities."

Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala?
Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?

Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala?
The king's initial fright appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's evil deeds.
The king's forgiveness appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's being tamed.
The king's believing what the Buddha said was -- I'd guess -- perhaps a consequence of the Buddha's earned reputation for speaking truthfully, as well as, his seeing for himself with his own eyes.
Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?
Are you kidding?
Angulimala's "intention" is perhaps as described by the Buddha:

Angulimala [is and intends to be]  with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine character

... and ...

[one who] poses no danger to you

I also tried to find what Angulimala's root intention or original intention was -- why was he like that now?
According to Angulimala -- A Murderer's Road to Sainthood (which you're quoting in the question), here is what that said about and quoted by Angulimala at the moment of his "conversion":

(The Blessed One:)
"Angulimala, I have stopped for ever,
    Foreswearing violence to every living being;
    But you have no restraint towards things that breathe;
    So that is why I have stopped and you have not."

When Angulimala heard these words, a second and greater change of heart came over him. He felt as if the current of his suppressed nobler and purer urges had broken through the dam of hardened cruelty that had been built up through habituation in all those last years of his life. Angulimala felt now deeply moved by the appearance and the words of the Buddha.
Angulimala's response and what followed is again tersely told in the Sutta:

(Angulimala:)
"Oh, at long last a sage revered by me,
    This monk, has now appeared in the great forest;
    Indeed, I will for sure renounce all evil,
    Hearing your stanzas showing the Dhamma."

His intention appears to be motivated by reverence for the sage and renouncing evil.
What you ask may be partially true though -- an advertised benefit of the (ethical) precepts is that they provide safety (and so freedom-from-fear, I presume) to all beings -- to that extent (i.e. it's because of those consequences) an intention to keep the precepts may include that intention to affect the minds of others or to share the benefit (goodwill and so on).
It's probably not supposed to be deceitful or impermanent though, e.g. in the way that "seduction" which you referenced is often portrayed to be.
And I think the effects of kamma aren't simple and singular, they interact:

I suppose there are many ways to describe his motive and intention -- e.g. "he does it because he knows what good and evil are"; or "because he sees the Buddha's good example"; or "for his own peace of mind"; etc.
Similarly the effects of kamma are numerous -- affecting himself, the king, and others.
And each person's actions are affected by multiple causes -- the king's forgiveness being affected by not only Angulimala but also by the Buddha, and the king's own ability.

I wonder if forgiveness is a self centered activity. What happens to the ego when one thinks/says "I forgive you" I guess it depends on the mind and heart. Having understanding, compassion, genuine concern for one another, there maybe nothing to forgive, but neither hold a grudge. Yet; however; still, one should discern what type of people, action, habits one is around. Being around good and concentrated people is a blessing. I like outlaws, but if I hang around to much I may end up involved in something morally questionable. I like listening to monks give talks but if one says peeing on creatures is a Buddhist monks blessing, holy water, I may do better to walk away and find better company if possible.


text:
How do I reconcile the Dhamma Refuge with blind faith?
I read in Wikipedia and also in the suttas that refuge in Dhamma is "verified", as follows:

Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko
  paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti.
"Svakkhato" The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is Excellent in the
  beginning, Excellent in the middle and Excellent in the end - all of
  Buddha's Discourses are consistent and teach the same truth.
  "Sanditthika" Dhamma is self-evident and can be understood in this
  life itself. "Akaliko" Dhamma, Noble Truths, can not be changed nor
  can they be altered over time. "Ehipassiko" "come and see"; Buddha's
  Dhamma is to be investigated. "Opanayika" Dhamma can only be
  understood by oneself. "Paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti" Dhamma is for
  the wise to understand and realize.

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very
  life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.
svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti.

Can I believe in things I have not verified for myself but still be a Buddhist?
Do the words "veditabbo viññūhīti" refer to direct experience? Or can it be merely  fluency in theories?

I guess you're quoting https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Homage_to_the_Buddha,_Dhamma,_Sangha#Homage_to_the_Dhamma

I thought this answer, about "Faith in Early Buddhism" as it's described in the canon, was informative.

