text:
How does Paticcasamuppada or 12 Links of Dependent Origination relate to Aversion?
Buddha mentions in the Paticcasamuppada that craving leads to clinging and this leads to existence ,birth and death. In other places Buddha mentions that Aversion is a very unwholesome state of mind and we should practice to remove it from our mind. However, I would like to know how aversion plays a role in the 12 links of dependent origination as only craving and clinging are mentioned.

Aversion is a form of craving, as follows:

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he
  dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the
  body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as
  it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom
  wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged
  as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether
  pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in
  that feeling, welcomes it and remains holding to it. As he does so,
  delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his
  clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition,
  birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.
MN 38

Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises;
  the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it and remains holding to
  it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is
  touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments,
  weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying
  tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it
  actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
  danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
  tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here
  and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying
  tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without
  extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and
  arousing true knowledge - this is impossible.
MN 148

Aversion is simply the disliking of an experience. When a person gets angry, sad or afraid, it is the craving to be rid of the experience that is going to lead to clinging. Not aversion itself. It is called Vibhava-tanha. Hence aversion isn't considered a direct cause of Samsara.

Craving just means: “wanting”
Clinging means: “getting fixated on wanting”
Suppose we give up this “wanting”
Then what would happen?
One thing is clear: “wanting” is not really the best state. Is it?
The very fact that we are “Wanting” something automatically implies we are not happy with currently what we have. That is why we want something.
What we “want” may be attachment or aversion. They are both the same thing. If you think about it. Attachment means wanting to Get something - for example, I like this or I like that. Aversion also means wanting to get something - if I say I dislike something means, I like something else
So the problem is not attachment or aversion. They are both wanting. That is why they both feel the same in the body. They appear as some type of tension and tightness  in chest and in mind.


text:
What to do with gathered saliva while Meditating
While meditating today I found that the gathered saliva was bothering me a lot. I do not know why it just came up today. It was distracting and took me away from my concentration a few times . I swallowed it .
What should I do when this happens again in the future? How should one keep the tongue and do with the saliva?

Haha, spit it out and use it as an in-vivo object for the asubha bhavana practise (loathsomeness of the body).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does it make sense to talk about origin of self?
In dependent origination at what stage self comes into picture ? Does self originate ?

In dependent origination, the stage self comes into picture is at 'attachment' and is full mature at 'birth'. As a modern Indian, you (the questioner) should know the word 'jati' ('birth') does not mean 'physical birth from the mother' but means 'self or social identity'.

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ,
  Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, Ror =
  Warriors etc. Wikipedia

The self certainly originates, as described in many suttas below:

And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging,
  view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self
  clinging. This is called clinging.
SN 12.2

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.
MN 44

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.
SN 22.81

This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'
"One assumes about the ear...
"One assumes about the nose...
"One assumes about the tongue...
"One assumes about the body...
"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self,
  this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about
  consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the
  intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving
  that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
MN 148

Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
  the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
  since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
  that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.
SN 12.2

Ignorance can arise when one is not aware of the teachings of Buddha Dhamma. Dhamma states Anatta. Therefore I think self is found where ignorance is found.

The five aggregates described by the buddha forma the illusion of self...the self is impermenant and it perpetuates...like a candle fron another candle...like that flame the self continues...
So as per the question goes...there is no point in talking about the origin of self...as it does not originate anywhere...it will be like trying to search fot origin of water seen due to mirage...

How did the illusion of self originate ? That's what I am asking.

Only answer tobthis question I have ever read is Osho's explaination of seven doors how ego enters the mind...as this firum is not about Osho I am not putting it here...you can search it on google...those seven doors is how ego enters the mind and the ego is nothing but illusion of a seperate self...and that is how it originates...

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


text:
Can Buddhism be called as Atheist, Agnostic or Theistic?
I am reading this book currently called Buddhism without beliefs. In this book the author claims that Buddhism is Agnostic. Now Agnosticism is a claim that you are ignorant, or not sure whether God is there or not. I am sure that Buddhist suttas mention several gods, like Brahma etc. Also most modern scholars promote Buddhism as Atheistic, as there is no central creator. What's your take on this?

Yes, it can be called any of these three things; and it is called different things by different people, for the reasons you described.
Three further comments:

The terms (like "atheist") were originally invented and used by other cultures for other religions; for example, Socrates was (legally) accused of atheism and condemned (to death) for it -- so the distinction (between "atheism" and "non-atheism") mattered. I'm not sure how or why the distinction matters in Buddhism, unless it affects practice etc.
Buddhism as I understand it doesn't deny there are Gods (it doesn't say "there are no Gods") so it isn't atheist. But it also doesn't say "God can save you" in the way that Christianity does, or that "The purpose of life is to obey God" etc. The importance of Gods is de-emphasised, people are responsible for their own karma and their own salvation, so it isn't exactly like a Theistic religion either. The story of Siddhartha's going forth and so on is told (at least n the West) as a more-or-less human story.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's book In the Buddha's Words has chapter titles, "The Human Condition", "The Bringer of Light", "Approaching the Dhamma", "The Happiness Visible in This Present Life", which are this-worldly and human rather than other-worldly and Theistic.
Calling Agnosticism "ignorance" is a bit confusing when it's applied to Buddhism. "Agnosticism" means (etymologically) "without gnosis" or without knowledge (of God).
I might describe myself as "agnostic about God" if I have no personal knowledge, no personal experience, of God.
In the West people use "Agnostic" as a middle way between theist and atheist: "theist" means, "I believe in God"; "atheist" means, "I believe there is no God"; and "agnostic", "I neither believe nor disbelieve, I have no personal knowledge of it." (I probably wouldn't say that I'm "agnostic about Antarctica" -- I believe it exists although I haven't experienced it personally).
"Ignorance" is a term which features in Buddhism too: Avidyā (Pali: avijjā). Avijjā too means "without knowledge".
In Buddhism, though, it isn't used to mean "ignorance about whether God exists" (because, IMO, whether God exists isn't the important question). Instead it's used to refer to ignorance of dhamma, ignorance of right view, ignorance about topics like anatta (i.e. whether the self exists), anicca, and dukkha, and so on.

I haven't read Buddhism Without Beliefs and my answer isn't trying to comment on that -- only trying to answer the question asked.

No, your answer makes sense...I understood what you say...I am just confused about this book which repeatedly maintains its stance that buddhism is agnostic...now this particular author has few books on Buddhism...so was just wondering what to make out of this...in my opinion if i have to choose between the three i will call buddhism as atheist...as we dont believe in some creator god whom we have to worship...

The Top customer reviews on Amazon say the book/author misrepresents Buddhism. I gather (from other topics on this site) that the author claims to be atheist, denies "rebirth", and is associated with "Secular Buddhism".

The book had 5 stars and so many reviews...its a terrible book...some kind of new age art of living...its so difficult to pick up a good book...

Look up for Buddhadasa. He has a lot of pdf datas free for download. Just google him. Many researchers use him to gain knowledge into Buddhism. He has a no non-sensd approach and refutes literal rebirth. For that you can also look up the User Dhammadhatu. He is also familiar with it.

@ChrisW there is no reason why one needs to believe in literal rebirth. It is a worldly teaching. Even in right view it is only mentioned in mundane right view.

@Val Actually, there are reasons to believe in literal rebirth. See "Does DN2 and MN36 provide an irrefutable statement on the fact of rebirth?" and "What would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?".

@ruben2020 After I read the answers to this question I thought I should be agnostic about rebirth -- neither believe nor disbelieve. See also e.g. Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from?

@BodhiWalker What kind of book[s] are you looking for? What sort of information, perhaps what school?

