text:
"I fear the man of one book" - What is your attitude towards this thought?
A while ago I heard said phrase being interpreted as a warning toward people who only have knowledge from a single source (a single book, the oneself's perspective, a single author, a single teacher, etc.).
Buddhism touches a lot of topic today divided into individual sciences and knowledges of their own. That's why the Dhamma is usually classified as a philosophy, a psychology, a religion, and so on. But in Buddha's time and considering the purpose of the Dhamma, those bounderies where useless and alien to the practice itself. The Buddha used elements from all sorts of areas and knowledges in order to eradicate Dukkha and to reach the other shore.
In modern times, we know a lot more about the working of the brain, about human physiology, about philosophy and science in general, about the development of religions and cultures, and about the world in general.
With that in mind: should we fear the men of one book?
Should the ones following the Dhamma know and study these other areas in order to contrast and prove the reality of the Buddha's words?
Or is it enough with just reading Dhamma books?
If you lean on that second field, do you trust that the Buddha was inerrant and/or that the authors of the Suttas had the Buddha's words transcribed verbatim?
I'm not sure if this kind of questions are appropiated for this site. If not, just ignore it and close it.
EDIT: What motivated this question is that strange vibe that arises when I read discussion where people base their answers and arguments only on suttas and Dhamma books. While that's OK, specially on academic sites, it's pretty weird to me that such an experiential and pragmatic thing as the Dhamma is, is a lot of times covered by a dogmatic and scholar aura, which puts in motion endless debates about the nature of consciousness, the place where kammic seeds are stored, the time it passes before rebirth and that sort of things. But I always end with this question in my head: are people telling about X thing because they have experienced themselves such phenomena, or because the suttas said so, or both?
EDIT 2: Wow! Such good answers! I cannot pick one over another. For these cases, I'd love to choose more than one.
Thanks for those well thought and well put idea!
Thanks for your time and patience!

To have just this one (the good) as refuge is not only most desired to reach but also sign of having arrived at the path (eg. becoming a "buddhist", better follower of the Buddha. Lokk after qualities that makes one a "good Upasaka" for exsamples. And it's a good question since most have problems with Saddha, faith... thinking they know and act on knowledge usually.

Its half knowledge which is dangerous. Man with half knowledge should be feared( ignored) upon.

Not a good question type, "what is your attitude". We try to stay away from questions that query personal opinions. Please try to ask questions that will lead to informative answers that will be helpful to others long term.

Then tsimply translare it in yoyur language: "what is the "buddhists" attidute... to get it de-indentificated in you ways of seperation headsaking... as if differently, objectivication... mr. no-personal @AndreiVolkov identifier, or now no "buddhist" on Buddhism exchanges community "you/your"...

@AndreiVolkov Ok, I see. But I think personal experience is as informative as academic and textual information. But if the question goes against the rules of the community, I agree on closing the thread. Thanks for your time!

I think the question can be rephrased into something like: "What is the right approach for one to validate the Dhamma?"

@BrianDíazFlores do you agree to change the question title? If not, why do you think it doesn't reflect your intention?

You can study other fields like science, psychology, philosophy, physiology, culture, other religions etc. That's no conflict with Buddhism.
However, using other fields to validate Buddhism is not the right approach. The reason for this is that other fields have different objectives compared to Buddhism. To compare them would be the same as comparing oranges and apples.
Buddhism has one primary objective - to reduce and end suffering, which basically relates to achieving permanent stable happiness.
The only way to validate Buddhism is to compare its teachings and the effects of its practices (as practised by oneself) against one's own experiences. Does it reduce your suffering? Does it help you reduce your bad habits and improve your harmony with yourself and others? Does it promote an increase in your own happiness and better psychological well-being?
Back to the first point, studying other fields can broaden your understanding of other fields. This has a few benefits.
Firstly, it helps prevent a Buddhist from becoming extreme or ritualistic or overly clinging to rules in his view. This actually is one of the fetters that the stream winner has to eliminate, through seeing the Dhamma clearly.
Secondly, it prevents a Buddhist from becoming disconnected from the "rest of the world". The Buddha wanted his monks to depend on the laity for alms, so that the monks don't become disconnected from the "rest of the world" and also for the laity to interact and learn from the monks.
Thirdly, understanding other fields can help with the validation of Buddhism against one's own experiences, because it can help feed one's insight. Let me use the example of Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman (quoted below from here). Teaching basic physics to students is not required for one dedicated to research, but getting questions and interacting with students help to feed into his insight, so he found it necessary.
So, although Buddhist teachings and practices combined with one's own experience is enough to "research" (i.e. gain insight) into the nature of one's reality in order to end suffering, learning other fields can be helpful in feeding that insight. In this question, I tried to compare the nature of the mind vs. body to software vs. hardware. That doesn't mean mind IS software, but knowledge of the nature of software vs. hardware can feed into the insight into the nature of the reality of mind vs. body.

When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to
  those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been
  specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this
  opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no
  classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards
  could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't
  get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do
  something, and they are not getting any ideas. I believe that in a
  situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you,
  and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing
  happens. Still no ideas come.
Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and
  challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't
  have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!
In any thinking process there are moments when everything is going
  good and you've got wonderful ideas. Teaching is an interruption, and
  so it's the greatest pain in the neck in the world. And then there are
  the longer period of time when not much is coming to you. You're not
  getting any ideas, and if you're doing nothing at all, it drives you
  nuts! You can't even say "I'm teaching my class."
If you're teaching a class, you can think about the elementary things
  that you know very well. These things are kind of fun and delightful.
  It doesn't do any harm to think them over again. Is there a better way
  to present them? The elementary things are easy to think about; if you
  can't think of a new thought, no harm done; what you thought about it
  before is good enough for the class. If you do think of something new,
  you're rather pleased that you have a new way of looking at it.
The questions of the students are often the source of new research.
  They often ask profound questions that I've thought about at times and
  then given up on, so to speak, for a while. It wouldn't do me any harm
  to think about them again and see if I can go any further now. The
  students may not be able to see the thing I want to answer, or the
  subtleties I want to think about, but they remind me of a problem by
  asking questions in the neighborhood of that problem. It's not so easy
  to remind yourself of these things.
So I find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would
  never accept any position in which somebody has invented a happy
  situation for me where I don't have to teach. Never.

Thanls for this insightful answer! I loved it. If this were a question with a single definitive answer, I would choose this one as correct. But I'd wait to see more perspectives before picking this as the "right one". Thanks again for your time!

"You can study other fields like science, psychology, philosophy, physiology, culture, other religions etc. That's no conflict with Buddhism." who says? Someone not having taken firm refuge who simply shares, deals with his ideas?

@SamanaJohann If I'm not wrong, Buddha's dispensations were directed to both lay people and monks/nuns. If I'm not wrong, your question seems to imply that everyone should be following monastic life and reliquish every aspect of life that could be beyond monasticism. Do the suttas tell that knowledge of things beyond the Dhamma should be dismissed?

That's missing total the topic: there are of course lay people and monks who seek actually outside refuge and teachins, but. The point is that someone having not the tripple gems as refuge can not valid be called Buddhist and just to use this lable to beauty one personal views is of much harm for one self and many. Because the follish mass is doing things usually does not mean that they are proper and right, Nyom @BrianDíazFlores . The Suttas do, exactly in telling that they are of no use for the path at all (those things are not beyond Dhamma, in addition, nothing that is not dh. is explained

right, yet of no releasing use anyway.

Excellent question. I share your surprise at the bookish approach of some Buddhists.
We should definitely fear the man of one book, or fear for him. The man of no book would be in a much better position. Even the ancient Rig Veda is critical of 'people of the book' and warns us to watch out and avoid them.
But it may depend. Buddhist have not a book but a vast literature and these days it covers most topics and areas of study. So perhaps the man of one literature is not always to be feared. There is also the kind of book that does not need not be duplicated, for instance a single book that explains Newton's' laws of motion might be enough for many people.
Certainly I would fear any religious believer who trusts only one book and ignores the rest. What you say about the way the Dhamma is discussed seems fair, but scholarly discussions may depend on analysis, some of which may be found in books, and this is a sensible topic to discuss. It's when what is said in books is used to replace logic and experience that the alarm bells go off and discussions take on a sectarian and even pantomime quality.

I read and agree with your statement as appropriate and insightful. The statement appears to match your experience, my experience and the Buddha confirms this as:

There are two conditions for the arising of right view:
  the words of another and proper attention.
  --MN43

I'm sure we could find more people and works that agree with title of this post. However I'm not sure that truth should be validated by number of believers. We have, for example at one time thought the world flat. The fact that you, I and the Buddha agree seems good and enough.


text:
Caste of Sujātā
What was the caste of Sujātā, the woman who offered the Buddha a bowl of rice milk? I am trying to check a reference to her as a Brahman. She is described as a milkmaid, daughter of a landowner.

