text:
Do any Buddhist traditions emphasize pilgrimage?
I'm aware that other religions such as Islam have a great emphasis on pilgrimage.  Do any Buddhist schools or traditions also have an emphasis on pilgrimage and if so where do they go? I know that there are places with particular significance for Buddhism such as Bodhi Gaya and Buddhists do go there. But is that journey actually a significant part of their practice or tradition or is it just that it's personally inspirational to go.
From my own point of view I would love to go see places of historical and religious significance to Buddhism. If I did though I wouldn't view this as part of my practice as a Buddhist. It would almost be religious sightseeing.

Several Books have been written about the practice of pilgrimage. See for example Buddhist Pilgrimage, by Chan Khoon San (via buddhanet). Holy Places of the Buddha, Crystal Mirror Vol. 9 is packed with details about the Buddhist pilgrimage places, though it is strongly biased towards traditional Tibetan views of history.
There is a discussion about pilgrimage places in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (Dīghanikāya 16; p.263 in Walshe's translation). It's widely thought that such passages come relatively late, but we do not really know how long after the Buddha. On the other hand there are stories in the Pāḷi suttas of people undertaking long journeys to meet the Buddha when he was alive. The famous Bahiya (Udāna 1.10) for example. The practice of buddhānussati or "recollection of the Buddha" is important in early Buddhist texts and continues to be important in Mahāyāna and Tantric Buddhism.
By the time of Asoka at the very latest (ca 250 BCE) there were stupas in place at many sites associated with the Buddha, e.g. at Sarnath and Buddhist pilgrimage as well as other places that were associated with important people in the Buddhist stories, such as the stupa complex at Sanchi. Asoka enlarged many of these existing stupas and built new ones. Many of these important archaeological sites were lost following the decline and death of Indian Buddhism and only rediscovered in the 19th century by officers of British Government and the East India Company. Many have since been plundered. Charles Allen's book Asoka describes the great king's role in this process.
Some of the most famous Buddhists in history have been Chinese pilgrims to India. They undertook an enormously long journey, usually on foot, crossing deserts and high mountains and returning laden with sutras and travel stories. Perhaps the most famous of all is Xuanzang who is also renowned as a translator.
Pilgrimage is a very important practice in Shingon Buddhism in Japan. One circles Shikoku Island visiting 88 temples associated with Kūkai the founder.
There are many accounts of this pilgrimage trail, but Japanese Pilgrimage by Oliver Statler is a very good read (now out of print unfortunately).
In modern times, pilgrimage is an important practice in the Triratna Buddhist Order, of which I am a member. I myself went on pilgrimage with a group of Buddhists in 2003/4 and wrote a short book about it. The Indian wing of our Order regularly organise and lead pilgrimages in the Indian winter (when it is much cooler). In addition Triratna Buddhists will often visit cites associated with the lives of Sangharakshita (our founder) and Dr Ambedkar, the leader of the Buddhist conversion movement that began in the 1950s.
When one travels around the pilgrimage sites of Indian they are often packed with Buddhists from all over the world. The variety can be astounding. It is one of the practices that really brings people from different faiths within Buddhism together.
Historically pilgrimage is an important practice. One can see it as an extension of buddhānussati or the "recollection of the Buddha", a key early Buddhist practice. By following in the Buddha's footsteps one brings him strongly to mind, one inhabits (in imagination) the world the Buddha lived in. It also enriches one's experience of reading Buddhist texts - when one can bring to mind the road from Anathapindika's Garden to Sāvatthī, or the view from Vulture's peak, then the stories come to life. Bringing the Buddha to mind is very important practice. As Buddhaghosa says in the Visuddhimagga (Vism VII,6)

"And his body, when the recollection of the Buddha’s special qualities dwells in it, becomes worthy of veneration [pūjārahaṃ] like a shrine room [cetiyaghara]".

Great answer thanks. Interesting Triratna is my sangha too and I have never heard of pilgrimage being an important thing. That said I am fairly paraochial in my engagement so it's interesting to hear about aspects of the wider community that I'm not aware of. Thanks again for the answer

There are four main places that most Buddhists visit at least once in their lifetime. According to Buddha's words in Mahaparinibbana sutta those are
Lumbini, Buddhagaya, Sarnath and Kusinara in Nepal and India.

"These, Ananda, are the four places that a pious person should visit and look upon with feelings of reverence. And truly there will
  come to these places, Ananda, pious bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen
  and laywomen, reflecting: 'Here the Tathagata was born! Here the
  Tathagata became fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme
  Enlightenment! Here the Tathagata set rolling the unexcelled Wheel of
  the Dhamma! Here the Tathagata passed away into the state of Nibbana
  in which no element of clinging remains!'
"And whoever, Ananda, should die on such a pilgrimage with his heart established in faith, at the breaking up of the body, after
  death, will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."
DN 16

Pilgrimages however are not a significant part of the practice, but these visits can inspire us to put more effort into our practice. Some groups of people observe eight precepts and practice meditation as a part of the pilgrimage as well.   By showing reverence at these places, the person is able to purify his thoughts, speech and action. So by visiting these places with the correct mental attitude can help us in our practice as well.

"Original Buddhism" if there is such a thing, did not emphasise pilgrimages or even statues. It was about one's personal practice and not the worship of the Buddha, the individual.
The practice itself was the worship of the Buddha (awakening) within.
I can't recall the text (I'd be grateful if someone can help me locate it) but there's a verse where the Buddha praises a single moment of true mindfulness in action as greater veneration of the ideal than chanting several times 'namo tasso bhagavato arahato samma sambuddasa' without feeling mindful.
The suttas talk of Arhats in the Buddha's time who had never met the Buddha though they had heard the teachings by word of mouth and become enlightened. In a sense they had met the Buddha within already through the practice. This did not stop them however from feeling joyful upon actually meeting the tatagatha in person; if they ever did, which is quite natural.
Similarly pilgrimages are joyful things but when they are mandatory or made the central component of practice, they distance the practitioner from the practice.
For a long time the bodhi tree, the dharma wheel or the foot print of the Buddha were the only sanctioned symbols of Buddhism. The grander elements of tradition came later as a sense of history and distance from the actual events developed. The signs and reminders needed to get super-sized it seems, as the physical, calendar and mental distance made the heart fonder. The Buddha statues even seem to grow in size and stature in direct correlation to the distance from India.
Some historians and theologians I've read on Christianity say the idea of Jesus, son of God, developed in later times as a pleasant intermediary, a personal deity, a friend almost to intervene between the devotee and the rather harsh and imposing Abrahamic God of smiting fire of the Old testament. It was a much needed correction since God had gotten too distant.
Some people worship personal bodhisattvas similarly, because the Buddha ideal is too vast. Their personal Bodhisattva is their friend who they can reveal their failings to, since the Buddha is too awesome (in the original sense of the term). Even in the Buddha's later years junior disciples sought out senior disciples like Ven. Ananda or Ven. Sariputta to intervene on their behalf with the Buddha since they didn't feel worthy of walking up to him directly.
Though Buddhist practice began as a very personal route to access the Buddha within, for some people this was too much. They couldn't imagine they were worthy of inhabiting such godlike perfection. They couldn't help but think their Buddha nature was somehow inferior, so they found peace in worshipping the Buddha outside. Nothing wrong in this, different strokes for different folks.
For a religion that started out with no statues, it is interesting to see that many of the tallest statues in the world today are Buddhist.
However, like early Christianity of a distant God, the enlightenment ideal did become far removed from daily life, with many insisting even stream entry is impossible in this day and age.
The devout often use statues and pilgrimages quite like soldiers on the battle front walking around with pictures of hearth and home; to remind them of a better place. It allows us to think nirvana is found outside of samsara. A safe place from the harsh winter of reality, when the winter is too real and imposing.
Many of these same soldiers have trouble adjusting to the real people back home after the war, because the photograph that brought them comfort during the war was perfect, it accepted all mental projections: not so with reality.
Similarly, by projecting a perfect Buddha ideal, or enlightenment ideal outside of human fragility and venerating it through pilgrimages and such, we can rejoice in surrendering to the absolute but we also run the risk of never making it personal.
Samsara will always appear dull to us, yet we will never be good enough to escape it. As the Zen teaching goes, after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Enlightenment does not allow us to get on a celestial vehicle and zoom off from samsara into the heavens.
Samsara is the mud in which the lotus of enlightenment grows. If we think the mud isn't good enough for the lotus, and always paint the lotus as growing on pristine marble, we will only have a beautiful painting but we will never be able to grow the lotus on marble.
I'm not saying pilgrimages aren't a good thing to do, but let's not mistake it for the practice.
Lest this sounds far-fetched, I'm not saying anything new.
Many Zen monks have made the point I am making by burning sutras, and by reciting koans like - "if you meet the Buddha on the journey to enlightenment, kill him".
Wisdom and love are two facets of enlightenment when viewed dualistically. Wisdom is to see the Buddha within, and love is to see the Buddha without, they are like the in breath and the out breath. One is not better than the other. Seen deeply, one can see love in wisdom, and wisdom in love.
When the Zen ancestor burned all the commentaries on texts, the texts were soon replaced by koan sayings of new Zen masters, recreating the hole he had filled. It wasn't a failing of the Zen ancestor to fail to anticipate this, it was his wisdom to see that the rise and fall of the tide is the nature of the ocean.
To be trapped by neither extreme is sublime freedom.

Most of this answer is off topic. Please consider editing it so that it answers the question more directly.

Also could you cite an authority for this statement ""Original Buddhism" if there is such a thing, did not emphasise pilgrimages or even statues." If there was no such thing, as I suspect, then what follows is meaningless. If there was a such a thing, how do we know it did not emphasise pilgrimage?

Please read the question and the answer again, it seems apropos. Please tell me how it is off topic if you still find it so.

