text:
What is "Patigha", and how does it differ from "Dosa"?
I would like to know what is defined as "Patigha" (Skt. "Pratigha"), and how it varies from "Dosa" (Skt. "Dvesha").
Thank you.

Here are some sources:

Patigha (dictionary definition)
Lobha,Dosa, Moha versus Raga, Patigha, Avijja

Although on an ethical level they're synonymous, pathiga goes deeper than dosa. It's more on the level of (dormant) tendencies.

Dvesha is a base thought of sin, that means dvesha helps to give birth to sins.. Patigha is an advanced form of Dvesha,It's the same which's called as ''Wyapada'' ..If your mind has dvesha and it keeps growing towards a certain person on 9 reasons there you grows patigha on your mind..that 9 reasons are..
That person did a bad thing to me
that person will do a bad to me
that person is doing a bad to me
that person did a bad to my friend
.
and so on..wyapada or patigha is a more serious form of dvesha as i said above, so it is called a one of dasa akusala(one of ten sins) also..

Pathiga is the fundamental underlying resistance/aversion that one has towards his own senses which exert pressure on one's mind through either pleasurable or unpleasurable sense objects.
It is the covert resistance/ hate/ self loathing that one has towards one's own senses.
And because it is too painful and one does not want to deal with the truth that you can not owe your senses, that they are, as the Buddha says, empty and hollow , the only thing that is left to do is to blame, hate and be avert to the external unpleasant sense objects.

There is no such thing as "fundamental underlying resistance."


text:
Is there a source that Dalai Lama wants scientists to invent a "meditation machine"?
The 14th Dalai Lama have known to actively support scientific explanation on Buddhism. For example his investment in the Mind and Life Institute. But I remember that I've read somewhere that he jokingly requests scientists to invent a meditation machine, because meditating 4 hours every morning is very hard, but I can't find it again. Is there a source of that?

This question is a repeat. I couldn't find a written record of such a comment, if a video exists it will be impossible to find the reference as it must be a passing comment not an entire discourse. I am sure he meant it as a joke. What is your actual requirement with the reference? If you can reframe the question with it, may be we can be able to help.

What do you mean by repeat? Yes I'm sure this meant as a joke, but I think this also meant that he appreciated scientific evidence of meditation. I want to have a short but strong example on his appreciation, and think that this is the best.

appreciation of 'scientific evidance of meditation' is also still vague to interpret....i found this page has lots of resources you can get your answers with....  https://liveanddare.com/benefits-of-meditation/

See also this topic about meditating in the morning

If you're looking for "scientific evidence of meditation" you might like The Pursuit of Happiness about using a MRI to measure brain activity (of Tibetan monks)

@BodhiWalker We could close a new question as a duplicate, only if we can identify where the question has been previously asked, and confirm it's just the same question, and that previous question already has some answer[s] to the new question.

@ChrisW ok...i got some kind of time dilation...it felt like i read the exact question 2 days back...like an exact one...it was wired...so i flaged.

@BodhiWalker i just recently dumb edit the question to make it jump on the top

@Ooker yeah mate...thats why i said it was repeat...you got me all worried...I actually started thinking that they made some changes inside the Matrix...LOL...if u know what i meant.

There's also https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/zen-and-brain if you want to dive into research on this.

The closest thing I could find is in a NeuroScience conference video from 2012 where scientists and the Dalai Lama are discussing the similarities of human brain activity with that of animals and machines. That part of the conversation starts around minute 34. There is no explicit request from the Dalai Lama in there to create such a device.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
References for not receiving alms in exchange for Dhamma teaching
According to this comment:

I think that monks and laypeople are meant to depend on each other
  (e.g. as described in Iti 107) however monks must not sell their
  dhamma talks for food. So there are monastic rules about food and
  dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a quid pro quo is
  forbidden -- having given a dhamma talk (i.e. after his speaking) the
  Buddha was no longer willing to receive food, because that would
  appear as if he were receiving food in exchange for or as payment for
  talking.

Please provide references from the Vinaya and/or Patimokkha for "there are monastic rules about food and dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a quid pro quo is forbidden".

An extended answer would probably result in getting aware that there are very, very less who do not maintain just a livelyhood in using the tripple Gems. Less who are actually not in the whole of a serious transgression, with less hope to find a way to get reconciled. While such would formally just touch those "bond" to Vinaya, from a kammic view it touches all of the many, regardless of their clothes.
An that is why even laypeople have been taught the matter, only traceable for those looking sometimes inwardly.

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

One would even find the message in the Jatakas, that not even Gods and Devas practice generosity in exchange.
One should also not underestimate that there are four kinds of nutritions in this regard.
Turn on satipaṭṭhānā and you may face corruption and how it arises in one self, and then is no more need to seek Dhamma-Vinaya outside. Till there one is wise to listen and follow the Elders and those ahead in regard of letting go.
(furthermore: Read Iti 107 as what it actually says, without assuming anything in addition)
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for any worldly trade and exchange]

I wonder if perhaps I was wrong, though, to say what I was quoted as saying in the OP -- perhaps that was an exaggeration, or an impossible distinction to make in practice. Because, for example isn't it true that people in lay society can invite the sangha to establish a new monastery somewhere, and (implicitly or explicitly) offer to support the sangha in that new location if they do? Or, for example, they may invite a monk to travel, to lecture? Or invite a monk for a meal, understanding that if the monk accepts then the monk may will speak as well?

Maybe the simile of better eating hot iron balls than to except a gift with string (toward world) by the Buddha may help in this regard to understand the issue. It's a must (to teach Buddha-Dhamma) to give Dhamma as a pure generosity and especially neither sekha nor asekhas are not able to think on there belly first, direct or indirect.

Sorry, I thought this was so, but I cannot find a reference.
I also thought I remembered reading on this site, that if you invite a monk to eat and to give a talk, you must be careful about the sequence (the order) in which you give the two invitations.

The only related text I found is this summary of The Bhikkhus' Rules says that it's considered wrong livelihood to seek reward from ...

the ceremony for [chanting] paritta (verses of protection), that is, making holy water and the sacred thread, the blowing of a charmed formula onto a person by a bhikkhu is also prohibited... It is allowed only to recite the paritta [protection verses], but this also occurs later and is not found in the Paali [texts]... [This is wrong livelihood and a] bhikkhu who seeks his living in this way is called alajjii, 'one who has no shame."

Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta: Discourse to Bharadvaja, the Farmer... is one instance where Buddha did not accept alms in exchange for Dhamma teaching.

The brahman Kasibharadvaja filling a golden bowl with milk-rice offered it to the Blessed One saying: "May the Venerable Gotama partake of this milk rice; a plowman, indeed, is Venerable Gotama who plows a plow for the fruit of Deathlessness (Nibbana)."
The Buddha then said, "What I receive by reciting verses, O brahman, I should not eat. It is not the tradition of those who practice right livelihood. The Buddhas reject what is received by reciting verses. This brahman, is the conduct (of the Buddhas) as long as Dhamma reigns."

That was the sutta which started this question (here).

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


text:
Buddhism and Semiotics?
Does anyone know any research or publications on the intersection of Buddhism and semiotics/biosemiotics? I don't mean the study of Buddhist schools with the help of semiotics, but rather an interpretation of Buddhist doctrine itself as a kind of ancient proto-semiotics. Any references are appreciated.

So far I have found three texts providing more or less clear interpretation of Buddhism as ancient form of applied semiotics:

A 2003 article by Mario D'Amato titled "The semiotics of signlessness: A Buddhist doctrine
of signs":

[There is a] distinction between an analysis of Buddhist semiotics and a semiotic analysis of Buddhism: While the former would be an analysis of a Buddhist doctrine of signs (as, for example, is given in this paper), the latter would be a semiotic analysis of Buddhist cultural forms.
...
Through seizing on the signs or characteristics of things, mind functions according to a conceptual matrix that is not in accordance with the way things really are, and this occurrence is the very basis of suffering. Thus, to give a semiotic interpretation to the three entrances to nirvana — signlessness, desirelessness, and emptiness — if signs and semiotic processes were to be properly understood, signifying could be brought to an end, seizing on things would terminate, and the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena would be realized.
...
The ultimate goal is not to ‘regress’ to a pre-semiotic condition, but rather to arrive at a completely perfected mode of semiosis wherein there is no longer a barrier between the sign and reality itself: When everything has been signified, when the sign encompasses all possible interpretants (signs), then a state of semiotic perfection has been attained and semiosis has been brought to its completion.
...
Thus, all phenomena (all signifieds) are to be ultimately understood
  as nothing more than conceptual constructions. And because there are
  ultimately no objects, there is nothing for signs to refer to. Hence, the
  highest awakening entails the end of semiosis.
...
The perfected signifier is
  reality itself. ...  I take this to imply that the perfected
  signifier should be understood in terms of Peirce’s category of firstness. ... The perfected signifier is thusness itself, without the mediation of discursivity and without unreal imagination.