There're quite a few Sujata's and they're mentioned here

She is called "mother of Yasa" in VN Mahāvagga, and her name "Sujātā" is declared in AN Ekakanipāta Etadagga Pāli.
Buddha took her food before he enlightened Nibbāna. After Buddha taught VN Anattalakkhaṇasutta to Pañcavaggī, Buddha taught Anupubbīkathā to Yasa and parents.
This is her profile in AN Ekakanipāta Atthakathā. It shows Sujātā wasn't born in rich Brahmaṇa caste family. She was born in rich Vessa caste family because she was born in Kuṭumbhika-kula.
Brahmaṇa-kula = <personal-name>+maṇava (Brahmaṇa caste family)
Brahmaṇa-mahāsāla-kula = rich Brahmaṇa caste family
Gahapaṭi-mahāsāla = <personal-name>+kuṭumbiya (rich Vessa caste family)
Example from Aṅ.A. (manoratha.1) Etadaggavagga Paṭhamavagga etadaggapadavaṇṇanā:

ito satasahassakappādhike asaṅkhyeyyakappamatthake sāriputto brāhmaṇamahāsālakule nibbatti, nāmena saradamāṇavo nāma ahosi. Mahāmoggallāno gahapatimahāsālakule nibbatti, nāmena sirivaḍḍhakuṭumbiko nāma ahosi.

I suppose the mother of Yasa and Sujātā who offered ascetic Gotama Siddhārta a bowl of rice milk are two ladies. It's evident that, at the time of offering Sujātā (who offered ascetic Gotama Siddhārta a bowl of rice milk) was just had a son after her marriage to a man of equal caste. Please refer, https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/15lbud.htm

She fulfills her vow every year (anusaṃvaccharaṃ) after she had a son, so there is only one Sujātā. However, it is possible that her family is Brahmaṇa caste because her family is the leader of the village, which normally Brahmaṇa.

Thanks @Bonn sir! Actually I didn't know that. Everyone, sorry for my mistake and please ignore my comment above. Bonn sir, It's said that Sujātā was a baroness. So her cast might be Vaishya? (May be, I'm not sure.) Vaishya people engaged in banking and lending money. For example, "Komati caste".

@Damith You are right. She was born in Vessa caste. I already edited. Thank you.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If all that is impermanent is unsatisfactory, then is all that is permanent satisfactory?
If all that has a beginning and an ending is impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory, then (with binary logic) that which has no beginning and no ending is permanent and satisfactory.
Is this right or wrong? Why? And how does it change when applying catuskoti logic?

It seems correct to me. It seems to make no difference whether we use Catuskoti or Aristotelian logic. The proviso would be that in the end we see that all that is permanent really is permanent such that impermanent states are superimposed and do not replace.

I think @Gavin Serra given the clear answer. I remember a post in this forum you mentioned the article Beyond True and False, I really thought that was brilliant. But after I learnt catuskoti myself, I found the author misinterpreted catuskoti. I don't know if catuskoti fits in the category of logic - what is the definition of logic?

@Mishu米殊 Your article is very short and clear, thank you.

All 'things' are impermanent and unsatisfactory (and without self - these are the first three of the Four Dharma Seals). Your subsequent reasoning is wrong* and not Buddhist teaching either - Buddhism teaches neither nihilism nor permanence (one aspect of the Middle Way).
The point of the teaching of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness (and no-self) is to encourage you to give up your attachment to things as a source of happiness and security, and live within the fourth Dharma Seal, 'Nirvana is tranquility'.

Wrong in standard logic ('All Americans are mortal, therefore all non-Americans are immortal' - a fallacy known as 'denying the antecedent': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent ), and wrong with respect to the 'four possibilities', which are brought up in Madhyamaka philosophy simply for the purpose of being denied.

It's not as much a logical problem as it is psychological.
(What follows are not my own thoughts, but what I came to understand was the Buddha's way of thinking as he came up with his Dharma. My specific presentation may stumble and limp but I believe Buddha's overall logic is correctly captured below.)
Imagine you found some perfect state or a way of being, that is fully 100% satisfactory. If this state was potentially finite or impermanent, or somehow dependent on a condition, this very quality would be its limit and flaw, so a finite or conditionally perfect state cannot be considered truly perfect.
And what is a "perfect" state? It must be a state, when, by definition, whatever is presently being experienced leaves no room for further craving for an even better state. Indeed, if there was some other state, "better" than the first state, could the first state be considered truly perfect? No, because then there is still room for craving.
So a perfect state must be 1) permanent/unconditional and 2) completely satisfactory without any craving for anything better. Such theoretical state is known under the name of "Nirvana".
Given the conditional nature of all aggregate phenomena and therefore the impermanence of any state, the only "state" that can possibly be permanently and unconditionally without craving is the (dynamic!) state of seeing things as they are, in their moment-by-moment transience, emptiness, and conditionality. This state of experiencing things as they are, without craving, is known as "Non-Abiding Nirvana" and the object of this experience is known as tathata or "suchness".
If we are looking for Ultimate Satisfaction we must understand what Satisfaction is and what Unsatisfaction is, psychologically, and then from this we can logically infer the only way in which the Ultimate Satisfaction can possibly exist.
So it's not about binary nor catuskoti logic nor the question of having or not having beginning and ending, but rather about the nature of experience. It is about fully understanding why any conditional state cannot be satisfactory. A conditional state cannot be satisfactory because any condition defines a limited area within which things are right, and outside of that area things are still wrong. A condition creates a potential for conflict, for disharmony, between "is" and "should". This very conflict between "is" and "should" is the exact nature of Dukkha or Unsatisfactorness. Conflict is the nature of im-perfection and the enemy of the Perfect state we're seeking.
This is why the Fourth Noble Truth defines a path that leads to progressive reduction and gradual elimination of conflict as the source of suffering, ending up in removing even the subtlest conflict - the conflict of deep subconscious attachment to conditionality, craving for "better". This last phase of removing attachment to conditionality is reflected in the progression of jhanas.
So at the end we're talking about complete transcendence of craving that comes from qualitative judgement of experience. This, of course, is the cherry on top of the giant pyramid of buddhist practice that leads to elimination of objective causes of conflict. Taken together, the "external" practice of removing the sources of conflict, plus the "internal" practice of removing all craving and any attachment to conditionality, make up the complete path to attainment of the perfect harmony of unconditional suchness.
Having no beginning and no end is a purely theoretical construct that has hardly anything to do with this ethical and psychological endeavor.

"It is a state, when, by definition, whatever is presently being experienced is such that there is no room for further craving for an even better state.", thatjs why the Buddha talk his disciples to regard even the perception of Nibbana as impermanent and why people feel secure where they do. What ever state/stand, does not last. Just this beyond states/stands/views, mr "it is, I know", does no more.

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


text:
Feeling versus Analysis in Compassion Meditation
I believe I have read within the Dalai Lama's works that there exists (at least) two kinds of compassion meditation:

Generating the four abodes within oneself, in a more concentrative and affective way (metta bhavana).
Analyzing compassion through logical discernment, having compassion as meditative object.

I noticed my capacity to be compassionate with analysis seems very limited. The Dalai Lama suggests to focus on feeling after using reasons to generate compassion.
Is it possible that my mind functions more with feeling, and that analysis doesn't generate as much compassion in myself? What is the best course of action to generate compassion?

Sharing what you have is the best course of action to generate compassion.

The more you contemplate on the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukka) and understand the suffering in each plane, the better you will be able to spread loving kindness. Because when you say "May all beings in the Eastern direction be free from Suffering" and so on, if you have seen and contemplated on suffering in each of those worlds (hell, animal, peta, asura, human, all deva worlds & all brahma worlds) you truly feel compassion towards all living beings. The more you practice, it is as if you could replace each of those beings or worlds with the word "dukka" and you start to see without differentiating that everyone who is born is suffering. (And your mind will be fixed on Nibbana as well).
Also, when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. (metta sutta, vattupama sutta, mettakatha in patisambhidamagga, etc).
A good discourse to learn that will help practice loving kindness is the metta-sutta (in Suttanipata). Try this Metta Sutta Meditation You will learn in great detail how to practice loving kindness, all the way up to Nibbana.
With Metta

I wouldn't like to comment on exactly what the Buddha had in mind by this idea of generating compassion by analysis but it makes sense that if his view is philosophically sound then analysis will lead us towards it.
I believe this is the case, such that if we analyse the doctrine philosophically we will start to see genuine reasons and motives for compassion in the unity and shared identity of sentient beings. On a simpler level it is easy to contemplate the similar situation in which all sentient beings find themselves and thus be led to a compassionate view. Thus analysis would lead to feelings would lead to compassion.
But analysis may be a rather weak method in the end, just as you suspect, in the absence of feelings and the pursuit of insight. It seems best to use all the methods at our disposal. Perhaps the difference is that analysis and contemplation produces an object of compassion, whereas other approaches may be better at developing compassion as a phenomenon in itself. The former may see compassion as a relationship, the latter as a stand-alone feature of reality. (Rather as love can be seen in these two ways).
This is rather speculative and hasty answer and may meet some objections. In marketing speak I'll run it up the flagpole and see if it flutters.

there is a whole sutta on metta
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.054.than.html

Yes there's the sutta, but how does the sutta answer the question?

