text:
A comparison of two ethical systems (one essential, one relational)
Put this in an answer before, but actually wondering what the texts would say is the correct course.
You wake up and find yourself faced with two options (you are placed in this position by a third actor).
Option A, kill 1 person.
Option B, 100 other people are killed (by that third actor).
(There is no option C, I would put suicide is better than causing harm to others, but assume this is also not possible)
Moral system 1: Killing = Evil (100%).
Knowing that 'Killing = Evil', you choose option B (with your Essential certainty in the wrongness of killing, there is no reasoning that can convince you to pull the trigger yourself. And as you do not personally pull the trigger, you are not the 'efficient cause'. You have done no wrong within your moral framework, the person damned is the person who executed the 100 people.
Moral system 2: No killing > less killing > more killing.
Logically, B is never reasonable, you choose A.
The second moral system reduces suffering. It is non-essential, therefore being more in line with anatta (imo). Whether you choose A or B (regardless of your moral system), the end result is conditioned by you (by choosing B within the first moral system, you have not escaped the fact that you have chosen, you have just escaped being called the efficient cause). The first moral system 'treats this as that', which the Buddha warned against. In addition, moral system 2 is equivalent to moral system 1 apart from very extreme cases like above, where a thing is compared to itself.
Let's say you are on the Buddhist path. Faced with the above situation, following system 1 and choosing B, you end up not personally causing harm, but there is no escape that you are a condition for the effect. Choosing A, you are plainly no longer in communion as you have broken the 3rd expulsion rule..
And in that the Buddha did not 'invent' anatta, but came to it through a deep and unbiased analysis of empirical experience (the 5 aggregates), would you be pushed to adopt the non-essential system (and choose A)?
Does the Buddha feeding the tigress in a past life point to A being a better answer? In that story, he sacrificed himself out of compassion. Killing someone is not compassionate, but avoiding the deaths of 99 extra people at the expense of becoming a killer (with the consequential karma) surely is!
(Also the efficient cause must matter more than progressively less proximate causes, otherwise the butterfly that flapped its wings and inadvertently flooded New Orleans with that hurricane is heavily damned too! :p )
(putting it in maths terms, choosing A you do less damage but are closer to it, therefore whether A is better than B can't be determined simply)

I think this question is a duplicate (already answered in another topic). If it's not a duplicate please highlight what's distinct about this question.

If you say so! (sorry, you can close it! :) )

Well if you say so: is your question answered by the answers to that other topic, or is this a different question? I think they're both questions about the Trolley problem; I'm not sure whether they're the same question (about the Trolley Problem), or whether you're asking something different about it.

They are, but this was my little thought! 'trolley' is not the first search term I'd throw in to the search bar to look for similar questions though! (The answers there were what I was looking for though, thank you!)


text:
Did Lord Buddha gain enlightenment by inquiring into death?
I remember one just one of my treasured books 1955 copy of " the teachings of a compassionate Buddha" where I read that the Lord had a morbid fascination with death ..suffering etc and inquiring of death ( possibly a force //entity within)he gained insight into a possible way out of suffering ..rebirth etc pls let me know if this is true ?
For example there is reference made to countless past lives of the Buddha by him so I guess he was able to tap into his own death.

While living in the palace, Prince Gotama realised he would die (read Sukhamala Sutta), which resulted in him losing intoxication with the ordinary life of pursuing transient pleasures, which he also saw caused anguish & addiction in people and brought little happiness & much disappointment (read Magandiya Sutta).
In other words, Gotama did not directly or actively inquire into death to gain enlightenment because death was an established fact to him. The 'morbidity' referred to is 'suffering' & Gautama's inquiry was always into suffering.
Therefore, when inquiring into suffering, Gotama inquired into Dependent Origination (read Maha Sakyamuni Gotamo Sutta). Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer?" and answered: "Beings suffer due to aging & death", i.e, "loss'. Then Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer due to aging & death?". His answer was "birth". Why does birth occur? Due to becoming & attachment, etc.
As for his countless "past lives" and also the word "reborn" (in  SN 12.10, above), these are just mistranslations of the respective Pali words "pubbe nivāsa" and "uppajjati". For example, this translation of SN 22.79 correctly does not use the words "past lives". Instead, it uses "past abodes".
Everything above points to something called "birth" ("jati") as being the main problem the Buddha identified. After his enlightenment, the Buddha's 1st words were:

153. Through many a birth (jati) in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (gaha). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving
Dhammapada

What "birth" ('jati') actually means will depend on your personal study, practise & realisation.
The Haliddakani Sutta may possibly provide some insight into what the Buddha meant by "abodes/homes/fixations" ('nivāsa'/nivesā) and "house/home" ('gaha').

Excellent work.. My opinion too only thing is if non of us had existence ie birth , we would have nothing to do ! Haha

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Disguised negative emotions and the mindless brawl called an election
With the election and all the hyperbole on both sides in the US,  I've never seen emotions running this high.. ever.. and I've been though elections since the 1950s.  Like just about everyone in the US I've gotten sucked into this incredibly unmindful sickness and it definitely has had an negative impact on my practice in the last month - I own this.
I had been trying to practice loving kindness with both candidates and felt like it was working, but realized that there is a slightly more subtle emotion than raw hate that metta practice addresses, but not head on and I was sucked in.  So I wanted to comment on it - both because I suspect it may be tripping up others and see in general if anyone thinks it worth commenting on and has any advise.
It concerns this word, and its effect on one's practice:

scha·den·freu·de
  ˈSHädənˌfroidə/
noun: Schadenfreude; noun: schadenfreude
pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

Though I'd felt like I wished them both happiness, health, and to be free of suffering and its causes - and convinced I sincerely felt it.   I had discovered with some introspection a huge amount of glee felt when the candidate(s) not of my choice had some significant misfortune. It may sound obvious to many, but it wasn't to me.. Somehow it seemed rather innocuous to laugh when something bad happened to them and it didn't come to the forefront of my awareness like naked hatred - though it really is in a thin disguise.
I realize just how much work I need, and that there is still a lot of media I now avoid. I would appreciate any constructive advice.
Be Well!
yetanotherguy

Yes friend ...I think what you are referring to is media pollution or media puppetry ...as well as unresolved issues in your practice . the exertion if will power sometimes is not enough power to overcome ingrained emotional intelligence ie, hatred, anger ,fear all three if these go way back to when we were all in caves wondering how we would get the next  meal!! So Buddhism is unique as it allows the practitioner at any level to go further I.nquire a little more and learn through observing our own efforts and inner mind so that we can effect positive change.
Lastly staying away from powerful stimulus like media biast TV is not so bad after all for some its only a distraction from the real picture ...I wish you well..

Possibly you have more loving-kindness (good-will & good-hope) towards the majority of the people in the world than towards the minority made up of politicians that promote war, death & poverty.
Possibly that is why an innocuous laugh occurs when something bad happens to them. Possibly the laugh is really a celebration ('mudita') for the good fortune of the majority of the people of the world rather than hatred. Personally, I would not get hung up over it.
Having 'loving-kindness' does not eradicate the perception of 'evil'. A Buddha has loving-kindness (non-hatred) but still perceives evil as 'evil'. To quote:

'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there,
  released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 2.12

My advice is to distinguish between the perception of 'evil' and your mind's emotional response to that perception of 'evil'.
1st acknowledge the real & ever-present 'evil'. Then work to free the mind of the emotional response of hatred & anger towards evil & instead cultivate 'sadness' towards that evil then 'equanimity' ('upeka') towards that evil.
I doubt wishing happiness, health & free of suffering will save evil doers from 'hell'

It's obvious that people are (i.e. humanity in general is) vulnerable to having their attitudes manipulated by politicians: I think that's how wars happen. I suppose that part of it to demonize the enemy, so that you rejoice in their downfall; part of it is to create an "us-versus-them" scenario; part of it is to create a "we're on the winning side" message, or (conversely) "we're oppressed and should rise up".
It's probably good to be aware that you're vulnerable/susceptible to that kind of  political manipulation or messages: although you may recognize it as an unpleasant/sick emotion, at least maybe it's better than not recognizing it as evil and allowing yourself to get swept away to wage a war against others.
Seeing anatta (as well as developing metta) might help too: because part of the root of the schadenfreude might be holding views like "I am" (e.g. "I am on the winning side", "I am against this politician") and "I have" (e.g. "I have these reasons for wanting them to lose").
If schadenfreude arises and passes away, even though you don't have a wrong view which nurtures it, you might find answers to this topic interesting: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Having learned that, if you still find it bothersome an option is to switch off the channels from which you're getting those messages (e.g. TV or wherever it is). Note that this summary of definitions of Right Speech includes this section with quotes from the suttas:

Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; (etc.)

