text:
Is the definition of sexual misconduct now obsolete?
DN 31 says:

In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion: (i) they restrain
  them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good, (iii) they train
  them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage, (v) at
  the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

The definition of sexual misconduct in the suttas (addressed to men) is as follows:

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their
  brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
  husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
  flowers by another man. AN 10.176

A Commentary explains the precept as follows:

In the case where the father is gone, or the mother provides support such as food and clothing, the mother guards [her] thinking "I will
  give [her] to a good family when she comes of age." This is called
  "protected by the mother". By the same means "protected by the
  father", etc., should be understood.

It appears quite obvious the Buddhist way of life when the Buddha was alive was for parents to arrange the marriage of their children in Indian traditional practise. This tradition would have provided little scope for sex outside of marriage, apart from outcastes and in the upper classes (who had courtesans, concubines, sex slaves from war captives, etc).
Since the norms of society has changed greatly since the Buddha's time, is the definition of sexual misconduct now obsolete?

dear dhammadhatu, the norms of the society has changed for good or bad? are they not have become more encouraging to seek sensual pleasures? the norms set by society are of no value against the instruction of enlightened master. He has experienced the futility of gratifying sensual pleasures. The defination of sexual misconduct given by enlightened ones are never obsolete. Yes but the methodologies of sexual misconduct have definitely become obsolete. new and new avenues of misconduct are evolved day by day.

Take it back to first principles. Particularly the first precept: not to cause harm.
If I engage in sexual activity with someone who is at the time too young to fully consent, I set in place conditions for future suffering.
If I engage in sexual activity with someone who has committed to sexual fidelity with another, I set in place conditions for future suffering for their partner.
If I engage in sexual activity with someone over whom I have excessive power (e.g. as a school teacher, meditation teacher, etc) I set in place conditions for their future suffering when they realise I am not perfect.
In relation to the quotes you mention. Engaging in sexual activity with someone who's parents deem themselves to be protecting. This is difficult. I could deem myself to be protecting my (fictional) 45 year old daughter. But do I have the right to do so? When is that protection actually in the best interest of the child? In modern societies we usually accept that once someone is an adult (over 18) they have the right to decide who they have sexual relations with, and given no other mechanisms for deciding, that would seem a reasonable approach to follow. Although, if I were to engage in sexual activity with someone whose parents would seriously disagree yet was over the age of consent, I would be sure to discuss with them the potential consequences for themselves (e.g damaged parental relationship) before doing so.
Thus, what matters is the first precept: not doing harm.

While arranged marriage may not happen that much any more, protecting them until they "come of age" is still valid IMO. That would relate to your 2nd point.

Yes. I see I didn't state that it is totally reasonable for a parent to protect a child. In the UK, the age of consent is 16yrs. I would be inclined to offer protection for longer than that, were I able!

From another more modern translation (Kelly, Sawyer, Yareham) of DN31:

"And, the mother and father so respected reciprocate with compassion
  in five ways: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards
  good actions, training you in a profession, supporting the choice of
  a suitable spouse, and in due time, handing over the inheritance.

In the Piya Tan commentary, it says:

Patirupena darena samyojenti, lit “they have him bound to a suitable woman,” which is said in reference to Indian society in the Buddha’s
  time. In contemporary terms, this has to be contextualized to “they
  let their son or daughter find a suitable spouse.”

Also, we can assume that adult men and women who no longer stay under the care of their parents and become independent, would no longer fall under the category of being protected by their parents. And vice versa.
So, while the definition of sexual misconduct has not become obsolete, it has become "updated", so to speak.

This post doesn't really say anything tangible.

"In contemporary terms, this has to be contextualized to" is, in my humble opinion, very weak. Especially when no reasoning / reference is cited as to why it 'has' to be this and not some other opinion-ed concept.

Since the norms of society has changed greatly since the Buddha's time, is the definition of sexual misconduct now obsolete?
Not entirely obsolete.
My personal experience is that my wife and I started dating each other when we were teenagers. At that age we were each "under our parents' protection" (i.e. living with our parents), and our parents had (it seemed to us) control over that: e.g. who we were allowed to "go out" with (or even go on holiday with), where, when, to do what, using whose car, whose driving, what time home, and all that.
Sometimes they'd allow a date, sometimes they wouldn't. And our families (parents) knew each other.
Sorry if this is too personal an answer; it's my experience.
This tradition would have provided little scope for sex outside of marriage
I guess you're making some assumptions based on some view of historical society.
Even so I think that norms you quoted are still normal at least to some extent: parents do (or should) take an interest in who their children are dating -- whether they seem to be "suitable" partners etc.
Maybe not "arranged marriages", in the sense of marrying someone who you've never met before, but even so.
I'm not sure how much this advice was adapted to the modern world (where potential partners evaluate each other, and the decision isn't only made by parents and match-makers), but that suggests that some getting-to-know-each-other before marriage maybe wasn't entirely wrong even when the suttas were written.
I do recall a reference in a sutta to partners "being given" to each other -- FWIW that's a conceit of contemporary traditional (Christian/Western) marriage too (e.g. the bride being "given away").

And I think, don't you, that it probably is still widely seen as dubious -- immoral, disreputable, scandalous, creepy, even illegal -- for someone (especially an adult) to get or to seek to become sexually involved with those who are under the protection of their parents ... and ditto other people's wives or fiancées, etc.


text:
Does sexual liberalism lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm?
In DN 31, the Buddha said a libertine is an evil companion leading to ruin.

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any libertine,
  any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his friend and
  companion.
These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.

In the Tanhavagga, the Buddha taught craving, particularly when developed, leads to woe and suffering:

334. The craving of one given to heedless living grows like a creeper. Like the monkey seeking fruits in the forest, he leaps from
  life to life (tasting the fruit of his kamma).
335. Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.
342. Beset by craving, people run about like an entrapped hare. Held fast by mental fetters, they come to suffering again and again for a
  long time.

Therefore, if a person pursues and engages in sexual activity merely for sexual gratification, will they increase craving in both themselves and another?
If a man, for example, has sex with a woman because his has lust but has not personal commitment towards the woman, will not craving be created in the woman leading her to keep searching for a sexual partner?
Are those who are always searching for sex, love & companionship destined for rebirth in the hungry ghost world or even hell?

sexual gratification whether with or without commitment happens with hunger at its base. after too much of  free  sexual life lead, if the hunger diminishes then no worry ,but if it increases and one dies with same then it is obvious he will be in realm of hungry ghost.

Let me present the so-called Tathagata Dhamma viewpoint, represented by Dhammadhatu. The answer is no, sexual liberalism doesn't lead to rebirth in the hungry ghost realm. You may want to want to read this answer to see why, according to this viewpoint, rebirth cannot fall into the dhamma of the Buddha. If there is no rebirth, then, logically speaking, there is no rebirth in the hungry ghost realm either.

You mean this is a troll question? :)

No, not "hungry ghost" (I think Ajahn Chah used "Hungry Shadow" which is better terminology), but animal realm, in specific the fowls species. This information can be found in the Chinese Canon. Modern scientific research found that fowls engage most frequently in sexual intercourse activities, with the duck family the crudest, rape and evolution of sex tools by both male and female to invade and defend; here, many many more in google. Pigeons are sex addicts, so are birds family, they are always starving in looking for food for it's very hard to sustain their vigorous physical activities, therefore it's a very tiring livelihood for them. Therefore sexual liberalism leads to rebirth in fowl kingdom of animal realm, most likely. And look at the battery chicken and speedy-grown-duck industries, I think never in history so many fowls existed on earth, perhaps a proof that it's true? They are in so sad a condition! For their strongest craving was sex but it all stripped human just lure after their meats keeping them in cages breeding from machines, they can never ever have sex in their entire lives! Gravest punishment!

Therefore, if a person pursues and engages in sexual activity merely for sexual gratification, will they increase craving in both themselves and another?

Yes.

If a man, for example, has sex with a woman because his has lust but has not personal commitment towards the woman, will not craving be created in the woman leading her to keep searching for a sexual partner?

Yes, very likely.

Are those who are always searching for sex, love & companionship
  destined for rebirth in the hungry ghost world or even hell?

Not sure. But definitely lower than human realm. Hungry Shadow is related to greed, hell anger, in general.

The Buddha's teaching is the practitioner should transmute the sexual desire this energy to greater love, to compassion. I heard some Buddhist sect(s) claiming can use sex-intercourse to reach Buddha-hood is questionable, others said it's contaminated by later Hindu-tantra tradition, or left-hand Daoist. The teaching in the Chinese Canon has this term: 菩薩有內觸妙樂, translate: Bodhisattva has the internal self-generated sublime bliss, that is a transmuted sexual energy giving the bliss. And it's related to Dhyana cultivation.
Sorry these are not Pali Canon but Chinese Canon knowledge, but I think it may be able to give some clues to your question.