Chapters 9-14 of Nalin Swaris' 1997 PhD dissertation titled "The Buddha's Way: A Socio-Historical Approach". Can be purchased on Amazon or downloaded here:

The Buddha developed a method for realising in practice what Derrida understood in theory. That is to say a way of achieving "bare perception" and realising "signless freedom of the mind"
...
Humans suffer because of their ignore-ance of the true character of actuality as impermanent and without substance. Ordinarily, we do not see mere things or beings. We perceive them in terms of what they mean to us - 'good for me'/ 'bad for me'. In other words see not things, but signs, and we measure everything in relation to our interests. As a result beings and things trigger lust or hatred in us. We are not aware of what transmutes perceived forms into signs of lust or hate. It is therefore far more important to understand, not so much how things come into
  existence - ontogenesis - but semiosis - the processes by which everything in the universe is converted into 'Signs'. People live under the sway of signs which are identified by names. ...  It is by turning an ephemeral form into a fixed 'thing' that it can be made an object of lust, hatred and delusion. The diagnosis is illuminating. Lust, hate and delusion are not the result of qualities intrinsic to what is perceived. It is the gaze of the beholder which, under the sway of craving, transforms perceived
  forms into lustful, hateful or delusive 'things'. ... Craving transforms
  what is pleasant into lustful objects. But how does craving achieve this? Sariputta lays bare the stratagem - "lust is a sign-maker; hate is sign-maker; delusion is a sign-maker".
...
Suññatā ... is emptying the mind of signs and liberating it
  from its sign-making proclivity - the habitual compulsion to project significations on to percepts. Overcoming this compulsion, says Sariputta, is animitta cetovimutti - "signless liberation of the mind". It is nibbanic freedom. It is liberation from what the Buddha called "the tyranny of names".

A 2008 article by Mario D'Amato, "Buddhism, Apophasis, Truth" says:

According to Buddhist semiotics, there is a significant sense in which semiosis itself is systematically deceptive, binding one further to cyclic existence. According to Buddhist metaphysics, conditioned phenomena—phenomena which comprise “the world,” including whatever we refer to as “the self”—are radically impermanent and without inherent nature or essence. Signs, on the other hand, function to posit stable entities where there are none, affixing inherent natures onto hypostatized existents. While phenomena are in flux, signs posit enduring objects. While phenomena are without essence, signs posit essential natures. Signs point to a realm of stable referents, but the purported “objects” to which they refer are always on the move. So coming to a proper understanding of semiosis, and bringing about its end or terminus through a radical transformation, is understood in Buddhist traditions to be one of the very “doors to deliverance.”
...
This is understandable insofar as according to certain
  strands of Buddhist thought, the fundamental cause of suffering, or the
  fundamental problem that must be overcome, is some form of conceptualization (sajñā), conceptual discrimination (vikalpa), conceptual construction (parikalpa), or conceptual proliferation (prapañca) — in short, the fundamental problem is some form of semiosis.
...
All of this seems to quite clearly imply that when the goal is attained, even Buddhism itself will not ultimately be taken to be true: when awakening is attained, Buddhist doctrine is to be left behind. In the end, Buddhism should serve as a means of achieving the realization of signlessness, an attainment which dissolves the possibility for affirming any truth at all.


text:
Unintended but mindless action resulted in death of a living thing
I am very new to Buddhism and am learning the teachings, so I am reaching out. I avoid hurting any living thing at all cost, but this morning while walking my dogs I was texting and I crushed a snail. My heart broke the moment it happened and I felt ill. I know it was not intentional, and I mourned the loss of life, but it happened while I was distracted and not mindful. I still feel it so deep. So I guess I have a couple of questions. What are the implications of this action? And how do I correct this wrong?

I've encountered such in a few occasions. And how I attempt to avoid it from happening again is to be mindful while walking. While walking my vision is looking at the floor in front of me in a natural posture. So that I know where I am heading and if I need to be extra careful if there are any obstacles.
Every step I make is with the awareness of stepping. If my attention is drawn towards something around me. I would take note of the distraction and bring my focus back to my steps. Else I will stop walking and pay attention to the distraction.
The drawback of this is at times people that you might know passes you but you missed noticing them until they call out to you.
Sukhihotu.

Our very existence is a cause and condition for others suffering. Consider that the air we breathe and the food we eat and the shelter we take no doubt serves as a condition for the suffering of other sentient beings. This is sometimes referred to as the all-pervasive aspect of duhkka and what makes samsara so unsatisfactory.
What you can do is work tirelessly for the benefit of other sentient beings by taking the Bodhisattva vows and working to generate true bodhicitta and true wisdom to accomplish the Great Enlightenment for the benefit of all. Meditate on that snails death and how unsatisfactory samsara is. Renounce this life and this world of samsara and use that snail’s death as motivation to accomplish the highest aim’s of mother sentient beings.
Highly suggest you read Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life three times over the course of this summer to honor the life of that snail.

What are the implications of this action?

The implication is that you will suffer. Well, actually, you already are.
Your heart broke and you felt ill. These are the immediate results of your bad kamma.
And feeling guilt and remorse is bad kamma as well, since it leads you to suffer more.

Reflect on the fact that you didn't intend the snail to die.
Reflect on how it makes you feel, with kindness and compassion.
Make the determination to avoid both in the future.
Take up the five precepts, if you haven't already. Or take them up again, if you already had and wish to renew them (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html).

This is Theravada view, btw.
Be kind to yourself! :)

Excellent! You can change 'intent' to 'intend' btw.

@YesheTenley I'm not a natural English speaking person. Thank you for your suggestion. :)


text:
Why is lust considered as being unskillful?
Sexual lust and pornography in Buddhism is considered as being unskillful, but for me it is not clear why.
If all parties involved consented to taking part in sexual acts, I don't see why they are morally wrong.
As a living animal we can give and be kind to others, but we also have our own needs which can be called healthy self-interest that we had better fulfill.
Why is it wrong to be primarily interested in a person on a sexual level? If we openly discuss our needs and theirs and are honest with them, I see no reason why it is bad.
Why is pornography wrong? In many cultures sex and/or pornography is looked down upon (or at least only acceptable once certain conditions are met, i.e. marriage) but the people there were in all probability consenting and they always have the chance to quit their job, too. Drug abuse or depression in pornography cannot necessarily be a direct correlation, but primarily a result of I) lack of coping skills and II) underlying irrational beliefs ABOUT STRESSORS and III) an unhelpful environment.

Fwiw, the main problem with pornography has been that the people involved are not always able to "quit their job". Your firmly held beliefs about why the people involved in creating a product you enjoy did not suffer for the reasons they tell you they suffered also seem rather more for your own benefit than theirs, or objective truth's.

Worse, being interested in others primarily for their benefit to you (let alone their sexual benefit to you) is something like the quintessence of selfishness and the antithesis of any moral code whatever. We have such drives and objectify people in this way as a matter of course; the entire point of ethics is to use reason and compassion to behave with love, kindness, and an understanding of our actions effects upon others.

@lly you should answer with an actual answer instead of a comment

Dude, you are under some serious illusions about porn being "harmless." Check out https://fightthenewdrug.org

Stewart, based on the site's name it is not even worth to click on it. Completely biased.

@YesheTenley They are considerations based on what Val has written, but not relevant to his/her main question concerning Buddhism and skilfulness. It's worth mentioning, but I would downvote them as answers to this question.