You may have heard of "sabbe dhamma anatta", the Buddhist teaching that "all phenomena is not-self". A complete discussion on the topic can be found in this answer.
Basically, there is a self, but it is not standalone or independent. Rather, it is changing, arising and ceasing, dependent on other conditions. There is no permanent eternal self.
Buddhism can be considered theist, if you take into account the teachings on the existence of beings called devas and brahmas in the higher realms. Also see this question.
However, Buddhism can be considered atheist, if this refers to the non-existence of a permanent eternal God, because that would imply an unchanging permanent eternal self.
Also, Buddhism can be considered agnostic, if you are looking for an explanation on the origin of the universe and samsara. Was the universe and samsara created by someone or did it appear on its own or was it always there eternally? This is not commented on in Buddhism (see the Acintita Sutta and the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow).


text:
Is Mindfulness a poor translation for Sati?
Usually Sati is translated as Mindfulness, but according to the Wikipedia entry, Mindfulness is described as follows:

Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training. The term "mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term sati, which is a significant element of Buddhist traditions.

According to suttacentral's entry, Sati is defined as memory, recognition, consciousness, intentness of mind, wakefulness of mind etc.
My question is then, is it a mistake to call Sati Mindfulness, since Minsfulness means awareness. Now Sati is always used with his close companion sampajañña, which in turn makes the attention always directed to moral attitudes etc., whereas "mainstream mindfulness" just observes inner and outer phenomena with an open, curious and beginners mind.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness
https://suttacentral.net/search?query=sati

Wikipedia does not accord with the Pali suttas and the PTS Pali English Dictionary entry at Sutta Central is confusing, given it includes numerous different English terms.
Pali words can generally only be understood in their contextual meaning. A sutta that clearly contextually describes 'sati' is MN 117, as follows:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness.

This contextual meaning accords with a later Abhidhamma commentary, as follows:

What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
  Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
  Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
  that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
  [Vbh.105, 286]

Ajahn Jayasaro properly explains 'sati' in his video called: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna.
Similarly, Ajahn Buddhadasa properly explains 'sati' in his lecture called: The Scientific Cure of Spiritual Disease, as follows:

Sati (mindfulness, reflective awareness, recollection) is the quick awareness and recall of the things which must be recalled. It must be
  as quick as an arrow. We also can describe sati as a vehicle or
  transport mechanism of the fastest kind. This most rapid transport
  doesn't carry material things, it carries wisdom and knowledge. Sati
  delivers paññä (wisdom) in time to meet our needs. Through the
  practice of mindfulness with breathing, sati is trained fully
Sati realizes that something is happening and recalls the paññä relevant to that event. Sati immediately transports the necessary
  wisdom to that situation in time to deal with any possible problems.
  Mindfulness comes first. That wisdom applied to the experience is sampajanna. Delivered on time by sati, wisdom-in-action deals with the immediate situation. Then, in the very moment when sampajanna goes to work, the power and strength of samädhi gives force and energy to wisdom so that it can cut through the problem. To the degree that there is samädhi, to that degree wisdom-in-action will be able to solve the problem. Paññä acts as the warehouse of accumulated knowledge and insight which sati draws upon to deal with the sense experiences.

While the standard definition of 'samma sati' in the Noble Eightfold Path, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta is not inherently wrong, it confuses students and scholars alike because the definition includes many different concepts. This definition is as follows:

And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk is a contemplator / observer of the body in & of itself — ardent, clear-comprehending &
  mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
  (ii) He is a contemplator / observer of  feelings in & of themselves — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iii) He is a contemplator / observer of the mind in & of itself — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iv) He is a contemplator / observer of Dhammas in & of themselves
  — ardent, clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with
  reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.

The word that gives rise to confusion is 'anupassī', which means to 'contemplate' or 'observe' or 'see'.  Students and scholars alike focus on this translation 'contemplate' and take it to be the meaning of 'sati'. However, if the definition of 'samma sati' is carefully examined, it is discerned the roles of 'sati' are:

Remembering to put away greed & distress with reference to the world.
Remembering to maintain the mind in the activity of 'contemplation'.

Therefore, to paraphrase the Wikipedia definition into a Buddhist context:

Buddhist mindfulness is the psychological process of remembering & not forgetting to bring one's attention & wisdom
  to experiences so those experiences occur without covetousness, distress & other forms of craving & defilement; which can be developed
  through the practice of meditation and other training. The term
  "Right Mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term 'Samma Sati', which is a
  significant element of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.

Yes. Mindfulness is a poor translation for sati.
Sati means remembering/recollecting.
But it means remembering/recollecting (1) in a specific context and (2) for a specific purpose.
What context?
What purpose?
The context is the first arrow in the heart.
The purpose is to respond to the first arrow by orienting the mind away from resisting things as they actually are and towards resolving the underlying inner conflict which gave rise to the arrow.
If you genuinely want to END your suffering,
If you genuinely want to END all of the suffering in the world,
then READ THIS and UNDERSTAND:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/theres-no-attested-use-of-sati-as-mindfulness-in-pre-buddhist-texts/31357/25?u=ascension4humanity

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


text:
Ambitions - Are they Real or just an Illusion
Do our passions and ambitions need to be fulfilled or is it just an illusion created by our mind? According to the dhamma, is it considered to be helpful or unhelpful to fulfill goals?

Why do you want to chase suffering ? It is like asking the bull to hit you. Dreams are of consequence. It is always a good practice to believe in good dreams.

In my opinion, it is good to have goals, but the "why" and intensity is very important. If you thirst for it, because, let's say, you expect outer praise from someone, that is not very wise and will eventually lead to disappointment and frustration. Your intention is very important (why you want something). If you think, speak and act in such a way that supports a relative harmonious life for both you and others -then go for it! Another thing to consider: Usually people have a rather short sighted view and wear pink coloured glasses. They focus only on the short term pleasures, see only the beauty in the object (or pleasure), but don't consider the long(er) term drawbacks. For example: Humans enjoy sensual pleasures because they feel good (now) and therefore they repeat it over and over again.  This might not sound problematic, but this causes all kinds of addictions like binge eating, alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction followed by lack of self control, rationalizations ("it's fine what I'm doing".. so basically short sighted), a mind which is never restless, attachment, problems with oneself (self hatred, lethargic), problems with friends/family and even with society.  If you don't have what you crave/if it's gone/if someone takes it away from you you become angry, upset, lament etc. People never ask themselves, why they had to repeat the sensual pleasures over and over again**.
And what, Bhikkhu, was the cause for you indulging in the sense pleasure over and over again? Impermanence, that is, the shortness/transience of the pleasure, is the first reason. Craving for the pleasure is the second reason. Attachment (which follows from craving) is the third.
This wasn't said by the Buddha. I just like his way of words


text:
Looking for examples of "Bad" Men and Women who became Enlightened
Buddha said that a man who sees the folly of his ways and changes them is like the moon bursting out of a dark sky to shine light. I feel very inspired by stories of men and women like Angulimalla who were doing "bad " things due to the force of their afflictions and then changed due to coming in contact with Dhamma. I know there are many stories in the Tibetan tradition, but I am looking for any stories from any tradition that you might know for inspiration along with the reference text.

Milarepa-the great yogi

...His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life...
Then later in life he came to meet his teacher Marpa the translator
...he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence...
One of his quotes:

The world knows caterpillar becomes butterfly but they don’t care that
  it also becomes a moth. One is diurnal another nocturnal.Human once
  awakened can change the view to change self from Angulimala to a
  Buddha [1]

When you quote, please include a link to or reference to what you're quoting from.

The help topic "How to reference material written by others" says, "Provide a link to the original page or answer". Some people don't quote properly, even so I think it's a better answer if you do, and so I suggest you do. Apart from the legality of any copyright issues, readers (of the answer) might like to read more of whatever source you quoted from.