One can be a Buddhist:

one believes in what is consistent with the teaching

verified by oneself
unverified but believed due to the confidence in the teaching

If one believes what is consistent even it is unverified there is no harm.


text:
Does Buddhism endorse pacifism in times of injustice?
How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices  like murder, rape, torture?
If we refer to Dhammapada 3, the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?
Would a Buddha not support the actions of military forces -- who kill their opponents -- if their opponent's regime were involved in "wars of aggression" and mass murder of civilians, i.e. "crimes against humanity"?
How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture?

The Vinaya governs rules dealing with issues within the community of monks. The purpose of becoming a monk is to renounce worldly ties, hence it is not expected of a monk to be involved in serving justice.
A Buddhist layperson can get involved if is in a position serving justice. In such case one must do what is fair.

If we refer to Dhammapada 3 the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

This was addressed to Ven. Thulla Tissa. The fault or perpetrator was Ven. Thulla Tissa.

Would a Buddha not support the actions of ally forces that killed the Nazis, who killed thousands upon thousands jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped, blacks etc.?

Endorsing anything will break the Sila is not fit for a Buddhist. So this will not be endorsed by the Buddha or Sangha.

How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

If one is in a position of the military, justice or politics one will inevitably have to take action which is decremental to oneself or which is unwholesome. What is unwholesome not endorsed but one has to do what is needed to be done for society to function. This involves:

dispensing justice
involvement in wars

Other religions may have a position about law, politics and wars, but Buddhism does not have such position as punitive action would have karmic consequences and these are conventions which change with time and society. Certain laws and politics which were considered just in medieval times are no longer considered just. The Dhamma Buddha perches transcend time and society so everyone can accept it at all times and societies.

Buddhism does not micro-manage the lives of ordinary people. Its up to ordinary people to make worldly decisions about their personal lives, families, communities & nations. As for the Buddha, he does not get involved in war.

Buddha gave teachings both for monks & for lay, but did he also gave tips how to respond when the going gets tough? Trying to remain calm in a dispute or when something minor doesn't work they way one wants to be is one thing, but if I myself or my family is threatened or even attacked, I wouldn't consider this "micro-managing", but of utmost importance because it's difficulties that challenge a teaching.

Obviously the Buddha left your adulthood to you. 'The world' is left to the world. In the suttas, the Kings who honor the Buddha also often had wars amongst themselves. The Buddha didn't get involved. If Buddhism does not serve one needs, one can join Judaism or Islam. Best wishes

International law includes an idea of "Sovereignty" -- it's to do with control, e.g. whether a state or government has controls or authority over the people in a given area.
A state which doesn't, by the way, might be called a "Failed state".
Conversely I think that Buddhism demands that people control their own behaviour -- see e.g. Getting the Message.
There's a topic Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist which might be relevant to your question -- including the video referenced in Lanka's answer to that question, which seems to to talk about how different people perceive things and react to circumstances differently.


text:
Can a Sikh enter a buddhist temple with a turban?
As I went to worship at one of the most famous & sacred temples in Sri Lanka a Sikh person entered with his turban. As per the religious traditions we are not allowed to wear any head coverings while entering the temple & worshiping.
When the particular person was asked to remove it he didn't & he worshiped with the turban saying it complies with the international laws. I see this disrespectful as,

It's a must for visitors entering the Sikh temples to wear a head cover.
Even the Kings have removed their crown when worshiping Lord Buddha.
As per the scripts many religious leaders who were there during the time of Lord Buddha has paid a lot of respect & has considered Lord Buddha superior.

Can I please have your views regarding this.
May the Noble Triple Gems bless you!

As a sign of respect and being inline with accepted customs it is best that the person removes the turban.
I guess they might have been allowed in the accommodation of Sikh religious custom of wearing the turban.
Being accommodating does no harm also, as long as a person is not wearing the turban as contempt or disrespect.

I'm confused. Why must a Sikh remove a turban when western tourists can enter wearing their gold crosses and this is not considered disrespectful? I've never seen an officiant adress a westerner about his anywhere in S-E Asia.

Generally, one must remove headgear, footwear and also wear a long dress when one visits a temple. There is no need to remove a cross or any other religious symbol. In the case of the turban worn by a Sikh, is headgear which might be removed if the person is OK with it.