On the mundane level, all the other answers are okay. On the supramundane level, it's not as much about partaking of sex as it is about your attitude, the implications of the relationship, the implications of how the experience is framed.
Any time you find gratification (enjoyment) in sensual experiences, you harbor an attitude of desire towards them. You create a subconscious wish for it to happen again.
Whenever such wish is created, there is an automatic creation of imaginary or projected "future" (however vague) in which you imagine partaking of these experiences, again.
As soon as such future is projected, there is an automatic feeding/sustenance of the idea of YOU ("I"), partaking of these experiences.
Whenever there is an idea of "I" - there is an idea of "the world" as it's reverse projection. And the more this "I" holds on to certain expectations, opinions, and attitudes - the more the world it assembles as its reverse projection will look like a negation of those expectations.
Therefore as soon as you harbor an attitude of enjoying the sensual experience as something real, solid, something that can be experienced again - you are adding another piece of wood to the burning fire of Samsara.
The only way to partake of sex without creating the above karmic consequences, is by experiencing it as 100% empty (non-reified) experience with no substance / no solidity, something that can't be characterized as "pleasant" or "awful" - and can never be repeated again - and thus is not craved for in the least. Which sort of strips sex off its flavor doesn't it? It's also extremely hard to do for most of us except those who are nearly enlightened.
So the bottom line, every act of naive unenlightened sex is a giant piece of dung in the fire of Samsara. You've been warned ;)

For people who haven't realised suññata or anatta your answer is useless. One cannot by an act of will see the empty nature of all phenomena. If I'm not mistaken, only an arahant sees all nature as such. Intellectual knowledge and "insight knowledge" (based on experience) are two seperate shoes. Talking much about higher dhammas is completely useless and were in fact not a big theme for discussion by the Buddha since he almost always employed skillful means as a teaching method.

@val do you want to ask how to practice no-self?

@Val are you sure that one cannot? I mean anyone can experience emptiness and no-self from time to time occasionally, in the times of insight and mindfulness. Not just Arahat, Arahat just ultimately and permanently achieves that while going beyond good and bad and so he/she cannot yield any more kammic results. At least from perspective of Mayahana/Yogacara, excerpt: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26696/13383

Imho, unskillful does not mean the same as morally wrong.
If I say something to someone who wasn't really open to hear what I had to say, doesn't make me saying this or that morally wrong. It is, however, unskillful, since the person didn't really pay any attention.
Why is it unskillful?
Because it leads to the habituation of clinging and attachment. If you want to strive for enlightenment, sex and pornography will hinder you on the path. Because of the increase of the addiction, attachment.
If you don't want to develop in a spiritual way, then it's not a question at all.
Skillful, unskillful has more to do with whether it helps you or others, whether it's helpful or a hindrance.
That's what comes to mind.
Hope it helps.

It is not morally wrong. The question is if it is helpful or not!
Clearly, lust and pornography are helpful for temporally satisfying the craving of sexual gratification. In that sense, they are skillful. On the other hand craving for sexual gratification can be a hindrance and therefore unskillful if one has other goals... namely the pacification of craving.
I'd advise not to take addiction to sexual gratification too seriously unless it is immediately causing problems for you or for those around you. There are many things to be abandoned and while this is one of them usually we have other more important enemies to combat first. For example: anger or righteous anger. Arrogance and pride also come to mind.
A lot of people get hung up in our western civilization around issues of sexual gratification. We are not only attached to sexual gratification, but to a huge host of views about it. Many on this site have generated strong aversion to sexuality. They have their own hindrances, habits, and aversions to abandon.
Like all bad habits and unvirtuous practices of body, speech, and mind... the first thing one should do is to stop digging the hole! In other words, don't give these habits energy by building them up into the Absolute. Worst. Things. Ever. and agonizing over inability to just shut them down. These habits need to be gradually abandoned slowly over time and so one should starve these habits of the energy they need to perpetuate themselves.
A great mind training that my teacher gave to me when thinking about bad habits of mind: regard them like silly children playing in a sandbox. Our job is to be mindful of these silly children - like a doting grandfather or grandmother watching grandkids play - and make sure they stay in the sandbox and do not harm themselves or others. In thinking of them like silly children that need to be taught to behave we don't give them any undeserved energy. We pacify them by pacifying ourselves.

Sexual lust and pornography in Buddhism is considered as being unskillful

One of the ten Paramitas the Buddha has advised to developed towards the path to Nibbana is Viraya which means energy. It is unskillful for the very reason that it leads to a release of energy or a waste of energy which can otherwise be utilized for moving deep into meditation.
Why is it wrong to be primarily interested in a person on a sexual level? If we openly discuss our needs with theirs and being honest with them I see no reason why it is bad?

The way you have put it, it feels like you are talking about casual consensual sex, at the time of Buddha, this might not be prevalent beyond the institution of marriage and the Buddha did not advise the householders to become celibate, He just said, do not indulge in Sexual Misconduct.
Talking about casual consensual sex, born out of sexual lust, the problem is it does not satisfy your lust in any way, the craving arises again and again. You get stuck in a repeated pattern. This in any other situation is just fine and in-fact should be encouraged but if you are seeking Nibbana it is unskillful, not bad as it will not lead you towards advancement as a seeker, it will trap you in Samsaric cycle. Watch this video at 25:50 and see that the monk succumbs to his desire and see what all misery he goes through for that surrender to that one desire. Its the eternal recurrence as Nietzsche put it, and to make it worse, it's nature is only unsatisfactoriness.
Why is pornography wrong?

Pornography actors are basically glorified prostitutes, and making money through prostitution is not Right Livelihoodd. And why is it not Right, because sex involved in prostitution is basically on the physical level, you are using the body of other as an object of masturbation. And it is even worse in Pornography, you are not only using the other as a masturbatory object through your profession you are promoting voyeurism, sex trafficking, poisoning minds of naive individuals.
Drug abuse or depression in pornography must not necessarily be a direct correlation

The actresses have to take painkillers in order to make appear that they are having pleasure while receiving anal sex. Anal sex for anybody is not the way they show in porn movies, also the actors are on steroids for sustaining the erection in that environment where the camera is on you and you are cut in a scene and told what to do and how to do.
Apart from few porn stars who achieved glam, it's not really an industry which won't depress you. Besides all this, we have not even talked about risks of HIV and other STD's.

I find your arguments of painkillers, steroids (you probably meant viagra) and STD's quite reasonable.

It may not be morally wrong if done without causing suffering to anyone, but completely useless for longterm cessation of suffering and craving.
Its "wrong" because lust empowers bad habits and leads to gradual degeneration due to inability to satisfy growing demands.
It is the same phenomena as with drug dosage or alcohol addiction.
That relates to clinging to pleasurable experiences by exercising ritual habits; the more lust and sophisticated pornography you watch, the less satisfied overtime you become, and therefore, crave more.
In such way, one becomes unhappy as pornography doesn't bring long term satisfaction, but merely temporary sensory pleasure, instead of cessation of desire for fleeting pleasure. Clinging to any dependant form of temporary pleasure is therefore unskillful and non-lasting.


text:
What are the six sense Indriyas?
Are the six sense faculties just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person?
Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?

it may be that here it just means "sense organ"...

why was this downvoted, weird?

can i pls have some explanation of the downvotes? question seems perfectly legit

I can't tell what caused the downvote. It might possibly be that people thought that "how to think of 'ourselfves'" didn't sound like a good question I think it's likely though that it's a bit unpopular/unwelcome to ask a question in order to answer it yourself -- see for example May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them? (or Asking fundamental “beginner” questions).

oh i had no idea of the answer until i researched it cos i realised no-one wuld upvote. thanks @ChrisW

correction "no-one would answer" @ChrisW i think it makes a worthwhile addition to the site! cheers

Are the six sense faculties the sense organs, sense objects, and sense
  consciousnesses, considered all together?

There seems to be, in Theravada Buddhism, differences between

sense faculties (control of the eye)
internal sense bases (the material of the eye necessary for vision)
sense doors (how consciousness gains access to visible objects)

See the The Abhidhammattha Sangaha, By Bhikkhu Bodhi, p144

Is there anything else that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional)
  person?

The internal sense bases, along with the external sense bases, make up all that there is. But this isn't, it seems, the case for the sense faculties and their objects.
See The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p1122

What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six
  sense Indriyas?