Re: Original Buddhism, in the sense of the lineage of Buddhas, it is hard to find a beginning to call it original, hence my comment. This present Buddha began a tradition without statues - whose primacy came later. Certainly there was no emphasis on pilgrimage, it wasn't forbidden for sure, even encouraged (see other answer quoting parinibbana sutta), but not emphasized. Nowhere is it a criteria to set on a pilgrimage to attain nibbana.


text:
When did the Buddha get surrounded by lots of animals?
I remember an image of the Buddha being surrounded by animals. I think the story is that they all flocked around after his enlightenment though I could be wrong. Does anyone know what the story is that goes with this picture and where if anywhere it is in the Buddhist texts. Also if someone can point me to a particularly good picture I would be grateful.
My motivation for asking this is I'm due to run a family afternoon in my local centre and my idea is to get the children making clay animals (with googly eyes) that we can then arrange arround a Buddha to recreate this scene. Then we will all eat some cake!
Many Thanks

Good luck :) do you know the Buddha's elephant / monkey story? http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_20lbud.htm

An image (a painting) of the Buddha with many animals is the subject of the children's story, The Cat Who Went to Heaven.
Some of the animal vignettes in this are each taken from a traditional story (e.g. Buddha and swan, and e.g. Buddha and Banyan deer).
The painting is of the following scene:

When he was eighty, he knew he was near
  death, and he saw the skies open and all the Hindu gods of the heavens, and
  of the trees, and the mountains, with his disciples, and the animals of the
  earth came to bid him farewell.

I don't know whether that scene is from any traditional story (I don't think it's a Pali sutta).

You're right. It was the Buddha's parinirvana not enlightenment. Thanks for that

According to Wikipedia the author "traveled to the Orient, riding horseback through the Philippines, exploring Indonesia and China, and sleeping in a Buddhist monastery. These travels would later influence her writing." And so maybe she found the story (or the picture) there (unless she made it up herself, maybe not since about an orthodoxy regarding cats). The story is set in Japan. The story was written in 1930, and maybe early American Buddhism would have likely been Chinese or Japanese.

But then again it says "all the Hindu gods of the heavens" so, I don't know. There are Hindus in that area of the world too (a place like Singapore for example has all kinds of temples co-existing in one place, i.e. Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, and Hindu).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the historical origin of Vajrapani?
I've always found the imagery of Vajrapani (a wrathful Bodhisattva) very evocative. I'm reading a little bit about him and how his form is to do with energy and power in service of the Dharma so he is of course a positive figure.

But I'm just wondering if anyone knows about the history of this figure and wrathful deities like him. Is he from the Tibetan culture and does he predate Buddhism coming into that country. Also is he a deity that perhaps had negative connotations (a demon perhaps) that Buddhism has co-opted?

Possible duplicate of What is a wrathful Buddha?

The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrapani) contains quite a bit of detail, including this -- "Vajrapāni is one of the earliest Dharmapalas and the only Buddhist deity to be mentioned in the Pāli Canon". I can't vouch for the scholarly accuracy of this article, of course.

@chrisw I did review this question and I think it is related but not a dupe. Robin was asking about the religious significance of wrathful forms but I am asking about their historical development

Longchen Rabjam's Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems (tr. Richard Barron) says:

Traditionally, Manjushri is renowned for having compiled the tantras of enlightened form, Avalokiteshvara the tantras of enlightened speech, and Vajrapani the tantras of enlightened mind, qualities, and activity.

A footnote fills this out:

In the sutra teachings, ''the lords of the three families" -- Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, and Vajrapani -- are among the eight great bodhisattvas in the retinue of every nirmanakaya buddha such as Shakyamuni. In the ... context ... of the Vajrayana teachings, they are emanations who are not separate from the expounder of the tantras, whether Buddha Shakyamuni or the primordial buddha (usually referred to as Samantabhadra or Vajradhara, who expounded tantras considered to predate the historical Buddha). In the tantras, these emanations are part of the naturally manifest retinue that appears in the sambhogakaya realm of Akanishtha. In the sutras, these bodhisattvas are peaceful manifestations; in the Vajrayana, the emanations may appear in either peaceful or wrathful forms.

So, no negative connotations I'd say! I know Vajrapani appeared in Sanskrit first because he's mentioned in Ch. 10 of 'Way of the Bodhisattvas,' by the 8th century Indian buddhist monk Shantideva. Wiki mentions the earlier sutra that may have been Shantideva's reference (see link in comment).

David Lewis is correct that Vajrapani is mentioned in the Pali Canon. It's hard to tell though, because his name is just translated rather than being left alone. He is mentioned in DN 3, the Ambaṭṭha Sutta. The relavent passage is:

Now at that time the spirit who bears the thunderbolt stood over above
  Ambaṭṭha in the sky with a mighty mass of iron, all fiery, dazzling,
  and aglow, with the intention, if he did not answer, there and then to
  split his head in pieces. And the Blessed One perceived the spirit
  bearing the thunderbolt, and so did Ambaṭṭha the Brahman. And Ambaṭṭha
  on becoming aware of it, terrified, startled, and agitated, seeking
  safety and protection and help from the Blessed One, crouched down
  beside him in awe, and said: ‘What was it the Blessed One said? Say it
  once again!’

https://suttacentral.net/en/dn3
If we look in the Pali this paragraph goes:

Tena kho pana samayena vajirapāṇī yakkho mahantaṃ ayokūṭaṃ ādāya
  ādittaṃ sampajjalitaṃ sajotibhūtaṃ ambaṭṭhassa māṇavassa upari vehāsaṃ
  ṭhito hoti: “sacāyaṃ ambaṭṭho māṇavo bhagavatā yāvatatiyakaṃ
  sahadhammikaṃ pañhaṃ puṭṭho na byākarissati, etthevassa sattadhā
  muddhaṃ phālessāmī”ti. Taṃ kho pana vajirapāṇiṃ yakkhaṃ bhagavā
  ceva passati ambaṭṭho ca māṇavo.

https://suttacentral.net/pi/dn3
It is spelled vajirapāṇī just because in Pali you aren't allowed to have an r immediately after a j at the end of a syllable, so an I is added to make it easier to pronounce. The meaning is the same, and it means one who bears the Vajra (thunderbolt)

The comments about the spelling here are misleading, including the rationale for the change from Sanskrit, which was part of a sweeping change in how the vernacular was pronounced in the central Ganges Valley.. Though the reference to Ambaṭṭa Sutta is accurate.

Yes but one of the most significant vernacular changes in the case of Pali are the change in the Sandhi rules, which become a lot more complex, primarily involving assimilations, deletions, and the addition of vowels, and it is through this type of change that the Sanskrit Vajra became Vajira in Pali. Although in this case it is also rather likely that it is based on the original Vedic Sanskrit Vajira in the sense of thunderbolt and in Hybrid Sanskrit it was backtranslated as Vajra, in both cases the cause of the discrepancy is a difference in Sandhi rules.

Sorry, but vajira/vajra is nothing to do with sandhi. It's a more fundamental change in way in which Prakrits treat conjunct consonants - rendering them as geminates or as here inserting a vowel to separate the sounds. Pāḷi sandhi rules are not "a lot more complex", they are much simpler if anything, though they are less regular and less rigorously applied. "original Vedic Sanskrit Vajira" - got a reference for this?  Rgveda spells it vajra!

I've consulted Mayrhofer's "Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary" and vajra is definitely the Vedic spelling. It's cognate with Avesta vazra.

What I mean by Pali Sandhi being more complex than that of Sanskrit is that more consonant clusters are not permitted, and as a result, a lot more words end up being affected by Sandhi in much messier ways.

In regards to the issue of Vajra/Vajira in Vedic Sanskrit, when I looked up the term Vajira in the Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary, it lists two entries with different senses, the first of which refers to Indra's thunderbolt, and the second refers to a diamond. According to this dictionary, Vajira in the first sense is descended from a Vedic word of the same spelling revering exclusively to the thunderbolt sense, and Vajra being used in the Diamond sense. It is on page 660.

The only reason why I even brought up the issue of Vedic Sanskrit Vajira was because I thought it might come up, and I wanted to show that it didn't make a substantive difference even if Vajira was descended from a Vedic word of the same spelling rather than Vajra. I wasn't making a positive assertion, but was heading off a possible criticism and showing that even if it were the case, it wouldn't make a difference.

But I do concede that I mistakenly used the term Sandhi. More properly I should have said euphonic morphological constraints.

According to this page, apparently according to Buddhaghosa, Vajirapani is Indra or Sakka.

One source in which the history of Vajrapāṇi is discussed is the book Indo-Tibetan Buddhism by Snellgrove. He traces him to the Pāḷi figure Vajirapāṇi, and tries to show how we developed. Another useful source for Vajrapāni and wrathful deities generally, is the book Ruthless Compassion by Rob Linrothe, which focusses on changes in Indian art over time.
There's a long gap in the story from Pāḷi to Tantra. It took many centuries for the worship of bodhisatvas to develop (ca. 4-5th centuries CE) and more centuries again for images of them to start appearing.

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


text:
Vajra Posture vs Lotus Posture -- the same or male vs female?
I always thought that "Vajra Posture" and "Lotus Posture" were simply two names for the same thing. But recently somebody told me that Vajra Posture is for males and Lotus Posture for females, though without explaining any physical difference.
Searching turns up mostly interchangeable usage, and a few instances that confirm the male/female difference, though without explanation -- for example https://goo.gl/fxIi2Y and https://goo.gl/U0KKb1
Anybody know the story? Is there a male vs female difference? If so, is it the same physical posture, differing only in the gender of the practitioner, or is there an actual physical difference? Does it vary by tradition? (I suspect the difference is mainly found in the Tibetan / Vajrayana tradition, where the vajra symbolizes a male genital organ and the lotus a female organ.)