I don't believe sexual liberalism is the same thing as sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct is a non-virtuous action and will thus have harmful fruits. Like all such non-virtuous actions, it can lead to rebirth in the lower realms.
So yes, sexual misconduct, like all non-virtuous actions can result in rebirth in the lower realms which include the realm of the pretas.

Re. the first sentence of your answer, the OP's [tag:pali-canon] tag under the question implies that the OP is looking for answers based on the Pali canon. In general, the various tags are sometimes used like that e.g. a [tag:mahayana] tag would imply the OP only wants answers from a Mahayana tradition. The absence of such a tag implies answers from any tradition. When there is such a tag, answers from another school's perspective may be deleted and must be especially careful to not disparage the OP's school (for example, here, you mustn't say that the Pali canon is wrong or obsolete).

Right. Although I'm a Mayahana practitioner I recognize the pali canon as authentic and very much the dharma. In other words, although I am a Mahayana practitioner I still believe the answer can be supported without any reference to strictly Mahayana practices or Sutras. That's why I was confused as to whether pali-canon tag should exclude answers such as mine... I'll let @Dhammadhatu decide

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is meant by "those crowned with flowers by another man"?
In the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):

He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those
  who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers,
  their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with
  husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with
  flowers by another man.

Questions:

What is meant by "those crowned with flowers by another man"? Since this is differentiated from "those with husbands", can I guess that "those crowned with flowers by another man" refer to a woman who is not-yet-married but with a lover or fiancé who is committed to her?
If this assumption is correct, then can I take it that it is not a sexual misconduct for an unmarried adult woman, who is not protected by her parents or relatives, to become sexually involved with with a lover or fiancé who is committed to her?
Also, what is meant by "those who entail punishments"?

I think these questions are answered here by Ven. Yuttadhammo's "rough translation" of the commentary.

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


text:
How important is motivation in determining the virtue/non-virtue of a karmic action?
I ask this question because I assumed the importance of motivation being paramount in determining the virtue/non-virtue of karmic action was widely shared among all traditions. Anyway, I'd like to know if this assumption is correct from practitioners of other traditions.
So how important is motivation in determining whether a particular action is virtuous or non-virtuous?
Are there any actions where motivation is not important? Are there any actions where it is the only thing that is important? Something in between?

There are two presentations:

The general presentation, and
The particular presentation.

In general, we say that a non-virtue is a non-virtue regardless of one's intentions. For instance, we say that killing is a non-virtue regardless of one's motivation, regardless of consequences, etc. This is why, in the great and middle-length Lam rims, Je Tsongkhapa simply explains how important the motivation is in determining, not whether an action is virtuous, but whether an action is heavy.
However, the general presentation does not stand in debate. Therefore, by digging a little, you find presentations that contradict the general statement.
The Lam rim gives the general presentation. It says that there are two types of non-virtue:

Deeds wrong by nature, or 'natural misdeeds' (rang bzhin gyi kha na ma tho ba)
Deeds wrong by prohibition, or 'proscribed misdeeds' (bcas pa'i kha na ma tho ba)

An example of natural misdeed is killing. An example of proscribed misdeed is for a monk to eat after mid-day.
According to the Lam rim, a natural misdeed is a non-virtue regardless of perception, attitude, affliction, and conclusion. However, a non-virtue can be more or less heavy, depending on (1) perception, (2) attitude, (3) affliction, and (4) conclusion. For instance, Killing unintentionally... or under duress... is not as heavy as killing willingly, intentionally. However, in any case it is a non-virtue. Here, with respect to perception, Je Tsongkhapa says:

In some cases, there may be a specific motivation. For example,
  someone may plan to kill only someone called Devadatta, and he or she
  then commits murder. However, if this person mistakes Yajnadatta for
  Devadatta and kills him instead, there is no [completeplete infraction
  with all its aspects fullfilled.]

This is the general presentation. It is given in the context of practices common with beings of small capacities. In the context of bodhisattva practices, however, things are different.
In the Book of Kadam, Atisha says:

As for someone like you, Drom, who has secured a firm ground, who does
  not even care to take birth in cyclic existence, who focuses
  exclusively on other’s welfare, you can engage in the seven nonvirtues
  by relating them to [the application of] skillful means. Those are
  [only] similitudes of nonvirtue.

And in the footnote, it says:

Here the text is alluding to an important aspect of the bodhisattva
  ethics, according to which highly evolved bodhisattvas can creatively
  engage in the seven nonvirtuous actions—the three bodily acts of
  killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct and the four verbal deeds of
  telling lies, divisive speech, harsh speech, and frivolous speech— on
  the basis of the principle of skillful means. In fact, if the
  situation demands a deliberate violation of the ethics of restraint
  from any of these seven nonvirtuous acts, such as when the well-being
  of a large number of other sentient beings is involved, refraining
  from the act is actually a transgression of the bodhisattvas vows. For
  a detailed discussion of this important aspect o f the bodhisattva
  ethics, especially with reference to their key scriptural sources in
  the Mahayana sutras, see Mark Tatz s Asangds Chapter on Ethics with
  the Commentary ofTsong-Kha-Pa, pp. 211-17.

The meaning is that a non-virtue conjoined with the wisdom of emptiness and bodhicitta is a similitude of non-virtue. It looks like a non-virtuous actions but it is not. One has to keep in mind that such do not occur prior to the Mahayana path of seeing. A non-virtue in the continuum of anyone but a bodhisattva on any of the ten grounds is a non-virtue regardless of one's intention.
See the topic: How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?

I know I have acted in ways that were bourne of nothing but good intent, yet caused great suffering in those close to me.
I do not feel guilty about that, but I do feel sad. Intent is crucial, but ignorance can live underneath, leading us to act in ways that seem reasonable, but actually cause harm.
In the end, what is it you want? Do you want to look after your own karmic legacy, or do you want to reduce the suffering of those around you?
If the latter, then intent is very important, but the actual consequences matter too.
There was a case where the Buddha taught an insight practice to some monks. He came back a few days later and they had committed suicide. He undoubtedly learned from this! So, in terms of consequences, none of us are immune from 'unexpected' ones. Yet we can continue to learn, and find ways to increase the effectiveness of our actions in bringing about increased wellbeing in those around us.

Intention is indeed the most important element of karma.
From Dhammapada 1:

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have
  no intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked
  why Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told
  the following story:
Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 1: All mental
  phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
  chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
  'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
  that draws the cart.

Also showing the importance of intention is Dhammapada 124:

At Rajagaha there was once a rich man's daughter who had attained
  Sotapatti Fruition as a young girl. One day, Kukkutamitta, a hunter,
  came into town in a cart to sell venison. Seeing Kukkutamitta the
  hunter, the rich young lady fell in love with him immediately; she
  followed him, married him and lived with him in a small village. As a
  result of that marriage, seven sons were born to them and in course of
  time, all the sons got married. One day, the Buddha surveyed the world
  early in the morning with his supernormal power and found that the
  hunter, his seven sons and their wives were due for attainment of
  Sotapatti Fruition. So, the Buddha went to the place where the hunter
  had set his trap in the forest. He put his footprint close to the trap
  and seated himself under the shade of a bush, not far from the trap.
When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the
  footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let
  cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the
  bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap
  and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the
  Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained
  fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found
  their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he
  must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and
  arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and
  remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his
  sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the
  forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all
  her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her
  hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."
When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my
  father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather";
  and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to
  them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father".
  The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and
  his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to
  move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their
  bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha
  expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons
  and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti
  Fruition.
Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and told Thera Ananda and
  other bhikkhus about the hunter Kukkutamitta and his family attaining
  Sotapatti Fruition in the early part of the morning. The bhikkhus then
  asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a
  sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting
  things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out
  hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the
  sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The
  wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for
  him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so
  also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any
  evil."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 124: If there is no
  wound on the hand, one may handle poison; poison does not affect one
  who has no wound; there can be no evil for one who has no evil
  intention.

Are you speaking from point of view of Theravada? Does Theravada accept that killing a sentient being with a completely pure and perfect intention is a similitude of non-virtue?

@YesheTenley Yes, that's Theravada. No, Theravada doesn't accept intentionally killing a being (see also Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence?). In the first story, Thera Cakkhupala was blind and had no intention at all of killing, and he stepped on them accidentally. And in the second story, the wife herself wasn't killing at all (Theravada does allow people to e.g. buy meat as long as they don't ask someone to kill the animal for their sake).


text:
Most efficient (timewise) meditation techniques to experience joy and bliss?
If meditation techniques were ranked by how quickly they can instill and develop the feelings of joy and bliss within oneself, which ones would be ranked at the top and why?

Are you looking for techniques that lead to bliss and joy during meditation, or that lead to experience these feeling in general, in everyday life? Do you want to meditate solely to experience these feelings, or do you have other goals?