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


text:
Life and why we (mankind ) exist
I'm stuck on this for now ...does the Buddha say anything about why we exist ( mankind ? I know how much he stated about reasons why we should not exist such as Nirvana being the highest goal to escape from the karma bond!! Just like to know for balance of reality.

this not an anwser but my point of view. let's say that happiness exist because suffering exist. and by observing the suffering we are bound to observe the happiness. it's a quest.

The main point of paṭiccasamuppāda pretty much comes down to: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". And so the reason to our existence, not just mankind but pretty much all conditioned phenomena is that the condition or the root cause for that existence still exists. So in our particular case, the reason we, mankind, still exists is because the conditions to our existence, the 3 unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and ignorance, still exist. And as long as one has not completely uprooted them, s/he will continue to wander in Samsara's 6 realms of existence.

So in a coconut shell  if all the conditioned phenonminon were to uproot  negative stimulus ..greed ..anger so forth then we would cease to exist,  strange !!

31 realms. Not 6!

Sameasu, shouldn't be too strange. A car can only keep going if there's still fuel. A fire can only keep burning if there's still oxygen. A person can only keep getting reborn if there's still kamma driven by the 3 unwholesome roots.
SankhaKulathantille, 31 is not the only classification. Depends on how one wants to slice and dice the realms: could be 3 (sense-desire, form, and formless), or 6 (hell, affliced spirits, animal, human, asuras, deva), or 31...

'Existence' ('bhava') is a mental 'view' ('ditthi'). When the mind is free from 'self-view', 'existence' will cease. Instead, there will only be mental & physical 'elements' (dhatu) rather than 'existence'.

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one
  sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
  discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
  occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
  is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world
  does not occur to one.
Kaccayanagotta Sutta

~~~

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Vajira Sutta

In terms of 'physical life', this comes from the elements & from mother & father.

...this body composed of the four elements, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge...
Ganda Sutta


text:
Difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana
Is there a difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana? Or are they just synonyms?

The two terms are not exactly synonymous although their context of usage is synonymous since both terms are associated with "seeing" ("passa") the same true reality.
'Yathā bhūta' means "true nature", as is found in AN 11.2, namely: 'yathā (true) bhūta (nature) jānāmi (know) passāmi (see)*'
"Vipassana" means "clear seeing" (namely, the Four Noble Truths, the true nature of suffering & peace; & the Three Characteristics, the true nature of conditioned things).

Vipassana is the process of methodology to see things as they are. Seeing this as they are (yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana) leads to revulsion (nibbidā) --> dispassion (virāga) -->  liberation (vimutti) -->  knowledge of the destruction of the influxes (āsava-k,khaya,ñāna). [Upanisa Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta].
So by means of Vipassana you get yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana though which you can get liberation transitively. Vimutt’āyatana Sutta mentions this, though it skips some intermidiate steps Nibbida fomular implies that you have to pass through yathā,bhuta.ñana.dassana. Also see this answer.
Also see: Nibbida by Piya Tan

Yatha does not mean "true." Bhuta does not mean "nature."  Yatha means "as" or "like."  Butha means either "[it] is" or "has come to be."  Yatha butha therefore means "as it (really) is," or "as it has come to be."  There is an implication of truth/reality, but that is not literally present in the language.
Vipassana is neither process nor method as you can use multiple methods to attain vipassana meaning "insight" (lit. vi = "in" or "into" [in this context], passa = "see," na = nominalization marker).
Therefore cultivating samadhi allows us achieve vipassana as it pertains to cause-and-effect (i.e. experience "as it has come to be" yathā bhuta).  Though, the causality could be reversed and you could say that when the mind is still in samadhi then we are able to see experience yatha bhuta, which then becomes the cause for vipassana.

"yathabhuta - seeing things as they are - not as you want them to be" - this was the instruction at Goenka retreats. It relates to the four noble truths - suffering is because we want things to be different than they actually are in reality...in short - craving is what suffering is...

Someone proposed an edit, that this answer be changed to -- seeing  things as they are - ajahn sumedho says "right now - it is like This" -- but I don't think someone's edit should replace your answer like that, so here it's as a suggestion or comment.

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


text:
Where did the hindrances originate from?
So far I have been exposed to some frontier thinking (thanks for those who truly are helping).
Where did the "hindrances" originate from?
The question is, who or what transpired for us to have these negative  conditions?
For example, the Bible talks in mystery about "sin", which is a transgression of "divine law".
So in Buddhism, somewhere in the universe of mind, is the origin of the hindrances something like craving/desire that gave birth to suffering? From what was that born out off, and for what reason if any?

A new born child is born (refer to MN 64) with the underlying tendencies (refer to AN 7.11) to the five hindrances. The child is born that way.

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.
MN 64

The hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, restlessness & remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt) are just more elements ('dhatu'). To quote MN 115:

There are, Ānanda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will
  element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he
  knows and sees these six elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in
  the elements.”

The hindrances come from ignorance & are sustained by the three types of bad karma.

"Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."
Avijja Sutta

~~~

the five hindrances, too, have their nutriment ('food'), monks; they are not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of the five
  hindrances? 'The three ways of wrong conduct,' should be the answer.
AN 10.61

In Pali Buddhism, ignorance is the 1st cause for the creation of the 'worlds' (of mental sufferings).

And what is the origination of the world? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....from becoming as a requisite
  condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
  & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair come into
  play. This is the origination of the world.
SN 12.44

What primitive religions such as Judaism call 'God', Buddhism calls 'ignorance'. For example, Genesis 6:5 describes how God regretted his creation, which shows how God has ignorance. Since 'regret/remorse' is one of the five hindrances, God also has hindrances. God also loves the smell of the the fatty parts of the meat (Genesis 8:21; Leviticus 3; etc), which shows God also has the hindrance of sensual desire.
More modern religions, such as Christianity, teach 'God is love' (1 John 4:8). In Christianity, God has no hindrances because it is said: "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).
If the old Jewish God is the same as the new Christian God, maybe this God learned how to be free from the five hindrances from the Buddha, who is the "Teacher of Gods & men" (sattha devamanussanam).

I often used to think God of being lonely so for want ( desire ) of more company creation was born !! That was a while before now ignorance ?? Do you just mean lack of truth or a choice and yes agree the holy bible has a very human like God  my favorite frm scripture in the old testimony is Ecclesiastes very much on the topic of Buddhism ...all is futile a chase after the wind "" . so through ignorance began all this worldly suffering..

Yes after further study ...I agree that ignorances are the root causes ..

Ecclesiastes like Proverbs, Job, etc, are post-exilic writings, meaning they were composed after the Jewish exile in Babylon. The creation story is probably also post-exilic since it includes the 'Tree of Life', which is only found in Proverbs & the New Testament. In other words, they were probably influenced by the new Buddhism. After the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah. Ecclesiastes. The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE (Wikipedia)

Right now I think there was a wave of thinking around 500bc that was different to the usual normality ...Buddhism along with Ecclesiastes are correct views expressed in word and when one inquired about the teaching we can asuredly say it's true within the experience we term as life . also like the Buddha , Ecclesiastes stands out in its form as the bible is structured to save mankind however in this book we learn how things are futility and very difficult to understand let achieve realisation .


text:
When the obstacles are abandoned does one experience dharma everywhere?
When I first started to think of encouraging myself on the path I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see and experience dharma in an all pervading way " omniscient " is this true or false ...to sum it up once reaching enlightenment there should be a connection made with some sort of unified reality.