Addendum 8/30/2015. I wonder if what's called "half lotus position" in yoga is lotus position in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism vajra position is both feet up on opposite thighs, lotus position is just one foot up with the other on the mat. Evidence for this comes from this web site -- http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/glossary.cfm -- which is associated with the Rubin Museum (http://rubinmuseum.org/) -- this entry:

Asana (Skt.): seated or standing postures of which there are a variety
  of prescribed forms arising from iconographic descriptions found in
  religious texts. The names of the postures differ between religious
  traditions. For example the lotus posture in Hatha Yoga is called
  vajra posture in Buddhism. The half yoga posture in Hatha Yoga is
  called the lotus posture in Buddhism.

A problem here is that the term "half yoga posture" is not a standard yoga term (according to a web search). But perhaps they meant "half lotus".
Here, by the way, is a site showing both, using the names from yoga: lotus and half-lotus -- http://www.wildmind.org/posture/lotus.

If my conjecture is correct, these are what's known in Buddhsim as vajra and lotus position respectively. Even if this is correct, however, it does not address the gender connection. Maybe that is just a Vajrayana (Tantric) convention -- male figures use the vajra position and female figures the lotus position. But even if so, I'm sure there is a story behind it.

There is both no gender difference in the Lotus Posture and Vajra Posture or any other difference whatsoever as far as I'm aware. These are interchangeable terms for the same posture - the former has its root in Hatha Yoga and latter in Tibetan Vajrayana. There is, however, a gender difference in the Sattva Posture which is often recommended in Tibetan traditions if full lotus is not possible. This is maybe where the misunderstanding may have started? In the  'The Tibetan Yoga of Breath: Breathing Practices for Healing the Body and Cultivating Wisdom':

Sattva posture is done differently for males and females, but both can begin by sitting cross-legged on the floor. Elevating the hips so that they rest above the knees makes the posture easier to hold, so we need to sit on a pillow or cushion. For males, the left leg is tucked in closer to the body and the left foot placed on the inner right thigh, while the right leg rests in the front. For females it is the opposite: the left leg rests in the front and the right leg is tucked, with the right foot resting on the inner left thigh. This posture is similar to a half lotus posture, except that one leg rests in front of the body for balance.

Interesting, thanks.I have this book but had not read it in detail. The common understanding is that vajra and lotus are two names for the same posture, but that is exactly what I am now doubting. Please check the links (in the question) to a difference between vajra and lotus positions in Tibetan practice -- that is just a sample of many such references. The sattva posture in this book sounds like the left and right variants of what is called half-lotus in yoga and may be called lotus posture in Tibetan Buddhism, but I am pretty sure that is not the difference in the above references.

Yes those links definitely cast doubt. Perhaps a translation error? - as the weight of evidence points to Vajra and Lotus being the same from many sources within the actual traditions themselves. Be interesting if someone can cast more light on this.

Yes, there is a lot of confusion. Mixing yoga and Buddhist terminology is one source; translation may be another. But I have seen enough usages like that to doubt it's due to simple errors. There may even be differences across lineages within Tibetan Buddhism. But somebody at the Rubin seems to think they have it down, and they do have some serious scholars available there. I think I am giving up for now, until one of those really knowledgeable scholars comes along to enlighten us. It's also not that important to me -- I didn't think it was going to be so challenging to straighten out. ;)

Hope you are well.
I am a Tibetan Buddhism student and a ashtanga yoga practitioner. I have been reaching from the answer to this for a while. In ashtanga yoga, the full lotus posture or Padmasana is always with right leg first, and my teachers in India recommends this because of energy channels stimulation. In tantra traditions (like Tibetan Buddhism), the left leg is always first, and it is called vajra posture ( with the seven point of Vairochana describing this posture); my teacher in India will hit you literally if you put your left leg first as it is considered left handed practises, more exoteric and less God oriented.
I cannot find anything else about the differences.
I hope this helps
Regareds,J

I am wondering about this , too. There is a Vajrasana in Indian Yoga, similar to the Heroic posture, or Seiza and a Virasana which is similar to
the Vajrasana in Indian Buddhism.this is a very dynamic posture, that many children around the world use during play. Similar to sitting on one's heels, with some slight differences.
I know the "Vajrasana" in tibetan buddhism says the male usually puts the left leg first and the right on top, and the women do the opposite, but I did no research on this. I don't like the way the Tibetan use this term. I think they like to equate the Padmasana, which is often associated with the control of the passions, as  with the "Vajra" vehicle.

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


text:
How does the force of ones karma determine where the mind stream goes?

"On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents".
-- Reincarnation by The Dalai Lama

So Superior Bodhisattvas can choose where to take rebirth, but the rest of us can't. So, what chooses where the rest of us get to take rebirth?
How does "the force of karma" determine where the mind stream goes after physical death?
In the case of the Bodhisattvas, is it their mind stream that makes the choice? And when they make this choice, do they choose from available alternatives and just pick what suits them best or do they have the power to create their ideal rebirth?

This question is very similar to another: Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana? In my answer to that question I explained how the bodhisatva who post-pones enlightenment developed.

How does "the force of karma" determine where the mind stream goes after a physical death?

Many different answers have been proposed and adopted by Buddhists of different schools at different times to try to account for how karma determines where the mind stream goes after death. But no one really knows. We say that this is what happens, but a satisfactory explanation of the process is entirely lacking. We sometimes use analogies to try to explain, but they don't really tell us anything about the reality of this process.
The bodhisatva choosing their rebirth is simply an article of faith.

An analogy given to me was to imagine a person who for most of their life is a big game hunter. Perhaps hunting deer. The person grew up hunting deer with their father and grandfather perhaps. The person was around hunters all their life and surrounded themselves with similar people. Hunting deer occupied the thoughts for a very large percentage of their life. The thought of shooting and killing deer and the actual action of doing it was a well worn habit. So much so that the person self-identified as a hunter of deer first and foremost and became very attached to this description.
At the moment of death, perhaps with such a well worn habit of mind, the thought of hunting deer occupied it. The persons mind was uncontrollably habituated to the thought of killing deer and so at the moment of death they found themselves occupied with this thought. What kind of life do you think this person attained after death?
Now what about a person who dedicates all their life to helping others through compassion? Who occupies their mind with boundless compassion? Who is no longer slave to destructive emotions? Who has a disciplined mind trained through years of meditation focused on helping others? I think this is the thrust of the answer...
I would also add that according to my tradition (Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism) the mind stream never ends. That is, the Buddha does not cease to exist upon reaching enlightenment and then entering Parinirvana.


text:
What will erase our good deeds?
Our body will die but not our good deeds. If nothing can erase our good deeds, does it mean everyone will become enlightened eventually?

Kamma is impermanent and has a finite duration, meaning that the kammic results of an action last only for a certain duration of time, after which it becomes exhausted.
That is why e.g. a Brahma God can be reborn as a pig in the animal realm. That happens because the kamma from the good deeds has been exhausted which in turn leads to other kamma to come to fruition.
It means also that no being will be in the Hell realms for eternity since a being can only stay there until the unwholesome kamma has been exhausted.

In my article, Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. (Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014), I explain that karma was initially believed to be inevitable and that one had to live the consequences of one's actions no matter what. But this changed over time and various practices were developed to mitigate and eradicate evil karma. I didn't study "good" karma, but I see no reason for the same kind of reasoning to apply, i.e. good karma must be erasable in the systems of though in which the consequences of deeds are erasable.
One of the perennial problems for Buddhists is that, for the unenlightened, there is a vast predominance of craving and aversion, due to ignorance. Buddhists swing between enlightenment as transcendental (and therefore more or less unobtainable) and immanent in all beings (and therefore inevitable). The trouble is an immanent model is that it devalues the idea of enlightenment if everyone can get there, and will get there more or less with no effort. The trouble with transcendent models is no one is motivated by the unobtainable for long. Both extremes demotivate people and if on looks at Buddhist history we can see periods of stagnation when one or other model is unchallenged.
As part of this process. earlier models seem to get forgotten or repudiated and new ideas such as "interdependence" or "buddha-nature" get invented to fill the gap.
Many people think that Buddhism will inevitably mean that everyone will get enlightened. Mahāyāna Buddhism makes a big deal of the idea of "saving all being from suffering." Which suggests that they think such a thing is possible (despite the evidence of 2500 year of Buddhism). On the other hand saṃsāra (the cycle of death and rebirth) is usually portrayed in Mainstream Early Buddhist texts as beginningless and endless. Liberation is not found in saṃsāra, but by leaving it behind through ending rebirth. In this case we could have no expectation of everyone getting enlightened because that would mean the end of saṃsāra - a logical inconsistency.
A standard way of looking at karma is that none of our deeds "die" when our body dies. They are the condition which determines our next rebirth which will, in the more general way, reflect the life we have lived, for better or worse. But all deeds come to fruition at some point. Good deeds have to have a time limit also, else they would be permanent, and it is axiomatic in Buddhism that all things are impermanent.
Nāgārjuna spotted a little problem with this standard view however (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Chp 17). It is this: dependent arising specifies that when a condition ceases, the effect for which it is a condition also ceases. Thus there is a problem with karma because it requires that effects manifest a very long time after the condition has ceased. Again Buddhists proposed many solutions to this problem, but none of them actually solve the problem. The arguments are quite complex, but I tried to summarise them in an essay called The Logic of Karma. Unfortunately my conclusion is that the internal logic of all the existing explanations for karma are internally inconsistent. Nāgārjuna's answer was to argue that actions, agents, consequences, etc are all just illusions, which is not very satisfying.

"In this case we could have no expectation of everyone getting enlightened because that would mean the end of saṃsāra - a logical inconsistency."
If a fire burns through an endless forest, does that not mean both that there will be no tree left unburnt, and that the burning will never stop?

What will erase our good deeds?

When the karma for that action bears fruits, that "good deed" will "erase" so to speak.