@michau, I think experiencing bliss and joy in general would be much better, but I'm not sure if experiencing bliss and joy during meditation and in general are mutually exclusive. I also have other goals in mind.

Joy and bliss arise when the five hindrances (desire, ill-will, sloth-and-torpor, restlessness-and-worry, and doubt) subside.
The desire for joy and bliss falls under the first hindrance. So whatever is the fastest technique to make you forget that you're seeking bliss... that's the fastest technique for seeking bliss :)
Subduing the five hindrances is the "first stop" for all meditation techniques, whether it is breath-counting, breath-following, metta, noting, or devotional practices. Different people respond in different ways to each of these. So try them all out and see which one motivates you to stick with it- that will be the best.
Two warnings:
(1) Joy and bliss are conditioned states, so they can disappear as quickly as they arise, especially early in your practice (and "early" may mean years). If joy / bliss fades, or doesn't last past the sitting time, it isn't a failure. It's the natural passing away of all conditioned states.
(2) Not everybody experiences joy and bliss when the hindrances subside. Some people, particularly those with a trauma history (though nobody knows for certain why), may experience disturbing imagery or emotions. If this happens, be careful about pushing your technique too hard. Some Buddhists will insist that it is a sign that you are not meditating hard enough. Be wary of this kind of advice. Not all problems are solved by meditation, and other kinds of work may be necessary too.

Regarding warning (2), can you give some examples of other kinds of works that may be necessary?

I'm not expert at all, but if the problem is imagery related to past trauma, it is best to talk to therapists who specialize in trauma- otherwise, the imagery may just come up in meditation all the time. The same may be true if you only ever experience disturbing emotions, and never at least some calm, in meditation. (I'm currently reading a new book "Trauma-Sensitive Mindfulness" by Jared Treleaven. I haven't read much yet, but he's one of a few therapists who understand psychological challenges that come up in meditation practice, that may not be responsive to traditional Buddhist remedies).

In my opinion, the fastest method to achieve bliss is the first Jhana meditation, which is essentially a form of autogenic training. In this meditation, you review your progress in Dharma with regards to your Sila (ethics) and Prajna (understanding), and congratulate yourself on your achievements. You also congratulate yourself on the fact that you have actually managed to stop cycling through bad karma and accumulated enough good karma to the point when you can finally enjoy the peace of sitting in meditation, as opposed to endlessly chasing all kinds of samsaric goals. As you thus congratulate yourself, joy and bliss are generated.
Another type of meditation that can help with joy and bliss is Satipatthana. In Satipatthana you sit and feel your body, breathing, emotions, thoughts, and the overall state of everything - and make a conscious effort to relax and "gladden" all that. You do that by letting go of all negative stuff you're holding on to, and by simply generating a sense of enjoyment. As you do that successfully, joy and bliss are generated.
Another type of meditation that can lead to the same result, is Tibetan Yidam Generation meditation. In this meditation you sit down and convince yourself that you are an actual embodiment of a spirit or deity. Practically speaking, you can use any image you want, it doesn't even have to be a Buddhist deity. You can imagine yourself to be a reincarnation of Einstein if that's what works for you. If you find it hard to convince yourself that you actually are the deity, you make up some kind of ritual to invite the deity within yourself. The exact details don't matter, what matters is that you have to convince your subconscious that you are the deity. In some schools they go as far as to re-imagine the entire process of your birth and growth as that of a deity. As you do this, the emotional/mental traumas and obstacles that you have are purified, leading to experiences of joy and bliss.
Another meditation that can lead to joy and bliss, is meditation on chakras and channels. This is primarily an exercise at visualization. In this meditation you imagine all kinds of colors, energies, and symbols going through the psychosomatically significant spots of your body-image, which again serves to purify the emotional obscurations and lead to an experience of joy and bliss.

Try "Entering the Jhanas" guide by Leigh Brasington.
Entering the first Jhana, confers piti (glee or rapture) and sukha (joy or happiness).
This guide may provide a timewise efficient way from the perspective of the trainer, to enter the first Jhana.
However, if you have problems with this, you may need to spend more time developing virtues (sila) first.

Buddhism is about non-attachment. The more we are attached to bliss, the more there is no bliss. The more we look for bliss, the more bliss cannot be found.
Practice renunciation.


text:
Sutta advice on obstacles and insults, similar to Epictetus' (Stoic) advice?
Lately, I have been reading (again!), more and more, the workings of the roman stoic philosopher Epictetus: and I think Buddhism and Epictetan Stoicism share a bunch of similarities; and I would now like to ask:
Are there any sutta references in how to deal with negative events?
If I may give you some examples of that Stoic advice:

"If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."
"Bear and forbear"
"What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this".
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid"

I have missed this kind of advice in Buddhism: is there similar advice in Buddhism?

OP: "If anyone tells you that a certain person speaks ill of you, do not make excuses about what is said of you but answer, "He was ignorant of
  my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."

Please see the Akkosa Sutta. It's similar. If you don't react to insults, it goes back to the originator.
Also from the Kalama Sutta:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid
  of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps
  pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second
  direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with
  good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around,
  everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an
  awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable,
  free from hostility, free from ill will."

Be free from hostility and ill will, and be imbued with good will.

OP: "Bear and forbear"

Please see the Nakulapita Sutta:

"When this was said, the Blessed One said to me, 'So it is,
  householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, & encumbered. For
  who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true
  health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train
  yourself: "Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be
  unafflicted." That is how you should train yourself.'

Let your mind be unafflicted.

OP: "What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this".

Please see the Maha-Saccaka Sutta:

"And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

When you face hardship, if you are developed in body and mind, you would not suffer from it.

"He was ignorant of my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these alone."
The first quote this statement reminded me of was The Four Great References, which include,

In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus:

'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'

In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus:

'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'

And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve.

In summary, IMO a statement like, "He was ignorant of my other faults", is, "Certainly, not the Blessed One's utterance" (i.e. the Buddha wouldn't say that).
Now it is maybe an example of a "confession" (e.g. "I behaved wrongly, I was muddle-headed") -- which can be found in Buddhism, perhaps more especially in the Vinaya than the Suttas (though also in at least one Sutta I can think of).
Instead, the view that "I have faults" might be a kind of statement (or view) which Buddhism hopes you might abandon -- perhaps the anatta (non-self) view might suggest something like, "A fault has arisen ... but it is not "mine" ... I see the disadvantage of it, and resolve to not make a habit of it."
I don't know, are you familiar with the Christian tradition? The statement you quoted seems to be a reaction to being spoken ill of (along the lines of "turn the other cheek"). Whereas I think the Buddhist doctrine is more to be unmoved or unreactive, "neither welcoming praise nor rebelling against disgrace or blame" (Lokavipatti Sutta). Also (continuing the comparison with Christianity) the Buddhist seems to me to be closer to Christ's doctrine in the Gospels (e.g. "be ye perfect"), than it is to the Apostles' doctrines in the Epistles (e.g. "we are sinners").
A close sutta, very apposite to your question, might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- what the Buddha taught when someone tried to insult him.
On the other hand perhaps it's right to be honest about whatever faults you do (or did) have (see also "confession" above). I don't recall suttas which illustrate that side of the teacher (or "good friend") relationship, but AN 5.123 describes caring for someone who is physically ill, and says that a patient who is accurate and honest about their symptoms is easy to care for.
Also, getting onto the topic of "I have other faults" sounds to me like maybe papañca, and the "thicket of views" which we're warned is associated with self-view and with "attending inappropriately" (if I may say so without wanting to insult your Stoicism).
"What ought one to say then as each hardship comes? I was practising for this, I was training for this."
A good example of that might be the Punna Sutta.
Perhaps one difference though, notable, is that Punna's replies are not very self-centered ... not, "I was training for this", but rather, "they are very civilised" ... and, so, maintaining a mind of good will (see also the "Brahmaviharas" which summarise the appropriate social or inter-personal attitudes).

I think that maybe you can find statements from the Buddhist tradition, which are close to what you have in mind.
For example Is That So? is an example of, "do not make excuses about what is said of you"; or The Taste of Banzo's Sword an example of, "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid".
But I wanted to point out that the doctrine of the Pali suttas is comparable to, but, not the same as those Stoic statements.

The Sallekha Sutta (Effacement) prefaces many Stoic-like behavioral examples with this key observation:

Cunda, as to those several views that arise in the world concerning
  self-doctrines and world-doctrines, if [the object] in which[4] these
  views arise, in which they underlie and become active,[5] is seen with
  right wisdom[6] as it actually is,[7] thus: 'This is not mine,[8] this
  I am not,[9] this is not my self'[10] — then the abandoning of these
  views, their discarding,[11] takes place in him [who thus sees].

Consider that restraining the self, although wise, may not eliminate suffering entirely since the self can simply latch onto something else. If, however, one abandons the self, then wise behavior simply follows.