The sad truth is that far too few of the Buddhists in the present day know of the Compassion Meditation (metta bhavana) in its more archaic form. But the truth of the matter is that, that is how it was practiced at the time of the Buddha. If it can be understood in the true sense of its intended meaning, you will find that it stands up to sound and accurate philosophical analysis. Here I will refer to this as the Ariya metta bhavana, as it differs from the standard metta bhavana (loving kindness meditation) that we are more accustomed to. The guided meditation that we frequently use at our meditation classes goes something like…  “May myself and all beings be free of anger, ill will, jealousy, mental suffering, physical suffering… May myself and all beings live in peace. May myself and all beings live happily. However, the Ariya metta bhavana has a much more deeper meaning.
In order to cultivate true compassion and loving kindness one needs to feel the possible suffering of existence. In the four lower realms, the suffering is higher than at the human realm. In our realm greed, hate, and ignorance prevail. In the realms of the devas there is no hatred. In beings in the rūpa and arūpa lōkas that have very fine bodies - even less dense than devas - they do not have either greed or hate; but they still have ignorance.  The fact is that no living being, in any of these realms is free of future suffering unless the Sotapanna (stream entrant) stage of Nibbana is attained. When one attains the Sotapanna stage, one becomes free from the four lower realms for good.
In the Ariya metta bhavana, when we say be free of anger, ill will, jealousy, mental suffering, physical suffering etc. etc… it is meant to be free of these ailments forever.  Thus this is how the Ariya metta bhavana is formulated:
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from suffering in the apayas (the four lower realms) forever, and attain the Sotapanna stage via the inability of the mind to generate certain cittas with “apayagami” kammic power”
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from all mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions like kāma rāga (reduced) patigha (reduced), and attain the Sakadagami stage and be healthy forever”.
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from being bound to sense pleasures (āmisa sukha) that lasts only while one is satisfying the particular sense faculty, and experience nibbanic (nirāmisa) sukha that is of more permanent nature,  attain the Anagami stage and be content (attain peaceful happiness) forever”.
“May myself and all living beings (in all realms) be free from even a trace of defilements, and attain the Arahant stage and be free from all suffering and attain the full Nibbanic bliss”.
What matters is not the particular set of word used in the above explanation, but what is felt in one’s heart. In order to do that one needs to truly comprehend that there is real suffering that all living beings face in their present and future lives.  It is a simple concept, what was explained above, but the main difficulty is with the “Ariya” part; one needs to comprehend anicca, dukkha, anatta  for the bhavana to be fully effective.  All four Brahma vihara (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha) are cultivated with this bhavana if done right.

It might be useful to read Head & Heart Together: Bringing Wisdom to the Brahma-viharas, best the whole collection.

All too often, meditators believe that if they can simply add a little more heart juice, a little more emotional oomph, to their brahmavihāra practice, their attitudes can become limitless. But if something inside you keeps churning up reasons for liking this person or hating that one, your practice starts feeling hypocritical. You wonder who you’re trying to fool.

Neither can there be compassion without wisdom nor wisdom without compassion. Actually compassion act out of wisdom and wisdom acts out of compassion. One who has no compassion with himself will nothing but hurt himself by acting not withing right view, right resolve and right virtue till right livelihood.
That is why in Asia, where people respect virtue and compassion, monks are called "Lord of Compassion", having given up trade and taking what is not given.
As all progress starts with gratitude, it is the case for developing compassion as well. One who does not see the sacrifices of others, not knowing them by one self, how could such a person, although receiving compassion since having searched for another birth, ever develop compassion. So the point to start to get wisdom into compassion begins at: Without gratidute no success
[Since a matter of compasssion only: This gift is not for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds to the world but liberation, given.]


text:
Buddhist Ontology/Reductionism vs Science
Dear Mighty friends and learned colleagues,
I am a Scientist and have been a philosopher (I don't want to reveal my identity) so far. I have been a strong theist, raised up in an orthodox Hindu Background, with vedic training. So I read Vedas and other texts and always believed in God. Sometimes by convention and sometimes by experiential intuition. God was - unfortunately or fortunately - presented to me in a dogmatic manner. Top-Down. Here is God. Take it. Accept it. Believe it.
I was OK with it, till it started to disturb me deep down. Firstly due to my heavy involvement with the foundations of sciences, I was caught in the method of science. So I can't believe in God and do my science at the same time. At one point one has to give up traveling in two boats.
Buddhism offered solace at that point. I thought it's a logical religion. Totally banishing the dogmas and blind beliefs. But I found some paradoxes in it as well. Perhaps due to my ignorance. I will be grateful if someone throw some light and enlighten me here:
Buddhism's ontology posits a world which don't need a creator. That's fine. But how about the soul? What proof does Buddha have for soul? and What about reincarnation? What are the proofs for it?
What about the Maitri? or Metta? When you close your eyes and let your heart radiate, should we imagine a field (akin to quantum fields) that radiates outside your heart? What's the proof for this again?
Also what about Karma? How can I reap bad when I sow bad? Where does this transaction take place? In ordinary space-time? Because attributing causality to action and reaction posited by Karma principle, is against the modern science whose fundamental elements are quantum particles. Where are this Good and Bad situated?
What about Amitabha?
So the issue is simple. In for pound. In for penny. If Buddhism doesn't accept anything by blind belief, then these elements should be dropped. Because there's no scientific/cognitive proofs of the aforementioned elements given our sensorimotor apparatus.
Can someone enlighten me? Or suggest me some books? Any brief answers addressing these things will be greatly helpful.
Your humble servant.

Dear friend Marcus, you are asking a very broad question. You have to narrow down to a single answerable question. Also, a lot of questions you have posted have already been answered on this site you might want to search.

Dear friend, @XlkkyuX, thanks for your comment. I searched the forum and couldn't find any questions relevant to the topic at hand. On Ontology. Though there were a few questions about God. Nothing about the inconsistent views suggested or misconstrued by me. Peace be with you.

I think you should read the 'Kalama Sutta' (very short), which gives guidelines on what to believe and why: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

It's a good question but has some erroneous assumptions.
First, and this would be crucial, if we are speaking of the 'Middle Way' then there are no paradoxes in Buddhist doctrine . This is demonstrable and it has been demonstrated, most notably by Nagarjuna. Nor is there an individual soul or reincarnation.
Rebirth is the usual word and this is not quite reincarnation. Individual souls would not exist but we would share a common 'Self'. (Schrodinger writes well about this, dismissing monads and souls as unworkable ideas. As a scientist you might like to read him since he says a lot about the Upanishadic view and endorses it).
Karma is about causation. Basically it says 'As you sow so shall ye reap'. If you jump off a cliff you'll get hurt, etc. But it operates in more realms than science observes. It operates in time, as you say, and it is able to operate because it is not a process external to our consciousness. That is, no Divine judge that is 'other' would be required for its operation, just our own internal records of our own motives and actions. We would be our own judge and jury.
Karma is tricky in the context of ontology because by reduction it would evaporate along with the subjects and objects on which it operates.
Regarding ontology, for a fundamental analysis nothing would really exist or ever really happen. The world we live in would be a creation of consciousness and as such would have the nature of a dream. To all everyday intents and purposes it would be real but this reality would be 'conventional'. To understand this as an idea would mean studying Nagaruna's doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Worlds'.
We normally say a piano is a real object but know that by reduction it's just a thin fog of quanta. The Perennial philosophy says it is not even this but is empty of inherent existence. For Buddhist ontology we need to study 'emptiness' and the idea that all phenomena are empty. Only if they are empty can they be explained, and this would be why Buddhist metaphysics is able to work where theoretical physics and western metaphysics ends in paradox and confusion.
The idea of a field radiating from the heart may be meaningful and useful and perhaps there is such a thing, but in the end Buddhism asks us to look beyond extension. Extension is a paradoxical idea and thus all extended objects - the number line, the continuum, space-time, pianos etc - and by reduction Buddhism disposes of them, thus avoiding the paradoxes that arise for realism.
You say there is no scientific proof of certain elements of the teachings. This is inevitable since they dispose of mundane science and speak of what lies beyond sensory empiricism. This does not mean there is no proof. Buddhist teachers should not be teaching things they have not verified for themselves. The difficulty with discussing this with those unfamiliar with these ideas is that in a sense you'd be right, karma and rebirth are non-existent. This would be why it is possible to transcend them. But to all intents and purposes they would exist until we know they don't.
As for where good and bad are situated they'd be in your mind, along with right and wrong and sin and evil and fear and guilt.
There are many good books. For ontology I'd suggest The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso (Shamabala). Schrodinger is worth a read, perhaps What is Life and What is Mind. The mathematician Hermann Weyl is good on the continuum and explains the Perennial view. His The Continuum is too much maths for me but his other writings expand on his thoughts. If you're into maths you could try Spencer Brown's Laws of Form in which he reduces the world to formlessness. Bradley's Appearance and Reality is a more chatty reduction of the space-time world to a collection of conceptual imputations for a Reality that is 'non-dual'. If you can do the maths you might like Ulrich Mohrhoff and his text-book The World According to Quantum Mechanics, which gives the interpretation of QM necessary for Nagarjuna's universe.
The literature is so vast we're spoilt for choice. If you specify a topic I could give a more specific recommendation but all the topics overlap so it's just a question of wading in and following your nose.
I'm happy to add to this if I've missed anything. I feel that when scientists ask questions it would be vital to answer them.