Enlightenment seems to involve understanding

as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape of
  these six faculties

Connected discourse 48 III.
Furthermore, an arhat understands they are beyond training by knowing that

the six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder

ibid p1697

what difference does it make if we think about "ourselves" in terms of
  them

Aside from stressing the active nature of the senses, as opposed to the more passive internal bases, the Buddha in the Pali tradition said different things in different terms. Concerning the six sense faculties

ibid p1241

I believe that e.g. ch'an Buddhism treats the faculties no differently to the internal sense bases.


text:
How do your thoughts appear to you? (asking for mechanics)
Since a couple of weeks I'm stuck in meditation with something that's unclear. I hope that answers will help me get some inspiration and ideas.
So, how do the thoughts appear to you? As words, as pictures, as a far away voice? Is it always the same way, or do they sometimes appear as pictures and sometimes as words?
I have asked a couple of people already, and nobody seems to be able to tell me. Everyone responded with 'I don't know'. Which is kind of weird, since we all think.
Anyway, in my case: thoughts appear to me as a distant voice. Just to share my bit of experience. :)

To me, thoughts appear as relationships or associations. When I think of something, I remember something else related to that, and then the next thing, or several next things. All these memories are at first very vague - more like feelings - and then if I give one of them attention, it becomes more specific. Now, if I look more carefully at a single thought - it is not a solid thing, it is just a pointer to more memories related to it. So to me all thoughts are empty connections with one another.
I can also visualize objects as images, and sometimes these visual images float from memory all by themselves - so some of my thinking is visual. Or sometimes I remember sounds or tactile sensations. But those are more like "memories" than "thoughts".
I also have inner dialog at times, but by now I have mostly learned to stop it when needed. So when I think I mostly don't think in words, but in those connections I described above. When I do have an inner dialog it sounds like memory of my own voice, i.e. like I'm talking very quietly to myself, or rather remembering how my voice would sound if I said those words.
When I think about something complex, organically (i.e. not reasoning step by step), I may have some kind of complex interconnected structure appear in my head. It's like a mesh of interconnected wires, each wire being a thought connected with other thoughts. Sometimes I look at the entire mesh from afar and try to see high-level patterns, or a particular way seemingly unrelated things are connected. This entire structure is multidimensional, not 3D. Sometimes two thoughts may appear as two separate thoughts, but if you trace them into another dimension you will see that they are in fact two projections of the same one thought and that's how you see they are connected.
Working with these thoughts-as-connections requires using feelings. Feelings are like queries you can send to the mesh, to find relationships, or to find a particular thought.

To me, thoughts appear as a constant monologue. They are words, but it's as if someone is talking in my head. That somebody I had accepted as me but of late I know it's my mind. It's not a distant voice for me, it's a very close voice, in my head. For sure those thoughts do not appear as images of words, they are verbal. And I think only a musician must be capable to think in musical notes, for rest of us, they must be verbal words.
Sometimes if I am daydreaming or imagining, that also appears as images, like a movie, the sound and dialogue is also provided by my mind.
Most importantly the thoughts are flavored and affected by my emotions and vice-versa. If I am happy, I have good thoughts about future, mostly desires, if I am sad, thoughts are sad. But I have dealt with it, most of it.

Very helpful. Thank you so much! :) If I understand you correctly, you are able to make a clear distinction between thoughts, daydreaming and story creating/imagining. I'm not sure whether you practice vipassana. If so, do you see the 'noting' as thoughts or voice of the mind as well (not sure how else to describe it)?

I have done the Vipassana retreat few times but I find it difficult as the moment I use my mind to concentrate it flies off. So I learnt zazen and Samatha, which now I practise. So, during Zazen 'nothing' occurs to me not as thought but hightened awareness of senses. Something what Ajahn Brahm calls Present Moment Awareness. But that is not Shunyata or anything, its just few seconds without thoughts.

Alrighty. Again, thank you. It was really helpful. :)


text:
From which text is the quote by Buddha “My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment” taken?
I was reading an article on Tricycle written by Thich Nhat Hanh, in which he quotes Buddha as follows:

“My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.”

From which text is this quote taken?

Here it says, its from the Sutra of 42 Chapters.

Thank you, it was Chapter 18 of the Sutra of 42 chapters

My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.”

Well, the above is a rather clumsy and misleading way of rendering it. Actually it's even dangerous especially for those who've just got preliminary exposure to Buddhism. The practice is the nonpractice? So much for the Buddha's earnest admonishment to cultivate moral virtues, meditation, and wisdom! Here's the full translation from Chapter 18:

The Buddha said, "My Dharma is the mindfulness that is both mindfulness and non-mindfulness. It is the practice that is both practice and non-practice. It is words that are words and non-words, and cultivation that is cultivation and non-cultivation. Those who understand are near to it; those who are confused are far away, indeed. It is not accessible by the path of language. It is not hindered by physical objects. If you are off by a hairsbreadth, you will lose it in an instant." ~~ Sutra in Forty-Two Sections ~~


text:
Vipassana and sleep quality disturbance
I tried vipassana meditation and where i used to follow my belly for the inhale exhale. Every time I practised, I found that my sleep quality was disturbed.
I found myself tired next day after the disturbed sleep. Did anyone experience the same?

Did you fall asleep during meditation?

ha ha ! not definitely

What happens when you observe the lying position (not focused but more in a relaxed way, as Lanka describes) instead of rising/falling?
Addition:
I thought about it a bit.
What came to mind is that due to vipassana your awareness increases. Which means that it's possible that you can become more aware of all sorts of conditions. For instance: temperature. What I find myself is that when I'm more aware of let's say temperature I can't sleep like when I'm not. My sleep is more disturbed too due to this (as an example).
But sleep is not always disturbed when practising vipassana before sleep. It depends also on the meditation object. You could try to switch to a different object.
Also, you could do metta instead of vipassana right before sleep.
It supposedly brings better sleep.

Eleven benefits to practicing Metta (loving kindness meditation:

You will sleep easily
You will wake easily
You will have pleasant dreams
People will love you
Devas (gods or angels) and animals will love you
Devas will protect you
External dangers, such as poisons, weapons, and fire, will not harm you
Your face will be radiant
Your mind will be serene
You will die unconfused
You will be re-born in happy realms

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=11_benefits_to_practicing_Metta
http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/facets_of_metta.php

Good point about the Metta practice, thanks Medhini.

i like Metta meditation

According to the sutta below, it is one's state of mind which determines one's quality of sleep and not the comfort of the bed and bedroom.
Hence, if vipassana meditation improves the quality of your mind, then it should improve the quality of your sleep.
From AN 3.35:

“Well then, prince, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can
answer as you like. What do you think? Take the case of a householder
or his son, who lives in a bungalow, plastered inside and out,
draft-free, with latches fastened and windows shuttered. His couch is
spread with woolen covers—shag-piled, pure white, or embroidered with
flowers—and spread with a fine deer hide. It has a canopy above and
red pillows at both ends. An oil lamp is burning there, while his four
wives attend to him in all manner of agreeable ways. What do you
think, prince, would he sleep well, or not? Or how do you see this?”
“He would sleep well, sir. Of those who sleep well in the world, he
would be one.”
“What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of
greed—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or
householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?”
“Yes, sir.”
“The greed that burns that householder or householder’s son, making
them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One,
made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the
future. That’s why I sleep well.
What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of
hate … or a fever born of delusion—physical or mental—might arise in
that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps
badly?”
“Yes, sir.”
“The delusion that burns that householder or householder’s son, making
them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One,
made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the
future. That’s why I sleep well.

When going to bed (as a Vipassana meditator) its a good idea, to try to not have a too concentrated mindfulness but instead a more general or relaxed form of mindfulness of The Four Satipatthana.

i used to follow my belly for the inhale exhale

If you follow anapasathi meditation, Buddha said to do it by concentrating on the breath air touch in the end of your nostrils, that is a better way to do anapanasathi than concentrating on belly.. If you need more details read Anapanasati Sutta..
If your sleep was disturbed by meditation, try to chage the time you meditate, Sleep early and awake early in morning, Then your mind and body is fresh, not tired also..For anapanasathi meditation you need a  empty place of sounds and other outer obstacles according to anapanasati sutta,That may be a empty hall/room or place under a tree as suitable..

certain meditations release energy. it could be this energy is still flowing when you're in bed so you can't sleep as well.
I know a regular meditator who gets up at 4am every night because of this, then sleeps again later in the day.


text:
I like pigeons, And I like to make homing pigeon for my house, is it good act or bad?
actually I love any kind of animal, I had some birds like Nightingale, White-eared bulbul and so many others, even snake mouse and so..., That time I was child, some one said, you not love them, they love to be free, not in cage and you slave them, after that I did not keep any kind of animal anymore (as you said pet), I don't have pet for a long times
But know I see many people that have homing pigeon, they are free and they come back to their cage freely, or in other way the special kind of pigeon which known as dove or white dove or ring-neck dove with it's extremely calm character somehow seems that it can not stay alive in wild world.
so what about keeping pigeon that they became homing pigeon actually I should say we training them to became homing pigeon, or others that need to human take care of them like dove? are this act known as slavery? Is it wrong?
even though this is not good excuse to cage them either for homing pigeon and for other need to take care, but I searching for straight and clear answer and wise explanation
are these slave? does it acceptable in Buddhism? This is virtuous act? how we can explain it that is either good or bad?