I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see
  and experience dharma in an all pervading way

Wrong! There's no seeing at the moment of cessation. All experiences cease. There is no arising.
Only the Buddhas attain omniscience with enlightenment. Others do not!

Connection made with some sort of unified reality.

There's no such thing called a "unified reality". But just before cessation, you will come to the understanding that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfactory & uncontrollable.
Read the answer given by ven.Yuttadhammo to the following question:
How does stream entry occur?

Yuttadhammo's answer that: "This release leads to an experience of cessation, where there is no arising of sense experience (including mental sense experience)" does not conform with the Pali suttas. This may be because Yuttadhammo does not quote the Pali suttas but other ideas such as the Visuddhimagga. The only "cessation" without the arising of sense experience is the "cessation of perception & feeling", which is only a concentration state and not the goal of the Buddhist noble path.

Venerable Yuttadhammo talks about the moment of attaining Nibbana. Not how an Arahant would experience life after attaining Nibbana. There's no conflict with the Suttas.

The moment of attaining Nibbana is the destruction of craving & clinging. Yuttadhammo would have to quote the Pali suttas to support his questionable claims. Regards.

He has quoted Visuddhimagga, which is the most recognized treatise in Theradvada Buddhism. If you think that it contradicts with any sutta, you have to be more specific than that. I see no contradiction with the sutta quotes you have given in your answer.

Just wanted to say that the aim of everyone which practices this path buddhism should have aims varied they might be but unified in the sense we want to abandon suffering and ultimate aim is for enlightenment . .if it was for only the Buddha then why have followers on his path . ?

@Sameasu The noble eight fold path leads to only 1 destination. i.e. Nibbana(end of suffering). The Buddha's Nibbana comes with omniscience as a bonus. But you need not become omniscient to attain Nibbana. A being who attains Nibbana without omniscience is called an Arahant except in the case of Pacceka Buddhas. You can aspire to be a Buddha too, but it's extremely difficult and takes eons of cultivating the mind. You dont need to be a Buddha to end suffering.

At point of cessation what you understand is Dependent Arising in some form of the other. The main systematised whay this is described is:

Four Noble Truths
Dependent Origination
Conditional Relations

Also see Dependent Arising by Piya Tan and The Conditionality of Life by Nina van Gorkom.
Some teachers emphasise on the three marks of existence though from my learning these are necessary but not sufficient realisations, i.e., if you have seen the 1st glimpse of Nirvana you have also seen the three marks of existence but having seen it does not necessarily mean you have seen Nirvana. Necessary and sufficient condition being understanding of 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Arising or / and Conditional Relations at the experiential level through at this point you will have the knowledge of the three marks of existence also. [1] and also Goenka's instruction in 20 day course mentions the 1st grilms is when you see the links of depedent origination break and reform.

[1]

In the Visuddhimagga there are nine insight knowledges. In the sub-commentary written by Mahasi Sayadaw, there are 16 knowledges. And supposedly you are supposed to be able to attain nibbana by seeing anicca, dukkha, or anatta. After you get to what to what they call Sankharu – pekkha; that means “equanimity to formations.” That is the 11th insight knowledge. When you go through this knowledge - far enough - you get to a place where you will see anicca arise 4 or 5 times very, very quickly. Or dukkha arise 4 or 5 times very, quickly. Or anatta arise 4 or 5 times very, quickly. And then you have a black-out. When you come back you will see all the insight knowledges you have gone through; it will happen automatically and you have them in the right order. That’s what they call nibbana. I understand these insight knowledges all the way up to 16. That is not nibbana.