The fruit that is borne from this good deed creates new situations and karma, good and bad. Thus, "that" good deed will never stop producing and in itself probably came from some other karma ad nauseum..
According to the section about "regret" (one of the 10 root afflictions) in "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization": if you have strong regret/doubt about a good action that you did, then it will diminish the good karma for that action. For example, if you saw a beggar on the street and you gave them all your change and felt great about it: great. But if after, you start regretting and second-guessing it... the "good karma" for that will nearly away. The same principle can be said for "bad karma."

If nothing can erase our good deeds, does it mean everyone will become
  enlightened eventually?

No karma is permanent, good or bad.
Karma is not associated with enlightenment: the worst person can still technically attain Awakening because it is a non-dual penetration beyond good or bad. That being said, even though Enlightenment comes from reasons beyond conditions and environment and karma.. of course Enlightenment is still easier to attain with a propitious environment.


text:
Why is 'do not be unfair' not a precept? And some related questions on precepts

What's the rationale or logic behind the precepts?
Does fairness come into it?
Are the list of precepts ever expanded to accommodate changing contexts?

Being very unfair to someone who trusts one is pretty similar in emotional harm to cheating on a spouse or lying, especially when the unfairness is made possible because of an abuse of a position of power.
For example, employees of large corporations often feel lied to, even cheated when they are laid off by their employer because of new management policy. Yet, these are explicitly the terms of most employment contracts.
Similarly, a home owner can feel pretty awful when evicted by the bank or lender for failure to pay the mortgage, especially when the bank is usually writing all the rules ab-initio protecting itself from market risks. Yet, this too is an agreed upon constraint because one party operates from a position of power.
Modern life relies on governments, corporations and other faceless institutions to a large degree, and they do wield a great deal of power, so a lot of their transgressions fall afoul of the fairness test, though technically none of them are lies. This has to be a large source of misery in this world today.
Yet, going by the precepts, at least to me, such behaviour doesn't seem to be overtly criticised.
Does Buddhism have anything to say to such scenarios?

"Do not be unfair" is pretty vague. Do not lie and do not steal, those are easy recognize and not do. What is fair and unfair is subject to debate, well so are perhaps all precepts but I would say unfairness even more so.
Who says its unfair to sack an employee? The entire system is unfair if it forces a company to sack anybody. The problem isn't with the individual, not in the scenarios you mentioned anyway. Does an economic system accumulate good and bad karma? They're not sentient so they can't follow precepts.
Just because a home owner feels awful doesn't mean its unfair. Don't get into the game if you don't want to play, meaning don't make loans if you might not be able to pay them.
I don't know what Buddhism has to say, but escaping the hassle of financial injustice does seem to be one of the perks of becoming a monk. Maybe the Buddha felt great leaving royal life behind and not having to concern himself with taxes, but this is just speculation.

Thanks. 1. It is pretty vague, but so is 'avoid sexual misconduct' of which I have encountered numerous interpretations. Some say it's ok to kill mosquitoes, others say that is a violation of first precept. 2. Economic systems are controlled by people too - if I push a rock down a mountain, and it kills someone, can I say the rock did the killing, I accumulate no karma? 3. Modern economies often leave no choice about not getting into debt. Very often people get fooled into taking loans they don't require. 4. I believe monks took/gave loans in the Buddha's period. Links in next comment.

Vinaya doesn't allow those with debts to be ordained unless they promise to repay the debt after ordination. 2. Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya seems to allow monks to take on loans 3. According to Vedic custom if a monk leaves bad debts, his creditors will get all his karma - this practice seems to have been accepted by the Buddhists too.

Does Buddhism have anything to say to such scenarios?

The precepts are in a way minimum requirements. There are lots of actions that are unwholesome, that are not specifically listed in the precepts, but that does not make them any less unwholesome.
One cannot simply say that if an action does not violate a precept, then it must be okay to do it.
One must both observe the intention (cetanā) behind the action, i.e. is it based in the 3 unwholesome roots and what kind of consequences will be the result of the action, i.e. will the action be wholesome for oneself and for other beings?
One must also strive to not only fulfill the minimum requirements but all the time see how one can improve one's mind and do as much good as one is capable off while keeping true to both oneself and other beings.
If the action is based in the 3 unwholesome roots then we already know that it cannot lead to wholesome resultants for oneself or other people. Such actions will only lead one further away from Nibbana.

Does fairness come into it?

Fairness can be implicit or derived from the precepts or from the reflection-quotes given by the Buddha, e.g. when he talks about how actions that are displeasing and disagreeable to him, how can he then inflict them upon another being?

"Again, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If some one were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?"
-- Sotapatti Samyutta: Veludvareyya Sutta

I'm looking at the Sallekha Sutta.

What's the rationale or logic behind the precepts? Does fairness come into it?

Maybe the rationale is 'effacement', a.k.a. removal of personal defilements.

Are the list of precepts ever expanded to accommodate changing contexts?

The Sallekha Sutta seems to do that, by including 44 items:

Starting with being harmful or harmless
Then four of the traditional precepts (killing, stealing, lying, and unchastity)
Different types of wrong speech (false, malicious, harsh, gossip)
Covetousness
Each of the eightfold way (wrong view etc.)
Various other defilements and fetters (agitation, doubt, anger, envy, arrogance, bad friends, etc.)

For example, employees of large corporations often feel lied to, even cheated when they are laid off by their employer because of new management policy. Yet, these are explicitly the terms of most employment contracts.

People lose their jobs, even permanent jobs are impermanent (in France they're not called "temporary job" and "permanent job", they're called "defined duration contract" and "indefinite duration contact").
However because that is "explicitly the terms of most employment contracts" so I'm not sure why a person should "feel lied to".
In the past I've tried to negotiate "fairness" in my own employment contract, e.g. when the contract says that the employer can end the contract by giving X amount (e.g. 2 weeks or 6 weeks) of notice, I asked that I be allowed to give the same X amount of notice for me to be allowed to end the contract.
Unrelated to Buddhism, Wikipedia's Contract article (including the related articles in the sidebar) implies that law has made an effort to promote and regulate "fairness" in contracts -- so that although some people/parties are richer than others they have (in theory) equal or equitable legal rights.

Yet, this too is an agreed upon constraint because one party operates from a position of power.

It's asymmetrical: one bank has thousands of clients.

Modern life relies on governments, corporations and other faceless institutions to a large degree, and they do wield a great deal of power, so a lot of their transgressions fall afoul of the fairness test, though technically none of them are lies. This has to be a large source of misery in this world today. Yet, going by the precepts, at least to me, such behaviour doesn't seem to be overtly criticised. Does Buddhism have anything to say to such scenarios?

There's some advice in the Sigalovada Sutta, for example,

In five ways should workers and servants as the lower direction be
  respected by an employer: by allocating work according to aptitude,
  providing wages and food, looking after the sick, sharing special
  treats, and giving reasonable time off work.
"And, workers and servants so respected reciprocate with compassion in
  five ways: being willing to start early and finish late when
  necessary, taking only what is given, doing work well, and promoting a
  good reputation.
"In this way, the lower direction is protected and made peaceful and
  secure.

I don't know but that might have been advice for a feudal society, a society with less labour mobility (i.e. where people had fewer employers, perhaps only one).
Buddhism I suppose has been applied to lots of different societies: monarchies, feudal systems, etc.
See also How compatible are Buddhism and Communism?
IMO Buddhism isn't very responsible for the state of society or modern society. It's more responsible for (and has a lot more to say about, see e.g. the Vinaya) Buddhist monastic society: so far as I know the Buddha put more into organizing the Sangha than into organizing society-at-large. I don't know whether you consider monastic life "fair" or "unfair".

Thanks, a lot of points to think about. About feeling lied to when the employment contract gives no room for hope - expectation is a slippery slope isn't it? All human beings are imperfect, we all make mistakes, so why do we feel bad when lied to or cheated on? Why have any precepts at all - why not just advocate stoic attitudes to accept all that comes, and not offer any guidance on morality? Some Buddhists I've met actually believe this, and think ethics are like training wheels that ought to come off once one has progressed. I don't agree, but such thinking exists.

A fully enlightened person doesn't get traumatised when things don't go his way - whether it is due to natural causes like illness and death or human causes such as foul play and incompetence. However the sila seems to be especially relevant to those starting out on the path - dhamma being good in the beginning, middle, end. Being just and fair engenders good will - most people have some distrust of corporations today because they've time and again prioritised profit over human values. Corporations have ethical guidelines, but its performance is not tracked like the stock market tracks profit.

People in the societies of ancient India do seem to have believed in a "just world" (which is the most widely used term in the social science literature). They acknowledged that life was unjust. There are many Buddhist stories, for example, involving infant mortality (Piyajātika Sutta, MN 87) and in the Therīgāthā (e.g. Thī 127-132). Buddhists characterised ordinary life as duḥkha which can mean "disappointment, dissatisfaction, misery, and suffering". Though they also believed in a way to completely eliminate duḥkha as well (though notable after 2500 there seems to be as much duḥkha as ever).
The way they dealt with duḥkha was to imagine that all actions would produce consequences that could not be escaped - a theory they called "karma" meaning "action". Technically, we talk about actions (karma) and their results (vipāka) or fruits (phala), but even the early Buddhists referred to this idea simply as "karma". But an important caveat is that action that is morally significant is defined as "intention" (AN 6.63). So it's, generally speaking, not the act itself, but the intention that determines the morality of an action in Buddhism. It is believed that unwholesome intentions always cause unpleasant consequences; and wholesome intentions cause pleasant consequences. Those who cause misery are said to suffer misery commensurate with their actions. The principle outcome of karma is in fact rebirth in one of the realms (loka) of this universe - each representing a predominant experience of pleasure, pain, or ignorance. The human realm is predominantly miserable, but has the bonus of being the only realm from which we can escape duḥkha.
In the Buddhist worldview, karma ensures that everyone lives out the consequences of their actions, death not withstanding, so that in the long run everyone gets what they have earned by way of consequences. Later in the Mahāyāna it becomes possible to do religious practices to avoid the consequences, and for a while they are quite arduous, but eventually in Tantric Buddhism you can just chant a magic mantra to clear things up.
A really wicked person is likely to be reborn in hell. One down side of karma, though, is that you have to wait for someone to die, perhaps repeatedly, for the consequences to catch up with them. So you probably won't be around to witness it. Karma is a very impersonal approach to a just world. Karmic justice is usually invisible.
Another downside is that it's very difficult to conceive of a theory of how karma works that is entirely consistent with other Buddhist ideas, like dependent arising, so there are multiple competing theories of how karma works, and some rather tetchy traditional polemics survive in the old texts. Most Buddhists don't really want to know about this downside and are happy to just go along with the tradition.
The invisibility of justice is apparently difficult for Buddhists as they prone to paying lip service to karma, but taking matters into their own hands if they disapprove of something. Justice has to be seen to be done.
So the greedy businessman and corrupt politician will get what they have earned by way of consequences. Just not from us. And not where we can see it. Many traditionalist Buddhists insist that we believe this as an article of faith or we are not Buddhists. On the other hand so-called "Secular Buddhists" have no real replacement and end up simply espousing Humanism, but with meditation. The problem of how to understand karma without falling into a superstitious and backwards worldview is waiting to be solved.