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

Dear Great sophist Marcus,
The Buddha knows all things science, but science doesn't know all knowledge of the Buddha. Like a satellite in space can zoom into any landscape of the Earth, but a traveler tracking the Himalaya can only observe the surrounding with his eyes, or his drone with monitor; or by checking the compass in reference to the map to confirm his location. Science is in discovering new unknowns everyday. Buddha has known all, is the all, science is a set within the all. This is important to bear in mind. Aside from this, your questions are answerable. Here is my perspective, I don't expect all to agree, nor do I get the best verbal explanation for the ineffable.

But how about the soul?

In Buddhism, the soul should be understood as consciousness. It is consciousness that animates matter. It is consciousness that gives rise the notion of self. However, in contrast, Buddhism discerns the soul - consciousness, impermanent. Hence it cannot be the self. Therefore, different from Vedas, there is not any eternal, unchanging self, nor an undying soul existed.
What is the proof that consciousness is impermanent? Or,

What proof does Buddha have for soul?

If consciousness is permanent: a) you will never forget anything; b) you will not at one moment feel happy then the next moment unhappy; c) information procured by the eyes, ears and nose etc. shouldn't be in different format. Etc.
Therefore, consciousness - the soul, is impermanent. It is a momentarily continuum, like a river. If a thing is impermanent and cannot be controlled, it is not the self. Like you can't stop forgetting, or stop hearing.

What about reincarnation? What are the proofs for it?

Reincarnation is an autonomous, self-induced birth. The entity reincarnated is a clone of the self, in Vedas called avatar. But in Buddhism, birth is not autonomous, self-induced. Often it translates as rebirth. A rebirth takes place when the matter the consciousness animated deteriorated, i.e., the death of a physical body. As the deteriorated matter no longer fits for animation, the consciousness will animate an associated matter. Like the electricity powers the microwave, when broken, you can plunge in an oven to replace it.
Rebirth will have to take place because consciousness cannot be destroyed, just like electricity cannot be destroyed. You can destroy the circuit, but cannot destroy electricity.

What about the Maitri?

Yes, compassion is an "energy" field. Thought, which is conscious consciousness, is energy. The proof is that there is headgear invented (the best and lightest is a Taiwanese made) which amplifies the signal generated by the mind to switch on/off lights (certain brain-wave), without physical contact. I don't think this the perfect solution with proper understanding of how the mind works, but a good try. Normal human's consciousness is scattered, it jumps here and there incessantly. An accomplished meditator can have more condensed, focused consciousness. That's why the Buddhist training on Dhyana. Such training also exists in ancient India and China, though not exact the same as the Buddha's method.

Also what about Karma?

Karma will have to take place too. Because the mind doesn't bind by space-time, but space-time is created by the mind. This is answered in a sublime and profound teaching of the Buddha, that preserved only in the Chinese Tripitaka:
「...隨眾生心, 應所知量, 循業發現。」 ── 《楞嚴經》
Translate:
...yields to the mind of the sentient, responding to its capability of quantification, manifesting according to its Karma. -- Surangama Sutra
Quantification - quantum, long ago has been mentioned in Buddha Sutra.
This good and bad is cached in the mind.
From my limited and amateur knowledge of quantum particles, a) that could exist in multiple places at once, b) and they correlate with each other instantly despite astronomical distance. These quantum attributes are recognized based on assuming space-time a constant and primary factor. But in Buddhism, the Chinese Mahayana understanding, space-time is a structure we projected to the phenomenal world. It is also a framework where the tangible consciousness operates. However, in the intangible, consciousness never arises nor ceases, space-time doesn't exist, it is one.
When a bad deed is carried out, there is the offender and victim. In order to fulfill the roles, the intangible consciousness materialized into the offender and victim in space-time. Here we have sentient A and B, like the quantum particles appear in different places at once, or correlating. In the ultimate, both the experiences of the offender and victim are lived. However, in space-time, our world, these experiences will be lived consecutively. Hence the old idiom says, "you reap what you sow", a wisdom procured by observation and intuition.

What about Amitabha?

Amitabha is the Light. Consciousness its material manifestation is light. An accomplished meditator can directly see it in his meditation. (That's all I should say, for an esoteric knowledge.)

Because there's no scientific/cognitive proofs of the aforementioned
elements given our sensorimotor apparatus.

I don't think consciousness can be measured by instrumental apparatus. We can measure brain-wave, but brain-wave is a manifestation of consciousness. Like space cannot be measured by sensorimotor apparatus, can scientist deny the existence of space? In the same way, accepting the existence of space by the scientist then is anything but blind belief, which should be dropped too.

Or suggest me some books?

If you want to have the purest understanding of Buddhist doctrines, you should only read the Sutras, as the beginning.
Unfortunately its unlikely you can read Chinese Sutras, which were translated by the most extraordinary and accomplished Indian and Chinese historical Buddhist masters who proficient in both Sanskrit and Chinese. If you read Pali Suttas, which have approx. 1/10 of the complete teaching of the Buddha, the best and most sincere translator is Bhikkhu Thanissaro. However, from my reading, probably Pali Suttas can't satisfactorily satisfy the mind of a scientist and philosopher.
Of import, I would advise to get away from those:

books written by modern Buddhist-scholars on introduction to Buddhism, full of misinterpretations; also avoid
books written by those Rinpoches/Geshes who are not scientists neither philosophers nor psychologists but trying to interpret with a distorted scientific, philosophic or psychologist's tone; keep from
books written by scholars on Nagarjuna, Madhyamaka, Two Truths, Middle Way, Conventional vs Ultimate Truth, or (Vedanta) non-duality. These topics can only be correctly understood by a Buddhist master who proficient in Buddhist doctrines, with direct insight acquired in Samadhi. Scholars without such are just doing the mind-games or playing with words. It only adds pollution.

Mine is an unconventional approach, but closest to the Buddhist hereditary. May it delight you.

Dear Mishu, peace be upon you! Thanks for this divine teaching. I will keep reflecting over and over till I get a grasp of it. It is too deep and thanks again for taking efforts to explain me and enlighten me.

So could you suggest me some books to read? That has a scientific as well as Buddhist outlook? You have indeed suggested books to ~read. But I want those books that let me understand this beautiful subject.

I also have checked the blog on Celestory.  Very informative and enlightening. Thank you!

Also could you suggest me any Teacher? of Mahayana Buddhism? I am ready to travel to China and leave everything and spend my life there learning the Dhamma. Are there any online YouTube lectures that I can hear? In English?

@Marcus.AR - Gets my vote. i'd agree about books by (pure) scholars on Nagarjuna. They are often over-complicated and unhelpful if not actually uncomprehending. But good books on Two Truths, non-duality etc.would be completely vital for a scientist or philosopher arriving at Buddhism since this is way into the doctrine for a scholar. To do the formal philosophy one doesn't need a full understanding. I feel that the only hope for academic philosophy is to acquire an understanding of Nagarjuna but it doesn't have to be the sort of understanding and acquaintance that a Buddhist would want.  .

Thanks Marcus :), and your appreciate of my blog. Unfortunately there is no book to recommend. Over 2000 years, none of any accomplished Buddhist master written any "introductory" or "summary" or "cookbook" book on Buddha Dharma. It is impossible, and all accomplished masters dare not to bear the bad Karma of teaching wrong Buddha Dharma. No one can properly, perfectly explain the Buddha's mind, only able to help the learner by giving his own perspective as reference. The learning is by seeing the Dharma directly himself. On the other hand, in contrast to knowledge of science or...

...those of logic and reason which built upon acquiring information or expanding new categories, Buddhist doctrines dealt with removing compartmentalization and conceptualization. With removing, the original will be revealed, often used the metaphor of black clouds hiding the bright moon. Bright moon is the original state. Therefore, we learn to unlearn, by unlearning we acquire the true knowledge, instead of we learn to acquire more knowledge. Usually a learner is particularly associated with one or two Sutras. Some Sutras especially resonates with a learner perhaps due to his...

...disposition, temperament, or his origin (we all have been in different forms of lives with different experiences - the past lives). For example, the Chán School patriarch Huineng particularly resonated with Diamond Sutra. But, just guessing, perhaps (1) Surangama Sutra is for you. Though you can't read Chinese, a less ideal choice of reading English translation may still be worthwhile. The Sutra is very scientific but the etymology of course is not. It is very very difficult, I can guarantee you...

...My hindsight told me perhaps City of 10000 Buddha has the best translation so far, and don't read Master Hsuan Hua's commentary by the 1st time. Read his commentary as a side note when you've finished discerning the meaning from your own study. It is my prejudice that no master nowadays fits for delivering Dharma if you aimed at very advance, intuitive, revelatory level of deliverance. The masters are fitted for teaching average general public, with generalization and superficial information...