It can be accepted if the animal lives freely around your home and garden,Otherwise if he lives in a cage, It should be kept opened always, so that animal can fly away and comeback when it needs..
However you have to get the decision whether it makes a wrong  effect towards the animal or not,if it's you have to give up  that, We can't see the effects on the pigeon you keep  by making it a home growing animal..If you see, it losses   advantages living in natural environment are more than it gains by home growing, you have to release it,like that you have to think and decide,you are the best one to decide that as you can see in it better than us..Simply if it gets bad effects more than good ones by keeping at home,except natural environment let it go back to natural environment

Thanks for your answer,
If I left the cage open all the time, so it will be good dinner or breakfast for cat or other kind of these animal.
and about living in nature and In cage, so If we think about long span of living in cage as an advantage so many person that are prison may like that, so thanks for the points

@Alireza shahbazi Think in this way,think yourself as a pigeon who lives in natural world first, then a certain person comes and catch you and cages you..Now you are in the cage, what do you think now,do you feel living in the cage better than natural environment you lived earlier, if so you can think about keep pigeon in the cage..If you don't like to live in cage, you have to release the animal

this is in the way of human not the way of animals, It can divided into two way, one way we added the human character If we apply these somehow we can not apply the correct answer in general because it is not human and it's needs are different, the other way we may somehow apply the human roles that may not even good for them we can find specials, But as I said the example of prison I Agree with you.

''Sabbe thasanthi dandassa Sabbe bhayanthi machhuno Attanan upaman kathwa Na haneyya na ghathaye''here buddha says us to compare yourself with an animal/human or any living being before harm him/it...So there is no barrier you can compare yourself with an animal,that mean you can think yourself as an animal..The reason is any living being has mind, and can think, so you can understand what it/he think by thinking yourself as that animal.. As the complete mean of this verse after you compared yourself with that animal/human if it doesn't like what you going to do,don't do it

A kindhearted and thoughtful answer. Thank you for sharing.

The way you have explained it, I feel that, if the bird is free to roam then no amount of violence is done on the bird, so if it is really that important for your welbeing, it is fine. You can keep it. This is definitely not a slavery and there are no doctorines against keeping homing pegions.
But there is following problem with domasticating exotic animals.

You will be buying those birds somewhere probable a pet shop, that pet shop owner will be getting them from the wild or may be breeding them. It encourages their business. Along with the homing pegions they also deal with other exotic species which are seriously not meant for human homes. This disturbs natural eco-systems. My friend once had a rabbit in his house, but that rabbit was some fox's dinner. This is disturbance in the eco-system. I am not saying the world will crash with your buying the pegion, but in a way you end up encouraging that entire business.
Some fools, when they will see your pegions wont be as thoughtful as you are. They will search on internet and buy tropical exotic species. Just go on NatGeo and look for yourself the nuisance of animal smuggling.

If its for the love of animals as you said, if I were you join the conservation efforts. You go save their home rather than bringing them to your home.

thank you, the eco-system and business is scientific and politics point, so as you said for making home pigeon we should first buy it and then train it to be home pigeon other wise they don't come back. that's completely right to joining the conservation efforts and best idea, but what about If we want to having a pet to feel it is for us and we are the owner. maybe this ownership is the source of problem?!! or enjoying which is one way?! Actually what is the kind of this enjoying??

From a Buddhist point of view its all jusy fine as you have made up your mind. That enjoying is same as enjoying anyother possession.

the level of mind is also significant,  Thanks

What does that mean?

See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

It seriously is irrelevent to Buddhism.


text:
What's the difference between remorse and shame of evil?
Remorse or regret (kukucca) is supposed to be unwholesome, while shame of evil (hiri) is wholesome.
What is the difference between the two? Why is one wholesome, while the other isn't?

The answer below is according to the Abhidhamma.
Hiri and ottapa are both universal wholesome mental factors or universal beautiful factors.
There are in total 25 of those universal beautiful factors. Universal means that they all come together in one bunch. So, if there is hiri in the mind, then there is also ottapa in the mind together with all the other 23 universals. Other universal beauties are for instance: sati, faith, non-greed, non-hatred, tranquility and so on.
According to the Abhidhamma each factor can be defined by 4 things: it's characteristic, it's function, it's manifestation and it's proximate cause.
The function of hiri and ottapa is not doing evil. They manifest as shrinking away from evil. The Buddha called them the guardians of the world. Because they protect the world from immorality.
In short: hiri and ottapa prevent you from doing evil deeds in body, speech and mind.
Now to the unwholesome factors of which kukkucca is one.
There are 14 unwholesome factors. To name a few:

ahirika = shamelessness
anottappa = fearlessness of wrongdoing
kukkucca = worry in the sense of remorse
uddhacca = restlessness

As with the beautiful factors the unwholesome ones know some universals. In this case there are 4 universal unwholesome factors, meaning they appear as a group. These 4 are: delusion (moha), shamelessness (ahiri), fearlessness of wrongdoing (anottappa) and restlessness (uddhacca).
So, in any and every mind state with moha, there is also ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca present.
Worry/remorse (kukkucca) on the other hand is not universal, it's part of the aversion group. Meaning that worry appears only in mind states that are rooted in aversion.
So, whenever you experience kukkucca there is also moha there and ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca (since they are all universals). But if there is moha there, together with ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca, worry doesn't have to be present.
Think for instance of a mind state rooted in greed. That does know restlessness, but not worry/remorse.
Kukkucca comes up after you have done something wrong.
So, not only will moha, ahiri, anottappa and uddhacca not protect you from doing wrong. On top of that you will be rewarded with kukkucca arising. And then you are in double trouble.....
Hope this helps to clarify things.

If describe shortly kukucca is the nature of mind someone thinks or flashback about past things,or past acts had done..Hiri or shame of evil tempts someone to avoid from doing a bad thing/sin
There are 2 kinds of kukucca as

Yathawa kukucca (repentance  about sins had done in past and repentance about good acts didn't get a chance to do)

and,

Ayathawa kukucca (repentance makes through thinking wrongly about a  good act had done in past..as an example someone thinks'' why did i meditate yesterday, that's a waste of time''...and repent on that..like that.. )

So kukucca is a bad nature of mind, and hiri is a good one,which avoids someone from doing a bad act..You've to reduce kukucca from your mind, and improve hiri in your mind which keeps you in the path of understanding truth

Prakrit (ancient vernacular behind Pali and Sanskrit) had a notable pattern of using stable two-word compounds to express some common ideas. It's called Dvandva, "a linguistic compound in which multiple individual nouns are concatenated to form an agglomerated compound word in which the conjunction 'and' has been elided to form a new word with a distinct semantic field". A typical example of Sanskrit dvandva is "mātāpitarau" - a word that means "parents", made from the two words for father and mother.
The Buddha of Pali Canon uses a number of expressions like this, for example "bhaya-bherava" (danger-panic), "udhacca-kukkucca" (worry-wrongdoing), and "hiri-otapa" (shame-disgrace). These compounds almost usually consist of two nouns, first being the carrier of the main idea, and the second being a qualifier helping to make the meaning of main word more precise. Both words can be used separately, but together they convey a specific image, that is more concrete than either of the two words.
Now, armed with this theory, let's try and explain each compound:
"Hiri-Otapa" (lit. shame-disgrace) stands for a particular kind of shame one feels when having disgraced oneself in the eyes of public opinion. "Oh my God, now everyone thinks I'm stupid/crazy/immoral etc."
"Bhaya-Bherava" (lit. danger-panic) means not any generic fear, but specifically the feeling of helplessness, anticipated inability to handle the potential danger. "Oh my God, this will be the end for me!"
While "Udhacca-Kukkucca" (lit. worry-wrongdoing) means not a generic worry or remorse, but specifically an obsessive anxiety and uncertainty about right vs. wrong action in particular circumstances. "What should I do now? What's right? What's wrong? What is the best thing to be doing now? Am I doing something stupid or not? Is this right or not? Is it okay to let it be, or should I be doing somethin?". In English this is called a scruples.
The main difference between Hiri-Otapa and Udhacca-Kukkucca, I think, is in the different situations they describe. In my opinion, Hiri-Otapa refers to the shame one feels after having specifically disgraced oneself, while Udhacca-Kukkucca refers to an anxious hesitation about one's choice of activity (or passivity), even if everything is alright.