'People in the societies of ancient India do seem to have believed in a "just world"' - I think that's too broad an assumption, isn't it? Do not lie, do not cheat on your partner sexually, do not steal are all about fairness in a sense. If what you state were to accepted, then a robbery or murder could just as well be okay.

Karma (in various forms) is the Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical solution to the "just world" problem. So no assumptions necessary. Belief in morality creates the just world problem. Your other assertion makes me wonder if you even read my answer before commenting.

No offence intended, my apologies if any was conveyed. Just sought to clarify assumptions. "The problem of how to understand karma without falling into a superstitious and backwards worldview is waiting to be solved."- for sure, unlike so much of Buddhism, explanations of karma do leave the intellect unsatisfied, but I don't know about the pejoratives. There are things in Buddhism where I've found the intellect is the wrong tool to use, perception is a better tool. Not sure though, I am still trying to understand karma despite being an Indian growing up with exposure to numerous ideas of karma


text:
The purpose of associating with the wise
The Buddha states that he sees no other thing that is so much responsible for the arising of unwholesome qualities in a person as bad friendship, nothing so helpful for the arising of wholesome qualities as good friendship.
Is associating with good and wise people only useful for direct experience in this present life or is it right to assume that it will carry on to the next life e.g. reborn among the wise and good people or have good companionship?  Thanks.

Any action will have a result somewhere in Samsara. Obviously a student performing correct practice kamma with a wise teacher of kamma will have fruits in this life such as jhana or the 16 stages of insight. -Metta

"Associating with the wise" is a translation of "paṇḍitīnaṃ sevanā".
In this context, "associating" (sevanā) means "serving", "following", "subordinating" or "idolizing". I have been told that "sevanā" is linguistically connected to the English word "serve".
Here is a quote from Itivitutakka 76:

Whatever person one befriends, whomever one associates with, one becomes of like quality, one become like one’s companion.
The follower and the followed, one who contacts and one contacted, are like an arrow coated with poison that contaminates its quiver. Fearing contamination, the wise person should not have evil friends.
A man who ties up putrid fish with some blades of kusa-grass makes the kusa-grass smell putrid; so it is with those who follow fools. But a man who wraps powdered incense in the broad leaf of a tree makes the leaf smell fragrant; so it is with those who follow the wise.
Therefore as with the leaf container, understanding the outcome for oneself, the unvirtuous should not be followed, a wise person should follow the virtuous. The unvirtuous lead one to hell, the virtuous help one to reach heaven.

According to this quote, associating with the wise helps one in this life and helps to a good rebirth.
I would also add that associating with the wise cultivates one's own virtues and as these virtues become reinforced through repetition, this results in these virtues being present in your next life. "Birds of a feather flock together" and so one would naturally associate with like-minded wise, virtuous people in the next life.
Some additional information...
In AN 4.55, the Buddha was approached by a couple who had been happily married for many years and they wanted to know how to ensure that they would see each other again in future lives. The Buddha said they would see each other in future lives if they had the "same faith, same morality, same generosity and same wisdom".
You are probably familiar with Dhammapada verse 5: "Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law."
Here is the background story from the commentary:

Once there lived a householder, whose wife was barren; later he took another wife. The feud started when the elder wife caused abortion of the other one, who eventually died in child birth. In later existences the two were reborn as a hen and a cat; a doe and a leopardess; and finally as the daughter of a nobleman in Savatthi and an ogress named Kali. The ogress (Kalayakkhini) was in hot pursuit of the lady with the baby, when the latter learned that the Buddha was nearby, giving a religious discourse at the Jetavana monastery. She fled to him and placed her son at his feet for protection. The ogress was stopped at the door by the guardian spirit of the monastery and was refused admission. She was later called in and both the lady and the ogress were reprimanded by the Buddha. The Buddha told them about their past feuds as rival wives of a common husband, as a cat and a hen, and as a doe and a leopardess. They were made to see that hatred could only cause more hatred, and that it could only cease through friendship, understanding and goodwill.

The commentary is full of stories of enemies meeting each other in repeated rebirths (though I am not aware of any stories from the Suttas like this... there may well be).
My conclusion is that there is a kammic affinity that extends beyond lifetimes that causes people who were connected in one lifetime (either as friends, enemies or family) to  be connected in future lifetimes.
If interacting only bring out the worst in you, is it wise to figure out approximately how much interaction is useful?
Imagine that there is a person with an angry character, a latent tendency toward anger, an “ill-tempered person”. This person is driving and encounters a red light, a traffic jam and a jerk who cuts them off. On all three occasions, anger arises in this person. If you ask this person, they will tell you that the cause of their anger was the external factors (red light, traffic jam, jerk who cut them off). Actually, the root cause is their character; there will always be external triggers. Do what you can to reduce the frequency of the triggers, but you can’t eliminate them. The good news is that you can work on your character. It is a three step process of Sīla, Samadhi, Paññā.
Sīla means discipline. Regularly commit oneself to controlling wrong actions (for example, commit to non-violence, if violence is a weakness that you have). Regularly commit oneself to controlling wrong speech (for example, commit to avoiding harsh speech or slandering, if these are weaknesses that you have).
Since actions and speech originate in the mind, calming the mind (Samadhi) can prevent wrong actions and wrong speech. Regularly use Mettā to steady, still, unify and compose the mind. If you are lost in thought (spinning emotions out of control), then come back to your senses; be aware of what your senses are experiencing by observing a neutral object such as your breath.
A calm mind is needed to tackle the underlying tendencies using understanding / wisdom (Paññā). With a calm mind, observe the way that the mind is reacting to the triggers, observe how the reaction arises naturally and observe how the mind keeps changing. Just as Māra disappears once he is recognized, defilements are weakened when exposed to the spotlight of understanding / wisdom. Those defilements took a long time to accumulate and won’t disappear quickly, but repeated Paññā weakens them over time.
It is natural that interacting with certain family members may bring out the worst in you. If you live with them there will be frequent interactions. They may also be intentionally “pushing your buttons”. Cutting off all interaction with them may not be practical (for logistical reasons, such as you live under the same roof). My advice to you is to reserve some personal time each day and regularly focus on developing Sīla, Samadhi and Paññā.
I would not worry too much about meeting the same individuals in the next life. If you don’t meet these people again, there will be other people who act as triggers. Do what you can about the triggers in this life and put lots of focus on training the mind.
I hope that your suffering reduces.
Here is the definition of a fool / wise person from AN 3.2:

"Monks, a fool is characterized by his/her actions. A wise person is characterized by his/her actions. It is through the activities of one's life that one's discernment shines.
"A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a fool. Which three? Bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct. A person endowed with these three things is to be recognized as a fool.
"A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a wise person. Which three? Good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct. A person endowed with these three things is to be recognized as a wise person.
"Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will avoid the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a fool. We will undertake & maintain the three things that, endowed with which, one is to be recognized as a wise person.' That's how you should train yourselves."

So the most obvious indication that someone is a fool is by watching them and listening to them. If they demonstrate unwholesome conduct or unwholesome speech without remorse, then they are a fool. But watching / listening is not enough. As you get closer to the person, you can discern their views / opinions. If their views / opinions are not rooted in hiri (conscience) and ottappa (acknowledging consequences), then they are a fool.

Sorry, let me be more specific. Reborn among wise and good people mean, will meet and associating with the same individual(s) s/he is associating with in this present life.
In family, there are members whose character/tendency are very different to us, I think it's not right to say they're not wise/fool but is associating less with these people who, for example, are not like minded with us is a right thing to do?

When possible, I want to include quotations in my answers to support whatever point I am making. Not enough space in a comment, so I have edited my answer with some additional information based on your clarification.

I may have misunderstood your comment. You may be asking if it is the right thing to do to associate with a family member who is not like-minded. You cannot help but interact with family members, but sevanā means "serve" / "follow" / "subordinate" / "idolize". If the family member is a fool, then interact but do not "sevanā", if the family member is wise, then both interact and "sevanā".

If interacting only bring out the worst in you, is it wise to figure out approximately how much interaction is useful? Will this interaction bind us again as mentioned in story from commentary? The quote shows we will meet the same evil/wise individual we are interacting with in this present life but I think it's also possible to meet other evil/wise people that we haven't been interacting with in this present life.

I have edited my initial answer to address your comment. May you be well and happy.

Thanks for your answer but it is not always about the trigger. But I think whatever the reason is, if you find someone is very hard to get along with, to limit the interaction is useful. From there, you can then do more useful things such as developing Sila, Samadhi and so on. In many cases, where the differences are so big, limitless interaction rarely does any good.