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


text:
Family feuds... is there a path that walks through the fire without burning oneself?
thank you for reading this.
my mother was born in a very large family. there were 10 girls, and 7 boys. There have always been feuds among the girls. Every holiday season was a mine field of whom was speaking to whom. Now they are older, but the feuds continue. My mother is now 85, her sister (who is my god-mother and whom I love very much) is near to 90. Currently my mother and god-mother are no longer speaking. I am "forced" not to have contact with my god-mother out of deference to my mother. There are others whom I cannot see for the same reason.
I love all of them and suffer their absence. I know they will someday die (as will I), I would like to enjoy the remaining years.
is there a way to see light in this darkness ? Is there something I can do ?
thank you for your help, I am humbled by your collective generosity towards the struggles of strangers.

in answer to the answer from Yeshe Tenley, the question of force.
thank you for pointing to it. When I say I was "forced" I mean that I was pressured when I tried to not do this.
I tried initially to ignore my mother's desire to have me on her side/team in the feud and I ignored it. When she became more aggressive and threatened me, I ignored it and continued to see my god-mother. My mother's response was to slander my god-mother and to cost her relationships with her other siblings and other members of the family. Several people whom my god-mother supported in the darkest days of their lives (through cancer treatments, the loss of children, and many other troubles) were told lies by my mother and believed them.
This was done to punish me. My mother knew she could not take anything from me she had not already taken, but she knew it would hurt me if she hurt others. The "force" came from this, it was extortion/blackmail. The only thing I could do is see neither of them for many years.
I have a sense that the time to resolve this is now, otherwise mortality will close the doors. I am unsure there is a solution.

I wonder at the word forced. What is forcing you not to see your god-mother whom you love? You say you are forced out of deference to your mother, but since you put the word in quotes I think you realize that nothing is forcing you. This is your choice. I wonder about the motivation for such deference to your mother... Is it motivated out of a sense of obligation or duty? Is it motivated out of compassion for your mother? What of the compassion for your god-mother?
One practice that I've found beneficial is the practice of equanimity. That is looking at ones friends vs enemies or close acquaintances vs strangers and looking at where the distinctions we make are coming? What motivates these distinctions?
When we choose to act based off of distinctions of "friend vs enemy" or "close acquaintance vs stranger" often times our actions are non-virtuously motivated by personal considerations. All beings at root desire to be happy and to avoid suffering. We are all the same in this way. In this way, all are worthy of our compassion.
In the end, we can't control how other people will react to our actions. The only thing we can hope to control is our own actions and to try and ensure that our actions are virtuously motivated. The desire to make people happy with us is very different from the desire to make people happy, right?
I guess my best advice is to really look and see whether your acquiescence to your mother's desire for you to stop talking to your god-mother is actually making her happy? Is it actually making you happy? Is it actually making your god-mother happy? Or is it only serving to make your mother temporarily happy with you? Is that well-motivated?

Have you considered asking what your god-mothers preference is?  Would she rather be comforted and befriended by relatives whom can be so easily swayed by falsehoods, or by one god-daughter whom stands firmly by her side?
I personally would rather be in the shade of a great oak than surrounded by many thorny bushes, even at the end - maybe even especially at the end.
Beyond her time here, you may be only witness to her truth.  Watching you stand strong against the wind may give your god-mother great comfort that her honor still stands with you, and that she helped raise one beautiful, strong, compassionate woman.
I would give your god-mother the chance to chose her own relations, you may be surprised how much she prefers your company to those whom stood so daintily beside her.

It might be a cultural thing; But we should all stop trying to please the whole world and start to action what is practically good and with good intentions.
Follow the dharma and action without fears. Think about it, is it justified to do bad deeds just because somebody threatens you to?

when i was the only one who suffered as a result (when she would hurt me), I continued to see those whom I love. I did not try to please her, is did not bow to her threats . Her actions only became effective when she started hurting other people and telling me it was in retaliation for my not doing what she wanted. Watching someone you love suffer is much more painful than suffering yourself. I could not justify my happiness as more valuable than theirs, so I walked away from seeing the people that made me whole.

I'm sorry for your loss.
I experience this situation only indirectly -- my own mother has been a forgiving sort, avoiding feuding -- but I've seen how much it can distress another child, to fall out with their mother like that.
My first reaction, to "walk through the fire without burning oneself" is that, that isn't possible.
Also, "I would like to enjoy the remaining years" -- may be a bird that's already flown.
There is a related verse though, in the Dhammapada:

If on the hand there is no wound, one may carry even poison in it. Poison does not affect one who is free from wounds. For him who does no evil, there is no ill.

In theory maybe your mum feels some aversion or pain, associated with her sister; rejects the sister to reject the pain; and, further, rejects anyone (even you) who she associates with her sister; but I suppose that's all beside the point.
Two things I learned:

Once when someone's sister divorced, that someone kept on seeing the ex-husband sometimes, being a friend ... the sister was annoyed and threatened to divorce her too, to which she replied, "You can't divorce me: I'm your sister!"
My mum, as a preschool teacher, tries not to criticise young children. Instead she waits until they do something right, and then praises them for that.

So, maybe your actions or interactions, communications, should be in the form of positive feedback: "Thank you for X", "You're so good at Y", and "Well done for Z"; and maybe "I hope you'll tell me when or how I can help", or something like that.
My experience with death is that there may be many occasions afterwards, when you think of something to tell them, except they have died. It may be good to have said some of those things before they die -- if only so that you can feel a "lack of remorse" associated with your having done or said a good thing at the time.
For what it's worth, page 82 of this commentary on the Vinaya (the emphases are mine)

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should be
  82
  very circumspect in how he chooses his words, focusing not on how to speed up
  the dying process but on how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:
  “The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
  virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
  dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
  body, you should be heedful in your attention.” The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example, MN 143, SN 36.7, and AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed not at precipitating death but at inspiring calm and insight.

It's said that what people find satisfying is remembrance of their own virtue -- "forming no attachment" might be a bhikkhu's attainment, your mother and aunt might have slightly different values so you'd have to adjust your message to them or "the object" accordingly, to stay relevant.
But anyway, if or when you're in contact, "you're wrong to hate your sister", "you hurt me", any negative or fault-finding message like that, might be counter-productive.

Don't join anyone's side. Stand with Dhamma/principles. If someone makes an immoral request, reject it without any regrets. Only entertain moral/skillful requests/ideas. It doesn't matter if it comes from a loved one or a stranger. Just keep it simple and your life won't be so complicated.

A little personal background: my mom is Filipino, and my dad is Sinhalese (he professes to be Buddhist but is verbally, physically, and psychologically abusive). My mom is not a Buddhist but her life insights have enriched my Dhamma practice.
I see toxic people as bottles of poison or pesticide: you know they’re harmful if in contact with but you don’t have any hatred or animosity. Because that’s just what they are: bottles of poison, nothing to hate there. You just avoid any contact with it.
Same approach with toxic parents: I don’t interact with them. Occasionally I get angry when I recall dad did but I counter that by:

Calming myself and acknowledging that the thought of hatred arose. I know aversion (dosa/dvesha) has arisen and that I shouldn’t act on it. A mind engulfed in raga, dosa/dvesha, and moha is like a murky glass of water stirred with dust: you can only see the water clearly when the dust has settled.

Acknowledging the thought is impermanent. I don’t reject the thought as it arises because it adds to the stress. I merely observe it BUT don’t act on it. The thought arose, sustains, and will eventually die.

Radiate metta (friendliness, not necessarily compassion) to the person because they:

(a) have unresolved issues and are victims of previous abuse and weren’t aware of that when they did those same things to me;
(b) there is no person as such to ‘hate’ because the so-called person is a constantly-changing entity composed of constantly-changing matter (rupa)  and non-matter (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). There is nothing to like or dislike in something that is constantly changing. The hatred doesn’t go overnight but if you practice, it will erode over time.
So if at first I was hateful of the toxic parent, now I acknowledge they’re toxic but with less aversion. Its not good to harbor thoughts of hatred because they harm you, in the short and long run. I can acknowledge that a person is abusive but at the same time have metta for them because they’re harming themselves. And it also does not mean I have to embrace them again, unless they’ve genuinely changed; and if they haven’t changed, they’ll just hurt/harm you again and you become an enabler for their bad actions. “Loving the tiger from a distance”
Forgiving toxic people does not mean rekindling a relationship with them: it’s about you healing from the past and rewiring how you perceive them and what they did. Knowing they’re toxic doesn’t mean you’re hating them: you’re just acknowledging they’re toxic and that they aren’t helpful to you. Bottles of poison
Dosa/dvesa (aversion) doesn’t go away overnight and takes diligent practice. Its not easy to practice these but its not impossible (if Buddhas and Arahats uprooted their aversion, why not I too). As much as possible, I don’t intellectualize my practice because it hinders the practice. Over time I understand the deeper meanings of some Pali terms because of my practice, so I know I’ll be fine as long as I keep steadfast on this Dhamma path. The point of Dhamma practice is to avoid and uproot raga, dosa/dvesha, moha. The Buddha laid out the path/practice but everyone treads it according to their own capacity.
Hope this helps, fellow wayfarers


text:
What kind of mental state does the meditation on four elements generate?
In the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN22), the mindfulness about the elements is taught:

“There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the
  fire element, the wind element.”
Just as though, monks, a clever butcher, or a butcher’s apprentice,
  after slaughtering a cow, were sitting down at a crossroads after
  dividing it into portions; even so, monks, a monk in regard to this
  very body, however placed, however disposed, reflects by way of the
  elements:
  “There are in this body, the earth element, the water element, the
  fire element, the wind element.”