(Without using these Pali words) my teacher has made important points about being sensitive to the opinions of others, seeking praise, avoiding blame, protecting ego, taking responsibility, becoming one's own center, and finally being perfectly shapeless. He said,
in the beginning while we are junior students it helps to always evaluate our potential choices from the perspective of others: "what would people say?". It helps to be a true learner, questioning oneself, open to feedback - and not just open, actively catching hints from other people's reactions, adjusting one's actions accordingly. In the beginning, this attitude is very useful and makes one non-arrogant and non-blind, growing fast. It is actually better to be like this, than to be self-assured - when you are a junior student.
in the middle this sort of attitude may lead to trouble though, because the habit of relying on others for evaluation of one's behavior makes one inconsistent, trying to satisfy multiple conflicting viewpoints. It also makes one's will power weak, since one tends to break down when presented a strong argument that goes contrary to the first viewpoint. Being susceptible to praise and blame makes one a kind of clown, always mindful of audience, without a core. Also, not taking responsibility or not taking a stance makes one seemingly nice and kind, but actually very unreliable for others. To other people a person like this looks passive-aggressive, trying to satisfy all the constraints and to make everyone happy, while having some inner resistance due to a conflict of different rules - which eventually leads to failed commitments. Another problem with relying on the judgement of others is that your mood and your level of energy is not in your own control. Someone like this will experience constant mood shifts, coming from evaluation of conflicting external value systems.
so, in the end an advanced student is supposed to transcend this habit of evaluating oneself in the eyes of others and learn to be one's own center. This means having one's own consistent value system, even if that would mean not satisfying someone else's opinion. Being one's own center makes one strong, calm, and happy - because both one's decisions and one's evaluation of the results now come from oneself. On this phase one has no doubts and no wavering about right and wrong action (or inaction) because one has learned to fully trust oneself and to take full responsibility for one's choices.
At the very end, with the increased understanding of emptiness and the growth of co-emergent wisdom (=non-reification), one's viewpoint and one's value system gets so nuanced and so robust that it effectively looks like one no longer has any single model of behavior. This is because one now is not stuck to one overgeneralized value system, but judges one's actions accordingly to the needs of the situation. When this happens one effectively loses any single form and becomes "shapeless", which is a culmination of this 4-step progression.
I suppose when Buddha speaks about Hiri-Otapa being the greatest guardian of the world, he refers to the first phase. When he says that Udhacca-Kukkucca is a fetter to be eliminated after stream-entry, he refers to the transition from the second phase to the third. And when he says that conceit is a fetter that lingers all the way until arhantship, he refers to it's emergence on the third phase, to be left behind on the fourth with attainment of wisdom and shapelessness.


text:
Different Pali words for remorse or regret
The Pali word for remorse or regret in the definition of the five hindrances (in MN 10) is "kukucca". Sometimes, this word is also translated as worry or anxiety. This word usually appears together with "uddhacca".
However, the Pali word translated as remorse in Itivuttaka 30 is "tapanīya" (according to this Pali version).
In AN 11.1, AN 11.2, AN 5.41, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation has the word "remorse", while Sujato Bhikkhu's translation has the word "regret". The Pali term for this is "vippaṭisāra". This can also be found in Udana 8.5.
What is the difference between these terms?

Etymologically, tapa-niya comes from the word for strong glowing and burning heat, like that of a big fire or sun. It also means the practice of self-torture done by the yogis. So I suppose metaphorically it refers to blaming oneself, torturing oneself, "giving oneself a heat", "beating-up oneself".
While vi-ppati-sara I think means something like "acknowledge result of one's wrongdoing", "realize one's mistake", "admit responsibility", "take blame", "plead guilty", "repent" etc.
So both tapaniya and vippatisara can be used to indicate regret and remorse - but one emphasizes the self-blaming aspect while the other emphasizes going back in time to look at one's past action.
Udhacca-kukkucca, as I explained in another answer, indicates something completely different -- obsessive wavering about right/wrong action, a scruples. While the previous two words pertain to someone experiencing results of one's past unskillful action, this one pertains to someone's state of worry and anxious wavering while choosing a course of action (including the no-action), even if it's actually the right choice.
Note, that Udhacca-kukkucca is completely different from 'vicikiccha' which is generic scepticism about something external, not anxious wavering about one's action.

Doubt would be something different: vicikiccha. Kukkucca is remorse, uddhacca is restlessness. And, although kukkucca always comes together with uddhacca, the reverse is not the case. Uddhacca can exist without kukkucca.

Thank you @Medhiṇī - 'vicikiccha' is "doubt" in a very different sense, it is scepticism (e.g. towards a teacher) - not questioning one's own choices in terms of right/wrong. As for Udhacca-kukkucca, I am familiar with the traditional explanation of these two words according to post-Pali-Canon commentaries and while I think it is correct as far as dictionary meaning of each word, it is incorrect as far as the overall meaning that Buddha has put in it. If you disagree, can you show an example of Pali Sutta where udhacca and/or kukucca are used with reference to the past?

I can point to my experience. ;) My primary point of reference is my experience, then I check with theory, in this case the Abhidhamma. Up till now, both fit. Also, you can't feel remorse before doing something. That always comes after. If you have ever had an experience where you felt remorse before, then I really want to hear it.

Same here: experience, instructions of live teacher, then Pali Canon, then commentaries. Remorse is a different Pali word altogether: tapaniya and vipattisara, which has nothing to do with Udhacca-kukkucca. Alright, let's agree to disagree - since arguing about word definitions is the silliest mistake one can make.

There is no problem, just a different level/kind/type of understanding, @AndreiVolkov. :)

Without a doubt!


text:
Is "The body never lies" supported in the suttas?
I recently went to a dhamma talk that I am skeptical of for a few reasons. One of the things we were told in this talk is that the mind always lies and the body never lies, which (in a mundane sense) doesn't line up with what I know.
He specifically told us to go by how our body feels when asked for money by a panhandler. He said that if we feel bad physically when asked, we should not give money, but if we feel good physically, we should. (Part of the reason I am skeptical of this dhamma talk is that he said a bunch of really negative things about panhandlers here and about the idea of giving them money, which seems not based in Buddhist thought at all)
Personally, I have had many times where I have been convinced I was suffocating during a panic attack. I have also read many studies where "gut feelings" - that is, physical feelings people interpret as guidance - are shown to perpetrate racist or other -ist biases in society. In a mundane sense, I am skeptical of the idea that bodily sensations are significantly more trustworthy than thoughts.
My question here is if there is anything in the suttas (preferably the Pali canon, but I'm also interested in other sources) regarding this idea of trusting the physical sensations of the body as some great arbiter of truth.
EDIT: Since someone mentioned not having more context, I'd like to make clear, we were not given much more context than I mentioned above. I'll do my best to explain what we were told exactly. This talk was specifically part of a once a week service for lay people who may not even identify or consider themselves Buddhist, and I do not believe the teacher expects that many of his audience even meditate outside of this once-a-week practice. The dhamma talk was centered on the Pāramitās and this discussion about the body was part of the part of the talk on generosity. The teacher briefly defined each term, and then spoke about them.
For generosity, he said panhandling was an opportunity to practice generosity, which seems fair to me.
Then he started talking about all the concerns he has had when approached by a panhandler- he spouted off a very very long list of negative beliefs or stereotypes about panhandlers, and then talked about how those thoughts were suffering. He made no positive statements regarding giving money to panhandlers, except for the initial statement that it was an opportunity to practice generosity. This is where he says that the mind always lies, but the body never lies, and that we should listen to our bodies when asked for money by panhandlers. Specifically, he said that if you felt bad and uncomfortable physically, you shouldn't give. This struck me as giving people carte-blanche to never be generous and also never consider why they didn't feel comfortable being generous.
His only reference for "the body never lies" is a mention that "his teacher" taught him this, but throughout the talk he referenced non-Buddhist western "Mindfulness" teachers more than anything Buddhist, so I am unsure if his teacher was even nominally Buddhist. There was a strange emphasis on how these virtues were also important in Christianity as well, which I couldn't place/understand.
The reason I asked the question is that I had an immediate reaction of "This can't possibly be true" but I wanted to get a second (and a third and so on if possible) opinion to be sure that I wasn't dismissing the teaching unfairly, or perhaps discover if it was at least rooted in something that was less likely to be used as an excuse for unskillful means.