Source: Bhante Vimalaramsi turns the whole history of Buddhism upside down

The word "cessation" ("nirodha") as a Noble Truth means the cessation of craving & suffering (rather than the cessation of sense experience or life). To quote:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same
  craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it,
  nonreliance on it.
SN 56.11

~~~

Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element
Iti 44

'Cessation' is part of both the beginning & end of the noble path. For example, the Anapanasati Sutta states the mindfulness that leads in insight ('investigation-of-dhammas') is supported by 'cessation' and also has the final result of (final) 'cessation' (of suffering). To quote:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation,
  and ripens in relinquishment. He develops the investigation-of-states
  enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion, and
  cessation, and ripens in relinquishment.
A bhikkhu trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating
  impermanence’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating fading
  away’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating fading away’;
  trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in contemplating cessation’; trains
  thus: ‘I shall breathe out contemplating cessation’; trains thus: ‘I
  shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment’; trains thus: ‘I shall
  breathe out contemplating relinquishment’— on that occasion a bhikkhu
  abides contemplating Dhamma as Dhamma, ardent, fully aware and
  mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world. Having
  seen with wisdom the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he closely
  looks on with equanimity.

The reason why cessation also is required at the beginning of the noble path is because if a person cannot abandon the basic forms of craving, they will struggle to progress very far.
At the point of final cessation, dependent origination actually ceases (rather than is understood). Understanding dependent origination is required to achieve cessation rather than is the result of cessation. To quote how dependent origination ends when the mind is established in cessation:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.
On hearing a sound with the ear…On smelling an odour with the nose…On tasting a flavour with the tongue…On touching a tangible with the
  body…On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he does not lust after
  it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing…With
  the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
  cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
  being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
  the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving

If final cessation occurs, the living & present mind will always be unified with seeing the true nature of conditioned reality (i.e., impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) & also always be unified with the permanent, satisfactory, not-self & unconditioned Nibbana (perfect peace).
As the Dhammapada states:

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. The heedful die not.
22. Clearly understanding this excellence of heedfulness, the wise exult therein and enjoy the resort of the Noble Ones.
23. The wise ones, ever meditative and steadfastly persevering, alone experience Nibbana, the incomparable freedom from bondage.
2. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

There are three characteristics: things are (everything is) impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.
I think it's said that a person's first glimpse of nirvana is clearly seeing at least one of these: for example, "everything is impermanent" or "everything is unsatisfactory". Clearly seeing one of these leads to detachment etc.
It's not "omniscient" (i.e. "knowing everything"): but it is what you said in the title (i.e. "experience dharma everywhere"), in that it is seeing these (dharmic) characteristics in everything.

A related term is Vicikitsa (which means "doubt"): this is one of the so-called "10 fetters", and is one of the first 3 fetters abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment.

Some kind of supernatural knowledge (e.g. Abhijñā) is also mentioned in the Buddhist tradition; however the psychic powers are not synonymous with enlightenment (people might be enlightened without have such power, and vice versa).

to sum it up once reaching enlightenment there should be a connection made with some sort of unified reality

I don't know: that "unified reality" might be "dhamma"; i.e. if it's true that there is "a connection made with some sort of unified reality", I think that what that means is it's your seeing that the dhamma applies to everything, is an accurate description of everything.

Unified to abandon suffering strive to achieve liberation and enlightenment sounds like what is a unified reality or community that had the same views of faith etc what I asked is for a better explanation once elightend is my experience subjective or is it going to  be the same as those already enlightend??


text:
Praying to a Buddhist deity for healing of someone
How do Buddhists look to deities such as Green Tara or the Medicine Buddha by saying prayers or mantras for another person? How do the deity and the divine operate or function for this purpose? I believe that there can be divine intervention of a divine source. How is it with these deities? When I send healing to another person through reciting a mantra to the Medicine Buddha for example? How does the thought get through? How is the Medicine Buddha or Tara a vehicle for my prayers?
The sutras speak about the benefits of reciting Medicine Buddha mantras for oneself. What does it do in praying for someone else? Simply, does the deity have powers to heal that person in a divine way? Like through God or calling for the archangels to assist?

I think that Green Tara and Medicine Buddha are from Tibetan Buddhism. Should users assume that you want an answer from, specifically, the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism: and that you don't want answers from other forms of Buddhism, which deny that kind of tradition?

Is this a rhetorical question? (i.e. "I don't believe this belief I suspect you have, I can't really be convinced either way, but I want to see you try to defend yourself")

Chris you are incorrect, the Medicine Buddha is present in the Chinese tradition. His sutra was translated by the famed master Xuanzang himself.

There are many misconceptions regarding mantrayana.
In essence, the ultimate nature of the deity is bliss and emptiness, just like the ultimate nature of our own minds.
When we invoke the deity via visualization and/or recitation or chanting of the mantra, we are invoking that aspect of our own consciousness, our Tara-ness or our Medicine-Buddha-ness.
The Buddha Shakyamuni did teach that treasuring someone while in positive states of mind or sending beneficent prayers and thoughts would benefit another being, certainly in the "realm beyond" (afterlife, afterlives) and in the present there can certainly be effects.
It is important to remember that Tara is Prajnaparamita, she is not a self-existent deity, the same for all the deities of the Buddhist pantheon.  Some are called deities to mean deva or god-like rebirth, but in the tradition you are referring to deity means something special: it means that long ago a being aspired to be of benefit to countless sentient beings and through the strength of such aspirations and the diligence and patience of practice one was able to reach a state that helped reflect the fundamental goodness of all beings who practice their mantra/visualization with joy and faith, or devotion.
So what happens when you are invoking green Tara or Medicine Buddha to help heal a friend?  Well, the attitude you have is the most important part.  You are using enlightened Buddha forms as a fulcrum for your own praxis, to adjust your mind and heart attitude to embrace their full healing potential.  This will certainly result in a positive effect, and the waves of which may reach your friend rapidly through causation and intensity, having an ameliorative effect.  At the very least, your mind will become more adjusted to these divine states of being (please see the four unlimited or immeasurable abodes) which is of immense benefit to yourself and to others.
In Buddhism, attitude is just about everything.  Karma is intention, so cultivating the intention to heal and relieve suffering (kindness, bodhichitta) is excellent.
There are many methods, but sometimes it is easiest and fastest for us to relate to our own primordial purity through the practice of such sophisticated "spiritual technologies" such as deity and mantra practice.  There are pure aspects of our consciousness, just remember that their ultimate nature is no different from the nature of mind itself.

Praying to a Buddhist deity for healing of someone

My friend always ask me Praying for him but I simply tell him I do not pray or will do ever.
In the book Buddha and His Dhamma of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. He describe what is praying.
Praying is a bribe to god  that expecting from devotee and want praise through chants.
And there is a quote about praying Doing deed toward's someone for thier sake is always better than praying for them
If someone in trouble or need help praying for them never help them really but If you'll go for them to raise your helping hand will definitely survive them.
If you want healing someone physically or mentally go for them.
Look after them. There are techniques that Buddha taught us. Meditation is there. Benefits of Buddhism is not about praying but always beyond praying while practicing those techniques.
But as you ask for mantra may it is about vajrayana. But never seen someone praying to Buddha or Buddhist deities here in India. Even most of people don't know about it.
I believe nursing someone who is sick is always helpful than praying. So I do not pray.
Hope may it helps you.

No...this is not possible as the Buddha stated he was not a God!! Instead he wanted  people to follow his path to liberate themselves through hard work in study and meditation . .the Buddha has left the great noble path with his teachings for us to use...he will not intervene like say / maybe the Christ or other dieties again that too is a hugely faith based debate ...

There are two answers to this. First, the traditional answer you would get from classical sources like the Sutta Pitaka, which are, at the very least, close to the Buddha's words.
The Buddha's goal was to discover a way to end individual human stress/suffering. His critical analysis of the human condition was heavily bound by personal, empirical experience. This is expressed within the Kalama Sutta, where he advises the Kalamas:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said."

This gives you a basic insight into his method for gaining insight. It does not deny the validity of God, but the Buddha had something to say about faith in concepts that are neither provable, nor verifiable within our experience:

"There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like
  this: 'After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.' I approached them and asked them, 'Is it true that you have
  a doctrine & view like this: "After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?' When asked this, they replied, 'Yes.'
  So I asked them, 'But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?' When asked this, they said, 'No.' So I asked them, 'But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?' When asked this, they said,
  'No.' So I asked them, 'But do you know that "This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?'
  When asked this, they said, 'No.' So I asked them, 'But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  "Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?' When asked this, they said, 'No.'
"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the