However I am unable to understand why we have to look at the elements from the clever butcher's point of view. What kind of mental state does the meditation on elements generate? Please explain the analogy in detail.

I don't know but maybe this passage about a skilled butcher from chapter III of the Book of Zhuang Zi is a clue.

Prince Hui's cook was cutting up a bullock. Every blow of his hand,
  every heave of his shoulders, every tread of his foot, every thrust of
  his knee, every whshh of rent flesh, every chhk of the chopper, was in
  perfect harmony,—rhythmical like the dance of the Mulberry Grove,
  simultaneous like the chords of the Ching Shou.
"Well done!" cried the Prince. "Yours is skill indeed."
"Sire," replied the cook; "I have always devoted myself to Tao. It is
  better than skill. When I first began to cut up bullocks, I saw before
  me simply whole bullocks. After three years' practice, I saw no more
  whole animals.
And now I work with my mind and not with my eye. When my senses bid me
  stop, but my mind urges me on, I fall back upon eternal principles. I
  follow such openings or cavities as there may be, according to the
  natural constitution of the animal. I do not attempt to cut through
  joints: still less through large bones.
"A good cook changes his chopper once a year,—because he cuts. An
  ordinary cook, once a month,—because he hacks. But I have had this
  chopper nineteen years, and although I have cut up many thousand
  bullocks, its edge is as if fresh from the whetstone. For at the
  joints there are always interstices, and the edge of a chopper being
  without thickness, it remains only to insert that which is without
  thickness into such an interstice.
By these means the interstice will be enlarged, and the blade will
  find plenty of room. It is thus that I have kept my chopper for
  nineteen years as though fresh from the whetstone.
"Nevertheless, when I come upon a hard part where the blade meets with
  a difficulty, I am all caution. I fix my eye on it. I stay my hand,
  and gently apply my blade, until with a hwah the part yields like
  earth crumbling to the ground. Then I take out my chopper, and stand
  up, and look around, and pause, until with an air of triumph I wipe my
  chopper and put it carefully away."
"Bravo!" cried the Prince. "From the words of this cook I have learnt
  how to take care of my life."

Since the elements are really expressing states i.e. water is not really water but liquid, wetness, changing, the idea is perhaps about the composition (and decomposition) of bodies. Individual bodies like yours and mine but also the larger structures we belong to: our families, our nations, the international community etc., which also function like bodies, where different people playing different roles and where mind work is at the top and support work is at the base. In starvation, the human body will take food from itself to feed the brain and keep it going and will only take from parts of the brain to feed the most important parts of the brain when it has no choice. And what is an ox/bullock in the ancient world? The source of work/energy. Hence harnessing/yoking and the plough.

That quote is very Taoist, IMO: reminiscent of "it's the empty space that makes it useful". Except for its featuring a butcher, I don't see how it's relevant to the question or your answer.

If you read the section on the contemplation on the body, there is a sequence:

Breathing and breathing patterns
Postures of the body
Full awareness of bodily actions
Body made up of internal organs
Body made up of elements
Decomposition at death
Dead body eaten by animals
Skeleton with flesh and blood
Skeleton without flesh and blood
Skeleton alone
Bones strewn about

And so on.
Based on this, the contemplation on the body being composed of the four elements is part of the overall contemplation that the body is a sankhara (compounded and/or conditioned thing), and this leads to the insight that anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering) and anatta (not-self) applies to it.
The standard statement in the sutta from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation here:

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

So, the insight into the impermanence, suffering and not-self of the compounded and conditioned thing, that is the body, leads to the monk becoming independent and not clinging to anything in the world.

How does meditating on bodily elements generates insight into impermanence or suffering or non-self?

In the Tibetan tradition, there are space, air, fire, water and earth, and are understood as the underlying energies from which the physical world, our bodies, our emotions, and our minds arise. The elements are addressed in all nine levels of teachings of Bön, including shamanism, tantra and Dzogchen.
The five Platonic solids were assigned to elements by Plato in the Timaeus 56b, 55d— fire (tetrahedron), earth (cube), air (octahedron), water (icosahedron), ether (dodecahedron). "To earth, let us assign the cubic form, for earth is the most immovable of the four and the most stable of all bodies... the pyramid is the solid which is the original element and seed of fire, and let us assign the element which was next in the order of generation to air, and the third to water.
In yoga all elements can be produced from joining of male and female energies in different chakras of the body.To produce fire we join in the solar plexus male and female energies,this not only produces heat but also bliss.
However all elements are impermanent,once you clean each one you gain the notion of emptiness and both your body and your mind become pure,just like Milarepa you won't feel the cold of the winter or the heat of the summer!
Thereafter, over time, the sense of identification with the four elements loosens and is seen through.All happens spontaneously!
Now the yoga has completed its aims: Impermanence has been realised and I think this is clever butcher's point of view!


text:
List of Buddhist podcast recommendations
This is in the spirit of this (previously requested) List of book recommendations
Books are wonderful for learning (and audio books are great travel partners/work listening), but I wondered if those of you who listen to podcasts could suggest a Buddhist podcast that serves your learning style.
Please include:

a link to it,
a few words about what it brings you (or a description, as you like)
If it is in a language other than English please mention it to help those who would prefer to listen in a language in which they are more fluent.

I would prefer only a list of the ones you like/recommend.
thank you
MODERATOR's MESSAGE: please post one podcast per answer, so people can vote for each podcast individually.

Ajahn Brahm - Based out of Australia. There are a few others that upload on the BSWA channel. The talks are very easy to follow. Ajahn Brahm is one of the more entertaining monks, as he brings comedy and jokes into his talks. What I personally enjoy about this channel is that the videos are labeled very well, so you can search for topics that you want to learn. Say you're having a difficult day and aren't positive you can search the channel for "staying positive" and there will be several videos on the subject.
Resources:

Meditation Videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ajahn+brahm+guided+meditation
Talks: https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA/search?query=Dhamma+Talk
Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6M_EhnSSdTG_SXUp6IAWmQ

I like Master YongHua, he explains the Dharma in a way that makes it accessible to laypeople; he also has a great sense of humor and talks about topics that I don't find covered anywhere else. He has alot of videos on English and Vietnamese, take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MasterYongHua/videos

Jack Kornfield - Based out of California. His talks are uploaded to the following channel. He has several very good talks on compassion and developing the heart.
Resources:

Talks: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqGJSfj5N-pIrpWHP9ITJzmyK8UDHJGzM
Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc1lvEoC5PZWm-MzgUfJQfg

Alan Watts - Not a formal monk, but he has several philosophical discussions that complement the study of the dharma.
Resources:

Videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Alan+Watts

I listen to Chogyam Trungpa's teachings up on chronicleproject.com/teachings
There are both audio and video talks.
They also have a number of podcasts from students and related people connected with Trungpa Rinpoche's lineage.

i listen to this channel most of the time but most of the programmes are in sinhala but there are english ones too.
Shraddha TV

Tricycle podcast - Also available on Apple podcasts/Itunes. Tricycle is a Buddhist magazine.
Wisdom podcast - Available on Apple podcasts/Itunes and Spotify. Its a well known Buddhist book publisher.
Dharmapunx NYC podcast - Available on Apple podcasts also. Dharmapunx is a New York City community with Theravada flavour to it. Its led by Josh Korda.

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu - former moderator of Buddhism.SE and is based out of Canada. His videos include in-depth discussions of the Dhamma.
Resources:

Videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/yuttadhammo/videos and https://video.sirimangalo.org/


text:
Is there any online serious community of Dhamma practitioners to join?
Not counting this site are there any communities where I can talk about the Dhamma with serious lay practitioners in facebook? Most of the groups I have been have been riddled with really toxic and judgemental people.

Facebook: Friday Night Study Group with Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
Meditation group:
https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/login


text:
Can not wanting to have a child be justified under the framework of Buddhism?
People who have children have them for the sake of their own happiness, and ultimately the child suffers.
Can we justify not having children at all even for householders stating that all life is bound to suffering?

I'm pretty sure this topic is an exact duplicate, which has some answers already.

