text:
Looking for a teacher in Australia
If you live in Australia and can be my teacher please get in touch. I feel I'm at a stage where I need one. Or perhaps you can recommend someone for me?

If you're in Western Australia, and interested in Theravada, the best teacher for you would be Ajahn Brahm. You can find videos of his talks on the Youtube channel of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) and also here. I don't reside in Australia, but I've attended Ajahn Brahm's talks when he visited my city. The next most senior monks at BSWA after Ajahn Brahm seem to be Ajahn Appichato and Ajahn Brahmali who may also be helpful.
Although I am not familiar with him, if you stay in Victoria, Ajahn Kalyano of the Buddha Bodhivana Monastery can be your teacher. Here's a Youtube video of one of his talks.
In New South Wales, there's the Bodhisaddha Forest Monastery (although I do not know who are the teachers there) and Wat Buddha Dhamma (whose abbot seems to be Ajahn Khemavaro). Perhaps, Ajahn Khemavaro can be your teacher. Here's a Youtube video of his talk. Here's another talk from him.
The teachers and monasteries above are all from the Thai Forest Tradition, of the lineage of Ajahn Chah. There may be other monasteries from this tradition in other parts of Australia.

Hi Ruben, I'm in Sydney but I like Ajahn Brahm and Thai forest tradition is pretty much what I practice. I wasn't sure if someone like him could be a personal teacher as I thought he would be too busy maybe?

@Arturia I updated my answer. Perhaps, Ajahn Khemavaro at the Wat Buddha Dhamma (1 hour 45 minutes from Sydney) could be your teacher. The Bodhisaddha Forest Monastery is 1 hour away from Sydney but I don't know who are the teachers there. Both monasteries are of the Thai Forest Tradition.

So can I just go there and say "hi can you be my teacher" ?  This is what I'm unsure about. Is there a protocol to these things? Do I need to attend and get to know people first or just go there and ask?

Just email Wat BuddhaDhamma and say you wish to visit and receive some instruction. I visited last year, when I was visiting my mother. I hired a car and drove up. When they email you, they will tell you the combination of the padlock. You have to drive up a dirt road for about 30 minutes but its an excellent road. I merely had a small hire car and it was raining heavily. The road is well-maintained because there are major electrical power lines in the area that must be serviced by the govt. Its a very beautiful place; with many old accommodations.

In a talk, Ajahn Brahm once said that he visited various monasteries and teachers. Most were stoic or gloomy. But Ajahn Chah and his monks were smiling and happy. Ajahn Brahm thought they must be doing something right and felt that he would fit right in. You may need to explore and get to know teachers, before choosing one.

Patrick Kearney is a Mahasi teacher in NSW Australia.

"Patrick Kearney is the best mindfulness teacher it has been my experience to work with. I appreciate the depth of his insights into
  the Buddha’s teaching, meanings that have resonated with me
  personally. Few teachers can help smooth a student’s own experience
  with mindfulness practice as he does. Last, and hardly least, Patrick
  has a huge heart, and this manifests in all his teachings. I cannot
  recommend a workshop with Patrick Kearney highly enough."

Hi, yes I did a retreat with him. He was very good. i guess what I need to know is how do I approach someone to ask. Can I just send an email and say hi I need a teacher?

Sure. Just send him an email asking for assistance and instruction.


text:
Questions about meditation
Should concentration improve? I sit for an hour in the mornings and most days my focus does not stay on the breath for more than 2 breaths before I notice thoughts again. Is this normal? I find my mind full of doubts because of this. I think to myself that after 7 years I thought concentration would improve but maybe I'm incorrect. When the doubts arise I usually mentally note them.
Yuttadhammo Bikhu says to mentally note the rising and falling of the abdomen on the breath then if pain arises for example then to note pain until it goes then gently bring awareness back to the breath. But many times for me the pain does not go. It remains for the entire hour sit. Do I just sit there noting pain the whole time?
Another practitioner told me that if I can't seem to focus then to try not focusing on anything. I tried this but find I just become lost in thought even more.

Keep practising mindfulness after you finished meditation. If your life requires mind activity most of the day then try to meditate whenever you find a free time in your daily life. That way will effectively improve your practise.

The way I was trained, it's not like you'll have fewer thoughts - because the nature of mind is to think, it's more like, your mental balance will shift from thoughts to "nothing" that "does not change" as thoughts come and go. So instead of taking the thoughts too seriously and getting carried far away, as your practice develops you should be letting go of them a lot more easily, until they are just like children with their toys. The children can get excited or upset and crying over their toys, but you're like: "whatever, in a minute they will forget about it, not a big deal".
What's more important is not thoughts (although over time they will change too, but that's just a side-effect) - it is integration in the space beneath the thoughts. It's the feeling of no inner conflict, no fighting with oneself, not blaming - that's what should improve over time.
IMO, paying attention to breath and especially on the diaphragm/abdomen area helps see that "space beneath the thoughts" - which is where trouble is most of the time. Coming back from a movie played by the thought is important because what you're working on is that space, not the thoughts. And then at some point things should get peaceful enough that you don't need to worry about that space either. Thoughts come and go, the emotional foundation has some signless syrup slowly boiling, and everything is just the way it should.
Remember, what you are after is not any particular state, but rather, the whatever-happens-is-fine attitude of peace and integration, so having no thoughts is not the point, the point is having no worries - including worries about worries.
Of course, it's not like on your way to this attitude of all-acceptance you don't work at all. There is a lot of hard work in paying attention, letting go, and integrating - but it is a type of "hard" opposite to what we call "hard" when we torture ourselves. It's like slowly letting oneself fall into a bottomless abyss, which involves constant fight with one's fear and the instinctual grabbing on stuff, and that's where all struggle is.
And then as you go through this, if you're paying any attention, you will inevitably start learning about "the way things work" - and then things like Four Noble Truths etc. suddenly start making total sense, referring directly to your first-hand experience.
That's my experience anyway, your mileage may varyTM.

Like you I am highly distractable and prone to associative thinking. I have even been paid for it as an engineer.
The particular advice that holds true for me to this day is this one:

Knowing a thought with his mind, he doesn’t get caught up in the features and details.--AN5.76

We can't stuff the thoughts "back in the bag".
We can't wave away the thoughts.
We can gently tell ourselves

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

...and then we simply watch as the thoughts go on their way (hello thought, goodbye thought)...

Follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Especially the Sila aspect of it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there a defined counting system in Pali?

‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,
  Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni;
  Yamariyagarahī nirayaṃ upeti,
  Vācaṃ manañca paṇidhāya pāpakan’’ti.

~ Cited from: Paṭhamakhatasuttaṃ, Bhaṇḍagāmavagga, Catukkanipātapāḷi, Aṅguttaranikāya, Tipitaka. (English translation: Paṭhamakaṭasuttaṃ)

‘‘Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho. Tato puriso vassasatassa vassasatassa accayena ekamekaṃ tilaṃ uddhareyya; khippataraṃ kho so, bhikkhu, vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho iminā upakkamena parikkhayaṃ pariyādānaṃ gaccheyya, na tveva eko abbudo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati abbudā nirayā, evameko nirabbudanirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati nirabbudā nirayā, evameko ababo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati ababā nirayā, evameko aṭaṭo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati aṭaṭā nirayā, evameko ahaho nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati ahahā nirayā, evameko kumudo nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati kumudā nirayā, evameko sogandhiko nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati sogandhikā nirayā, evameko uppalanirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati uppalā nirayā, evameko puṇḍariko nirayo. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhu, vīsati puṇḍarikā nirayā, evameko padumo nirayo. Padume pana, bhikkhu, niraye kokāliko bhikkhu upapanno sāriputtamoggallānesu cittaṃ āghātetvā’’ti.

~ Cited from:  Kokālikasuttaṃ, Brahmasaṃyuttaṃ, Sagāthāvagga, Saṃyuttanikāya, Tipitaka (English translation: Kokāliko II –– The Bhikkhu Kokālika II)
According to the above two texts which I have highlighted in bold, it seems there should be a counting system in Pali. Sometimes the lifespan of sentient beings in certain realms used as numbers.
My questions are:

Are there any equivalent numbers which can be written in Hindu-Arabic numerals for numbers used in Pali (like Abbuda, Nirabbuda, Paduma, ...)?
If there is a different counting system in Pali other than I've mentioned, please explain.
What is the time period mentioned in ‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,
Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni"

Are there any equivalent numbers which can be written in Hindu-Arabic numerals for numbers used in Pali
I found one here by Googling for "pali numerals": Pali Numbers - Ancient Buddhist Texts

This is a list of commonly found Pāḷi numbers which occur in the literature.