  words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing."
"Potthapada, it's as if a man were to say, 'I'm in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,' and other people were to say to him,
  'Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she's of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?' and, when
  asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she's tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she's dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she's from?' When asked this, he
  would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you've never known or
  seen the woman you're in love with?' When asked this, he would say,
  'Yes.'
"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord..."
"In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: 'After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.'... Don't the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord..."

This is from the Potthapada Sutta and it addresses exclusively one sides concepts of Self, or Atman. The relationship between the Hindu Atman and the Hindu concept of God (Brahman or Ishvara, depending on whether the deity is impersonal or personal, is  complicated, but a close parallel can at the very least be drawn here).
The Buddha's realization was that, within the empirical world*, "every thing that has a beginning, has an end". As such, when you try and find this 'thing' that you look for, this Atman, you 'only' find emptiness. As such, there is no base, no ground on which to build a reistic philosophy (nor for that matter any reason to infer a God, at least not a God that has any Essential properties whatsoever!)
*this is a very important point - the Buddha did not step into metaphysical conjecture, because it was not conducive to the goal of liberation from stress/suffering. In fact, the first Sutta within the Digha Nikaya (a sort of introduction to Buddhism for novices and the curious) denies the validity of all metaphysical speculation. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html and the first Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (arguably for the more advanced student) states that 'the root of all things' is not found. https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1
The above realization was key to the First of the Four Noble Truths:

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful,
  aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is
  stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is
  wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are
  stressful."

If permanence within the empirical world is denied (a property that Atman and God must maintain in some way, in order to be anything more than the mundane impermanence that our experiences reveal to us), then the above follows (like Satre's exsistential dread). From this follows the next Three Truths, which are on the origination of stress/suffering, the cessation of stress/suffering, and the path to end stress/suffering. This is best read from the source! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
What is understood is that the Noble Eightfold Path stated in the Fourth Truth, is entirely dependent on the individual. There is not even the slightest removal of power to progress within the path from the individual to any other individual, including any conception of God.
This makes sense because a world view that explicitly states that the ground from which the world manifests is not to be found, explicitly denies that any truth can be gleaned from such a ground (after all, it is not found!).
In denying the validity of reistic world views, the Buddha did not however embrace annihilationism (or nihilism to us). He created a relational philosophy, where things are dependently originated. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
(If you like classical logic, here is a nice article on why Essentialism and Nihilism can be treated as the same: https://plus.google.com/+DenisWallez/posts/K9PsvMRQhve )
If you like quantum physics, this is not much different from the relational interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Rovelli. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609002v2.pdf Whilst drawing parallels between the scientific method in the late 20th century and the Buddha's world view 2,500 years before that is a complex enterprise, Nagarjuna (the second Buddha to most, and someone who took the Tripitaka as authoritative, took a much more 'Western friendly approach' to this concept of 'dependent co-arising' within his Mulamadhyamakakarika, and you do get comparisons with his reasoning and Rovelli within Western publication: http://philpapers.org/archive/CAPIOQ-2.PDF )
Because the Buddha created a method that denied the validity of a permanent Essence, it ironically gave him the right to say that the power to deliverance from stress/suffering lies in each person's individual power.
With regards to ethics, this is explained in https://suttacentral.net/en/mn8
With regards to the practice of Buddhism, the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta lays out what needs to be done in its entirety: https://suttacentral.net/en/dn22
So to sum up, the Buddha did not place any faith in prayer, mantra, chanting or God. The path is, mostly, walked alone http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html
There are gods within Buddhism, but they are simply beings that through their good karmic actions end up in higher realms (in fact, humans who practice the Noble Eightfold Path diligently can end up in these realms too). But none of them are permanent, and they all still possess the risk of falling into lower realms (including the hells, the animal realms and the human realm), if they act in such a way as to bring bad karma onto themselves. The Buddha neither worshiped nor placed any authority in them.
The second answer is that Buddhism has spread to a very diverse group of people, some of which invoke the power of prayer, mantra, even begin to define Buddha as divine in one way or another. Strictly speaking, this is not Buddhism as the Buddha envisioned.
So! If you place your faith in God and the divine, His power and authority, you will find Buddhism lacking in these respects. But, in that all possible power to act, change and improve, is left within the sphere of influence of the individual, all that is necessary to bring about an end to suffering is already within you. Physical illness the Buddha would have likely advised to leave to those that practice medicine!


text:
"Guard the sense doors"- What does this mean, and what is it's application?
What does it mean to "guard the sense doors"? What is the practical application of this concept in daily life? For example, does this concept mean that a heterosexual male should entirely avoid looking at women?
Thank you

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu answers a question about "guarding the senses" in this video (at time 34:40).
Guarding the sense doors is a way of protecting ourselves from being overcome by passion for the sensed object (which leads to dukkha). In his video Yuttadhammo mentions three ways to do this.

Physically avoiding the object (in relation to your example, when on alms round monks may keep their eyes facing down to avoid lust from seeing a beautiful woman).
By developing samadhi the mind is disconnected from the sense doors (only the sixth sense "thought" is present)
By developing insight we know the inherent dukkha of sensed objects, therefore no passion arises for them when they are sensed.

The third approach is part of the goal, the first two are training practices to help us maintain a calm mind to achieve the goal.

I also remember him saying something like "Guarding the sense doors doesn't mean to not let certain sights, sounds[...] in, but to not let your mind go out to them" (paraphrased)

He says that it might mean different things to different people, i.e. that different people at various levels of development might use different techniques ... and Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu suggests that the Buddha might then use a phrase like "guarding the senses" repeatedly, even though the phrase has these multiple meanings, so that the same message is suitable to a varied audience.

With each contact your perceive the experience: a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling arises which you also perceive as either favorable, unfavorable and neutral. "Guarding the sense door" is you are aware of the sensation that arose and the perception that arose. Ideally you should be equanimous towards this experience, i.e., not attached or averse to the sensation and stimuli and also realise the evaluation you have given and feed the perception. If not (i.e. you react with craving, aversion or ignorance) then fabrications form: in which case you have be be aware of the fabrications also. These manifest as physical feeling in the body, having the characteristics of the 6 elements; and the mental component has the content 50 cetasikas (52 - 2 = 50 as feeling and perceptions are also cetasikas) -- see section on The Cetasikas in The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis
Also note the initial experience, which even if you are have been equanimous has a bodily aspect which you have the characteristics of the elements. The sensation is three-fold (are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral). Likewise the contact, as well as the subsequent reaction of craving if present, has an impact in all aspects of the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- for more details on this see Satipatthana related Suttas and literature.
The framework to guard your senses is outlined in the Cha Chakka Sutta though there are more comprehensive dispositions also in other Suttas which covers other aspects also e.g. Satipatthana Sutta Dhammanupassana section.

...
Latent tendencies
LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE EYE. Bhikshus, dependent on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.
When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is what is
  felt as pleasant, or as painful, or as neither pleasant nor painful.
When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, one delights in it, welcomes it, remains attached to it. Thus one’s latent tendency of lust (rāgânusaya)
  lies latent.
When one is touched by a painful feeling, one sorrows, grieves, laments, beats one’s breast and falls into confusion. Thus one’s latent tendency of aversion (paṭighânusaya) lies latent.
When one is touched by a feeling that is neither pleasant nor painful, one does not understand it as it really is, the arising, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape with regards to that feeling. Thus one’s latent tendency of ignorance (avijjā’nusaya) lies latent.
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now, without abandoning lust for pleasurable feelings, without removing aversion towards painful feelings,
  without uprooting ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is IMPOSSIBLE.
...
Abandoning the latent tendencies
ABANDONING LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE EYE.
...
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now,
  having abandoned lust for pleasurable feelings,
  having removed aversion towards painful feelings,
  having uprooted ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is POSSIBLE.
...

Also in many other suttas the following passage appears. The implication is do not crave and grasp the sensory experience.

Here, bhikshus, when a monk sees a form with the eye, he grasps neither its sign nor its detail.
So long he dwells unrestrained in that eye-faculty, evil, unwholesome states of covetousness
  and displeasure might overwhelm him, to that extent, he therefore keeps himself restrained.
He practises the restraint of it. He guards the restraint of the eye-faculty, he commits himself
  to the restraint of the eye-faculty.
...

Nimitta and Anuvyañjana by Piya Tan