@InnerFire. That's both a rule on Buddhism SE and common courtesy to the reader that when quoting other sources, one includes a reference.

Thanks for adding a reference. I have removed the post notice and the downvote. Be well.

The story of Channa the elder in Dhammapada 78 shows how he eventually turned around and became a Arahat:

While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
  (78) of this book, with reference to Thera Channa.
Channa was the attendant who accompanied Prince Siddhattha when he
  renounced the world and left the palace on horseback. When the prince
  attained Buddhahood, Channa also became a bhikkhu. As a bhikkhu, he
  was very arrogant and overbearing because of his close connection to
  the Buddha. Channa used to say, "I came along with my Master when he
  left the palace for the forest. At that time, I was the only companion
  of my Master and there was no one else. But now, Sariputta and
  Moggallana are saying, 'we are the Chief Disciples,' and are strutting
  about the place."
When the Buddha sent for him and admonished him for his behaviour, he
  kept silent but continued to abuse and taunt the two Chief Disciples.
  Thus the Buddha sent for him and admonished him three times; still, he
  did not change. And again, the Buddha sent for Channa and said,
  "Channa, these two noble bhikkhus are good friends to you; you should
  associate with them and be on good terms with them."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 78: One should not
  associate with bad friends, nor with the vile. One should associate
  with good friends, and with those who are noble.
In spite of repeated admonitions and advice given by the Buddha,
  Channa did as he pleased and continued to scold and abuse the
  bhikkhus. The Buddha, knowing this, said that Channa would not change
  during the Buddha's lifetime but after his demise (parinibbana) Channa
  would surely change. On the eve of his parinibbana, the Buddha called
  Thera Ananda to his bedside and instructed him to impose the
  Brahma-punishment (Brahmadanda) to Channa; i.e., for the bhikkhus to
  simply ignore him and to have nothing to do with him.
After the parinibbana of the Buddha, Channa, learning about the
  punishment from Thera Ananda, felt a deep and bitter remorse for
  having done wrong and he fainted three times. Then, he owned up his
  guilt to the bhikkhus and asked for pardon. From that moment, he
  changed his ways and outlook. He also obeyed their instructions in his
  meditation practice and soon attained arahatship.


text:
Statement from visuddhimagga regarding mental and material body
I found this statement in the Visuddhimagga;

They cannot come to be by their own strength,
  Or yet maintain themselves by their own strength;
  Relying for support on other states,
  Weak in themselves, and formed, they come to be; [597]
  They come to be with others as condition.
  They are aroused by others as their objects,
  They are produced by object and condition,
  And each by something other than itself.
  And just as men depend upon
  A boat for traversing the sea.
  So does the mental body need
  The matter-body for occurrence.
  And as the boat depends upon
  The men for traversing the sea.
  So does the matter-body need
  The mental body for occurrence.
  Depending each upon the other
  The boat and men go on the sea.
  And so do mind and matter both
  Depend the one upon the other.

The above statement seems to confirm that mind doesn't have occurrence without material body, and vise versa. Both factors are interdependent and seemingly co-exists.
But, once, I heard that one's mind does't end at death of material body: how can that match with the above statement in the Visuddhimagga?

It would be a good idea to provide a reference to the statement.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

Do you want to give a reference for the second statement as well, "I heard that one's mind does't end at death of material body"?

You said: The above statement seems to confirm that mind doesn't have occurrence without material body, and vise versa. Both factors are interdependent and seemingly co-exist.
Correct. In my (personal) understanding of Buddhist teaching, speaking in modern terms, Mind is Information. Information needs Media to carry it. And Media is Energy that takes certain Form due to the shaping influence of Causes and Conditions carrying Information. So Energy, Matter, and Information are aspects of the same underlying "ground of all".
"But, once, I heard that one's mind does't end at death of material body: how can that match with the above statement"?
In my (personal) understanding of Buddhist teaching, there is no such thing as "one's mind" - it's a mistake to think that way. Mind is not an entity, it's an aspect. Mind is like wind that goes in and out, like breath. Mind is information that is all around us, moving like wind.
I know this sounds like Materialism but it's not. With this interpretation we are not declaring the primacy of Matter. What I am saying is that "regular" Information and Energy is what the ancients called "spirit". This is what animates Matter. As a matter of fact, Matter, if you look at it very closely (at the level of electrons), is empty. It is only a shape that Energy takes.
This may also sound like Pantheism, as in, we are declaring that Mind is a global aspect of everything and that it is God. To this I respond that sure Mind is a global aspect of everything - but so is Energy, so is Space/Time - but we do not pray to Space/Time and declare it our God? Why should we identify Mind as God?
This may also sound like Nondualism, as in "I am this global Mind, and this global Mind is speaking through me now" and "The highest realization is to awake to unity with this global Mind" - but that would be conceit and self-identification, wouldn't it? Instead, as Buddha taught, the highest realization is to be free from conceit, free from such thoughts, and free from self-identification.
My Zen Master said: "operate mind, don't let mind operate you" and "you bless god, not 'god bless you'". This means we must understand how Information works, how Universe works, and how Mind works. Once we understand how it works, we should master it. When we master Mind, we can pick our interpretation of reality. When we can pick our interpretation of reality, we can shape our reality. When we can shape our reality, we are free.

@AV; you have beautifully created this answer using your deep knowledge in Buddhism and science. I am confused with some of your statements. E.g- your description of "mind is information", When you consider what is information in here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information you will realize why i am confused and instead i suggest "mind create information with help of matter". secondly yes i accept mention "Once's mind" as a mistake as it create issue if self. Also when i analyze your answer i seem you have created your own conceptualize model for mind&body question.

Why should we identify Mind as God? yes i feel what you are trying to say. mind as god- because mind is the creator of all the concepts,ideologies,words and informations(with the assistance of matter,physical world or any other suitable word)  and in above sense your statement is correct but it unnecessary because "almighty god concept" is outdated. But your "mind" and "almighty god" marriage is so creative and you have capacity to create it as you have roots in concept of  almighty god(i feel your base on Christianity,perfectly gained knowledge in Buddhist teaching and science. I say your...

mind is extremely beautiful and creative. In same manner I can also create different model for metaphysical questions. E.g 1. I can say all the stars in universe possesses consciousness which we don't have any interface to communicate. 2. we are in illusion of mechanical cyber space which is controlled by extraterrestrials with extremely higher technology. etc....But what is important is what Buddha's genuine and ultimate message to humans and what is the ultimate truth of reality or nature.

The problem with this question is that you assume that the present body is the only matter available for the mind to hold on to. The whole universe is full of matter that is conducive to the continuation of the mental stream.
There are 4 ways for the mental stream to find a new body. Namely, egg-born beings (andaja), womb-born beings (jalabuja), moisture-born beings (samsedaja), and beings having spontaneous births (opapatika).

I am not assuming and it's not the "present"body. I just stick to the statement  in Visuddhimagga.So does the mental body need The matter-body for occurrence.The whole universe is full of matter that is conducive to the continuation of the mental stream.- yes but those materials in universe must be organized in certain way so called "body" to sustain "mind" and "continuation of the mental stream" is problematic. what is that unknown "continuation" and can you explain it little further.

Also continuation of "mental stream" which travel to find the new body is closer to atman or soul. Now you will respond that there is mental stream does't possesses "self". but still you have stated phenomena of continuation of such specific thing as "mental stream" which you unable to define what is it seemingly mysterious.

Mental stream is a conceptual term. In reality it is just thought moments appearing one after the other. There's nothing peresisting. They all arise and die instantaneously. When you were born, the suitable material conditions for the consciousness to arise were made available by the union of your mother and father. This is why the Buddha told to treat your parents as your creator. Not some mysterious God. That is just one form of birth. There are 3 more. When you die this time, you will be born again in one of those 4 ways.