I think that we are aligned. What is important is to focus on things that are under our control (limiting interactions where practical, working on our own mind, etc.) rather than focusing things outside our sphere of influence (why are they like that? why do these things happen to me? etc.).

Should have included this question in previous post, often we see a word 'fool' in Buddhist text. I think it's good to know what is the definition of 'fool' in Buddhism?

But could you refer me to a Sutta says a fool is a view that rooted in hiri and ottappa? I notice most people have bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct though to a certain extent.

I was quoting a talk by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Perhaps his source was Iti 40: "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Ignorance precedes the arrival of unskillful qualities; lack of conscience & lack of concern [Ahirika and Anottappa] follow after. Clear knowing precedes the arrival of skillful qualities; conscience & concern [Hiri and Ottappa]  follow after.". I agree that nobody is perfect, but not being taken in by imperfections is important. Follow their qualities.

Firstly, let us define 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' qualities, which can be applied to our state of mind, our intention (which follows that state of mind) to act upon it, and the physical manifestation of it. Wholesome is based on unselfishness - kindness, compassion and basically giving up unwholesomeness (which is based on selfishness - wanting things for ourselves - greed and anger).
You question the 'purpose' of associating with the wise. Let us assume that you agree that Buddha is right in saying that some kind of 'association' with wise people (we will here define wise people as people who appear to express the wholesome qualities according to the definition given above on a physical level, i.e. speech and action) will lead you to develop wholesome qualities as opposed to association with unwise/bad people (people who express unwholesome qualities - i.e. selfishness, greed, unfriendliness, etc.). This would mean that you questioning the purpose of associating with the wise is the same as you questioning the purpose of developing wholesome qualities.
The purpose of developing wholesomeness is happiness. Giving up wanting, wanting to help others, wanting others to be happy, doing things with the intention of making others happy, and all those kinds of kinds will make you a happy person. I mean happy here as in you will be free from worries (which is due to a state of wanting things for yourself - a state that is rooted upon selfishness) so you will be calm, but at the same time you will also be cultivating energy for trying to help others (knowing that you are acting for the good of others) and this create a joy in you. The more wholesomeness you develop, the more calm and joyful you become, and its a kind of a cycle. This cycle is accelerated by associating with good people (who also have wholesome qualities), and the rate at which this process of wholesomeness development accelerates depends upon the extent to which that person themselves have developed wholesomeness, and many other factors. So yeah, its useful for direct experience in this present life, as you could probably guess by my defining the purpose of developing wholesomeness. If you think about what I said about the cycle of generating wholesomeness - i.e. the rate at which you develop wholesomeness depends upon how wholesome you already are, and therefore the benefits of wholesomeness will also multiply along the same rate (i.e. you will become more and more calm + joyful, states of mind which by the way cause you to develop more wholesomeness, i.e. give up more and more and help others more and more), then you will get your answer of the 'will it help in the next life?' question. The answer will become clearer and clearer when you develop those wholesome qualities yourself, but then you won't care about the benefits of wholesomeness any more (whether of present or future life) if you actually develop wholesomeness, because worry/caring about 'what is in it for me?' and calm/giving up/contentment are opposites.
The exact mechanism of how association with good/wise people will lead to development of wholesome qualities within yourself is somewhat complicated, because it would depend on who you are. They might not associate with you if you don't already have goodness/wholesome qualities within you. You won't seek out friendship with good people if you already don't have goodness/wholesomeness within you.
In my personal opinion, there are other things that led me very effectively on starting up the process of wholesomeness development. Insight and Samatha meditation.
If you do a lot and lot of insight and samatha meditation, you will grow rapidly in wholesomeness. These two meditation techniques are the core teachings of the Buddha, which will lead you to expression of the wholesomeness on a physical level (which is called 'morality' in Buddhism).
So you seem interested in developing wholesomeness, so I recommend that you master the core teachings of the Buddha by firstly mastering the meditation techniques and progressing in them. Here is a suggestion, read parts of this book as you see fit then practise intensively: Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha
As for the technique of insight meditation, I strongly recommend How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace
Practise is key.


text:
Is one intention better than the other?
Intention that is good will have a good result and bring happiness, bad intention will have a bad result and suffering as a result. But many things have been experienced in life, one thing can be experienced many times in different situation, condition and time. These all together with one's habit will give rise to different kind of intentions only for one action. The first intention will be followed by the second or maybe the third.
Normally intention that first comes up is closely related to someone character/behavior, realizing this he corrects his mistake. Along with this correction, there will be another intention over two previous intentions.
In that case, is one intention better than the other?

Each intention is it's own Karma. Whether one intention is better than the other depends on the purity of the intention. In other words, if it's defiled by greed, hatred and ignorance.

We are all defiled by greed, hatred and ignorance.
As an example, someone doesn't like to give, everytime he gives his stinginess creates negative mental states. Soon after realized this, he says to himself this thought is unwholesome therefore he creates generosity mind. Does it mean at that moment he is both creating both negative and positive kamma? Or only positive kamma since he realizes his mistake and develop positive ones?

Intention is a momentary and Karma is created at every moment in the scenario you described.  Whenever an unwholesome mental state comes up, it creates unwholesome karma. Whenever a wholesome state comes up it creates wholesome Karma.

Are you saying our mind is momentary or intention? I'm not sure if we make intention all the time.
In above case, his habitual intention creates unwholesome karma, soon after realizes this he changes his intention therefore creates wholesome karma. Can you please confirm this?

Yes, what you call as the mind is a stream of thoughts that appear and die instantly. Not a single thing that lasts. Each thought can potentially create new Karma.

But if a (bad) thought is unacted upon, does this create Kamma?

Yes, the thought is the Karma. A thought itself is an action. Not every thought is strong enough to result in physical actions. But it's still Karma. Strength of the Karma depends on the strength of the thought.

This is getting a little bit confusing, some teacher say it's not kamma because you don't intend to have such and such (bad) thoughts, that thoughts just arising on its own and we don't put them into action.

There are only 2 types of thoughts which are not Karma. In Pali, thoughts are called Cittas: Read the Arising of Cittas

So If you don't intend for an unwholesome thought to arise, yet it arises. For example, the thought of jealousy that suddenly arises without any physical or mental object, does it create karma or kiriya cittas?

Only Arhanths have Kiriya Cittas. They dont get jealous, angry or greedy as they have removed all defilements from the mind.
Jealousy is always intentional and cannot arise without an object. ex: if you see something and feel jealous, it's already Karma. Seeing here is Vipaka citta and it won't be Karma if you stop it there. In other words treat 'seeing' as 'seeing'. Not "he has something better than me" etc.

Right. So bad thoughts that arise suddenly won't be a kamma since it's not intentional and no object. We can sit down meditating and they arise but (as mentioned), they are unacted upon.

The thought itself is the act. If a bad thought arises, that itself is the Karma. The goal of meditation is to stop bad thoughts from arising in the first place

I would agree with the goal of meditation but bad thoughts that arise suddenly can arise whenever and wherever. And often impulsive thoughts can happen wherever and whenever. Since it's not intentional, I am doubt it creates kamma.

All bad thoughts arise due to craving, aversion and ignorance. Any thought that arises due to those are Karma

@Steve  May i add something? All thoughts good or bad rectify ignorance other than 'Vipassana bavana'. So Normal thought process continue samsara. If you success in vipassana you can earn 'Animiththa' that sees samsara.

I listened to Dhamma talks given by senior Buddhist monks: it is intention what I call kamma. - Buddha. But I am still doubt how to understand that. If there is Buddhist teacher on this forum, could you please clarify this, that'll be greatly appreciated.

I'm not a teacher but let me share.
I think I can not disagree with " O monk, it's intention what I call kamma, intending, one does action through body, speech and mind."
Action is kamma according to theory of kamma of other religion or belief. But in Buddhism, particularly Theravada Buddhism, kamma is intentional action.
We do many actions during the day but not all actions are kamma. We have and can make a choice. If unintentional bad thought is kamma then it'll be the same as predestined fate. You can drive a car with the intention going to work but at the same you may also have many unintentional actions. Insects that you kill unintentionally while driving, the death of those insects are not your responsibility. Hope this helps.

Building on B1100, unintentional bad thoughts arise as a result of previously having had bad thoughts or committing bad actions, they do sow seeds of further bad thoughts, however, each bad thought which is discarded weakens the karma so that it is possible to slowly diminish the frequency of such thoughts until they don't occur. This is the idea of conditioned choices, i.e that we are conditioned by karma to make the same mistakes but it is possible to tame the karma. More determinism discussed here.
If the intention has changed but the action remains the same, assuming that the new intention is good and the old is bad, then yes even though they have the same action, the good intention will yield better results for you because your frame of mind is purer so everything that happens will be seen with that same purity. The results for others may even be better, because your mental state might influence them.

Theravada Buddhists say that a violation of the first precepts involves five factors.
First, there is a living being.
Second, there is the perception that the being is a living being.
Third, there is the volition thought of killing.
Fourth, the killing is carried out.
Fifth, the being dies.
To be a Kamma all five factors must present.
So intention alone cannot produces kamma.


text:
What are the 10 Samadhis of the Avatamsaka Sutra?
I'm referring to the chapter in the Avatamsaka. Here is one summary:

The Great Samadhi of Universal Light
The Great Samadhi of Wondrous Light
The Great Samadhi of Sequentially Going throughout all Buddhalands
The Great Samadhi of Purifying the Activities in the Depths of the Mind.
The Great Samadhi of the Magnificent Treasury of Knowing the Past.
The Great Samadhi of a Treasury of Wisdom Light
The Great Samadhi of Fathoming the Adornments of Buddhas in all Worlds.
The Great Samadhi of Distinguishing the Bodies of Living Beings.
The Great Samadhi of Ease and Comfort in the Dharma Realm.
The Great Samadhi of the Unhindered Wheel.