...The next "book" I recommended is Huineang's (2) Platform Sutra, same read commentary just as side note. Last "book" is Bodhidharma's Bloodline Theory. Red Pine (he translated it as "Bloodstream" which is erroneous) has a translation which I don't want to recommend. But at the moment probably that's the only one in English. I've roughly finished my translation but I'm not through with editing and my English is not ideal. Book (1) is very difficult, Book (2) and (3) is relatively easy that's why I recommend...

...Esp. Book (2) is almost like an introductory or summary, it is spoken by Huineng the enlightened master who not just once being spotted possessed Rddhi power like an Arhat (a sign or mark of an accomplished master). His full Sarira (relic of his body) perfectly sits in Nanhua Temple for ~1300 years. Wikipedia said "mummification" is incorrect, no preservation procedure, it even suffered certain damage during the Cultural Revolution. In order to hide it from the Red Guards, the monks buried the relic in a cave, Southern China was humid, it caused certain deterioration...

... Longquan Monastery is associated with bringing the Dharma to more intellectual practitioners, with monks coming from the primary universities in China with doctoral degrees. Its website is multi-lang. with Eng.. As side note, the "#metoo" scandal related to the Abbot, imo, is a "social engineering" implanted by the "power". If, you dedicated to being a seeker, I suggest your visiting all the famous mountains where different Bodhisattvas reside, such as...

Mount Wutai is the residence of Manjursri, who's affiliate with knowledge, intelligence, academic. Ooops, I've written extreme long comment. You are most welcome if you have any question that I could help, you may write from my blog's  email form which I could reply more properly.

Perhaps discouragement to you @PeterJ, Two Truths/ non-duality is a misinterpretation. "Two Truths" is an erroneous translation of 二諦. (Many Tibetan texts were translated from Chinese in Tang Dynasty, many Sanskrit texts also back translated from Chinese for original Indian texts were lost or perished. Ancient China comparatively advanced in writing means: paper and printing invented, silk with treatment for long-lasting or stone craving; also very conscious in preserving knowledge.)  二諦 means two ways of speaking one thing...

... non-duality is a product of misunderstanding of Buddhist doctrine. It is Vedanta. It doesn't mean 1+1 = 1 (non-duality). It's logically incorrect too. However, I do admire your quest for knowledge and extensive reading on many subjects :)

@Mishu米殊- Yes, two ways of speaking about one thing would be good approximate description of the idea of 'Two Truths'. But neither truth would be the whole story. I don't know what you mean as regards misinterpretations and erroneous translations. These words have been in constant daily use for centuries without any problems. .

@Mishu米殊 - Pardon me, but from here it seems you have not understood nonduality. I do not know the relevance of '1 + 1 =1'. Nonduality takes us beyond number and form. A discussion for another time maybe.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

But how about the soul? What proof does Buddha have for soul? and What about reincarnation? What are the proofs for it?
I think that the Buddha doesn't posit that there is a soul -- that ("non-soul") is the Buddhist "anatta" doctrine.
I think that doctrine says that the way (or a part of the way) to liberation is to not assume that various things -- that anything at all -- is "me" or "mine" or "my soul".
When you close your eyes and let your heart radiate
I suppose that (i.e. "heart" and "radiate") may be figures of speech.
How can I reap bad when I sow bad?
When you sow something like "studying mathematics", what do you reap from that? I think you reap a knowledge of mathematics, some skill with mathematics, acquaintance with other mathematicians, opportunities to practice mathematics, and so on.
I suppose that what's true for "mathematics" is true for "bad" or for "good" too.


text:
How to cultivate Equanimity?
Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.
Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta.;

MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies "equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana.

As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana.
My question is, How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself?
The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as peaceful and exquisite, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

That's quite the complicated sutta!
MN137 has a very detailed and distinct progression. Thirty-six categories, with eighteen for non-renunciates folks and eighteen for renunciates. For both non-renunciates and renunciates, the path to equanimity leads from sadness through happiness to equanimity.
Let's take an example with non-renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon seeing a chocolate bar. They buy, eat it and the hunger is gone. The absence of hunger is seen as "happiness".  Then the candy companies realize that this is a good business and offer many many kinds of chocolate bar (technically, this is called "over-choice"). After eating many kinds of chocolate bars, one experiences a "meh-equanimity" to any particular brand of chocolate bar. This is lay equanimity.
Now let's take the same example for renunciate sights. One who experiences sadness in hunger might find happiness upon the cessation of hunger after mindfully seeing and eating chocolate bar. They are aware of how hunger passes as food is ingested. They are also aware of a certain aftertaste and afterfeeling once the food is consumed. They are mindful of the changes to their body with each bite of every food. Mindful of the effects of sugar and its ill-effects, they become equanimous towards the sight of chocolate bars, accepting them when no other better food is offered. That is the equanimity of the renunciate in diversity.
The formless meditations lead to equanimity based on unity/singleness. Here one is not concerned about chocolate bars, since that is just a form of food. Instead, one establishes equanimity by the relinquishing of defilements by observing the origin, rise and fall of the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.
That is how I read MN137.


text:
The "working-ground" (kammatthana) of the five hindrances
My question is about the following passage (taken from the section on the five hindrances here):

One who earnestly aspires to the unshakable deliverance of the mind
  should, therefore, select a definite "working-ground" of a direct and
  practical import: a kammatthana1 in its widest sense, on which the
  structure of his entire life should be based. Holding fast to that
  "working-ground," never losing sight of it for long, even this alone
  will be a considerable and encouraging progress in the control and
  development of the mind, because in that way the directive and
  purposive energies of mind will be strengthened considerably. One who
  has chosen the conquest of the five hindrances for a "working-ground"
  should examine which of the five are strongest in one's personal case.
  Then one should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, they
  usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within
  one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered
  and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for
  any opportunity of developing these qualities which, in the following
  pages, have been indicated under the headings of the spiritual
  faculties (indriya), the factors of absorption (jhananga), and the
  factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga). In some cases, subjects of
  meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the
  respective hindrances.

The bolded emphasis is mine. My question is, what is meant by making the "conquest of the five hindrances a working-ground"? Kammatthana is later defined as the subject of meditation (literally meaning "working-ground").
Instructions are given right after the assertion but I am confused as to how one might extend this into everyday life and not merely during meditation. Furthermore, meditation often has some other object of focus (namely, the breath, the movement of the abdomen etc.) does making the five hindrances the working-ground change this?
More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground) should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances, then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it fades? Or how should we deal them?

There is not much to say about it, the sutta named Subhasutta (numbered MN 99) has plenty of times the word kammatthana -- also translated "occupation" in this translation.
Here is the definition from the famous ATI glossary:

kammatthana Literally, "basis of work" or "place of work". The word
  refers to the "occupation" of a meditating monk: namely, the
  contemplation of certain meditation themes by which the forces of
  defilement (kilesa), craving (tanha), and ignorance (avijja) may be
  uprooted from the mind. In the ordination procedure, every new monk is
  taught five basic kammatthana that form the basis for contemplation of
  the body: hair of the head (kesa), hair of the body (loma), nails
  (nakha), teeth (danta), and skin (taco). By extension, the kammatthana
  include all the forty classical meditation themes. Although every
  meditator may be said to engage in kammatthana, the term is most often
  used to identify the particular Thai forest tradition lineage that was
  founded by Phra Ajaan Mun and Phra Ajaan Sao.

Anyway, the end of your question is more important -- i.e. you asked:

More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during
  a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should
  make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground)
  should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances,
  then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does
  not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it
  fades? Or how should we deal them?

Dividing your life into two parts, "trying to to get the citta into samadhi" and "not trying to get the citta into samadhi" is not a good idea, even for people who are not bikkhus (mnks). What you can do in daily life is sati sampajanna (clear and constant awareness), like when you walk, when you eat and so on -- but getting citta (mind) into the samma samadhi (right concentration) needs seclusion, which is exactly what samma samadhi is.
So first a bit of vocabulary...
For the buddha, "living in the present" means having the citta (mind) in samadhi (concentration) of the first jhana (or higher) as expressed here, and it turns out that "the here and now" is always pleasant,
so,

the citta is in the samadhi of the first jhana = living in the pleasing here and now
the citta is not in the samadhi of any jhana = not living in the present moment.

The buddha also says that it is easy for puthujjanas (wordly people -- who probably have some incorrect views e.g. about the doctrine) to confuse the samadhi of the jhanas with Sallekha (meaning "effacement").
The puthujjanas, who say that "watching thoughts come and go" is "living in the present moment", say that because watching sensuality is all they know -- and they do not know how to experience something else than sensuality. Those puthujjanas are full of thoughts 24/7, so they say that when they watch thoughts they "watch reality".
What the puthujjanas who invented dry meditation (i.e. "meditation without concentration") do is, at best (and it is really at best), is sampajanna (clear awareness) -- since they do not have sati (mindfulness or awareness or concentration), it's not really sati·sampajanna (concentrated or continuous clear awareness):

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

meaning they watch vedana-sanna (feelings and perceptions), and thoughts come and go, and they try to pass that as yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing r insight).