I get what you are trying to convey. I am not denying and I feel your comment attempt to reach materialistic way. how ever now you have used words such as mental stream(mind),consciousness, and thoughts. can you distinguish above three words in simple manner.

When you die this time, you will be born again in one of those 4 ways.- If you convert you to I, you mean when I die, I will be born again. This is nothing more than view of soul or atman. conituation of I, Isn't it?

Think of it as the computer screen in front of you. You see it as continuously on. But in reality it is not. It just appears continuously on because the screen is refreshing many times within a second. In the same way continuous thoughts appear like a mental stream or gives the illusion of a persisting mind because they appear in quick succession.

"you will be born again" is a conceptual statement.  What it means in reality is that after the last thought moment of this life ends, a new thought moment will arise in another place depending on the karma that comes forward to give birth.

This is explained at the very beginning of Paticca Samuppada

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
How to deal with obstacles (with Sutta reference)
Are there any Suttas that explain how to deal with (unexpected) life obstacles? It seems that in this regard Buddhism seems to be a bit passive? I might be wrong.

Please see this answer.
I have tried to explain in that answer, using Dhammapada verses, that Buddhism teaches thinking and acting in wholesome and skillful ways. And this can be applied to facing obstacles and challenges in life, which may come unexpectedly.

Good post! :) I think recollecting various qualities of the Buddha or factors of enlightenment etc. can also be good.

The suttas include many teachings for laypeople about most important aspects of life. Try searching here: A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life.

You could start with pattidana, that is transfer of merits(method in English). That may start to heal some kamma debt. Also, taking precautions not to put oneself in situations (eating healthy and exercising, walking at night in dangerous areas, associating with immoral people, etc). But, to make forward progress in this long sansaric journey consider what the Buddha said in the “Pubbeva Sambodha Sutta (AN 3.103)” which provides a succinct statement on assāda, ādīnava, and nissarana:
“..ko nu kho loke assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṃ nissaraṇan’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: ‘yaṃ kho lokam paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṃ sōmanassaṃ, ayaṃ loke assādo. Yaṃ loko anicco dukkho vipariṇāmadhammo, ayaṃ loke ādīnavo. Yo loke chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ, idaṃ loke nissaraṇan’ti..”.
Translated: “..What are assāda, ādīnava, and nissarana in this world? If one gets attached (paticca) to sukha (bodily pleasures) and sōmanassa (mind pleasures) that is assāda. That gives rise to dhammā (which are the seeds for future suffering, because these are really “kamma seeds”) with anicca, dukkha, and viparināma (unexpected change) nature, and that is called ādīnava. Arising of such dhammā can be stopped by constraining the tendency to indulge in sense pleasures (chandarāgavinayo), and thus getting rid of craving for sense pleasures (chandarāgappahānaṃ)..”.
I've found a simple little positive method to assist with "constraining the tendency to indulge" using a method to heal chronic pain.
One thing to remember while reading the sutta from Suttacentral.net is that anicca is incorrectly translated. Anicca is a much deeper concept that in a nutshell means "nothing can be maintained to our satisfaction" and much more, not just impermanence.
Some kamma vipaka is so strong that it can't be avoided, but you can minimize the effects with medicines, and other changes made to your gati (characteristics) and asavas (cravings).
With metta,
Donna :)


text:
Reference request: the ways of the world
I am looking for sutta text where the Buddha says something like...

The ways of the world will never be finished find your own salvation
  with diligence...

Meaning, all the politics, hatered, war in this world will always continue you need not heed them and instead you should work towards your own salvation...

See also "work out your salvation with diligence".

"The affairs of the world will go on forever. Do not delay the
  practice of meditation." - Milarepa

Possibly Pupphavagga or Lokavagga or Jesusvagga.

178. Better than sole sovereignty over the earth, better than going to heaven, better even than lordship over all the worlds is the
  supramundane Fruition of Stream Entrance.

There are some (famous) lines in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta (DN 16)

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

And

Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!

These don't quite match, "The ways of the world will never be finished"; but they are a good (maybe the best) match for, "find your own salvation with diligence".
There are various English translations, e.g. it's often translated "diligence" instead of "earnestness".


text:
How do I get rid of ill will?
People who have done wrong to me remain in my memory and continuously stay in my mind. I have feelings of ill will and hatered towards them...to revenge...how do I get out of the feelings of ill will...

Vitakkasanthana Sutta (MN 20)
Please keep in mind that one's effort should be of ardency and urgency. You have to act like a hero and free yourself from these. You need to have wisdom about defilements, otherwise you will find excuses and dwell in them even further.
1) "Divert your attention to something more skillful". Now, this doesn't necessarily mean to change one's ill-will to compassion via metta meditation, since the ill-will has too much energy and your thoughts are therefore distorted and won't let good thoughts in so easily. Therefore attend to something skillful but nothing unrealistically positive, for your current state of mind ( ill-will in that case) is too strong. You can try to give self compassion to yourself, i.e.that you are quite angry and that you are not feeling well (treat yourself like a little child). After that, once you feel better you see that other person might also get angry so that you have a sense of not being alone with that problem and you then send metta to these people.
2) Repeatedly scrutinize the benefits of letting go of negative mind states and the benefits of positive ones (both for you and how it contributes to other people as well)
3) Step 3 in the sutta mentions: "Paying no mind to thoughts". Since not thinking of a thought or even aversion to it doesn't really eliminate it, my adive is to always accept the presence of the thought and then distract myself and do something else (or just curiously observe it and see its impermanence). At best, I would always employ a cognitive technique like Step 2 and a behavioral one (like standing up and doing something else while keeping the drawbacks and benefits in mind)

"Relaxation of thoughts". Basically "cooling off", for example via breathing and internally saying: "I'm breathing in sensitively.. breathing out sensitively". "Anger only makes matters worse.. both for me and for others" (connected to step 2)
Clenching one teeths. Now I don't  know how this one is to be understood, but surpressing thoughts in the sense of "don't think of xyz" doesn't work. I recommend contemplating the Buddha's strengths like energy and determination etc. and follow the steps above.

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme, he should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking quickly? Why don't I walk slowly?' So he walks slowly. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking slowly? Why don't I stand?' So he stands. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one. In the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

Regarding the fifth point in the Sutta: Sometimes there is also the word "surpressing" mentioned (or at least Ajahn Sona in one of his videos said "surpression"). However above, the Buddha says "constraining and beating down with one's awareness."
 Is someone familiar with this sutta? Does it really mean awareness? I wouldn't personally interpret that as "don't think of xyz" (since it doesn't work), but rather about forcing one's mind to concentrate on an object and thereby "crushing" one's thoughts. Now I don't know how the fifth method would differ then from the fourth. Any ideas? I think the difference would be the emphasize, that is: the urgency and ardency to rid oneself from these defilements.

Knowing some teachings or techniques intellectually is one thing, experiencing and using these is another. The thing is to have sati (rememberance) of these steps.

There's some commentary on the fifth point, on the first two pages of Piya Tan's translation. He translates it "mind" not "awareness". All three English translations on SuttaCentral give "mind".

(this is 100% based on my first teacher's instructions, not my personal interpretation)
Ego. All these thoughts come from the ego. Ego wants to destroy anything that hurts it.
You should develop a habit to recognize thoughts that come from the ego.
When you have an attachment that you strongly identify with, and someone acts against that attachment, your ego is hurt. When the ego is hurt, first you feel pain, then you feel desire to stop that pain, and then that desire turns into ill-will.
When you see this pattern, you should say to yourself: "This is the Ego trying to protect itself. Doing this will not be to my benefit, nor to the benefit of others."
Then you should see the attachment that triggered this reaction, and try to look at the situation objectively, as if from above, like a neutral observer. Then you should do the best thing possible, based on this neutral objective perspective.
Ill will comes from the Ego. Never let Ego defend itself. Always act from the objective perspective, for the greater good.