Maybe trust your body (instincts) when it seems to be saying that you should not trust this teaching... :)

Obviously, it's not really the "body" that is wiser, it is the non-conceptual mind which constitutes the underwater part of the iceberg the top of which we see as our conceptual mind. The question is, should we trust it?
Generally speaking, in western culture the body with its instincts and emotions is seen as an animal - stupid and violent, while the rational mind is seen as all that is good in the human. However, other cultures may have different basic assumptions. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think that in Asian cultures the ancient heart-mind (the deep emotional mind - what we westerners usually call "the subconscious") - is generally recognized as a source of wisdom, harmony, and the arts - while the modern rational mind is often seen with suspicion as the source of confusion and conflict.
As for canonical evidence,  all we have are some bread-crumble trails that look cohesive enough to some but not convincing to others, as is often the case with Buddhism:
Buddha of Pali Canon spoke about "mindfulness of body" (kayagata-sati) and "the signless" (animitta). The contemporary Mahayana tradition holds that these are references to tapping into the non-conceptual mind, which is experienced as (psychosomatic) sensations in the body.
Personally, I was given a significant amount of training and instruction on getting in touch with the above through various psychosomatic practices, and in my experience it all comes together quite cohesively and makes total sense. To me these practices were presented as integral part of the teaching and I certainly see them as important as meditation and study of texts, if not more important.
As for the textual sources, the closest I can think of is Touching Enlightenment: Finding Realization in the Body by Reginald A. Ray (a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and a Ph.D). There is also a 100% western work called Focusing, developed by a psychologist Eugene Gendlin in 1970s, which speaks about same thing from a slightly different angle (thanks to Ronald Cowen for pointing out the Focusing book to me). If you are interested in emotional intelligence and psychosomatic methods, whether Buddhist or not, these two books are recommended.
Now, to address your specific concern: you are right that in an untrained person the signals from the non-conceptual mind can come mixed up with all kinds of phobias and prejudices, so a lot of preliminary work is required to clean that up until it can be fully trusted. That said, I do believe that the more someone is "enlightened" the more he or she can utilize the non-conceptual mind to its full capacity, which exceeds that of conceptual mind.

Not knowing more than what you offer in the question it sounds to me like this is a bit of hogwash. I don't know of any Sutra or Buddhist teaching that would answer your question in the affirmative. Rather, I'd say that often our "instincts" often just reflect the habits that we've engendered over countless repetitions. Most of us have very bad habits myself included. All sentient beings have ignorance as a basis for these bad habits.
For instance, humans largely have an unconscious bias for those people who look like them. Project Implicit at Harvard is doing a lot of work to uncover these subconscious habits of mind. Here is a test you can take to uncover your own implicit bias. I think it is far more useful to become familiar with these subconcious habits and evaluate them with your rational mind rather than learning to turn off your rational mind and just following these "gut instincts" without critical reflection.
My two cents to be taken with a grain of salt...

Is your Buddhism teacher a western person? I'm very surprised you were never taught any of this. I think I remember you mentioned it was a female, which makes me even more surprised, since more women seem to be in touch with this stuff than men...

Yes and no. I have many teachers. The female teachers are western though. No, I've never heard anything even remotely resembling this teaching. We are taught that gaining confidence is important, but that should be done based upon rationale analysis. One gains confidence in the teachings by applying the techniques and analyzing whether they work.

Wow, that sounds like a very different Buddhism than what I was taught, particularly by the Koreans. In my Buddhism the psychosomatic and the trans-conceptual was/is def. more important than the rational, which is mostly a crutch for beginners.

Huh. Do practitioners of what you are taught score better than the average on the implicit bias test above? That might be a good study...

I think they most likely do. Because bias comes from unconsciously internalized preconceptions, discovering and eliminating which (with the help of psychosomatic methods) is a major component of the trans-conceptual teaching.

Maybe I just don't understand your question at all.
The body doesn't know anything. The mind is the forerunner of all things (Dhammapada). And strictly speaking, the body doesn't exist at all. It's just a compilation of different phenomena (earth, water, fire, wind etc) that can be known and changed.
Rupa (matter) doesn't know, nama (mind) does.
Tension (wind element), what would that signal? Maybe some alert state, well, that's mind again.
So, I would be very surprised if someone could come up with a sutta which shows that the body is always right. (I mark this question as favourite to not loose site of it, cause it's intriguing.) What does it even mean?
Can the mind lie or be wrong. Definitely. All mind states with avija/ignorance are. But there are also lot's of mind states with wisdom. Think of the jhana's for instance. How can mind states with wisdom be lying?
My impression is that you are skeptical with good reasons.
My advice would be to leave what this teacher said behind you, let it go. If it's only confusion and raising doubts then it's not helpful to you.
(Mind you, I'm not saying anything about the teacher, since I don't know him.)
Addition after edit question of OP:
If we scratch everything unnecessary then I think the main point of the question is whether giving is good or not.
In that case I would suggest that giving dana has a lot of positive things to offer.

It aligns your mind towards non-attachment and letting go.
It creates happiness.
It creates compassion.

There are probably more positive effects of giving in the teachings. And since I'm not a scholar I leave it at that.
I wouldn't make too much of the comments of the teacher. He seems to be parroting. It's not important.
Just give if you feel like it. Don't if you don't feel like it. Make it a training, not a 'must'.

I think the question is how to interpret (whether to trust) bodily feelings ("gut feelings"), e.g. which are interpreted as fear etc.


text:
Beginner Buddhist Breathing?
Buddhists, I am told, value the practice of paying attention to breathing. I think I'm going to give it a try while I go about my day ... it can't hurt.  What are the benefits?  Are there beginner guidelines to follow?
I intend no insult, so forgive my ignorance please.

In my opinion (and there are definitely different schools of thought here), the significance of this practice derives from the fact that breathing is the most direct connection between our normal rational mind and our emotional/subconscious/somatic mind. Breath is also on the intersection between our willful acting and our spontaneous being, since we can both control it OR leave it running on autopilot. This puts it in a key position as far as integration between our different sides or levels of mind. Also, there is a peculiar connection between our free-floating association process, our inner dialogue, and our breathing. I can't quite put it in words, but they seem to be functionally connected.
Just casually watching the breathing expands one's awareness to include that which is usually left out. This allows for an information exchange between the levels and serves to the benefit of all sides. It definitely allows one to get significantly less carried away by the affects, and over time leads to a more "grounded"/"balanced" overall disposition.
Practiced as a form of meditation, deep focus on breathing, when done right, provides direct access to non-conceptual mind. This enables discovery and processing of old unconscious traumatizing experience that might have stiffened and became a source of stereotypical pathological automatic reactions and stress.
Most South Asian Buddhist teachers recommend focusing attention on or around nose (the breathing sensations on nostrils or the upper lip). Instead, following my (Korean) teacher's recommendation to focus on the movement of abdomen, I came to appreciate the diaphragm as my perfect focal point. That's what I watch when I do formal sitting meditation - and when I just move around I'm in the habit of watching my overall breathing system, the entire state of all muscles participating in breathing - from abdomen, to diaphragm, to ribs, chest, and shoulders. As my practice progressed, I learned to expand attention to also include limbs, posture, and the muscles of face. Developing this overall awareness of the body (I believe) is what Buddha called "kayagata-sati" and is highly recommended.
I can't think of any specific guidelines other than this:

Do not blame yourself if you keep forgetting. This is not just a casual remark! Blaming yourself in connection with any meditation practice, formal or casual, including mindfulness of breathing, leads to aversion towards the practice, so it ends up being very counterproductive. Don't do that. Be kind to yourself, like you would be to a very young child.
Try to find a sense of how mindfulness of breathing is not something external you impose upon yourself, but rather how it allows you to stay in contact with your "private self" and therefore to remain more yourself. It should feel more comfortable to remain in touch with your breathing (and therefore with your emotional side) - than to lose that connection. It should be a very healthy feeling.
There is no need to artificially control your breathing, or to relax it - but you may naturally start making more sighs and the frequency and amplitude of breathing may start reducing by itself. You may find yourself suddenly becoming aware of and relaxing your shoulders and other muscles that you used to keep tense. That's a good sign - but you don't have to contrive it on purpose.

That's all I could think of, based on my own practice and the instructions I received from my teacher. Hope it helps.

Thank you for sharing these insights and valuable advice.