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where
  a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the
  five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such
  its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such
  their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such
  its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that,
  when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

There are even toxic puthujjanas who hype the "acceptance of any experience", "embrace the present moment" (which is, for those people, watching thoughts and sensations). Those puthujjanas fail to see that there are meritorious vedana-sanna, meritorious thoughts -- and conversely demeritorious vedanna-sanna, demeritorious thoughts -- and that letting demeritorious experience arise is very bad.
Sati·sampajanna is what people today call "mindfulness". It is good at preventing future lusts arise (or at least preventing them from becoming established), it is "what guards the senses" (see here and here -- but to suspend the bad feelings, you must get the citta into samadhi of at least first jhana, precisely because the vedanna-sanna of this samadhi is the meritorious vedana-sanna.
And to get the citta into samadhi, you have to memorize and put into practice right view and right intention, so first being physically secluded from other humans for a few hours or days -- then it is mano (mind) which has piti (joy associated with concentrative absorption) and the kaya (body) has passambhati (calm) then sukhaṃ vediyati (experienced ease), and the citta (mind) has sukhha (well-earned ease) then samadhi (concentration).
THe  buddha explains how he got right samadhi here and here (renunciation) -- and there's a
a page with a few quotes on nekhamma (renunciation) here.
Once he had right samadhi, the citta could know how kamma-jati (karma and birth) and dukkha (misfortune, dissatisfaction) works.
So like the buddha said, sati·sampajanna is what he did first, judging his thoughts and classifying them into two (i.e. "meritorious" and "demeritorious"), destroying the bad thoughts with seeing the danger of bad thoughts, but it is precisely this sati·sampajanna (=situational wisdom, that is: In each moment one calls to mind whatever is necessary to master the given task ) which is transformed into samma samadhi. So do not divide your life into "meditation" and "non meditation". Later on, this samma smadhi is used to turn the citta towards āloka·saññaṃ manasi karoti (perception of light) and yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing).

I'm afraid your answer is quite difficult to understand for a beginner like me, due to the number of undefined technical terms. It would help me greatly (and perhaps others that read this answer) if you could include a glossary at the end of your answer with the definitions of the terms.

@Dianne I tried adding a translation of the terms. Some people find it's clearer to use the original terms (for several reasons including that e.g. there might several English words you can use to translate, none with quite the same range of meanings as the original) -- I've found it a helpful exercise to study each word, to look it up.

@Nachtflug thank you for this answer. You might like to check my translations. I'm especially unsure of what āloka·saññaṃ manasi karoti means, in the last sentence.

Furthermore, meditation often has some other object of focus (namely, the breath, the movement of the abdomen etc.) does making the
  five hindrances the working-ground change this?

The five hindrances are only 'working ground" when they exist. When they don't exist, the breathing becomes the working ground. Or if the five hindrances are sufficiently weak so they can be calmed by awareness of breathing; the breathing is the working ground.

should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances, then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does
  not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it
  fades?

Yes, this method can be used. However, personally, I think it does not optimize the development of wisdom.

Or how should we deal them?

The suttas report Buddha categorised thoughts as "skilful/wholesome" & "unskilful/unwholesome" (refer to MN 19). This categorization was based on the wisdom that such thoughts are either harmless or harmful. If the mind truly penetrates the harm or potential harm of unskilful thoughts, they are easier to eradicate.
For example, most people don't crave the drug heroin or get angry at their boss. This is because they know clearly the drug heroin leads to serious problems or their boss can fire them from their job.

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that 'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

To self-chose the right "place to work", like a costumer selects his/her food according to his/her desires wouldn't work for a lay person (one not in main training yet).
That being the reason it's tradition to devotef and faithful approach a teacher, to take refuge and silas, after an outwardly sacrifice (usually candles and incense sticks) and then ask for ones "working place".
Don't think that one could meet a teacher in home and fastfood enviroments, it required to access borderlands: What is a boarderland, how to recognice?.
It might be that what ever is given as task, wouldn't seem proper. nevertheless, one should follow it eager and with faith. One might know such circumstances from movies like "Karate Kid".
If thinking "smart" and trying to gain things on short cuts, avoiding sacrifices required, full of stinginess, it will not work how ever much info and intellectual access there might be and one would just nurish hindrences instead.
[Note: This gift of Dhamma is not thought for wordily gains, exchanges, stacks or what ever trade. In the case the places does not provide for liberating shares, it may be deleted best]

"To self-chose the right "place to work", like a costumer selects his/her food according to his/her desires wouldn't work for a lay person" - I don't agree on this. I think a lay person who has keen faculties is able to choose a Kammatthana (Field of Work) with success.


text:
Buddhist perspective on uncertainty
I was reading some books containing an anthology of Ajahn Chah's Dhamma Talks to both laymen and monks. In the introduction of one of those books, the translator indicated that AC used to translate 'anicca' as 'uncertainty', mainly because, to his eyes, "impermanence" seems too abstract wjen compared to the former translation; we can all relate to the experience of uncertainty, which one can say is the manifestation of impermanence in our daily lives.
While I agree that 'uncertainty' is an specially useful translation, even more when considering the target audience (laymen, unacquainted with buddhist terminology), I'm confused about the accuracy of such rendering when trying to stick to the canonical teachings.
What did the Buddha told about the relation between impermanence and uncertainty?
If we're to believe the texts literally, there are multiple occasions when the Buddha was able to see into future of some individuals. Does that tell us that life may seem uncertain only most people, to those who don't possess such gifts and abilities, but that in the end, reality is "fixed" and already determined? Is reality and future events actually uncertain?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience!

When having given a certain cause a certain effect is to be expected, yet it is not sure of what cause one gives: not certain about what is good and what bad. All not for sure...

Thanks for your reply! So, Is uncertainty just a feature of those who don't have knowledge of the distinction between good and bad, and knowledge of causes and effects? Is it an overcomable feature born from ignorance? Or is it a feature of reality itself?

yes to all, without "or". In addition: For those who don't know the reality of uncertaincy cause a lot of trouble. For those knowing, they are using the certain certency to live out the uncertaincy for final certaincy. That of what one normal defines as reality is uncertain as it is based on a stand/state/view, Nyom. And in asking always oneself: "Sure?" and possible be reminded on the Dhamma, path can be traced.

Meaning to stick to the path as means to certaincy, taking only this, the way, even not sure, for sure. This might be of use: The Essence of the Dhamma, Nyom.

I find it an odd translation. I suppose uncertainty could be seen as a consequence of impermanence, but what if someone is certain of impermanence? I can see why uncertainty might be an easier idea for the layman, as a way into the idea of impermanence.

I think this is two questions -- "is 'uncertainty' a good way to explain anicca" and "to what extent does the Buddha's 'divine eye' imply that the future is predetermined/certain" -- ruben2020 answered the first (below), I think the second is maybe answered on this site in a previous topic (but I haven't looked for it).

Your health, wealth, reputation, career, family are all impermanent. Your life is also impermanent. Nothing lasts forever and everything changes over time. Nothing bad like disease and death can be avoided forever. Nothing good like your loved ones can be preserved forever. This is anicca.
This causes uncertainty for individuals when they think about their future. Uncertainty is one way to summarize the effect of impermanence. Uncertainty is maybe a more directly meaningful term to people than impermanence.
Anicca is also discussed in the context of the five aggregates being impermanent and in fact, all conditioned things being impermanent and changing.
The Buddha saw only a limited future based on cause and effect. Just as if you see the cloudy sky and forecast rain. The Buddha's prediction of the future is not because all events in the future are fixed and predetermined.
In Buddhism, the only thing that's permanent and fixed is Nibbana.


text:
Can a being be stuck in an endless cycle of depression and suicides?
Can a being be ignorant and depressed due to ignorance and commits suicide and is then reborn ignorant and depressed still and commits suicide again and again  and so on indefinitely...?
If so, is there any guarantee of it ever ending?