Excellent answer, very profound.

The answer given by Val is excellent. In addition to all the methods mentioned in the first answer , it also helps to contemplate on the states of the lower realms such as hell realms and animal realms. But it can be scary and if you have misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha on these realms its best not to do so. There is an excellent Dhamma teaching on this by Ven.Thubten Chodron which is very motivating. You can contemplate in two ways to motivate you to get rid of ill-will.

If you do well ,you will achieve a higher re-birth.
If you do badly and let your afflictions overtake you , you might get reborn in a lower realm such as that of an animal.

Example: Why is one born in the animal realm? Because of stupidity and ignorance. Your thinking in the animal realm will be dull and foggy there is no way that you can practise Dhamma. Also animals suffer a lot. Imagine the state of animals in the meat producing industry.
This helps me a lot , by generating fear of being born in lower realms , I motivate myself to practice and control myself from doing harm.
Here is the link to the teaching : http://thubtenchodron.org/1991/09/unfortunate-rebirth-causes/

If you're refering to literal rebirth I would say it's not a skillful motivator. Well, depends in how much you're convinced in literal rebirth (check out Buddhadasa or Dhammadhatu) but it's an extrinsic motivator. Intrinsic motivators like: well being of oneself, of others, harmonious relationships are healthier motivators and actuall empirically observable -in the here and now- . If you refer the birth in mental states then that is fine (it's connected to one's well being mentioned above). Point is: Seeing the harms of "evil" thoughts and deeds and learn from mistakes & forgive oneself.

Yes , this method does depend on your belief in rebirth . Definitely the intrinsic motivator is more effective.


text:
Is there a way to hasten the results of bad deeds
The law of cause and effect is unchangeable and we must face the consequences of the Karmas done through body, speech and mind.
However, is it possible to hasten the manifestation of the results of bad deeds so that we can face them and be free. Is there any sutta or any practise that anyone knows that we can do to achieve this?

I think this is a good question and is not a duplicate. In Buddhism, it is certainly a good idea to "hasten the results of bad deeds." Zen masters would often pray for this. I recommend the Zhunti mantra and any of the classic Buddhist mantras with the intention of purifying one's evil karma. With the Zhunti mantra especially you will have vivid dreams of puking black material when it is working. Be careful.

I agree with Ahmed. This is not a duplicate of the linked question.

Study of emptiness also hastens ripening of bad karma and thus expatiates it. Refer to the Diamond Sutra: http://diamond-sutra.com/read-the-diamond-sutra-here/diamond-sutra-chapter-16/

The law of cause and effect is unchangeable and we must face the consequences of the Karmas done through body, speech and mind.

Only the five heinous crimes are guaranteed to manifest their results. According to what I have been told, others need a suitable environment/conditions to manifest at percent/future. But this is not entirely in your control.
Ex:- If you have in the past get involved in fights and beat up people, you would build up karma to eventually get beaten up in a fight. Because it is only natural and fully inline with dependent arising that you will over time keep increasing your abrasive nature and eventually meet your match. However if you stop getting involved in fights, that probability will be greatly reduced. But it is possible that someone from the past who held a grudge against you, plot revenge against you and succeed at a moment that you are weak.

Accayika Sutta: Urgent suggests you can't hasten the result of practice (i.e. Awakening), but that what you can/should do is desire the condition for its ripening.
The essay Kamma and its Fruit says,

If kammic action were always to bear fruits of invariably the same magnitude, and if modification or annulment of kamma-result were excluded, liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering would be impossible; for an inexhaustible past would ever throw up new obstructive results of unwholesome kamma.

I think that's saying it's possible for a (bad) deed to have no result, no ripening (though it also warns that it may ripen or is likely to ripen).
So I think that instead of "hasten the manifestation of the results of bad deeds so that we can face them and be free", Buddhism teaches to hasten the practice (the whole Threefold Training), in order to cease fermentations and further becoming, and be free.

Do you know of any purification practices we can do to modify or annul bad karma say for a deed we committed in anger and now have remorse for ?

Yes, I know I didn't directly answer your question -- I redirected the question. So far as I know, a purification practice is "confession of fault", "clearly seeing the disadvantage of the transgression", and then "not doing it again" -- and there are others. But, so far as I know, "purification" isn't the same as "hastening the ripening of bad kamma".

Also, a result of "skilful virtue" is "lack of remorse". So, if you feeling "remorse" now, you are already experiencing some result.

Is there a way to hasten the results of bad deeds?

No, you can't. But if you do good deeds you might be able to reduce the effect of bad deed.

You have a view similar to that of Jainism, that the Buddha dismissed, that you need to hasten the "burning up" of past karma and stop creating new ones. You can see this in the Devadaha Sutta:

"When this was said, the Niganthas (Jains) said to me, 'Friend, the Nigantha
  Nataputta (Mahavira) is all-knowing, all-seeing, and claims total knowledge &
  vision thus: "Whether I am walking or standing, sleeping or awake,
  knowledge & vision are continuously & continually established in me."
  He has told us, "Niganthas, there are evil actions that you have done
  in the past. Exhaust them with these painful austerities. When in the
  present you are restrained in body, restrained in speech, and
  restrained in mind, that is the non-doing of evil action for the
  future. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism,
  and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the
  future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action.
  With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of
  stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all
  suffering & stress will be exhausted." We approve of that [teaching],
  prefer it, and are gratified by it.'

The view of Buddhism is different - please see below. The Buddhist view is not about hastening the "burning up" of past karma or avoiding creation of new karma. Rather, it's about putting an end to dependent origination, through ceasing craving and uprooting the ten fetters. This is done through the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Parable of the Salt Crystal from the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating]
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And more explanation in MN36:

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

There is no control of us on mind. It goes on reacting to the stimuluses out of its age old habit. It's the habit itself is the soul of the mind. Vipassana breaks this habit and ultimately dissolution of mind: a condition of no mind.
Because all the sankharas of good and bad deeds are stored in subconscious and there is no control of us on arising of a particular sankhara of good or bad deeds urgently or slowly. However in my opinion a tremendous urge of getting liberated and experiential knowledge of nothingness in the life can trigger ripening and outcropping of these stored sankharas. In hinduism it is called vairagya. This "vairagya" might be also one of the stored sankharas in previous life.
So in this non atheist era, where keeping blind faith is almost impossible, practising vipassana steadily and ardently is the only solution. It's just liking sweeping the garbage, dust of our karmas i.e. sankharas and making the slate clean exhibiting no suffering.


text:
Visions of Hell Realm in Contemplation- What does it mean
Yesterday while reading a book suddenly my mind generated the following visions: I saw a girl in a white dress being tortured in this very unpleasant place which smelled bad and was horrible , I saw her being raped by this creature who looked horrific , again and again these visions came to me in the night.
What could these visions mean ? Are they trying to warn me of some bad karma ripening. As it is said by many Tibetan teachers that they get warnings of future happenings in dreams. Although this was not a dream.

I don't think that "what does my dream mean?" is an answerable question on this site. Maybe (I don't know) your teacher would know how to answer it.

Did the girl look similar to you?