As well as Should a Buddhist have Children?, see also Pursuit of raising children ok?, and Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons


text:
What does "developed in discernment" mean?
From the Lonaphala Sutta:

Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

What developed in body and developed in mind means, is elaborated in MN36:

"And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

What being developed in virtue (sila) means, is covered by the Five Precepts (and also the Eight Precepts and Ten Precepts), Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood. These links provide more info on these.
However, what does "developed in discernment" mean?
Please also provide references from the scriptures.

The word translated "developed in discernment" is bhāvitapañño, i.e. increased or developed pañña.
The dictionary entry for pañña says,

of wisdom, endowed with knowledge or insight, possessed of the highest cognition

The dictionary definition lists a lot of places where it's used in various compounds, (possibly describing various types of wisdom or insight) -- including the bhāvita compound, which is used in for example SN 35.127 (in summary, immune to sexual desire, and guarding the senses) and AN 10.24 (in summary, immune to various unwholesome mental factors).
I'd say these describe the effect of wisdom rather than describing the object of wisdom -- but, that's not surprising because what it's describing is "developed wisdom" i.e. the effect of having perfected wisdom.
I guess you'd have to look at other places pañña is used by itself (to find a description of pañña itself), and/or other pañña compounds (for descriptions of the various types of pañña).1
Wikipedia says it means "insight into the three characteristics": quoting Gombrich and others.
It's one of the several perfections (i.e. virtues which can be "perfected" or completed).

1 Not easy to summarise:

A search of SuttaCentral returns 500 results -- many from the Abhidamma and so on.
AN 8.2 describes 8 different types of discernment (which may confirm my theory that there are many different types or aspects of wisdom, that's it's not a term with a narrow meaning)
Pañña is an entire branch of the Threefold Training, so I expect it includes right view and right intention

Developed in discernment (wisdom) means developed in Noble Right View rather than attached and burdened by the ignoble right view of reincarnation, as explained in MN 117.
It follows a trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now and, for the most part, barely appears for a moment.

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


text:
What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)?
What is moha (delusion)? What is avijja or avidya (ignorance)?
What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja or avidya (ignorance)?

I think it requires a lot of research or another's excellent research to answer this question.
Often ignorance & delusion are used as synonyms, for example, as follows:

Bhikkhus, I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which humankind is so obstructed and for so
  long a time runs on and wanders in saṃsāra. It is indeed through the
  hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long
  time runs on and wanders in saṃsāra.
No other single thing exists Like the hindrance of delusion, Which so obstructs humankind And makes it wander on forever.
Those who have abandoned delusion, Cleaving through this mass of darkness, No longer roam and wander on; In them the cause is found no
  more.
Iti 14

Bhikkhus, any bhikkhu or bhikkhunī in whom attachment is not abandoned, hate is not abandoned, and delusion is not abandoned, is
  said to be one who has not crossed the ocean. One who has destroyed
  attachment Along with hate and ignorance Has crossed this ocean With
  its sharks and demons, Its fearful waves so hard to cross.
Iti 3.69

However, I imagine 'ignorance' ('avijja') literally means an underlying 'lack of knowledge' or 'blindess'; where as 'moha' ('delusion') literally refers to the defiled overt manifestations of that lack of knowledge, such as 'self-view', 'selfishness', 'ingratitude'; 'fear', 'doubt', etc.

Humankind is possessed by delusion, Bound by delusion and delighted with being
Iti 1.11 Mohapariññā Sutta

Delusion is that one thing, bhikkhus. Abandon that and I guarantee you non-returning. Beings confused by delusion Go to rebirth in a bad
  bourn. But having rightly understood delusion, Those with insight
  abandon it. By abandoning it they never come Back to this world
  again.
Iti 1.3 Moha Sutta

From the viewpoint of Dependent Origination, 'delusion' would be a type of craving (8th condition) leading to attachment (9th condition) that propels wrong action; for example:

It’s not because of deeds born of greed, hate and delusion that gods, humans, or those in any other good places are found. Rather, it’s
  because of deeds born of greed, hate and delusion that hell, the
  animal realm, the ghost realm, or any other bad places are found...
  These are three sources that give rise to deeds.
AN 6.39

Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false
  speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech
  is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome;
  ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the
  unwholesome.
And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
  the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
MN 9

A deluded person, his mind bound up, overcome with delusion, engages in bodily misconduct, in verbal misconduct, in mental misconduct. But
  having abandoned delusion, he doesn’t engage in bodily misconduct, in
  verbal misconduct, or in mental misconduct.
AN 3.71

Therefore, it appears 'delusion' (such as 'selfishness') is a form of craving & attachment that manifests abruptly and overtly & then calms down; where as 'ignorance' (lack of knowledge) is a more permanent underlying tendency (anusaya) in the unenlightened mind.

Friends, passion carries little blame and is slow to fade. Aversion carries great blame and is quick to fade. Delusion carries great blame
  and is slow to fade.
[Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen passion arises, or arisen passion tends to growth
  & abundance?’ ‘The theme of the attractive,’ it should be said. ‘For
  one who attends inappropriately to the theme of the attractive,
  unarisen passion arises and arisen passion tends to growth &
  abundance…’
[Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen aversion arises, or arisen aversion tends to
  growth & abundance?’ ‘The theme of irritation,’ it should be said.
  ‘For one who attends inappropriately to the theme of irritation,
  unarisen aversion arises and arisen aversion tends to growth &
  abundance…’
[Then if they ask,] ‘But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen delusion arises, or arisen delusion tends to
  growth & abundance?’ ‘Inappropriate attention,’ it should be said.
  ‘For one who attends inappropriately, unarisen delusion arises and
  arisen delusion tends to growth & abundance…’
AN 3.68

In summary, there are differing degrees of defilements on the Dhamma, namely:

Anusaya - underlying tendencies
Asava - outflows; fermentations; cankers; eruptions
Nivarana - internal hindrances
Tanha & upakkilesa - external orientated craving & defilements that directly cause action

Ignorance predominates on the subtle degree of 'anusaya' where as 'delusion' predominates at the coarser degree of strong external defilements.

Dictionary definitions here:

moha
avijjā

I think of avijjā as (quite literally) describing something which you don't have (the a- prefix implies a negative, i.e. an absence of vijjā), and moha as something which you have instead (because you don't have vijjā).
There's a round-about definition of avijjā ("ignorance") in SN 35.79 -- where, it says that what's meant by "giving up ignorance" and "giving rise to knowledge" is "seeing impermanence" (in contact and feeling).
The next sutta, SN 35.80 says that when ignorance is abandoned, knowledge (i.e. vijjā) arises, wherein "he sees that things are unworthy of attachment".
I should add that the dictionary entry for vijjā warns that vijjā:

is not always the positive to avijjā (which has quite a well-defined meaning from its first appearance in Buddhist psych. ethics), but has been taken into the terminology of Buddhism from Brahmanic and popular philosophy The opposite of avijjā is usually ñāṇa.

It is the opposite of avijjā in SN 35.80 though. Also ñāṇa, by the way, is defined as "knowledge, understanding, wisdom, insight, conviction, recognition".
Conversely I think that moha is what you have when you don't have vijjā or ñāṇa. It's used in the context of "three fires" i.e. "greed", "hatred", and "delusion" -- see also Three poisons -- which are also called the three unwholesome or unskillful roots, akusala-mūla, in AN 3.69
Of these three ("greed", "hatred", and "delusion"), "delusion" is said to be the root: so perhaps it's the cause (or condition) of "greed" and "hatred", and/or whatever "greed" and "hatred" have in common?
So, I don't know; I assume, given the noble truths, that (moha) might be synonymous with craving, attachment, or something like that. But if it's the "root" then maybe it's related to other concepts too -- whatever it is you have when you don't mindfulness, for example.

I will not be able to give a long answer because I have not found any scriptural meaning of the word delusion. However the sanskrit term moha or delusion is a fairly common word. It means attachment. Buddha essentially says is to get rid of attachment in relation to the five aggregates.
At one place here Buddha mentions how to get rid of delusion :

One goes forth to cultivate the holy life under the Tathāgata for the
  sake of the eradication, fading away, cessation, appeasement, and
  vanishing of lust, hatred, and delusion in relation to bodily form.
  [One goes forth …] for the sake of the eradication, fading away,
  cessation, appeasement, and vanishing of lust, hatred, and delusion in
  relation to feeling … perception … formations … consciousness.”