Sense-control is to experience things with mindfulness & wisdom.

Sense-control, too, has its nutriment; it is not without a nutriment.
And what is the nutriment of sense-control? 'Mindfulness and clear
comprehension,' should be the answer.
AN 10.61

For example, does this concept mean that a heterosexual male should entirely avoid looking at women?

If I can add to the other answers, a book about Buddhism (that I read once long ago) had a photo (of a monk with a fan), whose caption said that Burmese monks use their fans to hide their eyes (e.g. hide from things or from people they don't want to be tempted by the sight of) when they're out in the world.
See this comment, I think that may be one technique among many.

“This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses: If he should look to the east, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the east, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. If he should look to the west… the north… the south… above… below… to the intermediate directions, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the intermediate directions, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses.

‘Come, mendicant, guard your sense doors. When you see a sight with your eyes, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of sight, and achieve restraint over it. When you hear a sound with your ears … When you smell an odor with your nose … When you taste a flavor with your tongue … When you feel a touch with your body … When you know a thought with your mind, don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, practice restraint, protect the faculty of mind, and achieve its restraint.’

Goes with;

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning.

See also;
The Removal of Distracting Thoughts;
Two Kinds of Thinking;

Your question is right at the center of "right effort" in the Noble Eightfold Path.  Buddha talked about it many times in different ways.

And what is right effort?
  Here the monk arouses his will, puts forth effort, generates energy, exerts his mind, and strives to prevent the arising of evil and unwholesome mental states that have not yet arisen.
  He arouses his will... and strives to eliminate evil and unwholesome mental states that have already arisen. He arouses his will... and strives to generate wholesome mental state that have not yet arisen....

I want to further add, Buddha compared guarding 5 sense gates to a turtle "retracting" all 5 limbs when it comes into contact with a fox.  I was wondering about the tail (that would make 6 limbs?).  Did Buddha forget?  I looked closer at turtles and they don't retract tails, they fold it back. That is a quality exclusively to Buddha.  He was mindful of everything he said and never misspoke once.

Guard your senses simply means not clinging to contacts, smells, visuals , mental fabrications , tastes, sounds.


text:
do all beings have past lives?
Is it a truth in Buddhism that all beings have past lives? How does Buddhism explain new life? For example, would the increasing amount of population be explained by some us having shared past lives?

yes I'm pretty sure that all beings have past lives . there was an old saying from Buddhist litriture where if you cut short the life of any living creature (intetially killing) then you are forcing that being to be born again to go through the process of life again .also the Buddha said that some have had a birth of another species and through good karma became human etc the same is true for humans going back to another lower realm ie animal if bad karma prevails...as to the rest of your questions I hope someone else will jump in ..edit : in reference to your last question about population ...yes there is a possibility as I've mentioned. Humans are born again again this is samasra ...


text:
Why mind is all set to achieve something unknown during meditation?
Sitting in front of the rising sun, observing atmosphere and self. Mostly all of come to me in a very unexpected way. Yes, it is easy to achieve what he and a few of holy them have achieved. Is it not a kind of craving?

http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/18002/where-did-the-hindrances-originate-from

What do you mean by its easy to achieve what he ( Buddha ) achieved ...just seems that you might be generalising the entire doctrine ...

I meant to say that living a life the way he showed to us is much easier and happier than the one which we are living as whole, now a days.

"Is it not a kind of craving?"
If you're asking whether a craving for enlightenment is a kind of craving, I think the answer is "yes".
That kind of craving is mentioned e.g. in the Bhikkhuni Sutta:

This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.

And in the Brahmana Sutta:

Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.
etc.

There is craving and intention. Enlightened people had intention but not craving to achieve their goal which is what you should aim to develop. Craving for the goal also will set you back.


text:
What is a belief as per the buddhism?
What I believe is what I look up to, everyday. Every belief originates me. Then am I a phenomena in itself?

What I believe is what I look up to, everyday.

What you believe in may just be your perception and not reality. Whatever you should be able to verify at the experiential level then you should look up to it. Since you know it from experience no external person needs to convince you of it.

Every belief originates me.

Many thoughts gives arise to self notion which intern aversion or craving based on your evaluation. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta] To be more precise you crave to the sensations based on your evaluation. This conditions your future.

Then am I a phenomena in itself?

You are sum total of past conditioning including that of your past conditioning ue to yourself notion.

Yes Buddhism can be seen as a belief philosophy ,,  as you stated  all beliefs are from in you this doesn't mean that they are true !! That's why we need dharma ..and yes you can say one believes in dharma and Buddha ...you are a phenomena we all are !! Belief as a definition in Buddhism is little bit more complicated .. As statements like I believe are not the intended methods in this practice ...as the I am,..thing is seen as image and ego...and not permanent, if you were to say belief is imperninant then it would fit in Buddhist teachings and woud be unimportant and useless for the path. So it's complicated as most faith based religions that put faith and belief in a God are thriving all over the world .

I guess that the Buddhist equivalent of "belief" is "view": Buddhists have right or wrong "views".

Chris... We could use such terms but then it just seems like a word game ...how does one say I have right view without reference to some form of self notion ....

I think that what you call "self notion" might be called "identity view" or sakkāya-diṭṭhi, which it's better to abandon. See also topics like, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Yes I know that self is a no no... But read the original owner of question !! And where it comes from ? Thanks


text:
In Buddhism can all we percieve / experience b used as teachers?
...I have been working on this one question for a while so can everything we experience in life internally and externally be used as our teachers from a Buddhist point of view?examples..
Anger = powerful emotion active in a person when one is threatened or insulted ,,an injustice over a issue etc also known to protect the persons personality ( possible to say anger is a friend then ! ) anger is an emotion that is automatically generated ,defense mechanism. It is repetitive and has been for x million yrs within the human psyche.  We could also say it  exists in lower beings birds ,goats , dogs etc so anger could be an important link to other forms of life by now I think you'll get some idea about just one state of mind that's revealed so much ...

After specific words from Buddha's teachings that clarify weather everything we exp...can be our teachers

The Buddha told us the three marks of existence, all things which exist in the mind have these properties:

Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All conditioned things are impermanent, All conditioned things are suffering, All things are without a self.

This means that everything has the potential to teach us. We can learn about impermanence, dukkha, and not-self from anything which arises in the mind.

Yes that's what I figured but who is the dicerner as to what's factual and not ? For example if I was blind how does one explain. The sensation of a colored sky.

The Buddha as a teacher gave us the dhamma which we must see for ourselves. We have to be our own teachers to learn from our experience and see the dhamma. Your analogy with blindness isn't relevant here, you can see when things are impermanent and from that you develop an understanding of the truth.

Yes ,,to some of your response except for termerlogy like see for your self !! Though the Buddha stated some similar discourse in my question is it fair to say that the self is judge when really there is no permanent self ie it is illusion... A person blind has lost the ability to judge what a sky is like !?

'The mind' is the 'discerner' (rather the 'self'). Is there anything you as a 'self' consider your self to be that has not been first discerned by the mind? For example, if you consider yourself to be 'Australian', was your self-belief of 'Australian' something internally born into your mind at childbirth or was it something learned/discerned externally from a sense experience?

True the mind is the discerner.. As to being Australian I assume the answer is just terminology ...a word construct from society I feel human not Australian even though the Australian society would influence other wise the judgement is flawed..

Anger certainly exists in lower beings such birds, goats, dogs, etc. That is why, in Buddhism, anger does not represent the 'human state' ('manussa-dhamma'). Instead, in represents 'birth' ('jati') in the 'animal world' (tiracchānayoni).

Sensual desire... ill-will (anger)... sloth & drowsiness... restlessness & anxiety... uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms
the mind and weakens wisdom... when a
monk has not abandoned these five obstacles... for him to understand what is for his
own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to
understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior
human (manussa) state (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is
impossible.
Avarana Sutta

Although anger is certainly a pre-programmed instinctual survival mechanism, does anger teach us it is the ideal way to respond to perceived threats? Or is there a more 'human' ('reflective/wise') way to respond to perceived threats?
Buddhism explains everything can be a teacher, it that everything has:
(i) a cause/reason for its arising (samudaya);
(ii) a condition for its passing (atthaṅgama);
(iii) an attractive, alluring or stimulating quality (assāda);
(iv) a danger or drawback (ādīnava);
(v) a method to escape from the danger (nissaraṇa).
When people confessed their sins (moral transgressions) to the Buddha, he generally responded their sins were a 'teacher' for their growth & development. For example:

Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.
DN 2

In defence of emotional structure and learning from them..the Buddha taught some great ideas but sometimes it's very easy to overlook the minor details or have deslike to negative emotion such as anger ! Who just maybe the only teachers we have as the mind in each person most likely is great at being a trickster as well as teacher. Just for thought a great wise man told me ..in regards to fear ..good snake

The Buddha found the emotion of anger is suffering; in that it burns the mind internally like a fire. The Buddha found anger endangers the life of oneself & others. The criticism of anger is not related to "dislike" but related to wisdom. From a Buddhist perspective, anger ultimately teaches you that you are not yet complete in wisdom. It is true anger shows their is a threat or social injustice. But anger is generally not the best way to resolve that threat or social injustice. If anger is used to resolve social injustice, generally, the result is a cycle of revenge. Regards.