No , but I identified a lot with her

Some relevant advice here (from Awareness Itself -- Visions & Signs) by Ajaan Fuang:

§ "Don't have anything to do with the past or the future. Just stay
  with the present — that's enough. And even though that's where you're
  supposed to stay, you're not supposed to latch onto it. So why do
  think you should latch on to things where you're not even supposed to
  stay?"
§ "You know that you shouldn't believe even your own visions, so why
  go believing the visions of others?"
§ "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."
§ One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"
His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."
§ "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."

first I apologize, this question, and my answer are not about Buddhism, purely about your vision.
It is actually a very positive vision in this context, please do not be frightened by it.
The girl represents the innocent, but in the sense of the unenlightened. She is the maiden who holds firmly her chastity (as the novice holds to his grasping mind). This monster which forces her, is the coming of great knowledge in your practice. You will find what you have searched for. It will arrive like a stampeding herd. You will leave behind things that you once valued, but now no longer need. In their place, you will find an improved practice.
breathe... practice, and allow.


text:
Why is the problem with the personal pronouns 'I, me and mine'?
9 Attitudes of mindfulness - Jon Kabat Zinn
Jon describes these pronouns as problematic because who we actually are is far greater than that. How so? Please detail why the problem lies with the personal pronouns 'I, me and mine'.

Could you be more specific about which part of the video you're asking about? I listened to the section which starts at time 5:01 (which you bookmarked), labelled "Non-Judging" ... and to the previous section, "Beginner's Mind" ... and neither of those contains the text you're asking about (i.e. describing "pronouns as problematic because who we actually are is far greater than that"). I wanted to get that text in context, to try to properly understand the question (i.e. what you're asking about).

Someone I know made the joke Seven words you can't say in Nonduality (based on the George Carlin skit, 7 words you can't say on TV): "I, me, mine, my, self, choice, separate."

Begin with these 3 characteristics which are true of all things:

impermanence (also called change): nothing ever stays in one state or eternally the same. Use things like flowing rivers and growing plants, or the effects of time/gravity/erosion to visualize this constant growth, decay, transformation, evolution.
unsatisfactoriness: although we may feel for brief moments that some things are "perfect" (wonderful), we quickly begin to realize that there are imperfections, flaws, difficulties, and obstacles in all things/situations.
non-self (also called unsubstantiallity):

When you refer to something as "mine" you are labeling it as something stable and unchanging. That's nicca (permanence). But it is truer to say that it is momentarily (at best) "yours", because your hold on it is impermanent. Even (as an example) if you call land "yours" it was there for an unmeasurable time before you arrived, and it will outlast you by an even greater period of time. It is also changing constantly, and it is unaware of you.
A human is the sum of :
1. Body,
2. Feelings,
3. Perception,
4. Thoughts/Mental Formations,
5. Consciousness.
I numbered them because you will often hear them referred to as “5 aggregates” that means that everything you can list about your ‘self’ can be put into one of these 5 categories.
Although you may feel that each of them are solidly “you” if you take a little time you will begin to see that all of them are constantly changing. For example, your thoughts feel as though they are “you”, but just because you had a negative thought doesn't mean that's who you are. You are not that thought, and it is not you.
Observing these 5 parts of “you” changing during meditation will help you achieve the understanding of their impermanence. Buddhism is mainly concerned with experiential knowledge and through meditation you may achieve this insight.  The practice of mediation is where the conviction of non-self (anatta) grows. These 5 are always changing in response to continuously changing conditions and this makes them unsubstantial, also described as without a "solid core".
Often these 5 aspects give us the impression that we are them, and they are us. But try meditating on the question:
How can it be "you" or "yours" if you can't really grasp it?
In the beginning you may feel that you are grasping (one or all of) these aspects, and there may be a sense of attachment to one or all of them, but gradually you will perceive that it's futile because they are changing and not completely under your control.


text:
Is the lotus position more prone to knee injury?
I've seen it mentioned once or twice, a great teacher or master who has knee injury due to lots of sitting practice. I know that if the posture is incorrect or if one is forcing it, it will lead to injury (I've read scary reports of people who permanently harmed their body because they tried it without proper guidance). But, seeing some teachers with such injuries as well made me wonder if even with a correct posture one may still harm its own body. I don't know if those cases I heard are exceptions (does anyone have seen other cases as well?). But, if this is because of really lots of practice, perhaps other "safer" postures could have prevented that?
So, my question: given ideal conditions, such as correct posture and enough strength for it, is lotus position more susceptible to injury (in the long run) than other postures, such as burmese or half-lotus? Or, are all these injuries we see due to lacking necessary conditions?
If someone could point me to a reference, that would be great.

But, seeing some teachers with such injuries as well made me wonder if even with a correct posture one may still harm its own body.

Lotus position is not a "correct" posture. Correct posture has having the spine erect. The Buddhist scriptures instruct to meditation in four postures, namely, sitting, standing, walking & lying down. Lotus posture has no inherent benefit, apart from convenience. People have attained the deepest meditation states (called 'jhana') sitting on a backless chair. Because jhana is such a heightened state of mental alertness, there is no possibly of falling off the chair in jhana due to drowsiness. Lotus is useful for sloppy meditators who end to fall asleep in meditation; who pretend they are meditating but are, in reality, sleeping or day-dreaming.

So, my question: given ideal conditions, such as correct posture and enough strength for it, is lotus position more susceptible to injury
  (in the long run) than other postures, such as burmese or half-lotus?
  Or, are all these injuries we see due to lacking necessary
  conditions?

This question is unrelated to Buddhist philosophy. The suitability of the Lotus Posture depends of the physiology of the individual. If a person can sit in lotus but does not have a natural erect & supple spine, sitting in lotus is both pointness & will probably cause physical damage.

If someone could point me to a reference, that would be great.

There are no Buddhist references for this matter. It is all a matter of physiology.

About your points: 1) I wasn't clear enough. I didn't say lotus is more correct than other postures. What I meant was that, even in ideal conditions that someone is able to perform a lotus position perfectly, it would still be harmful to their bodies, more than other positions, arguably. That's what I'm wondering. 2) and 3) Don't you think that many practioners would benefit from knowing if a given meditation position would be more harmful than others to their bodies? Having an answer here would aid our community looking for this answer, even if they're just pointers to the right references.


text:
Do Buddhist texts record or comment on the then-prevalent varna or caste systems?
Do Buddhist ancient scriptures/texts record or comment on:

The then-prevalent varna system?

or

The then-prevalent caste system (clan-like system)?

I understand that Buddhism is based on equality, i.e. I am not saying that Buddhism accepted the caste system.
In particular, what I am asking is whether buddhist text:

Records any wrong-doings based on caste system or varna system
Records whether or not the varna system was birth-based at that time
Explicitly says that it rejects birth-based varna system/caste system.

Please provide references from such text.

Not a duplicate topic, but related: Was Buddhism a rebellion against the Aryans?

I think you're asking a history question, am I right? You're interested in the scriptures as a historical record, of the caste system at that time.

What might you mean by "wrong-doings", for example? Isn't the varna system "birth-based" by definition (or are you asking whether there's evidence that social mobility was possible)? Joe's answer said that the social hierarchy in the sangha wasn't birth-based, and you said that you understand that, so what for example are you asking about its "rejecting" a birth-based system?

@ChrisW:   yes, I am asking history based question.  i also understand that buddhism is based on equality ie i am not saying that buddhism accepted caste system. What I am asking is that (1)whether buddhist text records any wrong doings based on
caste system or varna system IN THE THEN PREVALENT BRAHMINICAL SYSTEM" (2) whether buddhist text records that varna system was birth based at that time or not (3) whethr any buddhist text explicitly says that it rejects birth based varna system/caste system. Please provide references from such text.