Ignorance is fairly well explained here :

“Not knowing the past, not knowing the future, not knowing the past
  and the future, not knowing the internal, not knowing the external,
  not knowing the internal and the external, not knowing what are
  volitional actions, not knowing results, not knowing volitional
  actions and their results, not knowing the Buddha, not knowing the
  Teaching, not knowing the Community, not knowing suffering, not
  knowing origination, not knowing cessation, not knowing the path, not
  knowing causes, not knowing the origination of causes in things, not
  knowing what is wholesome and unwholesome, blameworthy and blameless,
  what should be practiced and what should not be practiced, not knowing
  the despicable and the excellent, the black and the white, those
  things that are a part of conditional origination, again not knowing
  the comprehending of the six spheres of contact as they really are,
  not knowing here and now things as they really are, not seeing, not
  penetrating, darkness, complete delusion, blind ignorance. This is
  called ignorance.

Delusion is part of ignorance. But every ignorance is not delusion.

Buddha used moha with the threefold: 3 roots, 3 practices, 3 characteristics, etc.
Buddha used avijjā with the twofold: 2 roots of dependent origination, 2 practitioner-habits (carita), 2 meditations, etc.
See the explanation in five naya chapter of netti.
If you understand netti, you can understand the whole tipiṭaka and atthakathā easier.

Avijja (beginningless  ignorance is the primary  defilement  where all other secondary  defilements  arises, including  delusion.
Avijja means not knowing  , not seeing.
Based on not knowing,  delusion  arises


text:
Showing anatta from modern psychology or neuroscience?
I have heard Ajahn Brahm say in a talk, if I recall, that modern science or psychology has demonstrated anatta in some way.
It seems unnecessary to invoke science to validate any of Buddhism, but until one can see no self from direct experience, looking at science may be beneficial for the purpose of gaining an intellectual understanding.
Is there any useful research or writing is there that shows anatta from the perspective of modern psychology or neuroscience?
I'd think something like this would be produced by the Mind & Life Institute. All I could find is this blurb crediting Evan Thompson. It doesn't say much.

It doesn't say much The bigthing article you referenced seems to be based on a qz article whose main scientific reference (i.e. reference to a scientific paper) is to Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice.

IMO this is off-topic and too broad: if the question were e.g., "Does Christianity teach anatta in some way?" that that would be pretty clearly off-topic, wouldn't it? IMO it's still off-topic if you substitute "modern science" or "psychology" or "neurology" or "philosophy". Also it's not clear what anatta means (I mean, maybe it's clear in the canon, but there have been more than 100 questions about it on his site). So asking, "is there anything in modern science comparable to the doctrine of anatta?" isn't good.

I think this is a good question because a good answer would use what is essentially  experiments [science] for demonstrable basis in explaining one's subjective understanding of anatta. I don't think experimental data is comparable to christianity.

Latter is essentially a theory which may be falsified by experimental data. If one wants to learn anything here then one should subject theories to scrutiny based on experimental data & philosophical integrity. A policy which restricts this is actually just punishing those who are capable of doing it.

I do think that it's very niche and perhaps one should make the distinction between scientific theory and scientific data very clear. Then one could allow comparative questions if restricted to the factual experimental data and established truths.

It is not difficult for modern western scientific materialist/reductionists to understand the most coarse and obvious meaning of anatta: the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.
In this culture, we are trained to look at the world from the default viewpoint of scientific materialist/reductionism. That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent, non-unitary, and dependent.
So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta, then why aren't we all Arhats??
Because there is much more to realizing emptiness than just this very coarse and trivial understanding of anatta. For the wisdom realizing emptiness to have its soteriological effect the following must be true:

It can not be trivial. If it were trivial, then it would not have any power whatsoever to cure our suffering or pull us out of this endless cyclic existence.
It can not be mere word games or simply an intellectual philosophical exercise. If it were, then again it would not have any ability to end our suffering.
It can not mean that nothing exists. If we come to the conclusion that nothing exists, then there can be no clearer guidepost saying “turn around!” as it is stated over and over in the Dharma that this is manifest evidence that the reasoning on emptiness has gone astray.
Still, it must be something that can be inferred from reasoning. It is not a completely obscure phenomena.

Even a mere correct inferential understanding of emptiness or the object of negation should rock something deep inside of you. If it doesn't absolutely shake your deeply ingrained ignorance, then how could it ever have the power to uproot suffering?
Similarly, if you become convinced that some understanding of emptiness is leading you to believe that the world does not exist, or that karma does not exist, or rebirth does not exist, then you can be absolutely sure that there is some mistake in your understanding. The Virtuous Teachers warn again and again that the true meaning of emptiness does not equate to nihilism or the repudiation of the Four Noble Truths in any shape or form. In other words, keep looking.
So, looking to modern science - including psychology or neuroscience - to help arrive at coarse level of anatta is fine.
To arrive at the subtler levels will require more powerful tools. In terms of modern science, Relational QM is perhaps one of those tools. See an article by Carlo Rovelli here.
But looking towards modern scientific materialists/reductionists to provide even a glimpse of the subtlest meaning of anatta or emptiness is unfortunately futile. Which is evident by looking around to see how many modern scientists appear to be highly realized beings teaching the Dharma...

"So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta..." then why do we not all see no self or understand emptiness?

Because even with a course understanding of emptiness, one can still say that a self arises as an emergent thing, from what you listed:  caloric intake, cellular division, evolution, genetics and epigenetics, composite of sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. How do we deny that such a thing exists? (This is still a question to me.) To say it exists only conventionally or relatively, does not mean it does not exist. How do we see that there is no self at all, not even a conditioned, impermanent one?

We don’t deny that persons exist on the conventional level! The Buddha did not deny this nor did Nagarjuna or any of the Virtuous Teachers. You and I exist! That should not be disputed. The question is how do we exist? Under ultimate analysis no person can be found. Not even the slightest bit. We are utterly void of inherent existence.

The Buddha did not deny this Did the Buddha affirm it? Which bit[s] of the canon are you thinking of when you said that? It's famously affirmed by Nagasena (in the parable of the chariot).

@avatarKorra one can still say that a self arises Yes there is a view (are probably several views) about self. And there are views of non-self (including materialist [wrong] views of "nothing but atoms") etc. So, there are many different views, different kinds of view, in the world. Only, IMO, Buddhism says that any of the various views-of-self result in confusion and suffering: so it's better to not hold to those views.

@avatarKorra  How do we deny that such a thing exists? IMO there are several ways to deny (possible reasons to reject) a given "view" or "scientific theory"; for example: 1) the theory doesn't fit the observed facts (i.e. the observations); 2) the theory doesn't make accurate predictions about the future (future observations); 3) or, its predictions may be accurate but they're not useful, beneficial; 4) some theoreticians also say we should reject a theory that isn't "falsifiable". IMO the self-view can be "attacked" on any or all of these  grounds (i.e. using any of these reasons/methods).

@avatarKorra Also, beware, I think that "I don't exist" is also described in the canon to be a type of "self-view", i.e. "a view about self", i.e. one of the many types of self-views that leads to confusion and dukkha.

@ChrisW In the Trisaṁvaranirdeśa it says, "Ordinary people argue with me, but I do not argue with them be cause whatever is asserted to be in the world I also say exists. Whatever is asserted to be nonexistent in the world I also say is nonexistent." I think this comes from the Mahayana though.

@Tenzin Dorje perhaps you can trace this Trisaṁvaranirdeśa to Sutra in English? I found it in Ocean of Reasoning...

@ChrisW I also found this where the Buddha is not disputing - even affirming! - the conventional notion of self: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html, ""And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden."

Thank you, sorry, my mistake -- you were talking about "person"; I thought we were talking about "self".

In terms of conventional usage I'm not sure the distinction in this case.

Dictionary definitions: atta versus puggala. And there's a footnote in the sutta you referenced, It's just that suttas speak against views of self ("nothing deserves to be called 'self'" and "self-views arise from attending inappropriately, are a thicket of views, and lead to suffering"). IMO and the footnote says that the "conventional versus ultimate" distinction/debate comes from scholastics after the Buddha's passing; not suttas.

Ok, thanks @ChrisW for the definitions! With those definitions I can say unequivocally that it is puggala that we say exists conventionally, not atta or a soul. In no way is atta or soul said to exist either conventionally or ultimately by Prasangikas.

@ChrisW And there are views of non-self (including materialist [wrong] views of "nothing but atoms") etc. Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements, and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the discussion of self?

@avatar Korra, perhaps that would be best posed as a new question instead of comment?

@avatarKorra -- the (material) body is just one of five aggregates, and none of the aggregates are worth regarding as "self". || Yeshe -- I think the definition of atta gives three meanings ... and that the first (i.e. soul) is non-existent (i.e. it's asserted that there is no such thing) ... the second (i.e. self-view, maybe selfishness) is unwise (a view which arises from attending inappropriately and which leads to suffering) ... and the third use (as a reflexive pronoun) does appear, during dialog, unremarkably or without comment.

@YesheTenley it is now posted as a new question.