What is the time period mentioned in ‘‘Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ, Chattiṃsatīṃ pañca ca abbudāni"
The reference I cited above says,

1 + 63 zeros: nirabbutaṁ

Ven. Sugato's translation of that sutta says,

For more than two quinquadecillion years,
Sataṃ sahassānaṃ nirabbudānaṃ,
and another five quattuordecillion years,
Chattiṃsatī pañca ca abbudāni;

I don't know if those are the same numbers; I can't count that high in English!

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


text:
I don't know pali or Sanskrit if anyone can have pdf of english Tipitaka
Can anyone please send me link to the pdf of line by line English translation of Tipitaka at least translation only.

The Tipitaka, also known as the Pali Canon, is a very huge collection of text. The main religious text of other religions like the Bible, can easily fit into one hand as a book. Compared to this, the Tipitaka is very huge. It's more like a library shelf full of books.
The Tipitaka is organized into three "baskets", namely the Sutta Pitaka which mainly contains the discourses (suttas) of the Buddha and his chief disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which contains rules for the monastic order, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which contains detailed analyses and summaries for advanced students.
I assume that you're a beginner. A beginner would mostly be interested in the Suttas. Even then, the amount of suttas are vast, and they are not arranged in a way that is friendly to beginners.
For beginners, I highly recommend the book "In The Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. There was an online PDF version here, but that link doesn't work today.
Another option is to try "Path to Freedom: A Self Guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings" by Access to Insight.
This question on Buddhism.SE has suggested lists of suttas in an order or sequence that is suitable for beginners. They are also linked to the online English translations.
Yet another option is the book "Early Buddhist Discourses" by John J. Holder. This is in fact an online PDF copy. According to the books's Amazon page, it contains "twenty discourses from the Pali Canon--including those most essential to the study and teaching of early Buddhism - are provided in fresh translations, accompanied by introductions that highlight the main themes and set the ideas presented in the context of wider philosophical and religious issues."
The options above will give you nicely arranged content for your study.
If you just want to refer to particular suttas of the Tipitaka in English, please see Sutta Central or Access to Insight.
For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.

The best site is Sutta Central. It has the translation in many languages:
https://suttacentral.net/
The next best is Access to insight:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html


text:
"I want Happiness" / "Remove `I` and `want`" story
A man said to the Buddha, "I want Happiness."
Buddha said, first remove "I", that's ego,
then remove "want", that's desire.
See now you are left with only Happiness.
If the story given above true? If not why not?

The story is not true. This is a fake Buddha quote. You can find more info here: https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/a-man-said-to-the-buddha-i-want-happiness/

But it does work. :D

Is it unwholesome to desire happiness, even if the source of that happiness is unworldly in nature? Is not that one of the many reasons and motivations for taking refuge in the Dhamma?

It seems true to me but I have no idea whether it's canonical.  Assuming the word refers to what most people use it to mean all that would be left to do is to remove 'happiness'.

If the story given above true? If not why not?
It's not canonical -- A man said to the Buddha, ‘I want Happiness.’ is listed as one of the "fake Buddha quotes".
As for whether it's true, yes and no.
Yes to the extent that "wanting" is associated with unhappiness, though even there you might have to split hairs to distinguish between "unwholesome craving" versus a "wholesome desire for enlightenment" -- though even the wholesome desire is allayed once the goal is attained.
And no I guess it's not as simple as that -- it's like going to a doctor and saying, "I have cancer", and the doctor saying, "well take away the cancer then, problem solved" -- the Buddha was more helpful/detailed than that.
Also no because its "truth" depends on the definitions of various words, like "happiness", which are maybe just empty words.

I happen to think that short story is a good one, in a very Buddhist way, even if it is a very recent invention.  Even the quote was originally authored in English, and not translated from an authentic Sanskrit or Chinese text... and it probably wasn't.
It is important to note that most "Buddhist" sutras, even those describing conversations with the Buddha, are not actually historical, biographical records of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni.  Generally speaking, most sutras were written by monks centuries later, after coming out of a deep meditative trance.  The Mahayana texts are extremely obvious about this; but even with the Theravada texts, and even the Pali Canon itself, it is it not clear how much was authored directly by Shakyamuni and his contemporaries.
And that's okay.  The entire reason the Buddha taught was so that his disciples could meditate and achieve serenity and insight independently of Shakyamuni himself.
TLDR: Most historical Buddhist texts are "fake Buddha quotes" because that is the whole reason why Buddha founded the religion.


text:
Bundle of processes, constantly remaking ourselves using past materials
Retired Oxford Professor Richard Gombrich is an indologist and, scholar of Pali, Sanskrit and Buddhist Studies. He also founded the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.
He wrote in this biography:

I begin with a brief historical account of my early life, because I
  agree with the Buddha’s analysis that we are a bundle of processes,
  and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited
  from our past.

If we should summarize the Buddha's teaching with respect to the nature of our reality as beings, would this make an accurate summary?
If not, what would be a more accurate summary?

We are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

According to Mahayana this is more or less right, but only as a simplification. If you dig in-depth, you eventually reach the limits of description and hit Emptiness, as Nagarjuna loved to point out.
Buddha said that almost all dharmas (things, phenomena) are saṅkhāras (bundles, assemblies). Dharmas that are not sankharas include Nibbana, and, according to some schools, but not all, Akasa (sky or space) and stuff like that (e.g. Time). Buddha explained that saṅkhāra-dharmas emerge when causes and conditions "come together" (samudaya) in a certain configuration and disappear when one or more of the necessary causes or conditions goes out. This is the fundamental principle behind the key teachings like Anicca (impermanence), Anatta (as explained through inability to control anything), and therefore Dukkha (esp. because of unreliability). It is also the fundamental principle behind Second and Third Noble Truths, explaining that Dukkha is also a sankhara, emerging when certain causes come together, and therefore can be stopped and prevented (nirodha) by removing one of the necessary causes, namely Craving (tanha) for things to be different than they are. It is also the fundamental principle behind Buddha's liberation from death, which, too, considered a sankhara and is traced back to its causes, among which Buddha identifies birth as the key element we can use to stop/prevent death, and then on the next cycle, taking birth as sankhara and looking for its causes, Buddha finds identification and appropriation (bhava and upadana). Note that Buddha never said death has no other causes other than birth, it obviously does (such as a strike of knife) - but birth is the key element we can work with - and so on all the way to Ignorance. So as you can see, the bundle theory is at the very center of Buddha's teaching on Three Marks of Existence, Four Noble Truths, and Twelve Chain of D.O. - the core of the core of Dharma.
Now, if we expand this analysis to include Mahayana perspective, we could note the following:
When we say "We are the bundle of processes", what exactly does that mean? First of all, what is a "process"? My teacher explained that processes can be seen like chains of events, like a sequence of billiard balls pushing each other. This can be understood. The billiard balls keep pushing other balls until they all get in a certain configuration temporarily and this configuration is a person (or other dharma). However, are we saying that each dharma (e.g. a person) is literally a bundle (sankhara) of a specific number of precisely identifiable processes? How many processes are there then? Where are the boundaries of each process? Is it the same number of processes over one's lifetime or does it vary with time? As soon as we start asking these questions we must necessarily realize that these "processes" we are talking about, are themselves not concrete. They are just a manner of speech. The processes are approximate abstractions, conceptual simplifications for describing the infinitely forking and joining network of causes and conditions leading to emergence of phenomena.
In Mahayana, we say that all Dharmas are empty. We also say that so called "Hinayana" (which is not necessarily a name for Theravada, just a name for simplistic/superficial understanding of Buddha-Dharma, because indeed there are Theravada practitioners who clearly understand this stuff), we also say that so called "Hinayana"-level of understanding naively assumes that dharmas that e.g. people are made from are themselves concrete and real, that they exist in the ultimate sense. No, according to Mahayana, they are not. According to Mahayana all this talk about processes and dharmas is a useful simplification. Everything is a simplification. Once we go all the way, we reach the limits of description and see that final reality is unspeakable. We call this Emptiness.
So, to say "we are a bundle of processes" is more or less right as long as we understand the limits of the semantic context within which we are making this statement.
Now,

...and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past.