This is the idea behind 'I Have Been Here Before' by J. B. Priestly, and the play suggests a way to break the cycle. Radio version on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rYOOG27Cs

According to DutiyaSāriputta Sutta (SN 55.5), one of the conditions for stream entry is hearing or learning the Dhamma from someone already acquainted with it.
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.5/en/sujato
From that, you could say that get out of the cycle of suffering and narrow-minded ignorance it depends on the change of outer conditions, which may lead that person to the chance meeting a Dhamma follower, or finding casually a book about spirituality/Dhamma/Buddhism/self-help/psychology, or finding someone ready to help such depressed individual.
The mind reacts according to habitual tendencies and to the nature of the presented stimuli (that being internal or external, from the mind or from the outside). If new stimuli is presented, the chances of changing one's world view may increase, specially if the depressed individual is open to seek some help or if the wants to get out of that cycle.
As Ajahn Chah tells us in its Dhamma Talk titled "Living with Dhamma in the World":
"People who drink alcohol sometimes say, "I just can't give it up." Why can't they give it up? Because they don't yet see the liability in it. If they clearly saw the liability of it they wouldn't have to wait to be told to give it up. If you don't see the liability of something that means you also can't see the benefit of giving it up. Your practice becomes fruitless, you are just playing at practice. If you clearly see the liability and the benefit of something you won't have to wait for others to tell you about it. Consider the story of the fisherman who finds something in his fish-trap. He knows something is in there, he can hear it flapping about inside. Thinking it's a fish, he reaches his hand into the trap, only to find a different kind of animal. He can't yet see it, so he's in two minds about it. On one hand it could be an eel, but then again it could be a snake. If he throws it away he may regret it...it could be an eel. On the other hand, if he keeps holding on to it and it turns out to be a snake it may bite him. He's caught in a state of doubt. His desire is so strong he holds on, just in case it's an eel, but the minute he brings it and sees the striped skin he throws it down straight away. He doesn't have to wait for someone to call out, "It's a snake, it's a snake, let go!" The sight of the snake tells him what to do much more clearly than words could do. Why? Because he sees the danger -- snakes can bite! Who has to tell him about it? In the same way, if we practice till we see things as they are we won't meddle with things that are harmful."
(Keep in mind that eels are considered a delicacy in some parts of Thailand).
https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/living.html#n13
If the person becomes aware of the dangers and liabilities of living in such conditions, he may want to look for an escape of his/her suffering. In the search for escape, one's perspectives, perceptions, thoughts and worldview become open to the possibility of a better state and a peaceful life. That's when outer help is most useful.
If, on the other hand, that person is not aware of, and open to the possibility of ending that suffering, the chances of that person accepting help decrease drastically. In the fifth chapter of he Dhammapada it is written that:

A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.
Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.
Though only for a moment a discerning person associates with a wise man, quickly he comprehends the Truth, just as the tongue tastes the flavor of the soup.

https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp05.htm
Have a nice day!

Can a being be stuck in (etc.)?
Further to @Caoimhghin's answer, I guess that a person -- a "being" -- might even believe so, temporarily.
I think that Buddhism warns that, "there was no view of self that would not lead to suffering" -- and that thoughts like, "this is me", "that was me", and "that will be me", might be described as "unwise attention" or "attending inappropriately" ... and that, conversely, "identity view" (i.e. the "view", the "belief") is one of the "fetters" which people escape as they become more enlightened.

You have no permanent self.  Because you have no permanent self, you have no permanent characteristics.  Because you have no permanent characteristics, you cannot be permanently suicidal.


text:
I am addicted to Masturbation. What can I do?
I meditate daily for 5- 10 minutes with Breathing meditation. So, far I have curbed my Porn addiction. But, finding it difficult to keep away from masturbation.
I keep telling myself, that I am wasting my time, water and every potential. But still I find it hard to keep away from the compulsion. It may be because I read in a medical book, that masturbation was normal. But, every time after doing the deed; I'd feel guilty and depleted of energy.
The compulsion is strongest whenever I go to have a wash. If it arises when I am alone, I can keep myself away - through by strenuous exercise or playing rock music on my piano. But, I re-lapse every time I go on to take my wash. Now, it's hardly like I could keep from washing myself. What is the best medicine that the greatest way would recommend me to do?

Try increase the length of your meditation session. The calmer you are, the better the chance for lust to subside. Also make sure to do lots of outdoor cardio exercises, like long distance running for at least 1 hr. The "runner's high" can be a good and wholesome substitution source for sexual pleasure.

There are other/previous topics on this site e.g. Lust arises every time I am alone -- also questions about porn and about addiction

Let me start by telling you that I've been in your situation too. So, you are not alone in this.
Denial, repression, justification and guilt: these are four responses/reactions/habits/behaviors that are useless and even harmful when trying to overcome some unwholesome pattern.
If you notice that something is unhealthy (whether for your mind or for your body), you can overcome your obstacle without the need of those four mentioned reaction.
The first step is to accept that something unskillful is being done. I chose the word 'unskillful' over 'bad', because the latter has some culturally loaded and might imply moral connotations. But in this specific situation, if I stick to your post, there's nothing inmoral being done. Understand that and learn to take away from you that innecesary moral shame. Apparently, you are not harming anyone else.
Secondly, you should understand that what you are experiencing are the fruits of some ingrained habit. Your mind has learn how to react under certain stimuli or conditions (those being both internal -from the mind- or external). That habit is NOT "you". That learnt pattern is the consequence of conditions that came together out of your control and will; for instance, you were in your teenage years, you were confused by your feelings, you wanted some information, and some information came to your hand, casually, the one telling you that masturbation was normal. And it is! It is a normal behavior, in the sense that statistically, most people do it a lot at some point in their lives. But to this particular matter, statistics have nothing to do with this, because you want to get rid of something you perceive as detrimental to your mental well-being.
Let me do a little digression about that last point: keep in mind that the buddhist teachings were directed to two main target audience: householders and monks/nuns. And most restrictions and rules were focused that second group. To householders, lay-people and normal citizens, there were some precepts recommended for a ethical and skillful living. For most of them, their goal life was to live a happy worldly life (not in a derogatory sense of the word "worldly", but as in contrast to life in monastic reclusion), with families, jobs, possession, houses, projects, hobbies, etc. Relinquishment of these worldly goals and ways of life is not a requisite for holseholders; for them, the precepts (5 or 8, depending on you level of commitment to the buddhist path) are more than enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/atthasila.html
Back to the second point: as I said, you are not the habit. There is nothing to be called "you" in that behavior (nor in anything you consider as part of "your" identity, but that goes beyond the point. For more info on that, I'll put some references below). And so, it is useless and a illusion to get involved with that sexual desire in a personal fashion. A wise and skillful way to respond to such desires is to observe them in an impersonal way, just like when a zoologist is trying to look for some animal in the forest to study its appearence and behavior. Try doing the same with that mental event: when desire arises, instead of thinking "Oh no! Here comes this desire again. I'm so weak" or something alike, notice the desire, and tell to yourself "desire", and so your mind will know what just happened and won't get involved in a personal way, getting carried away by the streams of negative emotions. If you let yourself be carried by guilt and anger because of your desire, then you will feel angry and guilty for feeling anger and guilt for the desire, and so on; and so, an endless cycle of anger and guilt goes on and on. After the desire (or any negative process) was identified and labelled, let it go, feeling the tension in your body as it becomes relaxation. For some (myself included), this process of "labelling" your unskillful and unwholesome reactions is a very effective way to alter the usual way your brain reacts to situations and stimuli.
Notice how, by doing the above mentioned, you are not denying nor repressing your feelings; you are recognizing them, and choosing wisely what to do with it. By doing this, you will start modifying your habitual reactions. Your main tool to doing so is your attention and awareness: pay attention to your mind and body, but stop assigning any personal feature to these mental and bodily processes: they are just habits and processes, nothing more, nothing else. Notice them as they arise and go away. If you give them more importance than due, you feed such negative behaviors; but if you take away their nourishment, they will starve and cease to exist.
In third place, it is useful to understand how preferences (likes and dislikes) are created. Some of them a formed by association between an already pleasent stimulus and some neutral stimulus. Others are formed from the development of ideas about what is good and what is bad. But independently of the process of origination of preferences, desire and aversion depend on our perception of the world and the stimuli we face in our daily lives. And perception is conditioned and influenced by our worldview and thoughts. What we think is 'good', we desire; what we consider 'bad', we want to escape from. But those categories and labels are subjectively created, and those labelling do not depend on the object/phenomena itself, but on how does your mind interpret and perceives such objects.
So, you could start by asking to yourself some questions like: when does sexual desire arise most frecuently? And why does it arise at such occasions? What do I perceive as desirable, and why? Is the object of desire satisfying by itself? If I obtain what I desire, will my search for it disappear permanently? Why do some objects in some context give rise to those desire, while in other contexts do not? Am I attached to the object itself or to whatever the object makes me feel? Did I always feel this way about the object of desire; if I haven't, then why?
Remember to use the same logic before explained when asking those questions to yourself: whatever feeling arises, notice it impersonally, try to identify it, and once you learn from it, let it go. And the next time that feeling arises, you will be acquainted to it, and the whole analysis won't be necessary. And maybe sometimes new conclusion may appear as your attention and understanding get sharper everyday.
Ajahn Chah, a wonderful Thai monk and teacher, explains it this way:

Someone recently asked me, "As
we meditate and various things arise in the mind, should we investigate them or just note them coming and going?" If you see someone passing by whom you do not know, you may wonder, "Who is that? Where is he going? What is he up to?" But if we know the person, it is enough just to notice him pass by.

You can find an anthology book with this quote in here:
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/No%2520Ajahn%2520Chah.pdf
And lastly: be kind to yourself. Patience, kindness, consistency and honesty are key. Let attention become your best friend, and don't turn that friend into a police officer waiting to give you a ticket everytime you feel anything unwanted.
If you think about masturbation as a big issue, it will be a big issue. If you see it simply for what it is (a habit caused by conditions and events that came together out of your control and will), changing your mind will become way less tedious and distressing.
EDIT: I added a few more details concerning perception and subjectivity.
EDIT 2: As someone suggested, the use of the words "unfortunate conditions" may be misleading. I rephrased it as "conditions that came together out of your control and will".
And the links about the wrong pespectives on identity and the "self":
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html
https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/anatta-and-the-four-noble-truths/
https://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/14/if-not-self-then-what/
And here are two videos by Ven. Yuttadhammo about how to use the "labelling" method in your daily life and in your meditation sessions, and about how to deal with masturbation and addictions in general:
https://youtu.be/hLvU7ppM4vE
https://youtu.be/W5Lg9P-VekA
May you have a wonderful and peaceful life!