@YesheTenley: Returning to the question, So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta, then why aren't we all Arhats?? It seems to me that modern scientific reductionists/materialists maintain the ignorance that there is still something called "I" or "mine". Would you agree/disagree? Calling anything "I" or "mine" immediately shows a misunderstanding of no self, since, would one who truly understands anatta do this? This ignorance of "mine", misunderstanding anatta, is why so many hear the words of the coarse meaning of anatta yet are not arhats, it seems.

@avatar Korra, Using the words "I" and "mine" is not necessarily indicative that the person using the words has a misunderstanding of reality or a misunderstanding of no self. These words can be used conventionally and Prasangika does not think there is anything wrong with using these words conventionally. OTOH, I entirely agree that modern scientific reductionists/materialists maintain views based upon ignorance. Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise Volume 3 page 214 talks about "I" and "mine" and what the view (as opposed to the mere words) of these entails. Hope this helps.

I should clarify. A materialist/reductionist "calls", but to be more precise, "grasps at", their body, mind, or something material, as "mine", do they not? Is the purpose of sattipathana not to see that there is no self, i.e. that there are body, feelings, mind, and dhammas, and that these are not me, nor mine, nor a self? And then is the purpose of seeing anatta not to see that nothing is worth adhering to (MN 37,3)? This is the meaning of "I" or "mine" that was meant in the last comment. But using "I" or "mine" in conventional language, without grasping, agreed, is not neccesarily ignorance.

@avatarKorra Yes, I think this is correct although to be fair to materialist/reductionists we all (sentient beings) make this mistake ;)

Yes. Please see Quartz article dated February 9, 2018 by Ephrat Livni, entitled "Scientists studying psychoactive drugs accidentally proved the self is an illusion". Research papers are linked in it.
Also, please see the TED Talk by neuroscientist Anil Seth entitled "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" which was published on YouTube on July 18, 2017.

Yes, check out Consciousness Explained, a 1991 book by Daniel Dennett.

Dennett puts forward a "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, suggesting that there is no single central place (a "Cartesian Theater") where conscious experience occurs; instead there are "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain". The brain consists of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies"; when "content-fixation" takes place in one of these, its effects may propagate so that it leads to the utterance of one of the sentences that make up the story in which the central character is one's "self".

As i understand it.
Behaviorism which ignores the underlying philosophical framework of behavior altogether whilst focusing on reward circuitry & conditioning of pattern recognition, shows that to an extent behavior is dictated by classical conditioning.
This is how one would train a dog with reward/punishment and more or less ignoring what he thinks.
Neuroscience developed in course of the development of psychopharmacological research and was predicated on hardcore behaviorism & molecular biology.
Eventually it became evident that the subjective philosophy of a person impacts his values & behavior as well but there was little to no study of this.
At this point consciousness research and cognitive behavioral therapy were in the infancy and pople wanted to study the psychological effects of character-changing experiences such as spiritual, mystical or great learning.
The natural course is that this would be still an extention of pharmacology and therefore the academic consciousness study turned to researching psychedelic drugs.
I think it can be summed up that behavioral science holds a person's understanding of the context of his experiences shapes his motivations and circumstances shape the behavior circuitry accordingly.
Afaik as to Anatta in particular, scientific litterature makes a strong case for there being no free-will, rather there being conditioning only and that neurobroadcasting is a reliable predictor of behavior and that maybe more so than a person's own philosophy which is generally more or less speculative & with cognitive dissonance.
Another interesting point is that there is some litterature on what exact brain activity is associated with the notion of self and the way this plays out has been surprising to people as it's not what a naive person would expect.
Eg when people think about death, what lights up are regions that are associated with other beings rather than that which has to do with oneself.
Here a person would say that he/she or that "self" thinks that death is something that applies to all beings but the circuitry tells a different story and the circuitry is the actual behavioral wiring.
If there indeed was an element of self then one would expect a different circuitry.
The field of 'general semantics' is probably closest to understanding anatta.
General semantics is concerned with how electrocolloidal events are abstracted as objects of perceptions, how these are further classified by words for thought, how these words are likewise more or less of an abstraction and how we might gain a measure of control over our own behavior & mental wellness through insight.
Imo one could say that general semantics establishes the emptiness of words and explains how delusion about these truths is a mental illness.


text:
Why should progress in meditation lead to rebirth in a more worldly setting?
It seems that the more successful your meditation is, the more lavish the surroundings of your next life (e.g. rebirth in a heavenly realm following the attainment of certain meditative states). However, this seems contrary to the goal of non-attachment, and a more logical karmic result of meditative attainment would be rebirth in some setting that would most easily propel you into a monastery. So, why does progress in meditation cause rebirth in a more worldly setting?

Perhaps it might help if you cite references for your presumption that progress in meditation leads to rebirths in more worldly settings? I don't know where you get this presumption...

As I have understood, Heavenly and Hellish realms are determined by state of mind. It is well said that two people can be walki g down the same street and one is in hell and other is in heaven. Heaven and hell is the way we experience this universe.
So if you do meditation and you get born in a monastry world setting and it is still heavenly as it will all be experienced.

Rebirth in a heaven doesn't mean more worldly settings.
Heaven can meditate and enlightenment easier than human life. But partial correct that it will also lead to get lost eaiser when there were full of happiness and no suffer there.
Your old karma will lead you to more worldly setting, Not meditate.

There are 2 types of meditation.samatha and vipassana. Samatha which concentrate our mind lead us to obtain samadhi and dhyana..samatha meditation is was there even before the enlightenment of budhda. Ex: 5 monks who were meditating with sidhdhartha had the highest level of dhyana even before sidhdhartha's enlightenment. Samatha helps for rebirth in heaven and brahma according to the level of dhyana.
But meditation introduced in buddhism is vipassana. Which gives you wisdom and nibbana. Even when someone do samatha and got dhyana is definitely end up in world of brahma. So as brahma get very large life span he might lose period of dhamma when he leaves world of brahma. So guiding in buddhism is to practice vidarshana and end up with nibbana and not to practice samatha and end up with world with more attachments.


text:
Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?
Why does the Buddha ask the same question twice, and why does Subhuti answer it two different ways? In Diamond Sutra Chapter 13

“Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be perceived by means of
  his thirty-two physical characteristics?”
“No, Most Honored One. The Buddha cannot be perceived by his
  thirty-two physical characteristics. Why? Because the Buddha teaches
  that they are not real but are merely called the thirty-two physical
  characteristics.”

but in Diamond Sutra Chapter 26

“What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by
  the 32 physical marks?”
Subhuti replied, “Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be
  recognized.”

Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?

I think @Caoimhghin answered the question already, but for the sake of clarity, in the next two paragraphs of chapter 26 Subuthi realises his error and says: “Most Honored One, now I realize that the Buddha cannot be recognized merely by his 32 physical marks of excellence.”

Then why does Subhuti answer correctly the 1st time and incorrectly the 2nd? Or should this be a separate question?

So I think the reason for the inconsistency is that there is an error in the AJ translation. In the FPMT translation the answer by Subhuti is consistent.

They are two different translations of the same words.
From Chapter 13, your first quote:

「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相見如來不？」 “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be perceived by means of his thirty-two physical characteristics?”

"32 physical characteristics" is "三十二相" in the Chinese above the English.
From Chapter 15:

「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相觀如來不？」“What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by the 32 physical marks?”

"32 physical marks" is "三十二相" again.
They are two different ways to translate the same term. The translator likely either didn't notice they were rendering it in two ways, or they wanted variety to help with readability.
The two segments of Chinese text are from T235.750a20 & T235.752a11 respectively in the Taishō Tripiṭaka.

Wesak:~
The death of the self (God/Bodisatva), of  Siddhartha and the birth of the selfless, Gauthama (Lord Buddha).
If you understand that Wesak, is not the birth of the prince Siddhartha.from mother's womb, Lord Buddha is neither physical entity nor idol.

May be Hon. Subhuti was in some way pedantic about the use of word 'recognised' and 'perceived'.
So you can't perceive a Buddha through 32 characteristic...as in may be all of them cant be preceived by everyone of us straight away.
And if perceived then you can recognize a Buddha.
But this looks like a reasoning based on semantics and not on wisdom.

is there any difference between 32 phy.characteristics and 32 physical marks. there are many hindrance to be encountered ,out of which one is doubt .a slightest of it can ruin our walking on the path.  a little effort to clear the same is as follows----the answer has arisen after giving a slight thought upon and is not backed by any reference pl. The physical characteristics when asked upon by subhuti, buddha replies that they are impermanent and cannot be treated as lighthouse to know buddha. here he may mean about the nature ,traits,habits of person . in the other instance when subhuti asks about physical marks buddha says yes. here may mean that a person who is going to become a enlightened buddha has some physical marks on the body sya a lotus mark on toes, high forehead,hands reaching  below the knees etc.i don't know them exactly how many and what they are really. but a slight surfing will fetch inf of the same. the point to be searched as physical marks on a reincarnated soul(avatar), enlightened yogi "s physical body.answer may put forth a slight light to clear your doubt.