Here is outline of the whole thing that mentions the 10 Samadis.
3 is clear enough, there is a chapter in the Avatamsaka that does this, (chapter 4 I think).
5, 7, and 8 are results of meditation rather than steps leading to it.
Were these Samadhi's something that a lay or monastic bodhisattva would be expected to practice, or are these Samadhis that an already enlightened or nearly englightened Bodhisattva would engage in?
(Sorry I don't have a link to the full text, I only know of the Cleary translation which is available on Amazon.)

My take on these kinds of lists in Mahāyāna sūtras, especially late ones like the Avatamsaka, is that they are literary devices. The Avatamsaka is a particularly literary text. It's mainly a work of imagination, a kind of elaborate, surrealist Buddhist novel.
The link appears to be to a summary rather than a translation. There's a ( illegal) copy of Leary's translation from the Chinese online here. (Chapter 27, page 811-862). A quick skim suggests that it may not give you the kind of information you are interested in.


text:
New to metta meditation
I have some questions about metta meditation.
1- When I send love to myself, my cat, the world etc. Do I have to feel something? Do I have to sit and repeat the mantra May I Be Happy until I feel love for myself and not move on to my cat until I've reached that point? (If yes, what if that takes forever? If I don't feel a thing, why might that be? Do I move on anyway? How much time should I spend on each thing?)
2- When I imagine myself, my cat, my neighbour and so forth, how much energy should I put into visualizing these things? Do I need to see it all clearly or is it enough to keep them in mind?

For more information about the practice of Metta meditation see "Metta Bhavana: Cultivation of Loving-Kindness".

The way Trungpa Rinpoche explained metta, you must start with yourself. Sit and love yourself, respect yourself, give yourself a break - until you feel a relief. This may take days, weeks, or months - do not rush. The goal is to recover your sense of your own basic goodness, your fundamental sanity.
Often we judge others because we are strict to ourselves. Often we are strict to ourselves because our parents were strict to us, or our early environment was, like school teachers or peers. We may feel like we are high strung, we are under pressure to deliver excellent result, we are afraid to be a failure.
It takes a lot of courage to surrender, to sink into your own suchness, whatever it is. When you do it right you can feel the changes in your body. Your breath should get deeper and calmer. Your body should sink down and get more steady. At the same time you will feel like you can move your body freely without loosing your balance. Your face muscles should relax.
It feels like you can almost have a conversation with your own heart. "Forgive me my heart that I was so tough on you all these years. I'm so sorry, now I know how painful it was. Thank you for staying alive through all that. I love you, together we are one". You don't need to actually say or think any of this - but this is the feeling the right metta gives. The feeling of warmth.
This is 75% of the work. Then from this warmth, from this acceptance of yourself, you expand to accept and give warmth to everyone else. This is like having the same Sorry-Thanks-Love conversation with your cat, relatives, friends, strangers, enemies, and then the rest of the world, back to past ages, and forward to future ages. You don't need to visualize every one of them in great details, what matters is the sense of connection, the sense of appreciation, the sense of mutual acceptance, validation, and support.
It is a very heart-warming exercise. Don't be surprised if you find yourself overwhelmed with emotions and sob, that's a good sign.

There are many approaches. A bit of  training in mindfulness helps to see our internal moment by moment experiences so we can interact with them with lovingkindness and better understand what's going on with us.
The way I do it, developed by listening to guided metta and practicing Satipatthana Vipassana:
While smiling, I imagine puppies, kittens or something cute like that and then move to people after I develop  a bit of this fuzzy feeling around the heart area. I focus on this feeling, befriending it so that the loving kindness gets stronger. If I can't get this feeling to come up then I say things like "that's OK",  "I accept that" or "I can accept that I can't accept that". I treat pain, tension or a bad feeling as though it was a person I want to welcome. "Welcome!", "may you be happy", or "you are free and aren't possessed by anything".
I suppose I add elements of compassion as well as lovingkindness. The key is  "acceptance". You don't need to visualize things clearly or have all your faculties perfect to practice metta but if I am worried about not doing the practice correctly, during the practice, then I try to have an attitude of friendship towards that worry.
If you haven't already, I seriously recommend learning a little mindfulness to aid your Metta practice. Guided lovingkindness seriously helped me a lot, so maybe try that out. - Metta

Edit: Added line spacing, to increase readability. Please roll-back if not agreeable.


text:
What sutta refers to 'emptiness in small space'?
I remember reading about one sutta  "emptiness in small gap". Since consciousness (Vijñāna) raises and falls all the time, between each consciousness there is a very small and briefest gap where Vijñāna doesn't take place. If i remember correctly, Buddha might have said about this emptiness as FYI. Anyone could help me find sutta about "emptiness in small gap" or "emptiness in small space", or "void in tight space".  i want to study this sutta again to see if buddha ralated this emptiness to vimutti or maha-sunyata.    thanks

In my studies I have not come across such a use of the term emptiness, but in many zen materials the "gap between thoughts" is pointed at.  Acclimation into that mode is Calm-abiding.  Meditation is often taught as Calm-abiding and Insight as two overlapping but differing kinds.  May you find helpful materials.

I have never read a Sutta talking about emptiness in terms of a gap or a small space, and to my knowledge the Suttas don't explicitly talk about what happens between individual consciousnesses (although the commentaries on the Suttas do interpret certain passages as referring to it).
Within the Theravada Abhidhamma, this issue is taken up more explicitly. According to the Abhidhamma, between individual consciousnesses there is another type of mind-state called the Bhavanga-citta. The Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his book A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma explains the Bhavanga quite succinctly as follows on page 106:

(2) Life-continuum (bhavanga):  The word bhavanga means “factor (anga)
  of  existence (bhava),” that is, “the indispensable condition of
  existence.”  Bhavanga is the  function of consciousness by which the
  continuity of the individual is preserved through  the duration of any
  single existence, from conception to death.  After the paṭisandhicitta
  has arisen and fallen away, it is then followed by the bhavangacitta,
  which is a resultant  consciousness  of  the  same  type  as  the
  paṭisandhicitta  but  which  performs  a  different  function,
  namely,  the  function  of  preserving  the  continuity  of
  individual  existence.
Bhavangacittas  arise  and  pass  away  every  moment  during  life  whenever  there  is  no  active cognitive process taking place.  This
  type of consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but
  it also occurs momentarily during waking life countless times  between
  occasions of active cognition.  When an object impinges on a sense
  door, the bhavanga is arrested, and an active  cognitive process
  ensues for the purpose of cognizing the object.  Immediately after the
  cognitive process is completed, again the bhavanga supervenes and
  continues until the  next cognitive process arises.  Arising and
  perishing at every moment during this passive  phase of consciousness,
  the bhavanga flows on like a stream (sota), without remaining  static
  for two consecutive moments.

(Emphasis added)


text:
What is a pandaka?
I can understand that within the social context of the historical Buddha, being homosexual or bisexual could have possibly been damaging to the Sangha's image as there is still a lot of gay/bisexual/transgender discrimination today.
On Wikipedia, it said a pandaka is unable to attain enlightenment. It sounded like a pandaka might be someone who swings both ways to fulfill sexual desires but I am unclear.
What about someone who has sexual relations with men but who is heterosexual?
Possibly with the shedding of an identity view we lose our interpretation of ourselves as one way, but I don't know.
I probably need to learn Pali.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

We can start with the PTS dictionary. Paṇḍaka "a eunuch, weakling". This definition is repeated in Monier-Williams sv paṇḍa. As far as the early Buddhist texts, they are clearly not to be ordained, but I cannot see it said anywhere what the word means.
There are two places in the traditional commentaries which have explanations. The first is on the Mahānidessa and from the 6th or 9th century CE:.

Paṇḍakāti lokāmisa-nissitakathā-bahulā ussanna-kilesā avūpasanta-pariḷāhā na puṃsakā. Tesaṃ sabbesampi upasaṅkamane ādīnavo vutta-nayen'eva veditabbo. (Saddhammappajjotikāya 2.541)

A rough translation might be

Paṇḍakas are great adherents to the pleasures of the world, rife with defilement, burning with desire, and without gender (napuṃsaka). It should be understood as just a way of saying that all of them are evil (ādīnavo).

Of interest here is the word napuṃsaka, PED "of no sex". Fortunately Margaret Cone's Dictionary of Pāli has reached "n" and she defines as "one is neither male nor female; sexless; a eunuch"; and notes masculine and neuter grammatical forms." Kaccāyana, the great Pāli grammarian, uses napuṃsaka and napuṃsakaliṅga as terms for the grammatical neuter gender or words of that gender.
The word originally comes from a Vedic noun puṃs meaning "man". "Na" means "not". In Pāḷi the semantic field of puṃs has been taken over by purisa (except once in the compound itthi-pumā "women and men"). The word pudgala is sometimes written puṃgala, in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (suggesting a relationship). So we can take the -ka either as a diminutive ("not even a man") or as an adjectival suffix "one who is not a man" [and by implication not female either].
The other commentarial passage comes from Buddhaghosa's Vinaya commentary.

Paṇḍakāti ussannakilesā avūpasantapariḷāhā napuṃsakā; te pariḷāhavegābhibhūtā yena kenaci saddhiṃ mittabhāvaṃ patthenti. (VinA 5.991)

Leaving out the repetition this quote adds:

They overcome with force of their burning [sexual] desire, anyone whom they desire to become friends (mitta) together with.