Why did you label masturbation as being created out of unfortunate life conditions? Also, while it's our thoughts that are responsible for how we feel, you better not give the impression to the questioner that you can feel equanimous at every circumstance. This isn't how it often works. If an adversity happens, it's healthy to feel negative, because they help to properly process these events. Non-extreme emotions like sadness (instead of depression), remorse (instead of guilt), disappointment (instead of shame), annoyance (instead of anger), concern (instead of anxiety) are the alternative

Thanks for your reply! Yes, you are right, the use of the word 'unfortunate' was an unfortunate use of words. I think I will change it to some other word. And while I agree that if you put in line emotional states from less healthy to more healthy, your proposed list of emotions is a better alternative than those other extreme ones. But even a better alternative (at least from my point of view and personal experience) is to not think that those "middle point emotions" are necessary.

Equanimity born from right understanding, independent from the situation, is not a negative state if comes from (again) the right conclusions and the right processing of your own inner word. Yes, you are right as well in that equanimity is not the common response for most people (and even for people trained under the Dhamma). But I want to make sure for the OP to consider this new possibility of reacting to situations, even challenging ones, with an open and receptive mind, seeing things like opportunities for improvement rather than burdens. Thanks again for your time!

First of all, do you feel guilty or shame after you masturbated? There is a difference in the two. The former is about moral violations, where you don't live up to your moral expectations, whereas the latter is concerned about public disclosure of weakness.
Secondly, you must realize that it is primarily your attitudes, beliefs and thoughts that are responsible for your guilt, and not the situation itself (masturbation in this case).
This is why you must familiarize yourself with the state-of-the-art of masturbation. You must see that almost everyone did it in their lives and that - in all probability - a lot of humans it still do it on a daily basis. It takes time for you to let this sink in, but it will improve your quality of life, not so much because of the masturbating, but of being free of guilt (not that masturbation has other health benefits as well).
Thirdly, once you have seen for yourself that it's largely (but not completely) your attitude & thoughts that are responsible for your guilt and not the internal or external situation, you can decide to take responsibility and show yourself self-compassion.
You see for yourself the following insights: (i) that it's in human's nature to have sexual desire; (ii) that you are not expected to be celibate as a lay practitioner; (iii) that feeling guilty doesn't solve your problem to amend your situation; (iv) that you're not really hurting yourself or others if you masturbate; (v) that you are not really in charge of what pops into your mind, that is, if past experiences where of sexual lust then it's likely that they will come at full force in the present again, if the conditions are right.
Just knowing the stuff I wrote is not enough! You must put any advice you receive at practise, else it is just intellectual masturbation (no pun intended).
Every insight mentioned above of course takes time to develop and needs "real life" investigation. For example, you can look out whenever your friends talk about sexual topics; this is the proof of the 1st insight. Insight (iii), (iv) & (v) ask you to let go your old thoughts. You don't push them away nor engage in them. You simply accept them and let them be. This will weaken your guilt. Then, you can again remind yourself of insights (i) - (v)
And remember, whatever advice you take, it always requires a certain amount of planning, determination & motivation, problem solving and most importantly PRACTISE!
I hope I could help.

Yes, I do feel guilty on most occasions - specially if I have taken the five precepts. You see, I renew my vows each morning and evening. But, somehow somewhere a semi- nude video wriggles its way into my youtube recommendations and I am a goner.

You have to see that the precepts are no commandments. They are training rules to help you to concentrate and to get along with others. On top of that, they don't require you to abstain from sexual activities, just don't harm anyone and cheat on someone. Total abstinence is for monks and nuns. Guilt, or any other rigid and extreme emotions is the cause of strong rules formulated by SHOULDS & MUSTS. If these rules are violated, you either rate the event as 100 per cent bad, you think that the event is intolerable & that you literaly disintegrate and/of you rate yourself/others. The last is true

Since your rigid rule: "I MUST NOT BE SO LUSTFUL IF I SEE A BEAUTIFUL WOMEN" is violated, the other derivative activates, that is, self/other depreciation: .. AND SINCE I AM LUSTY, IT PROOFES THAT I AM A RANDY, STUPID AND WORTHLESS HUMAN BEING". You can question both empirically, as follows: Where is it written that I absolutely must not be horny? Where is this law? Am I really a total randy person, or rather a fallible and complex human being who has much more facettes, that is, who does good, bad and neutral acts?Pragmatic dispute: Is it helpful to put me down? What are the costs?


text:
Someone has an illness which is inevitably going to kill them. Why?
Imagine following situation: A person who thinks of themself as a good person, meaning they are mostly nice to people and act and think almost always morally. Said person is diagnosed with an illness that has no cure and is inevitably going to kill them in, say, a year. How would a Buddhist explain this?
I already know about the four noble truths as well as the noble eightfold path. Also I know that one could explain it with the concept of rebirth. But I'd like a more in-depth explanation and I'm interested if there are other ways of explaining it or if I am wrong with the information I already have.

As used here, the question "Why?" has a bit of a foundation in Identity View. There is an implied question of "Why am I suffering this kamma?". A key assumption of identity view is that there is an essential self that exists in our body. It would be this "self" that generates kamma through contact, feeling, craving, rebirth and suffering. It would be this "self" that would travel between this life and that life intact like a passenger transferring to a new bus.
And yet that very body has DNA inherited from our ancestors, who in their lives adapted to conditions at that time. There have been studies that some adaptations for a resistance to a certain disease such as cholera may make one susceptible to cystic fybrosis. In other words, our ancestral selves sometimes survive at our expense. In this case our current "selves" actually span generations of separate lives. The illusion of a well-defined self starts to break down and not work so well.
And just as DNA passes from one generation to another, so do behaviors. There are good and bad patterns of behavior passed down through generations. Parent hits child and child grows up to be an abusive parent. If one murders, one believes in murdering and that echoes forward into shorter lives for all (your example MN135). Here, too, one needs to consider where exactly the "self" boundary is. In this way, asking "why?" spins off into more and more tangled considerations, the so-called "thicket of views".
Instead of chasing the "why?", it is more productive and effective to simply observe that:

This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. --MN62

For example, instead of "why?", we might choose to say:
"This body suffers from cystic fybrosis, but this cystic fybrosis is not mine..."
or
"My father hit me and yet this hitting is not mine,..."

The way my teacher taught me, he said most (but not all) illnesses are karmic results of attachments. In his explanations, these attachments are often tendencies that are passed from generation to generation - from parents to children. So most diseases have roots in attachments that ran strong in previous generations of the family.
In my teacher's explanation, a disease is always a way to get rid of attachment, either voluntarily - through spiritual growths, or forcefully - through loss and death.
If a given member of the family has a problem with attachments that were passed on, and this time can spiritually evolve enough to abandon the attachments and grow beyond them, then the karmic disease can be circumvented or quickly healed.

Really interesting explanation, sadly I can only accept one answer. But what do you mean with "voluntary spiritual growths" in terms of a disease? Is disease not necessarily connoted bad in this context or is it only related to the riddance of attachment?

How would a Buddhist explain this?

There're different ways and different explanations, depending on who you ask. Asking a doctor and s/he'll probably gives an explanation based the patient's history of smoking, alcohol usage, maybe some genetic/environmental factors, etc. Asking a fitness instructor, maybe the explanation would be something related to the patient's exercise habits, etc. Asking a Buddhist and the answer would appropriately be a combination of rebirth and kamma:

"Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings." ~ MN 135 ~

The past lives effects continues in many ways. People have countless of life-times before they born to their last incarnation. Just because they have complete memory loss that makes them impossible to remember the past lives without using some special methods doesn't make them free from the karmic effects of the past lifes. Karmic effects of the past lifes can manifest in many ways. And illness is one of them.

Someone has an illness which is inevitably going to kill them. Why?

Because we all have to die of something. Be it illness or accident or organ failure. There is not problem here. There is nothing wrong with dying or death.
Everything that arises ceases. That's how nature works. The body breaks apart and then a new mind-body-combo get's created due to clinging.
Or was your point the disease bit? (It's possible I don't really understand your question.)
In that case, I'm not sure what good speculating about the causes for a certain disease would do. I doubt anyone of us will ever know for sure.
Also, what does the cause of ones dying/death matter? It's all just a process.
But, again. I might completely miss the point of your question.

Every life is important, but human life is more important because as humans, we can change our future lives or uncover the road to Nirvana. So, those rare human lives are more important.
Buddha said not to kill anyone because “you don’t like death, just as no one wishes for death.”
So, what about situations where there is no intention to hurt and that person also wishes for death, with no opportunity to do good karma or uncover the path to Nirvana? Yes, it’s a different situation.
But I think human life is very rare and we have to utilize it to the maximum (good karma, uncover the path of Nirvana)