Breathing is valuable in the way that is always available to be mindful of. Therefore, it is a great reminder to recollect Buddhist wisdom, apply it to a situation and ultimately let go of the the defiled, unwanted thought/drive/emotion.
When you remind yourself to be mindful of the breath, it becomes a habit. After forming such habit you will keep coming back to the breath constantly, and emotions, thoughts and drives become detached, since they won't become sole object of mind attention. And when these are detached, you can look at them impersonally; from the outside - introspectively. And that is what you train during meditation with breath also.
Another factor and advantage of the breath is that focusing on breathing calms the mind which gives clarity and therefore more reliable insight necessary to make the right decision.
In the end breath helps, but when you walk, you might as well be aware of sensations of the legs since this is available. There are many establishments of mindfulness in Satipattana Sutta.


text:
The meaning v of this phrase in Satipattana Sutta
I want to know the proper meaning (a full breakdown) of what this phrase means in Satipanna Sutta. It's in pali.
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati. Samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati. ‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.
Especially I want to know on this as well.
Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.

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.
Or mindfulness is established that the body exists, to the extent
  necessary for knowledge and mindfulness. They meditate independent,
  not grasping at anything in the world.
‘Atthi kāyo’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. Yāvadeva
  ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke
  upādiyati.
That’s how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body.
Evampi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati.

This is according to suttacentral.net. See: https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
Under settings you can activate showing the Pāli.

I marked this post down because it is just a copy & paste of an inaccurate translation.

I converted the quoted portion into a quote block.

The terms "sati paccupaṭṭhitā" mean "mindfulness of the present moment", whereas "sati" means mindfulness. This could make a huge difference given the wide range of interpretations of 'mindfulness', especially in the West.


text:
What is the middle way?
When there is reduced  thinking in a one door out of five sense doors ,which means if you have seen a pleasant thing and if no thoughts arise regarding them,Whether that apply to the other doors as well?what is that samadhi?in that case what is the middle way of it?

If I understand correctly what you are talking about... You are talking about the process of grasping a sign(mark) at one of the sense doors, and then automatically interpreting it into an desirable/undesirable object ==> harboring corresponding desire/aversion attitude ==> engaging in purposeful action towards that object ==> feeding craving, confusion, and illusion of self.
When we are able to catch ourselves at the moment when the sign(mark) is interpreted into an object of desire (or aversion), and stop that automatic reaction, we begin to get free from impulsive behavior -- and that eventually leads to freedom from confusion and the illusion of self.
Having learned to catch ourselves at that moment when automatic interpretation of sign happens on one sensory modality (=door), we can then more easily (NOT) do the same on all the other sensory modalities.
From this perspective, the Middle Way can be explained as not taking a stand on any single sign - and being sort of "in between" (or "balanced") with regard to all signs (as well as the signless).
Is this what you are asking about or not?


text:
Do arhats exist after death?
I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said

Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer
I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats.

If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

"The state of Nibbana after the death of the arahant is nowhere discussed in the Paali Canon. " -- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
BTW please do tell me how pursuing this further may make me a better person?

incredible, thanks @OyaMistAeroponics good luck!

If you want to see what the authoritative figures have to say on the topic, here's a quote from What Happens to an Arahant at Death? A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace:

BB: The problem then is how nibbāna after the death of the arahant can be a real element (a real entity, a real dimension, a real state, whatever term one uses) describable as “ultimate bliss” etc. yet without being identifiable with viññāṇa. [...] I take such terms as “unborn, deathless, etc.” to be referential, not mere metaphors for absolute extinction. The problem is how to bring together this ultimate reality of nibbāna, conceived as a state that (even post-mortem) is “peaceful, blissful, auspicious,” etc., with the denial that consciousness or mind is present. It’s a problem I haven’t been able to solve.

If you want to know my opinion, here it goes:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world lives by duality, that between existence & non-existence. [...] Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

What does this mean? When we say something exists, we assume that something is a distinct object that goes through time. We say, in some way it changes but in some ways it stays essentially the same. And then when it falls apart we assume that essence is irretrievably gone. But in reality that's a huge simplification, rather like the mythical geocentric model that people have learned to carry on without questioning. The geocentric model used to posit existence of "celestial sphere" to which the stars are attached, because that's how it looks indeed.
Entities are abstractions, simplifications. Not just sentient beings, but even relatively static objects like chairs are cross-sections of multiple streams, if you trace their lifecycle and the lifecycles of their parts. And when chairs are not used as chairs they are strictly speaking not even chairs, they are just oddly shaped stuff. Things exit in a certain way only in relation to processes they participate in.
So entities are a simplified way to talk about what really is a bunch of dynamic processes and many, many nested contexts. Matter, energy, and information are always in flux, on many levels.
When we say Andrei, there's this rice and milk, there are these books, these questions, these squirrels and birds, this heat, this job, these people, this country - and tomorrow these will continue in similar combinations. Andrei is not something static and concrete. It has never been something static and concrete. Because it's not something static and concrete, the labels like existing and not existing do not apply. Since labels like that do not apply, birth and death do not apply.
Mind is not "inside". My awareness is not mine. You asked a question - it became my thoughts for a day. Now as you are reading this answer, my thoughts are your thoughts. Then you'll read a tweet, then you will watch a movie, then you will hear some news about Trump. Get it? Our thoughts come from the environment, our memories come from the environment, our feelings come from the environment, our choices come from the environment, our bodies come from the environment. There is nothing you can pinpoint and say "this is an arhat". Or I guess you can of course, but doing that is exactly the framework that leads to suffering. And when you stop pinpointing you see that in fact it has always been rather loose. Then you transcend the framework that operates in terms of "entities", "exists" and "death" and by doing that un-base all passion, aversion, confusion, and suffering associated with that. That's what's called "an arhat".
Because mind is not "inside" (and life in general is not inside) - it will go on "like a rolling stream", just not always going through this particular scull. Hopefully one day, with all the efforts put in making Buddhism mainstream, the bad habit of reifying entities and identifying with them will be outgrown.

So, in your opinion, is it the reification of entities and identifying with them what creates a particular scull/scope of identity which accounts for the experience of separateness? And when the habit of reification & identification (within that scope) are eliminated, you are instead left with what remains? And with what remains no habit of reification/identification applies and so no separate-ness applies. And with no separate-ness, there is no discrimination of this or that or here or there and therefore nothing for craving to arise?

Umm yeah I think that's pretty accurate

Great, Thank you!

This is one of questions left unanswered by the Buddha.
Read here
All of the following are amongst incorrect views.

A Buddha (read Arahant or Enlightened being) does exist after death.
A Buddha does not exist after death.
A Buddha both exists and doesn't exist after death.
A Buddha neither exists nor doesn't exists after death.

In my opinion, the problem being whatever happens to the energy/consciousness/entropy/field of the Buddha must be such that it cannot be expressed in words and not even be able to be grasped as an idea or any kind of mental construct. So the Buddha left it unanswered.

yes that's what the discourse said, the question is what you have perfunctorily assumed

The question can't be answered because the question itself is already wrong. The premise assumes the existence of someone or something that simply isn't there. Since the premise is wrong to begin with, nothing else has or can be said.

I once read a story (perhaps based on a Sutra) and Lord Buddha used this analogy when asked about existence after death of enlightened beings:
Fire exist due to air, burning substance, etc. As in lives are being born and therefore exist.
When the substances are lacking, Fire are extinguished. As in you your attachment and ignorance are the substance fueling your existence. By reaching Nirvana, your substance are "gone" and you will no longer be born once your body fails to function.
Does that mean Fire doesn't exist? Does that mean the consciousness doesn't exist?
Ultimately, it not a matter of Yes or No. Nor a matter of Yes and No. Nor a matter of not Yes not No.

this is a repeat of the answer i said was poor because it assumes the question at hand :)

Buddha said that it is not possible to  understand 4 things, one of them was where a Buddha or Arahant goes
However, my feeling is that an Arahant state is like a child, pure in his heart, not identifying himself with a self, loving and feeling one with the whole universe, ready to help others without greed, aversion or craving...
Like a child taught to see the truth and the virtue, taught about suffering and compassion, that learned the path to wisdom and understanding of everything in the universe... a child that, being Dhamma, can use what he learned and achieved to stop the roots of suffering, his own changement

The word "death" ("marana") does not apply to Arahants. There are many suttas about this, such as Dhp 21, SN 22.85, MN 140, MN 38, etc.