Don't you think that there should be some regulations imposed by the temples re. this matter. As I went through the sites I found that no tourist is allowed to enter a Sikh shrine without covering the head. I think we too need to protect our traditions & customs in a more strict manner.

I guess there are checkers who check for disrespectful clothing. It is up to them. And also "house rules" imposed by each temple.


text:
Phsyical, emotional, mental, what is next?
I think I am pretty well aware that the physical body is influenced by emotions (blushing is an example, or a nervous feeling in the abdoment due to axienty). I think I am also pretty well aware the emotions is a product of the mental processes. When I take something for granted I am not thankfull and that is reflected in my emotions and physical body. During meditation I can put my focus on something which I would not call the sensations of the physical, nor are it my emotions and it aren't also thoughts. But, it influences all 3. Thoughts become more positive, I feel happier, and my body starts tingling with pleasant sensations.
I am reading about these different kinds of 'bodies'. The physical body, emotional body, lower/higher mental body, oversoul and spiritual body... I also read somewhere about the buddhic body. Now I am confused by all these different kinds of models/interpretations.
I've never read anything about distinct energy bodies from a buddhism perspective. The terms look so a like that it almost should be, but I do not find a direct relationship on the web. Does Buddhism support the buddhic body perspective? Is there literature or teaching related to this, or any other conceptualiziation of energetic bodies.

Briefly speaking, Mahayana and especially Vajrayana schools assign utmost importance to energetic phenomena at the level of latent potentials, hidden relationships, and subtle influences. However, we don't consider it a "body" or even any kind of bounded entity. We just say, the energy at that level is in flux, things are fluid, neither one nor apart.
If you think about it, in Buddhism we try to stay away from too much appropriation of stuff as me/mine. So recognizing energy-level phenomena but not identifying with them kinda makes sense.
Also it should be noted, that in (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't say that stuff on different levels is made from different materials, no. Physical, emotional, energetic, karmic - they are all here, made from the same stuff, but can be observed by focusing on different levels, from coarse to subtle, and these different observations produce different perceived planes (dhatu). It is very important to understand that all these levels or planes are same stuff.
To consider physical and spiritual to be two different things would be a gross error of Dualism, in Mahayana Buddhism.

Interesting. Is it even possible to establish that buddhism is philosophical materialism? Does the suttas support that?

@Erik Maybe at some point one experiences to be able to control the causal existsnce of a physical body. Tom Campbell, a consciousness researchers, claims to be able to experience a physical body in a reality different from the physical reality we know his face from, so to say. He also describes it is pretty useless as it takes a huge amount of time to learn how to control it in that reality. And therefore it is more efficient to focus on being in the physical reality one already has experience with. How would you define materialism? Does matter from one physical reality differ from another?

@MikedeKlerk Definition, from wikipedia: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

@Erik I think the mind (as an information processor) is required to define a concept, such as materialism. Than it becomes a matter or perspective, which is relative. Do you start with the mind, defining materialism, or do you start with matter, defining the mind. The latter would suggest that matter ultimately defines the concept of materialism as fundamental truth by itself. That would mean that no information processing is required, which might as well be the grand illusion of life: 'thinking' that matter objectively exist, while all might be rendered by the mind.

@Erik For the latter, it suggest that everything results from information processing, which implies that all that is percieved is a function of time. Hence everything can be waves. If matter defines the mind which defines materialism, as an intrinsic property, as fact. Then no information processing is required for anything to exist at all. Yet science finds out that the tiniest particles of matter (quarks for instance) are wave functions. You might be interested in the science of the wave function collapse of quantum mechanics. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB_2Qd5xNvE


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

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

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

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

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


text:
A limit of right speech
At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech?
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord."
Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts.
I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech?
I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?

From Abhaya sutta:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. Timing becomes a factor.
What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing & agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose.

The main factor is the intent. If one repeats something with the intention of bringing discord, then it is divisive speech.
If one says something without the intention of discord then it is OK, regardless of the consequences.

If there is doubt, refraining from speech is immediately effective.
Yet sometimes there is a need to speak of others. Sometimes there is a need to accuse. In these cases:

A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish five things in themselves. I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time. I will speak truthfully, not falsely. I will speak gently, not harshly. I will speak beneficially, not harmfully. I will speak lovingly, not from secret hate. A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish these five things in themselves. --AN10.44

As an example, this happened recently when a grandmother, worried about her grandson, intervened and spoke out.