Straight forward answer is Buddhism never accept caste system or the color. In "Wasala suthra"  (as I remember the name) Lord Buddha has clearly mentioned that, a person doesn't become noble by his birth, caste etc but by his act (behavior).
Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts (SN 1.7)

Now at that time a fire was burning, and an offering was being prepared in the house of the brahman Aggikabharadvaja. Then the Blessed One, while on his alms round, came to the brahman's residence. The brahman seeing the Blessed One some way off, said this: "Stay there, you shaveling, stay there you wretched monk, stay there you outcast." When he spoke thus the Blessed One said to the brahman: "Do you know, brahman, who an outcast is and what the conditions are that make an outcast?" "No, indeed, Venerable Gotama …

i also understand that buddhism is based on equality ie i am not saying that buddhism accepted caste system.
What I am asking is that (1)whether buddhist text records any wrong doings based on caste system or varna system (2) whether buddhist text records that varna system was birth based at that time or not (3) whethr any buddhist text explicitly says that it rejects birth based varna system/caste system. Please provide references from such text.

Regardless of the type of caste one is in, all have an equal opportunity to become enlightened.
From the Gihi Sutta:

In the same way,
  wherever one is born
  among human beings —
noble warriors, brahmans,
  merchants, workers,
  outcastes, or scavengers —
  if one is tame,
  with good practices,
  righteous,
  consummate in virtue,
  a speaker of truth,
  with conscience at heart,
  one who's abandoned birth & death,
  completed the holy life
  put down the burden,
  done the task
  fermentation-free,
  gone beyond all dhammas,
  through lack of clinging
  unbound:
  offerings to this spotless field
  bear an abundance of fruit.

Just for record, the updated reference for same text is now https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN5_179.html

When people joined the Buddha's Sangha or monastic community, they lost their former worldly caste status, as follows:

Just as the mighty rivers on reaching the great ocean lose their
  former names and designations and are just reckoned as the great
  ocean; even so, when members of the four castes—nobles, brahmins,
  commoners and menials—go forth from home into the homeless life in
  this Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they lose
  their former names and lineage and are reckoned only as ascetics
  following the Son of the Sakyans. This is the fourth wonderful and
  marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…
The Simile of the Ocean.

However, the Buddha did not oppose the caste system in non-Buddhist society despite often emphasizing to Brahmins they are not noble or Brahmin by 'birth' ('family lineage') but noble due to their actions (kamma), as follows:

For name and clan are assigned  as mere convention in the world.
  Arising by mutual agreement,  they’re assigned to each individual.
For a long time this misconception  has prejudiced those who don’t
  understand.  Ignorant, they declare  that one is a brahmin by birth.
You’re not a brahmin by birth,  nor by birth a non-brahmin.  You’re a
  brahmin by your deeds,  and by deeds a non-brahmin.
You’re a farmer by your deeds,  by deeds you’re a professional;
  you’re a trader by your deeds,  by deeds are you an employee;
you’re a bandit by your deeds,  by deeds you’re a soldier.  you’re a
  sacrificer by your deeds,  by deeds you’re a ruler.
In this way in accord with truth,  the astute regard deeds.  Seeing
  dependent origination,  they’re expert in deeds and their results.
MN 98

Vāseṭṭha, there are these four castes: aristocrats, brahmins,
  merchants, and workers. Some aristocrats kill living creatures, steal,
  and commit sexual misconduct. They use speech that’s false, divisive,
  harsh, and nonsensical. And they’re covetous, malicious, with wrong
  view. These things are unskillful, blameworthy, not to be cultivated,
  unworthy of the noble ones—and are reckoned as such. They are dark
  deeds with dark results, criticized by sensible people. Such things
  are seen in some aristocrats. And they are also seen among some
  brahmins, merchants, and workers.
But some aristocrats refrain from killing living creatures, stealing,
  and committing sexual misconduct. They refrain from speech that’s
  false, divisive, harsh, and nonsensical. And they’re content,
  kind-hearted, with right view. These things are skillful, blameless,
  to be cultivated, worthy of the noble ones—and are reckoned as such.
  They are bright deeds with bright results, praised by sensible people.
  Such things are seen in some aristocrats. And they are also seen among
  some brahmins, merchants, and workers.
DN 27

MN 95 states about the Buddha:

He doesn’t wish any harm upon the community of brahmins. …

DN 27 describes a 'brahmin' as follows:

Then some of those same beings thought: ‘Oh, how wicked things have
  appeared among beings, in that stealing is found, and blaming and
  lying and the taking up of rods and banishment! Why don’t we set aside
  bad, unskillful things?’ So that’s what they did. ‘They set aside bad,
  unskillful things’ is the meaning of ‘brahmin’, the first term to be
  specifically invented for them.


text:
How does Enlightenment feel like
Finally everyone who meditate comes to a single point "Enlightenment". So anybody have any idea about how the enlightenment feels like. How it helps a man. How their mind works and reacts to the situations.
How important is enlightenment to a man. Do we need to meditate more hours to gain enlightenment or Meditate effectively to get enlightened.

Here is you can get a clue how it like the enlightenment. Reading this sutta superficially will not guarantee  the total realization of Nirvana. But surely get clue.
The heart sutta;
Body is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence --
feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --
are likewise nothing more than emptiness,
and emptiness nothing more than they.
All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.
(So anybody have any idea about how the enlightment feels like)The question is how you imagine the feeling of this kind. you have to think,meditate and find the wisdom to realization. Its like explain color to born blind. Also you get full enlightment after parinibbana or death of person who attained Nirvana through realization.
So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.
Note: After reading above phrase you have to think deeply what is this "condition or state" , can anybody "feel" the above condition, and most important thing is we can assure there is no suffering or pleasure ultimately to feel and so on.......
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and so with no delusions,
they feel no fear,
and have Nirvana here and now.
All the Buddhas,
past, present, and future,
rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and live in full enlightenment.
The Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest mantra.
It is the clearest mantra,
the highest mantra,
the mantra that removes all suffering.
This is truth that cannot be doubted.
Say it so:
Gaté,
gaté,
paragaté,
parasamgaté.
Bodhi!
Svaha!
Which means...
Gone,
gone,
gone over,
gone fully over.
Awakened!
So be it!
* Emptiness is the usual translation for the Buddhist term Sunyata (or Shunyata).  It refers to the fact that no thing -- including human existence -- has ultimate substantiality, which in turn means that no thing is permanent and no thing is totally independent of everything else.  In other words, everything in this world is interconnected and in constant flux.  A deep appreciation of this idea of emptiness thus saves us from the suffering caused by our egos, our attachments, and our resistance to change and loss.

Imagine you sit down and watch a whole movie. Being so engrossed in the movie, you cry when it comes to the sad parts, you laugh when it comes to the funny parts. When the main protaganist gets pursued by a murderer, you squirm in fear as though it is you who is being pursued. When the character gets stabbed to death by the murderer, you grimace in pain as though it is you who got stabbed.
After the character dies, you suddenly realize that you're not actually a character in the movie, and even if you continue to watch the movie, you no longer experience sufferings associated with the characters in the movie, and you don't have to try to accomplish anything in the movie.
The Buddha taught in the Sona Sutta:

When one's awareness is dedicated
  to renunciation, seclusion,
  non-afflictiveness, the ending of clinging,
  the ending of craving, & non-deludedness,
  seeing the arising of the sense media,
  the mind is rightly released.
For that monk, rightly released,
  his heart at peace,
  there's nothing to be done,
  nothing to add to what's done.
As a single mass of rock isn't moved by the wind,
  even so all forms, flavors, sounds,
  aromas, contacts, ideas
  desirable & not,
  have no effect on one who is Such.
  The mind — still, totally released —
  focuses on their passing away.