What is "every moment"? Is there such thing as a single moment? From the above it should be clear that the answer is No. The dimension of time is infinitely slicable into infinitely smaller pieces. There is nothing like single moment, because the duration of moment depends on the scale of observation, which depends on perspective.
Are we really remaking ourselves? Or are we maybe "being remade"? Who is the driving force here and are we really in control? According to Buddha, it is a combination of the forces of inertia (latent results of past action or karma) plus the force of choice and determination being made in the now. So we can't say that each of us literally remakes oneself in isolation from everything else. We are being made by our past and we make ourselves and each other with our choices.

Using the materials inherited from our past.

This sounds like "material" is something real and tangible that actually stays around, with things being made from combination of materials. This is not a Buddhist position, this is simple materialism. In Buddhist understanding, once you look close enough you see that so-called "material" is actually made of sankharas each of which is a just a focal point of interaction of other sankharas and so on. There is nothing tangible here, just interactions upon interactions. These interactions do not actually stay in the same place, they keep interacting, which is why things morph all the time, things get old, drift apart, and new things grow from them.
In Zen tradition this is well-explained by Dogen in his very important work "Time-Being".
So it's not like something tangible actually gets "inherited from the past". It's more like spreading and intersection of multiple waves - each next moment is a development - or unfolding - of the previous moment according to the rules of interaction. What's inherited from the past is form as well as force, the form of force, combination of energy and information.
Finally, see how it's saying "we are" and "our past"? That's identification and appropriation right there! Why is this stuff "we" and what makes that past "ours"?
Now, with all of the above, when you say "we are a bundle of processes, and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited from our past" - and while saying this you understand what Buddhism would mean by "bundle", "process", "moment", "remaking", "materials" and "inherited from the past" - as well as the limit of what's meant by "we" and "our" - then you can understand the picture that this phrase is trying to paint.

Great answer. I've seen 'dhamma' translated by some as 'thing-event', which seems a helpful way to do it and quite quantum mechanical.  .

From my very basic understanding it's true that there is a bundle of processes ie the skandhas but we are not them. I used to think that but have since learnt that it's not the case. The skandhas are the skandhas and not self.

Yes the word ''process'' is the newest fancy buzzword created by modern atheist philosophers, in order to avoid what they despise the most: being seen as what they are, ie still christian, having only swap God and soul for some Republic and their latest science of kinematics and Dynamics. They strive to clearly separate themselves from their roots of the christian scholars who were obsessed with a substance, essence, fixed entity, soul, from the middle ages after the theist christians revived the academia of the greeks and became obsessed with rationality and going to university in order to become a good rationalist...
Those atheist intellectuals are proud of themselves to have found a word not used by the theist intellectuals. According to them, everything is process, or an algorithm, or a computer, with an input taken by some black box outputting something.
Long time ago, those christian scholars claimed that only animals were machine, and the humans were special snowflake, because humans have a fixed essence like a soul, and of course, like any intellectual they ran into problem like ''how can the soul be afflicted by materiality'' . THen the atheist christians --- who still love to boast about how they ridiculed all the theist christian scholars,  thanks to they their worship of science --- claimed that ''animals are machine (just like before), but humans do not have soul, only humans are LIKE machine (but they are not)''
Today, those same atheist speculators claim that everybody and everything is a machine, a computer, a computation, an algorithm, a thing that has an input and an output.
 As usual with puthujjanas, generation after generation,  they are only good at creating idiotic world views.
For the word being, it is the same sotry. The word being is the meaningless word created by speculators long ago, and each generation of intellectual puthujjanas cannot resits from offering a ''definition'' of being and fantasizing what a being does or does not.
Fortunately, the buddha clarified this. The buddha famously claims that being only means craving or clinging.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html
So what's a being? it's craving.
What's  existence ? it's craving.
what's a ''sense of self'' (the puthujjanas who have created ''pragmatic dharma'' love to use this expression) ? it's craving.
Craving is meaningful. Any human knows what craving is. All the other words created by philosophers, like being or existence are meaningless.
So no craving  means no existence, no being, and no self.
To answer the question, it is okay to use whatever idiotic buzzwords philosophers create as long as you do not take it seriously.
It is not even false to ''view reality as a process'' like they say. But you cannot be wrong to keep using words indeed used in the sutta, meaning  ''Samudaya '', dukkha,  sankharas,  and ''nirodha''. Those   words are the only words which matter, over any word  created by speculators. Like bikkhu analayo says, the generic word used by the buddha is sankhara https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/encyclopedia-entries/sankhara.pdf
This is how to use those  words, once the citta sits in samadhi:

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the
  first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
  There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn
  from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first jhana:
  rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed
  thought and evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are
  connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and
  consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness,
  not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done
  so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is
  peace, this is exquisite - the resolution of all fabrications; the
  relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion;
  cessation; Unbinding.'
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.036.hare.pts.htm#p1

Today puthujjanas always ask ''How to combine samadhi with vipassana? I do no t understand please help''. Well that's how you do it: with right view and right intention, meaning rejecting whatever is conditioned, meaning dukkha, in order to get the ''resolution of all fabrications'', meaning nibanna  .

Richard Gombrich is not Sangha. The Buddha taught to take refuge in the Noble Sangha.
The quote above is self-view. Its not Buddha-Dhamma.
Also, in terms of ultimate truth, the Buddha never taught "we are beings".
"Beings" is also a self-view. Refer to SN 23.2. SN 15.10, SN 12.2 (jati), DN 1, etc.

If not, what would be a more accurate summary?
Richard Gombrich is concerned about the reality of processes.
The Buddha was concerned about the reality and ending of suffering.

After truly comprehending the noble truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path, I will completely make an end of suffering.’
  SN56.44

Richard Gombrich, in that brief quote, acknowledges the ephemerality of processes but completely misses the main point about suffering. Indeed, later in the document, Gombrich states:

Learning to meditate on an (often misconceived) idea that one has no self is a self-centered activity that I think likely to be self-defeating.

This is a very odd statement to make about Buddhism. Contrast that statement with what the Buddha actually says:

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

The Buddha is simply stating that what is observed is not self. That is a simple statement and one that can be verified individually.
Here is how the Buddha responded to "not self". He said nothing.

“Then does the self not exist absolutely?”
  But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.

And if the Buddha said nothing, then where did Gombrich come up with his view?


text:
Is all lying considered to be 'unwholesome'?
Suppose I tell a lie in order to protect others or to protect myself; is it still considered to be 'unwholesome'?
Or let's take the common example of a person who isn't really moral; is it okay to inform friends/colleagues of this aspects, or is it unkind to the person?

Possible duplicate of Should a person never lie?

Sutta. Ma. Ma. cūḷarāhulovādasuttaṃ:

"In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.'

The four noble truth is the opposite of lying.
It's a reason that I super trust in Pali Canons because the Noble Ones can't lie at all situations.
Although I am an ordinary, I can the witness that it is possible to speak the truth in all situations because I never lie through 12 years in Buddhism. It depends on personnal management. Actually, there has not only the lie method, so the practitioner should practice the other methods instead of the lie.
However, the noble one has at least three methods to manage the unsecured situation by the murder, etc.

Running away.
Asking the evaded question to let the listeners think of the answer by themselves. See Dha.A.4 sahassavaggavaṇṇanā Tambadathikacoraghatakavatthu.
Mute. or sacrifice his life to keep the truth. It's just mute until the murder tortures or kills the noble one. See Dha.A.5 pāpavaggavaṇṇanā Maṇikārakulupakatissattheravatthu.

The ordinary thinks lying is the only way, but the noble one thinks there are many ways instead of the lying to manage the unsecured situation.
Additional
In Khuddaka.A. (paramatthajo.) Sikkhāpadavaṇṇanā:
How is big of the fault from the lie?

In immoral animals, e.g. ant and chimpanzee,  lie the small body is lesser fault than bigger because of it's required more effort to lie if both animals can understand the lie.
In moral animals, e.g. human and god, lie the lower wholesome skill is lesser fault than higher.
In the animal which has the same body and wholesome skill, lie the higher passion is more fault than the lower.

All Ariyas Can't Lie
In Sutta. Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto Āpattibhayavaggo VoharaSutta:

250. Expressions (1st)
250. Paṭhamavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions (the noble one doesn't express).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, asute sutavāditā, amute mutavāditā, aviññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
251. Expressions (2nd)
251. Dutiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions. (the noble one expresses).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, asute asutavāditā, amute amutavāditā, aviññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.
252. Expressions (3rd)
252. Tatiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, sute asutavāditā, mute amutavāditā, viññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
253. Expressions (4th)
253. Catutthavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, sute sutavāditā, mute mutavāditā, viññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.