The Buddha didn't just emphasize the truthfulness of one's speech but also its timeliness/appropriateness:

So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be
  untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata
  does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true
  and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and
  disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as
  the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial,
  but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the
  Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to
  be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and
  agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that?
  Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~ MN 58 ~

Haha, did we make the same reply simultaneously?

Very interesting indeed!

What produces right speech? Like the wheel of a cart follows the ox, if a mind is very agitated, full of ignorance it will be difficult to produce beneficial Noble speech. If the being or mind is calm, compassionate, and clearly seeing, unlikely the words will cause harm.

I have heard from a sermon that, If you lie and the result is a good thing then the bad kamma that you gain from lying is canceled out by the good kamma which is the result of lying.
For Eg:
1) Parents often lie for their children so that they eat. The intent of the parent is wholesome therefore even if the parent lies the good kamma is more than the bad kamma, which cancels out the bad kamma.
2) A doctor who knows that a patient is going to die withing a few days won't say that the patient would die soon but would say that he will survive. This will make the patient have a firm determination to live which might even result him in not dying at that moment, thereby the doctor saved a life through a lie.
I don't have sutta's for my claim, but you can refer this video (it's in Sinhala)

If people remain confused, how can they reach enlightenment?


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

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

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

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


text:
Playing with sensations/heat
I am a Vipassana meditator and in the last 2-3 years am noticing that someone is playing with my aura/heat and sensations all the time. I have no idea where to get help. It is coming in the way of my meditation practice. I know it is a person who is playing with it ... Looking for help for where I can connect with.
Thanks
Archana

Hi. Are you referring to a person with psychic powers? Thanks

Are you meditating in group setting or alone?

I am referring to a demon like being, not a human being with psychic powers. I was sitting alone mostly.

Still, calm, tranquilize your mind. Talk to this entity as though it were a person in your ordinary world.
Such things can happen by accident. Generally we have 'shields' (really just agreements between peoples ... now being ignored wholesale by data miners ... that are usually not breached, but sometimes two people can have such complimentary thoughts that one can slip into the consciousness of another.
One also becomes aware of the non-existence of real barriers between minds when practicing meditation. This is why training in good will and ethical conduct is so important a prerequisite for successful meditating. Become aware of your thoughts and trim them up properly.
Example: you may find yourself worked up about politics and focus on some leader with anger at his positions. Think about what the results of that would be if you were face-to-face with this leader. Your interactions with 'phantom' beings in meditation must be as carefully conducted as are your relations in the so-called 'real' world.
Invasion of another's mind is really only contact with another's mind. This being is not 'inside' your mind, but is only able to influence it as in a face-to-face conversation. But when the invadee is unaware (and almost everyone is unaware), a malicious invader can pretend to be the other's mind and this will be perceived as 'my thoughts' by the victim. If you feel the force is malicious, practice metta: "May you be well and happy!" With Feeling! And, oh yes, I nearly forgot: ulimately, no thoughts are 'your thoughts'; if you can see that, your problem is solved. Short of that you need to strengthen your identity with the Dhamma such that outside forces are easily recognized by you.
If you are being attacked because you have done something harmful to this entity, apologize. If you don't know what you may have done, ask. The answer should make your symptoms look like a simile for the problem and its results. Figure out what you should have done and let this entity know you are attempting to change.
This is likely also to be physical. The idea of an invading entity and physical disability is not mutually exclusive. But throwing off heat is frequently a symptom of purging of poisons (which could be the result of some bad deed done to this entity) and is a good thing when the throwing off is complete. If you cannot get any response from this 'entity (but be careful, response may not be as you expect; the communication may not be verbal, it may be pictorial, it may be a startling intuition) assume it is internal to yourself and look for either a habit you should break or a habit you are breaking that has withdrawal symptoms. Age too can cause symptoms such as you describe.
Take the Refuges. Find a Bhikkhu near you and ask to be given the refuges. This is the first step in becoming a Buddhist and, doubt it if you will, is powerful protective magic power. Then get involved in Sutta Study. The mind recognizes the superior power of the clear thinking that is contained in the suttas and by attention to that rises above the scope of malicious entities. Guaranteed!
Here is a link to the Sutta Index of multiple sets of sutta translations. Start from the first, or jump in anywhere: most suttas were given to people who would never see the Buddha a second time and so were constructed such as to lead to the goal no matter how brief the instruction.
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
Of course you can also stick with the consensus reality that such things do not exist and end up in an asylum because you are crazy.