The latter simply suggests prejudice to me. There is a discussion on Dhammawheel about this term. It cites a Theravāda Bhikkhu (I have not traced the source) however the list is from the Vinaya commentary (VinA 5.1016). What follows looks to be a fair translation (ascribed to Thanissaro):

Regarding paṇḍakas, in the Vinaya Atthakathā these are classified as being of five types:
1) āsitta-paṇḍaka: — (literally, a "sprinkled one") a man who finds sexual fulfillment in performing fellatio on another man and bringing him to climax. (For some reason, other homosexual acts, even though they were known in ancient India, are not included under this type nor under any of the types in this list.)
  2) usūya-paṇḍaka: — a voyeur a man who finds sexual fulfillment in watching other people have sex.
  3) opakkamika-paṇḍaka: — A eunuch - one who has been castrated.
  4) pakkha-paṇḍaka: — A half-time paṇḍaka - one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon.
  5) napuṃsaka-paṇḍaka: — A neuter - a person born without sexual organs.
Of these five kinds, the first two may ordain as bhikkhus, the other three may not.

Further discussion follows, though it is far from conclusive. No.4 sounds mythical. This tends to confirm the Saṅgha traditionally had an open attitude to sexual orientation, though of course once ordained monks are expected to give up all sexual activity. I found no evidence to suggest that Paṇḍakas are not capable of enlightenment in older traditional texts.
As a modern practising Buddhist I see no reason that any person should not become enlightened regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other traditional pivot points of bigotry, provided that they apply themselves. The last thing we need in Buddhism is irrational prejudice.
And yes, everyone should learn Pāḷi.

Extremely useful answer, thank you for digging. It makes me wonder how I fit into this hierarchy as a non-binary person. I feel like overall, "pandaka" in all it's vagueness, is a decent translation for non-binary/genderqueer, which are similarly ambiguous titles in the modern gender lexicon. Of course "intersex" people would clearly fall in this category, so for social justice/inclusion reasons, "pandeka" needs to not be a slur.

That usually gets translated as hermaphrodite, it looks like it means more generally someone who isn't conforming to the ordinary gender role.
The situation probably refers to ordination. By some ordinary arm chair reasoning-- the historical sangha was clearly sexist. Even just allowing women to participate at all was a major point of progress. But they set up different organizations with different rules, any new members would have to participate in one or the other. So I imagine there would have been a problem if faced with a cross dresser or biological hermaphrodite. They'd be too rare to set up a new organization for them and probably were an even less sympathetic group than women. So they just prohibited entry into the Sangha. Enlightenment was a status reserved for the sangha. A lay person would become enlightened only via reincarnation. So pandakas would be unable to reach arhatship in this life.
By the time of the Mahayana, sutras were taking on the gender issue head on-- with sutras where the enlightened Buddha was a woman or even a young girl, or capable of magically shifting gender from one to the other (without first dying and reincarnating)

Paṇḍaka is a less clear cut case, all references have a central theme: some form of deficiency in male sexual reproductive capacity or reproductive desire
The Pali literature makes reference to five types of pandaka:

asittakapandaka - A man who gains satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, and only becomes sexually aroused after ingesting another man's semen.
ussuyapandaka - A voyeur, a man who gains sexual satisfaction from watching a man and a woman having sex, and only becomes sexually aroused after that.
opakkamikapandaka - A Eunuch by-assault, testicle that are annihilated by assault or violence.（"still could attain ejaculation through some special effort or artifice".）
pakkhapandaka - People who become sexually aroused in parallel with the phases of the moon.
napumsakapandaka - A person with no clearly defined genitals, whether male or female, having only a urinary tract, one who is congenitally impotent.

Source: Pandaka

I am not an expert in pali, and this word "pandaka" is much debated among experts as to its true meaning during Buddha's time.  One of the meanings is, one who cant control his sexual appetite.  There are many reasons why Buddha would not allowed "bandaka" to join a Sangha.  Perhaps, one of the reasons is a person would advance in dhamma better if not join in group of men.  It's for his own good.  From my study, Buddha has never mentioned that Pandaka is in the unfortunate group who couldn't reach the enlightenment.  It only mentioned in later additions and couldnt be given credit to Buddha.

http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/28
Semen, Viagra and Pandaka: Ancient Endocrinology and Modern Day Discrimination*
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
Abstract
In a Vinaya passage, the Buddha laid down a rule to bar pandakas from ordination. Although there have been several attempts to shed light on whom the word pandaka referred to, all of these were based on the circumstantial evidence in the Vinaya. This article argues that this approach is a red herring and conclusions drawn from it are at odds with other parts of the Canon.
Based on an overlooked Abhidhamma passage which characterises pandakas as those unable to emit semen, the author reconstructs an Indian proto-endocrinology – with support from ancient medical treatises – to identify pandakas as impotent men, and to reveal the connection between different pandaka types and related terms. He then examines various considerations which the Buddha may have had in banning them from the Order.
The article finally discusses the implications of all this for modern Buddhist societies where gay men and transgenders are often confusedly categorised as pandakas and discriminated against for that reason.

Barred pandakas but welcomed MtF transsexuals the ONLY difference is the individual sotapanna’s former-self’s wrong view of identity per the article i posted

The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka
At that time a Pandaka had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault 23 me." The monks spoke aggressively, "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined. pandaka, you will surely be [spiritually] destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the monks, he went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, "Come all of you and assault me." The novices spoke aggressively. "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined. Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" Having been spoken to aggressively by the novices, the pandaka went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. "Come all of you and assault me." 24 The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him and then publicly blamed, rebuked and criticised [the sangha], saying, "A samana of the lineage of the son of the Sakyas is a pandaka and these samanas, even those who are not pandakas themselves, assault the ordained pandakas. When such is the case these samanas are not practising brahmacariya (celibacy)." The monks heard the men who tend elephants and who tend horses blaming, rebuking and criticising thus and informed the Blessed One of the matter.
The Blessed One then ordered the monks, "Behold monks. a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained. Monks should not give them ordination and those who have been ordained must be made to disrobe" Vinaya, Vol. 4, pp. 141-142.

We can learn a lot from this story.

Non-pandaka can attack a pandaka, thus attacking a pandaka does not necessarily a pandaka make. Hence it was said "A samana of the lineage of the son of the Sakyas is a pandaka and these samanas, even those who are not pandakas themselves, assault the ordained pandakas."

I think that Pandaka is a term denoting homosexual men who are obsessed with sexual pleasure and are making themselves available.
As this Pandaka's hitting on the monks wasn't subtle one can assume that this wasn't that uncommon and was generally merely delt with by saying "Pandaka, you will surely be ruined. pandaka, you will surely be destroyed". Thus the rumor started by laymen was probably not baseless causing the disrobing of the ordained pandakas.
As to whether this bars all gay people from ordaining. I think that this comes into play;

Now at that time the features of a woman appeared on a certain monk. They told the Blessed One about this matter. [He said,] “Monks, I allow the same teacher, the same ordination, the same rainy seasons together with the nuns. I allow reinstatement among the nuns for those offenses that nuns share in common with monks. According to those offenses of monks that are not shared in common with nuns, there is no offense.
Now at that time, the features of a man appeared on a certain nun. They told the Blessed One about this matter. [He said,] “Monks, I allow the same teacher, the same ordination, the same rainy seasons in relation to the monks. I allow reinstatement among the monks for those offenses that monks share in common with the nuns. According to those offences of nuns that not shared in common with monks, there is no offense” (Vin III.35).

I personally believe that this is loosely about gay characteristics and these people weren't classed as Pandaka, weren't made to disrobe. Therefore i believe that not all gay people are pandaka but all pandaka are gay.

A man who has sex with men but is still straight is a man who is exclusively having sex with trans women (which include beings of a nonbinary aka nonwestern or nondual gender like me Bakla, hijra, Kathoey, Tgirl, Tranny, Shemale etc but NOT CROSSDRESSERS OR TRANSVESTITES WHO ARE MEN)
This kind of man has gained wisdom.
Lol i guess the anagami petra is a pandaka. She had an orchiectomy before she entered the stream. Eunuch is disparaging. Implies something other than FEMININE


text:
Opening my third eye experience
I've been meditating for me get a week and have always felt connected to my spiritual side. My dad has been meditating for about 30 years so I go by his guilds.
I just wanted to know if anyone else felt what I have been feeing.
After a few try's I saw an eye approach me and it kind of scared me away so I stopped the meditation till the next day.
After that I've been getting vibrations coming through my body (from my feet to shoulders) every time I meditate.
What should I expect next? Are there levels of meditation?

Hi Nicole and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Hi Nicole! Welcome! Could you describe for us what kind of meditation you were practicing when this happened?

Yeah, initially you may experience all kinds of glitches. When you don't meditate a lot of energy is stuck at different layers of your body-mind, and when you start meditating those layers start connecting to each other and energy starts flowing up and down.
So you may get a headache or feel like you are flying or see some flashes of colors, or get various body experiences etc. These are all like hallucinations, don't take them too serious. It is only a side effect of your energy moving to a more balanced state.
Some of them are very cool. Some of them can be super interesting thoughts or intellectual realizations. You job is to not fall in love with them on one hand, and don't fight them on the other hand, but let them come up and pass away so you can keep going.
Next you may expect funny dreams. Maybe lucid dreams when you know you're dreaming. Maybe flying dreams. Maybe dreams in which you go through walls. You may also start noticing how in your post meditation you become more steady and your senses get a lot brighter, like you feel more awaken.
On the other hand, at some point you may feel like meditation gets very frustrating. For some reason you start hating it. Usually that means you got stuck on some preconceived notion of how meditation is supposed to go. If that happens, let go of that!

+1 to what Andrei says. Right after an unusual event it's common to panic or obsess about it, but the memory of even the most earth shattering experience will turn mundane in six months to a year. So it's great you had an experience, but let it go, it's in the past. Inhabit the present.

The lesson I was always taught was to observe their existence, and allow them to pass by.  If the elicit a fear response, then such an ideal is hard to accomplish.  In that case, also observe the fear, and allow it to be.  Over time, you will approach things from different angles, and one day you will be able to observe such things without fear, and then choose to let them pass by.