I remember that during a dhamma talk of the Buddhist monk, peace activist, writer and teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, he mentioned this subject. He said that If a person is trying to find a person to kill him/her and asks you the place of this person, don't tell the truth. My opinion is this is not the "lying" that harms the humanity, this is saving a person's life from an evil being. It's actually a very wholesome action. Also informing other people about the truth of an evil person is not an evil deed either.
Lying is a widespread habit of the vast majority of humans in modern times and it is really a destructive habit. Lying actually makes a human more prone to doing evil deeds, harming others and unable to feel guilty which can be the only thing for an ordinary person that stop them doing evil deeds. Lying also make a person unable to meditate properly and it make the spirituality more difficult. So "do not lie" precept of Buddhism is very important like the other precepts. But we must become free from the limited interpretations of the Buddhist principles.
Note: But for most people lying serves the selfish/egotistical purposes which is not cool. That's why people must take the lying precept seriously-except when the exceptional life experiences happens- like "saving other beings lives" ofcourse.

Yes it is like killing. People say killing means having the intention to kill and killing, but if you kill without wanting to kill, then the karma of the killing is not bad.
They say the same thing about lying: if you want to lie and you lie, then the karma of lying is bad, but if  you lie without planning to lie, then the karma of lying is not bad.
THey say all those stuff about intention and action are illustrate by the degrees of wrong-doing in the vianaya.
You must read the vinaya to know more about that https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html#pc-part1
https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0016.html
THen there are people who completely fail to understand karma and who like this loophole and go even further. They claim that: when you kill, and want  kill, but you imagine that your killing is a good thing, the karma of the killing is not bad.
Same with lying: if you lie, and want to lie, but you create the fantasy that you are good person for lying, then the karma of the lie will not be bad.
At the end of the day, there is nothing good about killing and lying, whether they are intentional or not. But having the intention of killing or lying is way worse than killing or lying without wanting too. THe easiest way to avoid killing and lying is through the lack of wanting to kill and lie, so typically by respecting the 5 or 8 precepts, and this is done by ''being mindful'' so sati sampajana.

Not lying and certain duty to inform others are two things.
It's probably not required to speak and it's also something to think about why taking side in cases, if even taking side for other and not hidden wished punishment.
As in regard of speaking what is not trye, good to follow Nachtflug, and in regard of not only Sila but kamma, one should not forget the third door of action, mind, that with most personal impact: wishing, agree, rejoice... with a hurtful deed is the "same" as giving signs to be done or doing it by one self. So for example wishing, out of certain aversion: "ohh, may my friend get known the bad of him, I have traced, so that they will not find together".
On the other side, if actually a case, one has the possibility to do, will not hurt himself by it, it's not wrong to report of what has been seen or heard personally and ideas should be told as "personal ideas" and not for sure. So one should be very careful in regard of telling something about others and speak only that of what is really witnessed, occation and circumstances, letting others make their own proves, not taking side or force.
[Note: this gift of Dhamma is not thought for gain, exchange, stackes or other trades for the world and should possible be removed if the space is not given for liberating purpose]

What does this mean "good to follow Nachtflug"?

The following sutta quote may be straightforward and helpful.
From Itivuttaka 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
  there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
  telling a deliberate lie."
The person who lies,
  who transgress in this one thing,
  transcending concern for the world beyond:
  there's no evil
  he might not do.

I found this quote a little bit too extrem. Even if I lie, it doesn't follow that I would, for example, kill someone (an evil)

Maybe the point is that if you're willing to manipulate the "truth" in your favor without caring for the possible consequences, then that maybe the gateway to any possible unethical deed. Kind regards!


text:
Mindfulness question
When practicing mindfulness and labelling for example if I'm making my bed can I note "making bed" or of I'm driving note "driving" or is it meant to be more specific? Because a lot of the time I can't think what it is I'm doing. Seems to be too many things at once so I end up thinking too hard about what I'm doing kind of thing.

I quote from "Chapter Six: Daily Life" of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's online book "How to Meditate":

Once one has put aside activities that interfere with clarity of mind,
  one can begin to incorporate meditative awareness into ordinary life.
  There are two ways in which one can meditate on ordinary experience,
  and they should be practiced together, as follows.
The first method is to focus one’s attention on the body, since it is
  the most clearly evident aspect of experience. As in formal
  meditation, the body is always available for observation, and thus
  serves as a convenient means of creating clear awareness of reality in
  daily life. Since the body is generally in one of four postures –
  walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one can simply become aware
  of one’s posture as a meditation object to bring about clarity of
  mind.
When walking, for example, one can note either “walking, walking,
  walking, walking” or “left, right, left, right” as one moves each
  foot. When standing still, one can focus on the standing position and
  note “standing, standing”; when sitting, “sitting, sitting” and when
  lying down, “lying, lying”. In this way, one can develop clarity of
  mind at any time even when not practicing formal meditation.
Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
  body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
  “bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
  turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
  practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
  chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
  swallowing” and so on.
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.
The second method is the acknowledgement of the senses – seeing,
  hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Ordinary sensory experience
  tends to give rise to either liking or disliking; it therefore becomes
  a cause for addiction or aversion and ultimately suffering when it is
  not in line with one’s partialities. In order to keep the mind clear
  and impartial, one should always try to create clear awareness at the
  moment of sensory experience, rather than allowing the mind to judge
  the experience according to its habitual tendencies. When seeing,
  therefore, one should know it simply as seeing, reminding oneself
  “seeing, seeing”.
When hearing a sound, one should likewise note “hearing, hearing”.
  When smelling pleasant or unpleasant odours, “smelling, smelling”.
  When tasting food or drink, instead of becoming addicted to or
  repulsed by the taste, one should note “tasting, tasting”. When
  feelings arise in the body, hot or cold, hard or soft, and so on, one
  should note “feeling, feeling” or “hot”, “cold”, and so on.
Practicing in this way, one will be able to receive the full spectrum
  of experience without compartmentalizing reality into categories of
  “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, “us”, “them”, and so on. As a result,
  true peace, happiness and freedom from suffering is possible at all
  times, in all situations. Once one understands the true nature of
  reality, the mind will cease to react to the objects of the sense as
  other than what they truly are and be free from all addiction and
  aversion, just as a flying bird is free from any need for a perch on
  which to cling.
This then is a basic guide to practice meditation in daily life,
  incorporating the meditation practice directly into one’s life even
  when not formally meditating. Beyond these two methods, one can also
  apply any of the objects discussed in the first chapter – pain,
  thoughts, or the emotions. The techniques discussed in this chapter
  should be thought of as an additional means of making the meditation
  practice a continuous experience whereby one is learning about oneself
  and about reality at all times.

When we read about Buddhism in books, we may hear an idea, such as "mindfulness", but because we don't know how it works, we may start doing something without really understanding what we're doing and why. All beginners are prone to this, I did this too. Everyone goes through this.
The goal of mindfulness is not to become super-mega-aware. Paying deliberate attention to things will not give you mental superpowers. The goal of mindfulness is to change one's sloppy habits that are connected with weak, negative, lustful, aggressive, egoistic, self-beating, and other pathological mindstates. So basically, the idea of mindfulness is, instead of acting impulsively like an untrained puppy,  we try to pay attention to what we are doing and act like the Buddha, with wisdom and grace - including physical, verbal, and mental acts. That's the point.
Now, sometimes labeling is taught as part of meditation. Here is why. When teachers explain meditation to beginner-level students, they start with something very simple. For example they say, "try counting your breaths on fingers and see how long you can go without getting distracted". Or they would say, "try labeling things that happen in your subjective experience". Stuff like that.
It does not mean that counting breath or labeling stuff is meditation. It is just the simplest way for teachers to turn the student's direction into phenomenological mode - so they can start looking at their experience as subjective experience, and not at its objective content.
The purpose of meditation is the same as the purpose of Buddhist practice in general (SN 49.1):

non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen.