A trite answer might be "Yes, everything is a learning experience! You can learn from anything".
A better answer might be "No: maybe not".

To start with, saying for example that "a turnip can be used as a teacher" maybe does a disservice to actual/genuine teachers (including the Buddha himself).

The Bhikkhuni Sutta suggests that various things like food, and even craving and conceit, can be helpful or instrumental. But not sexual intercourse, it says. It doesn't explain why, but perhaps we might infer that sexual intercourse cannot be "used as our teacher".
Although I note that perhaps some forms of Buddhism do teach that, in some circumstances and for some people, there is something to be learned from sexual intercourse.

I suspect that maybe negative emotions, such as anger or jealousy, maybe can't be used as a teacher. Maybe they teach remorse ... however the lesson you ought to be learning instead of that is "skillful virtues" and "freedom from remorse".
You say that anger "protects the person's personality, so it's possible to say anger is a friend then". I suspect however that if you practice anger, then that does nothing but teach you how to be angry (which maybe isn't a lesson worth learning, nor a "personality" you want to preserve).


text:
Does contemplation activity, before hand, give rise to the mental image?
In deep trance / Samadhi meditation does contemplating on the subject, before hand, give rise the mental image or Nimitta, or does it arise while contemplating? Put it in another way, do you have to stop the contemplation for the Nimitta to arise or does it arise while contemplating?

Does  thought  ID the dream = possibility or dream ID the thought = possibility #2

Also awareness is the  best at observing this question..

To make things clear ..in the great primordial abyss what transpired first ...a thought or a dream it may even b thought and dream together or an anomaly. What do Buddhist say about this .. Prefr a quote from teachings

The mental image (Nimitta) as per some teachers appear as a bright radiant light. You have to bring your attention to a particular stimuli and retain the attention on the chosen stimuli by continuously bringing your mind to the chosen stimuli. At some point you might get the Nimitta. This does not happen for everyone and every time. You should do active thinking about the subject of concetration followed by letting go of it altogether to progress futher before the Nimitta apears.
If you are doing the above as Vipassana you have to look at sensation (or phenomena that is know and felt) and continuously keeping your mind on it. Then you will see the arising and passing of sensations, which perhaps you can consider the Nimitta.
Also see: Nimitta: The radiant and blissful sign [How to enjoy and benefit from your meditation] and Nimitta and Anuvyañjana: Signs and Details [Sense-restraint & wise attention: how to master the senses] by Piya Tan

That's what I needed to know ...and may all beings find refuge in the dharma!


text:
Emotional Release: Images Versus Dry Body Awareness
I am posting because I have had for the past years, despite my attempts at resolving this, trouble feeling my emotions and sensations. You could almost say I'm numb. To remedy this problem, I've thought of engaging in two practices.
First, I thought of sensing the basic aspects of the body, in my whole body, e.g. tingling, warmth/cold, numbness, etc. This has not let to gains so far because I seemingly cannot engage in discursive or associative thought while doing this, so I just feel my sensations mindfully period.
Second, I thought of visualizing images that I free-associate with, and in this situation lust in the form of images, anger in the form of images, and memories in the form of images arise. However, I'm worried that this might involve elaboration that doesn't exist, i.e. fantasy elements. However, if this is not undoing repression, I am not sure how else to undo my emotional repression.
Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

Lack of sensitivity can occur due to using meditation techniques. Whenever a technique is used, such as watching breathing at abdomen or nose-tip, body scanning or the two methods proposed in the question, there will be a deliberate, fixed & gross intention operating in the mind to exert the mind. This 'intention'  & 'exertion' is a thought and it is this thought intention that hinders sensitivity.
To feel the body, breathing & associated feelings & emotions sensitively, the ideal practise is to simply 'let go' of all wanting & all intention. The mind must be quiet however the effort used must be a little as possible. Just sit, but very quietly.

Your metal experiences (thoughts, memories, emotions, etc) create sensations. You should use it to reduce your unwholesome roots. Even visualisation is a function of the mind.

...
Latent tendencies
LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE MIND. Bhikshus, dependent on mind and mind-objects, eye-consciousness arises.
When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is what is
  felt as pleasant, or as painful, or as neither pleasant nor painful.
When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, one delights in it, welcomes it, remains attached to it. Thus one’s latent tendency of lust (rāgânusaya)
  lies latent.
When one is touched by a painful feeling, one sorrows, grieves, laments, beats one’s breast and falls into confusion. Thus one’s latent tendency of aversion (paṭighânusaya) lies latent.
When one is touched by a feeling that is neither pleasant nor painful, one does not understand it as it really is, the arising, the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape with regards to that feeling. Thus one’s latent tendency of ignorance (avijjā’nusaya) lies latent.
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now, without abandoning lust for pleasurable feelings, without removing aversion towards painful feelings,
  without uprooting ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is impossible.
...
Abandoning the latent tendencies
ABANDONING LATENT TENDENCIES ARISING THROUGH THE MIND.
...
Bhikshus, that one could make an end of suffering here and now,
  having abandoned lust for pleasurable feelings,
  having removed aversion towards painful feelings,
  having uprooted ignorance towards feelings that are neither pleasant nor painful this is possible.
...

Cha Chakka Sutta
When you are mindful about the body you experience the Mahābhūta through these have an impact on if it is pleasurable or not. Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta and other similar suttas analyse this aspect in the section about the 6 elements (bodily aspect) as well as the mental aspect under the section on 18 mental examination (metal aspect - including visualisation).

According to the Law of Action and Reaction ,Every action of the Individual will be Neutralized by a Reaction from Nature. If you want Body Consciousness ,then you must think of Universal Consciousness. If you are concentrating or observing or being conscious  of your Breathing Process (Pranayama) ,then think that the Air that you Breathe ,fills the Universe and Infinite Space as Ether . The Air becomes less and less dense ,as we move away from the Earth ,but it never-the-less exists as Ether (Sunya or Brahma ) . This thought will create an Universal Consciousness . Body Consciousness will come as a Reaction to this thought .  An alternative , is to study some popular books on  Cosmology.


text:
Is the term " mind " another way of describing awareness?
Ok for starters allot of talk is about the mind in Buddhism... So the question I'm posting is there only really (truthfully ) awareness ? For example thinking has awareness.. Feeling has awareness... Seeking ..studying all have awareness as the common factor ...if there was no awareness non of the above is possible so is it really awareness in a conclusive form that is there and mind is just a term for it?

Consider the Nonduality Tag. There are said to be 3 ways of defining nonduality, and this refers to one of them.

"Awareness" is a very poor or inaccurate word to use in relation to Buddhism, despite the fact that so many Buddhists use it. This is because, in English, "awareness" has many meanings, such as:
(i) mere sense awareness; e.g. He was aware of the sight of the plane in the sky
(ii) knowledge; e.g. He is aware that drugs are dangerous.

1. Having knowledge or discernment of something: was aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware that the music had
stopped.
2. Attentive and well informed: "Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people" (Armand Marie Leroi).
3. Archaic Vigilant; watchful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/awareness

In Buddhism, there are different words for the different types of mentality (nama), such as:

consciousness ('vinnana'); that which 'experiences' sense objects via the sense organs

'citta' ('mind-heart'); that which generates emotions (greed, anger, love, etc) & thoughts

'mano' ('intellect'); that which makes decisions, generates intentions, develops wisdom

Therefore, to answer the original question, feeling, thinking, studying, etc, have consciousness ('vinnana') as the common factor.
Buddhism defines the composition of a human life into five aggregates, namely:
(i) body;
(ii) feelings (pleasant & unpleasant sensations);
(iii) perceptions (labels);
(iv) mental forming (emotions, thoughts, images, etc) &
(v) consciousness.
It is consciousness that allows each aggregate, including consciousness itself, to be experienced or known. Thus the common factor, in terms of 'experience', is consciousness.
However, if we take a scientific approach, in terms of how these different mental functions exist, we would say the common factor is the brain or neurology.

Shall we say intelligent energy then?

No. refer to my amended post

Still sounds like awareness divided into subcategories... Much like the disection of mind ...

Mind or awareness upon reflection is not very physical to me .. As if we were to open the head space there is no mind ..or awareness however one could say there was some kind of energy there..awareness to me seems = to b energy € =MC °2

No. Forget about "awarenness". You are stuck on it. You can use the word "mentality" ("nama"; "arupa") as an umbrella term. Otherwise, you just create work for others. When discussing Buddhism, just like when using the English language, we need to agree on & conform to the meaning of various words. "Awareness" just creates confusions for students.

On the contrary I'm totally free with awareness ...the mind is full of defilements and hindrances that over complicate matters th at can be simple in origin

I gave my answer to your question. The best umbrella term, imo, is 'nama', which means 'mentality'. The scriptures define 'nama' as 'feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention' and also include 'mindfulness, zeal, energy, decision', etc. The best umbrella or basket word, imo, is 'mentality'. Regards.

Much appreciated!!

If you take Namarupa according to the Skandha classification the following falls under Nama (mind)

feelings
perceptions
mental formations
consciousness.

You know or are aware due to consciousness but there other 3 items which form the mind. Also awareness is the function of consciousness and not consciousness itself. So awareness in itself is not mind. You are aware since partly due to conciousness, as you have to have an external stimuli, organ, and attention, Cha Chakka Sutta may help shed some light.

Still waiting... But I don't think you are saying what you mean as my question is see above again please ! I'm saying awareness is pervading all mental / physical experience.. That is say for example nature is aware etc but does it have mind ??