The “agreement shield” makes sense- these beings (I think they are still human in body but can’t help being demonic in nature) try to get me to agree with something at all times -and I feel a strong energy come through me whenever it happens- I think it has something to do with mirror neurons and the fact that nervous system can connect beings. We know so little.
Talking to them is useless. Initially I used to wish them well, send metta. But they kept harming me physically and via voices- kind of keeps you in a vibrations cage so you are suppressed. I take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.

In Buddhism, an Enlightened Being is 100% harmless & pure. In Pali Buddhism, there is the chant:

Buddho susuddho karuṇā mahaṇṇavo
The Buddha, absolutely pure, with ocean-like compassion

In the Vinaya (Monks Rules) of Theravada Buddhism, a monk or nun is forbidden from demonstrating or using physic powers to or against a lay person. Any use of psychic powers to intrude upon the psyche of another person is an act of violence and therefore immoral. In follows any entity using psychic powers in a way to intrude upon, disturb or hurt a person should be regarded as an immoral entity, even if that entity is a monk, teacher or mystic.
If you can view these acts as immoral & ignorant acts of an immoral & ignorant mind, then you can gain some control over the situation; by viewing the situation with a sense of 'disgust'. But if you honor or even worship the entity, you will remain without control.
Also, as I inferred at the start of my answer, you should practise recollection of the virtues of the Buddha. You should compare this entity to the Buddha, so you develop a sense of what is true goodness and what is not. The Buddha is our true completely virtuous & safe spiritual friend.

I don’t see any beauty in psychic power at all, no respect for it. I don’t admire these beings or are in awe of them. I just want to separate from them so I can follow Buddha’s teachings. But wanting is craving and not what the Buddha taught. So I have to accept it. But still it’s my job to protect myself and not fall into lower planes of existence because of “any” reasons- ignorance, inability.


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

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

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

vedanā
saññā
saṅkhāra
viññāṇa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Mindfulness of breathing - What is meant by "arising and passing away of the body"?
When it is said that one is "mindful of the arising and passing away of the body" -- what is meant with "being mindful of the arising and passing away of the body"?
The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how it is "arising and passing away"? How can I see the impermanence of the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass, because the body is present here all the time.

also when it is said one remains aware of the mind internally and externally want is meant with "internaly and externaly" ?

I added the [tag:satipatthana] tag to the question because I guess this is a question about that sutta. The next question in the comment, about "internally and externally", might have some answers in these two topics: How should satipatthana be understood in regard to external/internal minds?, and, Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally?

@OP please quote the passage you're asking about.

I assumed it was the passage which is translated here as, "Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body."

The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how
  it is "arising and passing away"?

It is extremely common to believe that the body is present all the time. Persistence of the body is actually an illusion that can be seen through using insight meditation.

How can I see the impermanence of
  the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass,
  because the body is present here all the time.

First some questions to address your belief that the body is present all the time:

When you are in a deep sleep or dreaming, is your body present?
Are you always feeling the presence of your clothes pressing against your skin?

It is important when doing insight meditation to analyze your personal experience. How does your personal experience confirm or disprove the beliefs about your body that you currently have?
Most people have a deep seeded belief that the "body" and the "mind" are two separate entities. They believe that the body creates the mind through sensory organs. When I say "mind", I am referring to the experiences of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. If you analyze your experience honestly and without belief, you will find that experiences of mind is all that has ever arisen. We have never experienced a body, only the experiences of mind. If we have only experienced mind and never body, on what basis do we believe in the bodies existence?
So what is the body? The body is simply a label we put on different experiences. When we look in the mirror, we say "This sight is my body". When we feel a sensation of touch we say, "This pain is happening in my body". We mistakenly identify mental sensations as something more than just mental sensations.
What you call "the body" is simply mental sensations that arise and pass. The reason your "body" feels solid is because you believe it is always there.
When you have a dream you are walking somewhere, and you see your hands and feel your feet on the ground, does that prove your body in the dream really exists? Most would say your dream body is "not real" and your waking body is. But there is no difference between touch you feel in a dream, and touch you feel while you are awake. If you believe your dream body does not really exist, why do you believe your waking body really exists? If you had a dream every night that began in the same location as the last dream ended, would that prove your dream body exists?
Good luck with your journey! I hope something I wrote here will be useful to you. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime!