On beginner level we should focus on removing the coarse "unskillful qualities" and generating coarse "skillful qualities" using coarse methods, and as we get better we proceed to more and more subtle stuff.
So in the very-very beginning you can start with simple tricks like counting breath and labeling things. But as soon as you got the point, you should move to "real" meditation, which is what I quoted above.
No need to label things. Just notice your state of mind. Notice your thoughts and emotions and try to see which of them are "skillful" (good, healthy, useful) and which are "unskillful" (useless, sick, pathological). Practice like this for a while, stopping the bad and generating the good.
Then on next level, look at these very thoughts that are looking at your thoughts and are deciding whether they are good or bad. See which of these second-level thoughts are healthy and which are sick. Fix whatever is wrong.
Keep going up like this as it gets more and more subtle. Then at some point very-very far down the road all unhealthy mindstates are solved and the only issue that's left is this habit of categorizing mindstates as good vs. bad and constantly trying to improve it. Then you abandon even this habit, and since everything else is solved already, that's how you reach Nirvana. This is the proper gradual approach to meditation. Same exact approach applies to your practice in post-meditation and to mindfulness.
No need to try and notice everything and label everything. That's impossible. Focus on whatever is the biggest (most obvious, most coarse) problem at any given time. Solve them one at a time.

Labeling things is just a reminder. When you label things or what you are doing, your attention directly and naturally goes to the thing that you label. For example you say "walking" attention directly goes to the feet and the movement of walking. If the attention doesn't go there then you can easily train yourself to develop that habit. There is actually an Arahant who teaches this method so this method certainly effective and works. But what the meditation teachers generally doesn't say is that at some point you must completely let go of any methods and stop the effort mode in mindfulness

But the meditator generally doesn't reach that level quickly unless the meditator is doing intensive meditation for long periods of time. So I think labeling can be very helpful for everyone until they reach to that advanced level.

In my opinion, labeling is very dangerous when you practice it for too long. It fixates your mind on the simplistic concepts, instead of paying full attention to the (ineffable) real experience in all its infinite nuances and complexity. If you understand that it's only a reminder, that's fine. But people take it too seriously as this guy who asked the question, and try to label everything. Then they start asking, how specific should the labels be? See what I mean? It leads one down the wrong path of conceptual proliferation.

I think the only way to understand the "spiritual" things is to experience it.  I started my path after reading Eckhart Tolle's books and I didn't use labeling for many years.  And it helped me a lot. Then I used labeling and did meditation for long periods of time and did mindfulness practise in daily life with labeling that also helped me a lot. I respect everyone's opinion in this subject but I think experience is the only way to understand the root of the spiritual things. But I think that If anyone has a doubt about it then he/she musn't use it.

I think the main problem in mindfulness is that people do daily meditation for half an hour or an hour or even many hours, but then completely go to the ordinary way of living. The modern life's requirements also leads people to this negligence but people can at least do mini meditations when they find free time in their daily life. Or just being mindful when they are walking to the shop, driving the car or washing the hand can make a big difference. If anyone isn't doing these things no matter what methods they are using the positive results will not come very soon.

Even Eckhart Tolle said: "When you teach children, don't tell them 'it's a tree' - tell them 'this is called a tree'. Make sure they don't lose reality behind concepts".

But again, ıf anyone has a doubt about the method he or she mustn't use it. You have certainly good intentions because you think that this method can lead people to the wrong direction(conceptualisation). I am not really fan of any methods and I think that at some point we must learn the "being" rather than doing". These were just an opinion of a person who lives in a complete Non-Spiritual environment but has the desire to be a monk in a Buddhist country in the future :) Have a nice afternoon(or evening) there :)

The specified topic "making bed", is for checking the current situation of the practitioner. The practitioner specifies the current situation to analysis it and to look for the proper solutions that matched with the topic.
What are the proper solutions for the making bed practitioner?

Realize the current situation, making bed, state.
Finish the making bed event in time.
Realize the schedule of events.
Concentrate the breath to avoid the unwholesome events, out of the necessary and wholesome event on the schedule.

When the practitioner practices the above analysis proficiently, whole processes above are going to run automatically in time without any conflict.
Above is just the example event and solutions. The practitioner can find more solution in  The path of purification Chapter 1,2,3,4, and 8, MN. MahāsatipaṭṭhānaSutta's Commentary.
If the practitioner doesn't want to use so much time to study the text above, the attained-jhāna Tipiṭaka Memorizer teacher, who is Ariya, is required because he can make the specific course syllabus for each practitioner in his head. By this way, the practitioner doesn't study the Pāli by himself.

I think it is better to use simple and short words. Like doing, eating, swallowing, walking, sitting, seeing, hearing, tasting, drinking, feeling, driving, putting, holding, making, pain, joy, calm etc.. If you forget to note time to time, or have confusion of what you're doing, or what to call to what you're doing that's a very normal thing and don't think that something is wrong in the practise. Noting is an effective technique of mindfulness that keep you move forward quickly.
Like Andrei Volkov mentioned in another topic, mindfulness will become spontaneous when you move forward in the Buddhist path. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26254
There are many gifts in keeping the mindfulness practise with effort and skillness. One of that gifts is spontaneity. So the mindfulness techniques(which are tools) that we use to get that gift can be different. But they all lead us to the same place.

You keep claiming that mindfulness has something to do with labeling. That's incorrect.
Even though you don't like the suttas, here is quote from a sutta showing what sati and sampajana means:

“And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu mindful? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
  dwells contemplating the body in the body … feelings in feelings …
  mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending,
  mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the
  world. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu is mindful.
“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.
  https://suttacentral.net/sn47.35/en/bodhi

if you do something else than that, you are not good at sati sampjana.

Removed harsh language, on another user's request.

The Buddhist practices that I have learnt which are in alignment with Mahasi Sayadaws teachings, Thai forest, and also western teachers such as Joseph Goldstein, Jack kornfield etc all teach labelling/noting. So not sure why you're claiming it to be incorrect. I'm not here to argue about who's right and who's wrong. Just how to do what I'm doing already better. There are many sects amongst modern religions all claiming different things and all claiming only their way is correct. I prefer to follow my intuition and what resonates with me and that is what I'm continuing to do.


text:
Is there an equivalent of "Dokkaebi" in Buddhism?
The Dokkaebi are legendary creatures present in Korean mythology. Notably described as having supernatural abilities used to interact with humans. They often play tricks on or help humans and are described to be "impish" or goblin-like.
They possess an "awe-inspiring" or "fearful" appearance as well as the ownership of indescribably magical objects.
Are there any parallels of creatures that fit these descriptions in Buddhism?

What you describe fits yakkha (Pali) or yaksha (Sanskrit). You can find more info on this on the Wikipedia page on Yaksha where it says:

Yaksha (Sanskrit: यक्ष yakṣa, Kannada: ಯಕ್ಷ yakṣa, Tamil: யகன் yakan,
  இயக்கன் iyakan, Odia: ଯକ୍ଷ jôkhyô, Pali: yakkha) are a broad class
  of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, but sometimes mischievous or
  capricious, connected with water, fertility, trees, the forest,
  treasure and wilderness. They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist
  texts, as well as ancient and medieval era temples of South Asia and
  Southeast Asia as guardian deities. The feminine form of the word is
  yakṣī or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).
In Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist texts, the yakṣa has a dual personality.
  On the one hand, a yakṣa may be an inoffensive nature-fairy,
  associated with woods and mountains; but there is also a darker
  version of the yakṣa, which is a kind of ghost (bhuta) that haunts the
  wilderness and waylays and devours travelers, similar to the rakṣasas.

The story in Udana 4.4 describes an act of mischief committed by a yakkha:

A third time, the first yakkha said to the second, "I'm inspired to
  give this contemplative a blow on the head."
A third time, the second yakkha said to the first, "Enough of that, my
  good friend. Don't lay a hand on the contemplative. He's an
  outstanding contemplative, of great power & great might."
Then the first yakkha, ignoring the second yakkha, gave Ven. Sāriputta
  a blow on the head. And with that blow he might have knocked over an
  elephant seven or eight cubits tall, or split a great rocky crag. But
  right there the yakkha — yelling, "I'm burning!" — fell into the Great
  Hell.
Now, Ven. Moggallāna — with his divine eye, pure and surpassing the
  human — saw the yakkha give Ven. Sāriputta a blow on the head. Seeing
  this, he went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, said to him, "I hope
  you are well, friend Sāriputta. I hope you are comfortable. I hope you
  are feeling no pain."
"I am well, friend Moggallāna. I am comfortable. But I do have a
  slight headache."