@Sameasu, the answer to your query, lies in what Suminda said above, only if you look further into that line of thinking found in the Dhamma. Only in the Buddha Dhamma you will find the answer. If you look any other way, you will only go round in circles. In Dhamma, you will learn how when three elements come together awareness arises, and that consciousness is central to it. Also that consciousness cannot ever exist independent of the five aggregates of clinging - be it in humans, or others - I mean the animate, and not the inanimate things in the world that are void of any awareness.

from what I know, you are absolutely correct.  Awareness is an entity you can not isolate it by itself.  It has to aware of something to be there.  In other word, there cant be know without the known.

Buddha said, vinnana ends when name-form ends, and name-form ends when
  vinnana ends/

so I agree with you when you said

if there was no awareness non of the above is possible

I agree. Nonduality says that there is only awareness. As far as we know, every elementary particle (such as a photon) responds to its environment (as in the 2 slit experiment) and makes 'choices', so every thing possesses some degree of 'awareness', or, if you prefer: awareness is the only thing that exists. We could continue to discuss this, but it would amount to defining words. Use words that work and take what comes. Words are not truth though.

Buddhism does not teach there is only awareness (consciousness) or only one khandha. If there was only awareness then what is sensed would be subjective to each person. Therefore, for example, discrete things like Mt Everest would not exist, since each individual person would create their own sense objects. In Pali Buddhism, it is said: "consciousness depends on sense organs & sense objects" (rather than sense objects depend on consciousness). "Non-duality" ("advaita") is a word that can mean "one god". To believe there is only consciousness is the same as believing "God" creates everything.

@Dhammadhatu If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

yes, it makes a sound, just as the earth has spun around the sun for longer than human existence. it is the Law of Nature than falling objects make sounds. in AN 3.138 or AN 3.139, it is explained conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self even if there is no human being that comprehends this Law of Nature. in short, Buddhist disagrees with the western philosophy of "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It makes a sound based on the laws of physics


text:
What is "Anapanasati" day which is coming on this November 14?
What is "Anapanasati" day? I used to fasting on Uposatha, I became unable to do after my health got down. Last time I had asked to what to do on Uposatha Day but as I mentioned above and still unable to do; but now I've to practice seriously and go to Vihara on Anapansati day so is it same as Uposatha ? And if it is have to practice, then can I go for it in the middle stage or from the beginning? But anyhow I want to practicing and feel spirit of it when I loosed of my life.

It's the anniversary of Buddha delivering the Anapanasati Sutta (Sutra on the Mindfulness of Breathing), an important Sutra about meditation
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha#Special_uposatha_days
(Sorry but I don't know enough to answer the other questions you asked, but I hope this answer and reference helps to some extent)


text:
Why is mentally reproducing music so hard to control? How can it be counteracted?
I started decreasing the amount of music I listened to before and especially after I started meditating so that I had to cope less with replaying music passages and enjoy a clearer and more silent mind. Even though now I do not actively listen any more music, sometimes I happen to hear some passages from a TV, a radio or randomly on the Internet, and on certain occasions, while sitting or doing some work, it happens that a certain "mental process" starts reproducing music fragments that I've been exposed to, or that for some reason - for example, through a synesthetic "link" - I've recollected from the past.
I would like to receive some suggestions, and even some observations based on what fields like neurology, psychology etc. offer when relevant, on how to silence my mind when it tries to reproduce fragments of music automatically.
This question originates from a personal need, but I think that it could apply more generally even to other circumstances and for other people. When several months ago I was trying to weaken this automatic habit of reproducing music in my head, I remember I had to apply myself with perseverance for several days, and that the kind of noise from music seemed unusually stronger than any other I had experienced before.

I don't think you mean "contrast": I think you mean "difficult to stop" (i.e. "difficult to stop mentally reproducing music"), and/or "difficult to counter-act" (i.e. "difficult to take action against the tendency to replay music mentally").

Thinking a bit more about it, I also notice how one may wish to continue reproducing music when, for example, a certain song is particularly appreciated. Couldn't "controlling" be even more adequate than "contrasting" and "stopping"?

Yes, "control"; or sometimes Buddhist texts say "abandon", meaning something like, "leave behind". I think that "to contrast", though, means "to highlight or to emphasize the difference between one thing and another" which doesn't make sense to me in this context.

I now realize your advice more than before and I thank you for that. It was not a matter of vocabulary choice, but perhaps a real misuse of the verb to contrast. I'm not a native english speaker and in my own native language to contrast is a synonym for to oppose or to be against sth/sb. Apparently, in English there is no such use for to contrast. Four checks out of four dictionaries seem to have confirmed this.

Reminds me of a toxin that remains in your system. You can let it go, rather than add suffering, or also try flushing it out with other music.

Sounds are processed in the temporal lobes, which have a very strong connection with the limbic system (the one that processes, among others, memory and emotion). Just to have an idea about how strong this connection is, a person that has a seizure or a stroke in the temporal lobes can actually hear real sounds - people talking, music playing - they can hear(not just in the head) songs they knew and liked or disliked decades ago (apparently, we don't lose any memories, we just can't seem able to find these memories).
When we hear a song (temporal lobes), it activates emotions (limbic system) which gives that sound a certain energy and fixating it in the memory (limbic system). By trying not to think about a song, we create what it's called ""counter -intentional effect - "not thinking about X" actually activates X. Plus, by not liking that thought, we give it even more energy, making the thought more and more activated and more likely to show up.
In everyday life, when we hear a song playing, by being mindful (it's just a sound), we don't make a strong connection between that sound and an emotion (positive or negative), meaning, we don't give that sound power.
If the memory of a song still comes up, the best thing to do is to see it just as it is (a thought), without giving it power by liking or disliking it. Trying to suppress the thought will keep that thought activated in the mind.
I hope you find this explanation useful. Good luck in your practice! Be well.

I definitely like the part about the limbic system.  That may explain why I always hear the Rolling Stone's song "Beast of Burden" whenever I go backpacking!  ;-)

When we sit, we pass through different phases of consciousness.  At first our mind is active and discursive.  It ruminates over all manner of things, rehearses events to come, and rehashes those that have past.  As we move towards stillness - which can be done simply by sitting quietly in one place - our mind settles into a more passive state.  Rather than taking an active role in the creation of our thoughts, our mind relaxes, revealing its deeper layers.  At this point, things may begin to spring up unbidden.  Sometimes we can experience memories from long ago, other times we may see fragments of pictures in our minds, and sometimes we may experience traces of emotion that have no obvious cause.  If you spend any amount of time listening to music, recollection of song is also exceedingly common.
Don't worry about about the music.  If you persist in your sitting, it will begin to fade.  Song is just a different kind of thought.  Treat it like you would any other - let it have its space, don't try to chase it down or drown it out, sit still, and do your best to maintain attention on your breath.

"Song is thought" - precisely. Running through musical passages in the head is a form of memory, and memory is thought [Thought that is happening now, but whose contents are in the past]. It is important to recognize thoughts are not their content, just as a picture of the moon is not the moon.

Hah!  Not entirely related, but this just showed up on CNN.com  - http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/health/song-stuck-in-head-earworm-study/index.html

Yes I don't know if my answer is on-topic; maybe it helps you to recognize what music is.

Music is kind of designed to be memorable.
The music which you (and other people) remember is music which has proven itself to be memorable.
I read that The Beatles didn't know how to write music: and so their songs (especially their early songs), which they played, were only whichever songs they were able to remember the next day.
My grandfather had a similar technique, by the way, for writing children's stories: he would tell children a story, and then asked the children the next day to tell the story back to him -- whichever bits of the story the children were able to remember were the memorable bits, and popular with the children, and those were the bits of story which he wrote in the official/published version of the story.
Anyway, components of a music (e.g. a popular song) which help to make it memorable include:

Words:

Familiar words (e.g. in a language you know)
A story (narrative) and/or characters (people), which are emotive (a love song, a sad song, a let's-get-to-work song)
Rhythm and rhyme (i.e. poetry)
A chorus (repeated words)

Music:

Familiar scale (selection of notes)
Melody
Harmony
Rhythm
Repetition (not only is the chorus repeated, but also all the verses of a song usually have the same tune)

You also (in this age of recorded music) hear the music more than once.
Music is surprisingly memorable. A music radio station, which I used to hear, used to have a phone-in competition: they'd play a fragment (maybe half a second or two seconds) of a popular song, and ask the listeners to name the song.
The ability to recognize small bits of sense-input and associate it with the whole of a larger previous learned experience is more-or-less what brains do: e.g. hear a spoken word, recognize that as mother's voice, associate that with etc.
Another reason it's difficult to control is because you think that you can (and to some extent you train yourself to be able to) listen to music while you're doing something else.

In practicing meditation, if you hear something(maybe music or voice), just note "hear, hear". No more thinking further. If all these cannot noted mindfully, surely will lead to other things one may think related or unrelated, actually all are really related, related to your past events not only this life. So the main aim of meditation is to get rid of all these clinging to the past and present action one have to do is note down very mindfully every phenomenon. But sitting meditation is easier to get rid of these thing, later in every posture, every situation you can get rid of it. Never try to control it. Just note "hear, hear", sometimes just "know it, know it" is enough so that no need to analyse whether hearing or thinking or knowing.