Since I am not fluent about the entire Satipatthana Sutta, I assume the question is referring to the following:
Translation #1

And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally,
  externally, and both internally and externally.
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye
  kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati;
They meditate observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.
samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā
  kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati.

Translation #2

In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally &
  externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the
  phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon
  of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of
  origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness
  that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge &
  remembrance. And he remains independent, not clinging to anything in
  the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of
  itself.

To answer the question:

The Satipatthana Sutta does not refer to "mindful of the arising and passing away of the body". The relevant Pali word is "anupassi", which means to "closely watch" or "closely observe". There is no such thing as "mindful of breathing". The term "anapanasati" means "mindfulness with breathing". "Sati" ("mindfulness") and "anupassi" ("closely watching") are two different things.
The word translated as "body" is "kaya", which literally means "group" or "collection". In the Anapanasati Sutta, it is explained in & out breaths are a "body" ("kaya") among other "bodies" ("kaya"). There are three "bodies" or "groups", namely: (i) the "breath body"; (ii) "flesh/physical body" (rupa-kaya) and; (iii) "mental body" (nama-kaya). The 3rd step of Anapanasati/Satipatthana is "experiencing all bodies" (rather than the erroneous translation of "experiencing the whole body"). "Experiencing all bodies" means to experience the breath, the physical body & mind together and particularly how they interrelate and influence eachother (in terms of cause & effect).
The practise of Anapanasati (which is included at the start of the Satipatthana Sutta) centres around observing the "breath body" or each in breath & each out breath. When this can be done, with clarity, it will be seen:
(a) each in-breath & each out-breath appears & disappears (i.e., arises & passes).
(b) the experiencing/feeling of the internal physical body (that occurs when observing the breathing) also appears & disappears together with the appearance & disappearance of each associated in-breath & out-breath.
(c) the consciousness or mentality that knows each in-breath & each out-breath also appears & disappears together with the appearance & disappearance of each associated in-breath & out-breath.
(d) To reiterate, for example, when the mind follows & observes the sensation of an in-breath, from the nose to the navel, the mind will also become aware of the internal physical body as it follows, observes and experiences the in-breath within the physical body. Then, when the body breathes out, the mind will also be aware of the physical body as the breath returns to the nose. But as the out-breath approaches the nose and disappears, the awareness or knowing of the physical body will disappear, momentarily. Then when the next in-breath comes in, the mind will again be aware of the physical body. So experiencing or awareness of the internal physical body will appear & disappear together with the appearing, knowing & disappearing of each in-breath & each out-breath.
(e) The idea in the question of "the body is here all the time, solid" is false because the questioner is actually not aware of their physical body all the time. In fact, the questioner is probably mostly pre-occupied with the mind's thinking thus is probably rarely aware of the physical body externally (such as aware of the external physical body when going to the toilet) and is probably never aware of the physical body internally.

In summary, this is what is meant by "observing the body as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish". It means to observe the appearing & disappearing in the conscious mind of each in-breath and each out-breath and the appearing & disappearing of each experiencing/feeling of the internal physical body (and even the mind) that occurs in association with experiencing each in-breath & out-breath within the physical body.

As for the external physical body, if you are male, when you unzip your trousers to go to the toilet, your penis appears as you go to the toilet and then disappears when you finish going to the toilet. This is an example of observing the appearing & vanishing of the body externally.

There is a stage in meditation where one will see arising and passing away. This is called udayabbaya-nana. This is a special insight which develops with meditation. See: Vipassanā-ñāṇa
A general person cannot see this so will perceive the body as solid. Doing Insight meditation this perception will change when the knowledge of arising and passing away arise.