However, in SN 10.8, a yakkha tried to be helpful to the Buddha's lay disciple Anathapindika:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Rajagaha in the Cool Grove. Now at that time Anathapindika the
  householder had arrived in Rajagaha on some business. He heard, "An
  Awakened One, they say, has appeared in the world," and he wanted to
  go right then to see the Blessed One. Then the thought occurred to
  him, "Today is not the proper time to go to see the Blessed One.
  Tomorrow I will go to see the Blessed One at the proper time." With
  his mindfulness immersed in the Awakened One he lay down to sleep.
  Three times he got up during the night, thinking it was light. Then he
  went to the gate to the charnel ground. Non-human beings opened the
  gate.
When Anathapindika the householder had left the city, the light
  vanished and darkness appeared. Fear, terror, & horripilation arose,
  and because of that he wanted to turn back. Then Sivaka the
  yakkha-spirit, invisible, proclaimed:

A hundred elephants,
    a hundred horses,
    a hundred mule-drawn carts,
    a hundred-thousand maidens
    adorned with jewels & earrings
    aren't worth one-sixteenth
    of one step forward.
Go forward, householder!
    Go forward, householder!
    Going forward is better for you,
    not back!

The darkness then vanished for Anathapindika and the light appeared.
  The fear, terror, & horripilation he had felt subsided.

According to the buddhism having supernatural powers is a matter of mind level. So any of the creatures including human, deva(god) or yakka can have powerful minds which has the ability to do things that normal people cannot. Additionally deva and yakka can have creatures with supernatural physical abilities based on their previous karma.


text:
I'm looking for the translation of the Dharmaskanda Sutra
Where can I get the English translation of the Dharmaskanda Sutra or at least the original text?

Are you sure with the name of the sutra.

Yes, it's Dharmaskanda or Dharmaskandha.

Do you mean the Dharma-skanda-shastra? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaskandha

If you're referring to the Abhidharmadharmaskandhapādaśāstra, the Sanskrit fragments have been discussed in English in J. Takasaki, Remarks on the Sanskrit Fragments of the Abhidharmadharmaskandhapādaśāstra. JIBS 13,1 (1965) 411-403 <33-41>.


text:
Irritation due to breathing noises in dojo
This might seem a silly question, but unfortunately I am extremely oversensitive to human noises. I don't mind meditation with the noise of traffic, or a thunderstorm, or the monotonous drone of a ventilator. But when I am trying to do za-zen in a dojo with other people and I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood. Basically, I stop the meditation and just start thinking about my work or something, to stop noticing the noise. I know this is wrong, and somehow I should make the noise, the other person's breathing and my own irritation part of the meditation: observe my irritation and meanwhile keep getting back to my own respiration, but I wonder whether there is some advice, some trick, to make this easier. I know I am my own biggest enemy here, but it's a problem that keeps on occurring and it's hard for me to get out of this trap.

I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood.
You are quite fortunate to have these kind souls gently show you the rough spots in your meditation. If you were alone, steeped in quiet, there would be no such disturbance. If there is suffering somewhere, it is attached to delight (MN1). For example, if one delights in quietness, seeking refuge from chaos on the cushion, then such disturbances would irritate. It would irritate especially if there is a sense of "my meditation" and "their noise". This is identity view and SN22.155 says:

But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would identity view arise?”
  “No, sir.”

Breathing noises come and go. In and out. They are not permanent. Instead of thinking "that person keeps breathing loudly!", simply think "There is an in-breath." Later, notice that "There is an out-breath".  In doing so, the impermanence manifests. Seeing the impermanence, the next step is to recognize that it really has nothing to do with you:

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

Knowing that this is not your self, simply count your own breath and return to that peace you thought threatened. It's not just your peace, it's also their peace. They, over there, are hearing your own breathing. Give them the gift of peace by gently attending to your own breath.

Yes the buddha even claims that noise is thorn to set the citta into samadhi, like here http://www.leighb.com/an10_72.htm
As usual, irritations stem from clinging. this is why ajhan brahm  says to rely on wisdom power in order to set the citta into samadhi, instead of will power. In other words,  being kind to what is experienced, even the most toxic thoughts, and pushing away bad thoughts in order to avoid having a toxic mind, like here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aHSE3H2OCs
This is because to set the citta into samadhi, mano must have piti and the body must be tranquil. like here from the famous sutta

For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

THis is accomplished through sati sampajana. Indeed, becoming mindful means tracking and sorting the thoughts according to what the buddha claims are good thoughts and to destroy bad thoughts, same thing with vedanas and sannas, like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
With mindfulness, meaning sati sampajana, the mano becomes so much full of sammasankappa [=avoiding desire and ill will], that the Nīvaranas [=5 hindrances] are contained,  that piti arises and then the citta sits in samadhi, where the hindrances are suspended.
Of course the puthujjanas who despise Nekkhamma will never have sati, let alone set the citta into samadhi. THose people prefer to create a fairy tale where they see themselves as good people, even though all they do is stay addicted to sensuality, as explained,

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
  renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will,
  abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that
  thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
  imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness,
  his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.


text:
Sanskrit and Pali roots
What is the Best , online Sanskrit-English dictionary. I want to do research on the early root meanings and usage of certain Buddhist words in early India. Say 5,000 years ago, or at least, 3,000 years ago.

I like http://spokensanskrit.org/

Personally, the relatively few times I have examined Sanskrit, I have found it more useful than the Pali dictionaries. It is important to be aware Buddhism became totally corrupted in India in its attempt probably under King Ashoka to convert India to Buddhism. Straightforward words such as "jati" ("social identity") were changed by the later Buddhists to mean "physical birth"; which, from a Sanskrit perspective, is ridiculous. This ridiculousness was then exported to non-Indian lands, such as Sri Lanka, Burma & Thailand. The Pali dictionaries were far more superstitious than the Sanskrit I have examined. Fortunately, the Dhamma is preserved due to the excellence of the Buddha's teachings. Words are understood in their contextual use (rather than from the Pali dictionaries).

"...therefore, to make this more of an answer than a rant, here's a link to my favorite online Sanskrit-English dictionary:"

The "jati" link in the answer is a reference to http://spokensanskrit.org

Although this is not a Sanskrit or Pali dictionary per se, wisdomlib.org is pretty useful.
For e.g. from the wisdomlib.org pages on jati, karma and dharma, you can find details on those terms, as related to Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and in other contexts.
It also quotes from multiple sources, including Sanskrit and Pali dictionaries.


text:
How many pieces of paper are there?
I read the following article about the fullness of emptiness and this statement stuck out to me:

...when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our
  perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also, so we can say that
  everything is in here in this sheet of paper.

Now, the question is: prior to my perception of the paper, was it the same sheet of paper?
Based on the article, my answer would be no. I would expound on that with the following thoughts:

prior to my perception of it, a paper exists that does not have my
perception of it as an aggregate, paper #1
after my perception of the paper, a new paper came to exist consisting of all of the aggregates of paper #1 plus my own perception, resulting in paper #2

Conclusion: there are two distinct, co-existing pieces of paper. Thoughts?

The Buddha taught about suffering and its escape. Is there a way you might reword this question so that it can be discussed in the context of suffering? For example, we might regard a piece of paper with a neutral feeling, but then the discussion and answer get quite abstract and possibly not useful. The article you mentioned is about emptiness, not really paper.

In order to escape suffering, one must understand the interconnectness of all things, correct? This question is an attempt to understand the point being made in the article about the aggregates of the paper. This understanding could then extend to my neighbor, my children and countless other things.

A physicist can wave their hands and say the universe is a single huge wave function. That won't help with suffering. Both paper#1 and paper#2 are part of the grasping aggregates. To be done with the grasping aggregates and suffering, just be a good neighbor and father and be gently mindful with the countless other things.

@Stanley According to the Theravada tradition, interconnectness was not part of the essential teachings of the Buddha, probably because it didn't led to the end of suffering. Remember that the Buddha was not a philosopher, but an errant/renunciant ascetic part of a living tradition of people who sought for practical liberation, not mere intellectual dvelopment. The closest thing to interconnectness related to suffering is Dependent Origination, which is the chain of events that leads to the arising of Dukkha.

Hi @BrianDíazFlores. Interesting. I was under the impression that once one understood interdependence, it would lead to the end of suffering (thought I didn't understand how it practically could). Is it oversimplifying things to say that the Buddha taught that if you understand the chain of events that cause you suffer, you can learn to avoid them?