Feeling is caused. Feeling belongs to the five aggregates. So technically there is no feeling in Enlightenment(Nibbana). However since the defilements are cut off, it is said that after one emerges from enlightenment, it may feel like a heavy burden has been taken off of one's shoulders or it may feel like how a cancer patient in extreme painful condition would feel, if he was suddenly cured. Here's a related answer.


text:
Importance of the first three Brahmaviharas in Theravadan Buddhism
So while reading a lot of teachings, especially "higher" teachings, a great deal is mentioned about dispassion in worldy things, unattractiveness in the body and various contemplations on death. It's quite easy to get lost in these kind of contemplations without developing the Brahmaviharas to feel something positive (especially social positive emotions are important for humans).
I'm wondering if positivity is highly stressed in Buddhism? On the one hand the brahmaviharas are not withot reason called "the divine abidings". So I think one needs to dwell in them as much as possible. Also the last two points of Right Effort stress the importance of cultivating and maintaing positive emotions. On the other hand though, being non-delighted in things makes this look rather grim.
Maybe I haven't read much Suttas on Compassion, loving kindness, generosity etc..

Sorry, are you asking for sutta references, or, asking how much it's taught in person? Brahmaviharas specifically, "positive" social emotions more generally, or (perhaps even more generally) positivity? For (to) lay people, and/or monks and nuns? Or would you like answers to any/all of these questions?

Brahmavihara manifest naturally from non-defilement. Regardless, Brahmavihara is taught as a preliminary practise to Anapanasati. For example, from MN 62 and MN 118:

Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the
  meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the
  meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing
  the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the
  meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are
  developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion will be
  abandoned.
Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you
  are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the
  conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.
  Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of
  great fruit, of great benefit.
And how, Rahula, is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed &
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?
There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the
  shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs
  crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the
  fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

It is reported that, for the Buddha, metta was very important. For example:

Monks, if for just the time of a finger-snap a monk produces a thought
  of loving kindness, develops it, gives attention to it, such a one is
  rightly called a monk. Not in vain does he meditate. He acts in
  accordance with the Master’s teaching, he follows his advice, and eats
  deservingly the country’s alms-food. How much more so if he cultivates
  it!
AN 1:6.3–5

I find the sutta; Sankhitta Sutta: In Brief (Good Will, Mindfulness, & Concentration), helps a lot both in explaining the Brahmaviharas and in showing their connection to mindfulness of breathing.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

I do agree with the statement by Dhammadhatu that the brahmavihara manifest naturally ones the mind is free from defilements.
But, they can also be developed independently from anapanasati, meaning not as a preliminary practise.
My teacher sees and treats them as great support of vipassana meditation.
I guess their role ranges nowadays from: independent to preliminary to supportive.

I'm wondering if positivity is highly stressed in Buddhism?

Well, the teachings of the Buddha are about liberation from suffering. So, yes. If you accept being liberated from suffering as a positive thing then I would say it is highly stressed. :)


text:
Compassion is a result of knowledge. But what about Courage?
We are all suffering. This knowledge results in compassion. Buddha was compassionate. And courageous too.
My question is : Is there any aspect of knowledge which results in courage?

Which types of knowledge results in courage?
Emptiness. Realizing Emptiness leads to courage, because when you have nothing you have nothing to lose. Abidelessness is the ultimate courage. Abidelessness is having no conceptual home, no warm stinking lair of the ego to defend, no territory to call your own. You are a "wanderer" in the ultimate sense of the word.
Understanding Emptiness conceptually is not enough though. This aspect of vidya is active spontaneousness, sincere unforced action without calculations. Of course before you can be like that you have to remove all guilt first, hence the practice of sila, morality. As Buddha said in suttas, dirty mind has many fears, pure mind has none.
Then you have to "leap off the cliff", metaphorically speaking. This means, expose yourself, with all your imperfections. Become open and vulnerable in the world. You jump right into fear, the fear does not stop, but you ignore it, defy it, and keep going. You setup the intent to keep going, no matter what your doubts tell you. You make your own mood, instead of your mood making you.
You no longer rely on the expectations of the world to set your direction. You don't even rely on your Buddhism teacher and Dharma anymore. You have to figure out your path by yourself, which is like the baby learning to walk for the first time.
I refer you to the following articles:

Facing Yourself by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and Pema Chödrön
Bravery: Taking a Leap by Sakyong Mipham

As well as this book by my beloved teacher Chögyam Trungpa: "Smile at Fear. Awakening the True Heart of Bravery”

Loneliness of the long distance Dhamma practitioner.
bit.ly/bbclonely
BBC "Focus" March 2018
"You are not alone"
An article giving much focus on the fact of loneliness in this age of social networking.  One solution reminded me of my bedsitter, pub socializing days in Belsize Park: strictly for the young.
Sadly no references to Dhamma, quite blind to this dimension.
From a Dhamma perspective, loneliness is the down side of the thrill of communication, on a conventional level - what goes up must come down - thus cutting down on social networking would thus cut down on loneliness.  Perhaps a surprising conclusion.
On returning from 13 years of monastic life in NE Thailand to a relatives box room in Essex was workable, rather like the Kuti just left behind.
OK, though moving to a "studio" flat in Dunstable was very depressing: moving to a fully self contained apartment in Leighton Buzzard was positively suicidal.
However, developing a practice based around MahaBuwa/Anapanasati  produced a very positive result, reminding me of a verse from the Pali, "Lonely as a Rhinoceros": defeating - nay vanquishing - that very sense of loneliness.
Sharing same in Buddhist forums is even more positive.
Much gratitude for the opportunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Sutra
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html

What is meant by ", loneliness is the down side of the thrill of communication,"?

Simply: "What goes up must come down".  Classically, "...whatever has the nature to arise, has the nature to decay".

The knowledge of kamma (cause and effect due to volition) leads to us having the courage to build up wholesome and skillful thoughts and actions.
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Freedom from Fear":

Conversely, this same principle can make us brave in doing good. If
  we're convinced that the results of skillful intentions will have to
  return to us even if death intervenes, we can more easily make the
  sacrifices demanded by long-term endeavors for our own good and that
  of others. Whether or not we live to see the results in this lifetime,
  we're convinced that the good we do is never lost. In this way, we
  develop the courage needed to build a store of skillful actions —
  generous and virtuous — that forms our first line of defense against
  dangers and fear.

The knowledge of kamma, impermanence (anicca) and suffering leads to equanimity (with regards to how we face challenges) and also compassion (with regards to how we view others facing challenges).
From Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay "A Remedy for Despair":

As we grope about for a handle to prevent ourselves from plummeting
  down into the pits of despondency, we may find the support we need in
  a theme taught for frequent recollection by the Buddha: "Beings are
  the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they are molded,
  formed and upheld by their kamma, and they inherit the results of
  their own good and bad deeds." Often enough this reflection has been
  proposed as a means to help us adjust to the vicissitudes in our
  personal fortunes: to accept gain and loss, success and failure,
  pleasure and pain, with a mind that remains unperturbed. This same
  theme, however, can also serve a wider purpose, offering us succor
  when we contemplate the immeasurably greater suffering in which the
  multitudes of our fellow beings are embroiled.

And the essay continues to explain how deep reflection on kammic retribution leads to development of equanimity:

Deep reflection on kammic retribution does, however, brace us against
  the shocks of calamity and disappointment by opening up to our vision
  the stubborn unwieldiness of a world ruled by greed, hate and
  delusion, and the deep hidden lawfulness connecting its turbulent
  undercurrents with the back-and-forth swing of surface events. While
  on the one hand this contemplation awakens a sense of urgency, a drive
  to escape the repetitive round of deed and result, on the other it
  issues in equanimity, an unruffled inner poise founded upon a
  realistic grasp of our existential plight.

And then equanimity leads to us having the courage to face challenges and have endurance.

Genuine equanimity, which is far from callous indifference, sustains
  us in our journey through the rapids of samsara. Bestowing upon us
  courage and endurance, it enables us to meet the fluctuations of
  fortune without being shaken by them, and to look into the face of the
  world's sufferings without being shattered by them.