@Stanley Hi! I share to you the wonderful answer given by Dhammadhatu to some related question. I hope it can be useful to you. Kind regard! https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28519/13694

There is no paper ;)
Through knowledge we can see the rain, air, forest, lumberjack, the paper mill and its employees in paper. Through wisdom we can see ourselves in paper, because it is only through the lens of our minds that "paper" can be seen at all. Although it is the case that "paper" does not exist separately from our minds, this does not mean that our minds produce "paper". For paper is emptiness, and emptiness is paper. Paper is none other than emptiness, and emptiness is none other than paper.
The paper that exists in your mind is not the paper that exists on your desk. Just like the nose that exists on your face is not the nose that exists in your mind. These concepts that exist in your mind are loosely linked to objects that exist in the material world, but these concepts and their associations are nothing but emptiness.
Due to causes and conditions "paper" has manifested on your desk. Through those  conditions and others, the awareness of paper has arisen in your mind, and from this the discernment "there is paper" arises. But these dharmas are emptiness just as the causes and conditions from which they arose are emptiness. "Arising" is emptiness, and "emptiness" is also empty. None of these things are paper nor any other independent substance.
FYI that article is an excerpt from Thich Nhat Hahn's translation/commentary on the Heart Sutra titled "The Other Shore". Master Hahn's teachings seem to be targeted at a generally materialistic western audience. I still believe that they are excellent and beneficial, but I think that it is also important to be aware that he will blur the lines between the material and immaterial to make it easier for this audience to grasp.
Take care,
Nolan

Could we not also see through knowledge that there is no rain, air, forest, lumberjack, or paper mill and that it is only through the lens of our minds that any of these can be seen? If this is the case, then could we also make the argument that the material world itself is the result of our mind? This changes the whole idea of emptiness for me. I would say, all things are empty without a mind to "make a objects" out of all of the "non-object elements".

In my understanding, when phrased this way, this is a half-truth. It is extremely likely that the material world does exist, and it is the simplest explanation for all of the things that our minds come into contact with over the course of our lives. However, we as human beings are prone to recklessly-and worse, implicitly-assigning meaning to the material world that it does not inherently possess.
We assume permanence where there is impermanence. We assume happiness where there is suffering. We assume a self where there is no self. We assume that there are things that are mine and things that are yours, where there is only matter.
I wouldn't say that our minds produce the material world, but that our minds produce an immaterial world (full of those erroneous views) that we often implicitly assume is equivalent to the material world. It is this immaterial world that, in my understanding, is empty.
When you realize this emptiness, then you realize that these empty dharmas have no weight. When you recognize their lightness, then you realize that you can brush them round as easily as dust on a table. You can pile up the dharmas that bring joy, and brush away the dharmas that bring suffering.

Hi @Nolan Luckett, thanks for the response. could we not also see through knowledge that there is no rain, air, forest, lumberjack, or paper mill and that it is only through the lens of our minds that any of these can be seen? If this is the case, then could we also make the argument that the material world itself is the result of our mind? This changes the whole idea of emptiness for me. I would say, all things are empty without a mind to "make a objects" out of all of the "non-object elements". Thoughts?

Hello @Stanley, I've added my response to my answer.

I guess according to your definition, the "two" are not "co-existing" -- because one is "before" and the other is "after", so they're not at the same time.
I think that, conventionally, people would say that there's one piece of paper -- no matter how many people are thinking about it, nor whether anyone is looking at it and when.
The article says something poetic, about the cloud existing in the paper. Perhaps that implies that the paper-on-the-table and the paper-in-the mind are the same piece of paper too ... or that they "inter-are".

The bit of the article that stands out for me, is ...

If we ask, “Empty of what?” he has to answer. And this is what he said: “They are empty of a separate self.” That means none of these five rivers can exist by itself alone.

I think that the anatta doctrine is something like, "There isn't a 'myself' that's independent of other things, e.g. of the shandhas."
And Thich Nhat Hanh explains that the sunyata doctrine means that, for each skandha, "There isn't an 'itself' that's independent of other skandhas." (I assume that means that pereption depends on form and vice versa, and so on).
Also interesting to note that the paper is composed entirely of non-paper elements (e.g. minerals, human labour, sunlight).
Anyway, he's saying what the sutta means when it says that "form is empty".
Also, which is less clear, "because of emptiness, form exists" (I say "less clear" but perhaps that's a classic example of taoism -- also it quotes Nagarjuna's saying, "Thanks to emptiness, everything is possible", so I suppose Nagarjuna explains that too somehow).
The bit at he end of the article, about the leaf and the tree, is quite nice too: reassuring, tender.
He seems to be taking the opposite strategy towards self-identification than I'd expect -- not saying "I am not" but saying, "I am everything -- mother, cloud, leaf".
May he be well. :-)

Hi @ChrisW, would be correct to say: "everything is empty, but the mind seeks to create forms?" After all, without the mind, the physical world cannot be experienced at all. The material world itself is a collection of forms presented to us by the mind. Thoughts?

I think that's the kind of thing that the doctrine of the 12 nidanas tries to describe. I guess it's that things (forms, objects, lights, smells) interact with sense-organs, thus sense-objects, with which the mind makes contact, and which then tries to perceive them e.g. by relating them to previously-stored sankharas (though I think that's an approximation).

Your question seems to be rather scientific than spiritual which reminds me the "Observer effect" in Quantum mechanics. Since this is a forum about Buddhism, we should find an answer for your question from the doctrine.
The author of the article discussed a deep concept of emptiness in simplified words. In the article it has mentioned that how Ven. Thích Nhất Hạnh explains the emptiness in a different perspective, by seeing fullness in every dhamma. The author may not be aware of the questions you've raised but rather added the quoted part to emphasize the idea of fullness which can be seen in the paper.
Your conclusion,

There are two distinct, co-existing pieces of paper. Thoughts?

may be correct according to the Sarvāstivāda school of buddhism. Sarvāstivādin hold the idea of all exists (sarvām asti). According to Sarvāstivāda, there are unlimited number of co-existing papers of past, present and future.
If I answer your questions from a Theravāda perspectve:

Prior to my perception of the paper, was it the same sheet of paper?

The answer is NO.
By seeing my answer you may ask,

Then, was it another paper prior to my perception?

The answer for that question is also NO.
Let me explain this. There's no paper we can find in reality. Paper is a conventional thing which is known to our consciousness. In ultimate truth, we can only find 8 basic elements of matter (Rūpa) in the paper. There's no such thing called "paper" other than these 8 rūpa (Pathavi, Apo, Tejo, Vayo, Vanna, Gandha, Rasa, Oja). These are called "Suddhastaka".
These bundle of rūpa arise (uppada), exist (titi), and then cease (bhanga) rapidly. Then new bundle of rūpa similar to previous bundle of rūpa arise, exist, and cease at the same place or nearby. Speaking conventionally, we can say paper arise, exist, and cease rapidly. By considering the continuance we can say, the new paper belongs to the same stream of rūpa. But it's not the same paper which has already ceased.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

The article introduces three types of dependencies.
The first is causal dependency:

Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot
  grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential
  for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper
  cannot be here either. We can say that the cloud and the paper
  inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet,
  but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we have a
  new verb, “inter-be.”
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the
  sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow.
  In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. So we
  know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and
  the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the
  logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed
  into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist
  without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread
  is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are
  in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these
  things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.

The second is compositional dependency:

In our bodies we have lungs, heart, kidneys, stomach, and blood. None
  of these can exist independently. They can only coexist with the
  others. Your lungs and your blood are two things, but neither can
  exist separately. The lungs take in air and enrich the blood, and, in
  turn, the blood nourishes the lungs. Without the blood, the lungs
  cannot be alive, and without the lungs, the blood cannot be cleansed.
  Lungs and blood inter-are. The same is true with kidneys and blood,
  kidneys and stomach, lungs and heart, blood and heart, and so on.

The third is conceptual dependency:

Looking even more deeply, we can see we are in it too. This is not
  difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet
  of paper is part of our perception.

The concept of the paper in our minds depends on our perception of the paper through our senses. In this way, the mental concept of the paper depends on the perception of the paper.
Next, the article introduces the Mahayana concept of emptiness and self:

If we ask, “Empty of what?” he has to answer. And this is what he
  said: “They are empty of a separate self.” That means none of these
  five rivers can exist by itself alone. Each of the five rivers has to
  be made by the other four. It has to coexist; it has to inter-be with
  all the others.
In our bodies we have lungs, heart, kidneys, stomach, and blood. None
  of these can exist independently. They can only coexist with the
  others. Your lungs and your blood are two things, but neither can
  exist separately. The lungs take in air and enrich the blood, and, in
  turn, the blood nourishes the lungs. Without the blood, the lungs
  cannot be alive, and without the lungs, the blood cannot be cleansed.
  Lungs and blood inter-are. The same is true with kidneys and blood,
  kidneys and stomach, lungs and heart, blood and heart, and so on.
When Avalokita says that our sheet of paper is empty, he means it is
  empty of a separate, independent existence. It cannot just be by
  itself. It has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud, the forest,
  the logger, the mind, and everything else. It is empty of a separate
  self.

The Mahayana self refers to the self of things, not self of persons. That means, the separate existence of a thing. And the Mahayana emptiness means everything is empty of a self, meaning everything is empty of a separate existence of a thing. And why is this the case? This is because everything is subject to the three types of dependencies - causal, compositional and conceptual dependencies. Nothing can exist independent of each other.
How did things come to have a self? That is, how did things come to have separate existence? How did a single piece of paper become objectified and classified into a single piece of paper?
That happened in our mind. It's called reification or objectification-classification or papanca in Pali or prapanca in Sanskrit. We objectify and classify things relative to our self i.e. into things which are self and non-self, things which are related or unrelated to our self, things which are a threat or which profit ourselves etc. A single piece of paper is a single piece of paper because a human observer said so.
If a tiny ant walks on a piece of paper, it might classify the paper differently compared to how a human does it. A snail might look at a piece of paper and classify it as a type of food it can eat.
So, how many pieces of paper are there? Well, that depends on you.
You might also find this question interesting, where I try to link Mahayana emptiness to Theravada emptiness, through papanca.


text:
Where does it say 'You Are Already Enlightened'?
I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it.
Many thanks as always

original enlightenment doctrine

It's a basic Mahayana doctrine, important in other schools as well as Zen.

Hongaku is an East Asian Buddhist doctrine often translated as
  "inherent", "innate", "intrinsic" or "original" enlightenment... It is
  first mentioned in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku
Wikipedia also says it can be traced back to sayings of the Buddha in the Anguttara Nikaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Earliest_sources

It's the most standard Mahayana teaching. The references are too numerous to cite, almost every other text has statements to this effect. However, it should never say "You are already Enlightened" (or anything naive like that), the phrases are more nuanced and the meaning is more subtle.
For example, it may say, "Our nature is fundamentally pure" or "Your original nature is no different from that of the Buddhas" etc. - in an attempt to turn our attention to the existential conflict between our dualistic mind of "this is wrong and I need to be something else" and the perfect suchness of Nirvana in the here-and-now.
Now, if you speak with an actual Zen (or another Mahayana) teacher, they will be quick to point out that even though our primordial nature is indeed Nirvana, the habits of craving and clinging are extremely difficult to overcome on the spot, which is why we must cultivate Sila/Prajna/Samadhi.
So in some sense the teaching has two sides and which one your teacher will drum depends on which way you lean in your particular state of confusion. If you are inclined to be complacent they will drum the Path and if you are obsessed with the goal, they will drum Buddha-Nature. It's kinda frustrating because you end up being wrong no matter which position you take. It's only when you mature beyond positions is when this contradiction resolves.

Thank you (again) for the answer. I had a thought that "You are already Enlightened"  (naive) was actually an advanced teaching. Is that correct / got some truth to it?

@CrabBucket If you wanted to think of it that way, I would have to point out a linguistic reality that sentences don't actually have a fixed meaning of their own.  They require an interpretation in order to acquire meaning.  So it's entirely possible that, in the mind of an Enlighened one, "You are already Enlightened" is interpreted in a way that is true.  I don't know if you are one for fictional sources of inspiration, but Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land explored this with the word "God."

@crabbucket If by "advanced" you mean "hidden" then I don't think "You're are already Enlightened" is an advanced teaching. In Mahayana it is trumpeted on every occasion, can't be too advanced, right? In many Zen communities, Heart Sutra is recited in every meeting - and it basically says, there's no suffering, no end of suffering, no path to ending the suffering, no enlightenment, and nothing to attain. I mean, sure, compared to the basic sutta teaching that's pretty advanced - but I don't think in Mahayana they hide it or something.

@AndreiVolkov I guess what I was trying to get at was perhaps easy to misinterpret to ill effect.Daniel Ingram has a rant about this kind of thing being used as an excuse not to practise at all and sit back and think it's done. Maybe it is done but if you just assert this and don't practise then were do you go? I was thinking it's something that is very helpful when someone has done a whole heap of practice and pretty unhelpful when someone has done not much. That said I'm pretty goal orientated myself (though I like to pretend I'm not) so things like this I struggle with

Yup, this dilemma is so inherent to the setup that everyone coming in touch with Mahayana must be having this same question. I guess it boils down to correct understanding of the Noble Truths. Buddha himself insisted the path must be approached gradually, with this realization left until very end, but subsequent generations of Mahayanists did not limit themselves to that formula.

So I heard,

Don't let anyone tell you that you're not enlightened.

Not formal Zen lineage, but as Andrei wrote, "the phrases are more nuanced and the meaning is more subtle".

As in Zen, Vajrayana too, needs to “assume” that oneself is already enlightened. That assumption is removed by having a vajra guru, through a process known as “initiation”.
Since only an enlightened being can see another enlightened being, only if oneself is already enlightened that he can realise his own enlightenment. That is the starting point. That was precisely how the Buddha did realised his own enlightenment, he was able to fight off the last 3 illusions under the bodhi tree.
From there he was able to teach the entire path to enlightenment starting with Theravada.

It is not zen, but the famous puthujjana called Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje has a short exposition on the doctrine that they created http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm
   “All beings are Buddhas,
         But obscured by incidental stains.
         When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
         That is a quotation from a Tantra.

he says that the characteristic of his doctrine is more about the nature of his attainment
The mind that has the absence of the three obscurations
Is “(the wisdom of) equality” and it is “peace.”
Due to having love and great compassion (for beings)
The sambhoga(kaya), etc., appears to them.
This is stated in order to refute those who say
That the attainment of Buddhahood is the same as the Hinayana (attainment).

Wisdom is the three permanences:
Permanence of nature is the dharmakaya;
Permanence of continuity is the sambhogakaya;
Uninterruptedness is the nirmanakaya.

There are three impermanences:
Mentally fabricated emptiness is impermanent;
The mind of moving thoughts is impermanent;
The composite six consciousnesses are impermanent.

However, the three permanences are present.
The three impermanences are stains.
The three permanences are wisdom.

This is not the same as the Tirthika “self,”
Because that is a mental fabrication and (Buddha nature) is not.
This is not the same as the nirvana of the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas
Because (in that) all the qualities of the form kayas are not manifested.
This is not the same as the body of an (ordinary) being
Because it is not created due to the defilements.


text:
The kamma of silence and/or "not acting"?
Aside of Silas there is the matter of kamma which includes always the mind.
What's the impact of acting "political correct" or "according to laws", Sila, while having unskilful intentions?
Whould breaking Silas be possible when mind is skilful adjusted?
May skilful acting look like unskilful?
What's the impact of your surpressing a honest answer, well considered, here, while possible having unskilful thoughts an reasons to act so? Or simply guided by not knowing, ignorance?
Of cause it could be that one is limited by circumstances or "forced" to "lie" to fulfill contracts, but what should then be actually given up, left behind?
(It's of less support to answer in manners of ultimate, because even not possible, and does not help in getting started with basics and home tasks, but are purely speculations of defilements: excuses to act proper and to investigate one mind and intentions honest.)

I think the Sangha primarily exists to maintain the Noble Dhamma in the world for those few who search for liberation from the world.
When the world becomes rotten to the core, such as the American and most governments, and when these governments become totalitarian (which is gradually occurring), for bhikkhus to criticize these governments may endanger the Sangha and the maintenance of the Dhamma.
Ultimately, the Dhamma is lokuttara. Ultimately, the Buddha did not arise in the world to teach about kamma, worldly sila or sīlabbata-parāmāsa.
'Kamma' is not actually a teaching of the Buddhas. The Buddhas teach
 the following:

Bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what
  is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled,
  irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?
‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
  ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental
  examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is
  the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable
  and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
AN 3.61

'Kamma' teachings the Buddha said are defiled with attachment, as follows:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the other world.
MN 117

Kamma is this world & the other world; where as Nibbana is not this world & not another world.