text:
Consider then the magician and the philosopher
Introduction
Earlier I asked this question. I think that was too broad, and I hope this question is more answerable.
In Buddhism there exists two truths, often called the Conventional and Ultimate truths.

The first truth refers to the physical state of things,

The world is all that is the case.  (Which is the first premise of Wittgenstein's Tractatus)

Would be a loose and quick summery of such a truth, it is the Zen spirit of taking things as they are.
The second truth is argued about by all the schools, each taking a position that is subtlety different in various ways. It has many forms and depending on the school of thought in question might be called other things besides ultimate truth.

In Nagarjuna's own words:

The teaching by the Buddhas of the dharma has recourse to two truths:
  The world-ensconced truth and the truth which is the highest sense.
Those who do not know the distribution (vibhagam) of the two kinds of truth,
  Do not know the profound "point" (tattva) in the teaching of the Buddha.
The highest sense of the truth is not taught apart from practical behavior,
  And without having understood the highest sense one cannot understand nirvana.

Nagarjuna also opens the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā text with this gem

Neither from itself nor from another,
  Nor from both,
  Nor without a cause,
  Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

What an opening, it has that Eastern philosophy riddle like feel to it. I want to quickly compare it to the hindu text Yoga Vasistha, sometimes called Vasistha's Yoga. Then we will quickly move on because an understanding of non-duality, emptiness, etc. is not required to ask the question that all of this is laying the foundation for...

He who knows 'I am not', 'Nor does the other exist', "Nor is there non-existence', and whose mental activity has thus come to a standstill, is not engrossed in acquisitiveness.
  O Rama, there is no bondage here other than craving for acquisition, and the anxiety to avoid what one considers undesirable.
  Do not succumb to such anxiety, and do not let acquisition of what is considered desirable be your goal.
  Giving up both these attitudes, rest in what remains.

Question
So what of the magician, what of the philosopher, who in their shows and conversations might, either accidentally or intentionally, create flickers of doubt in the Conventional truth. Enough so that the spectators might consider for the first time the possibility of underlying truths, or revisit the thoughts if they had been considered prior.
For if someone were to hold the firm and scientifically correct view of the conventional truth, the thing that would hinder them from progress on the path would be knowledge of the ultimate truth. If they had never conceived of an Ultimate truth it could be the very thing that gets them investigating such a possibility.
So if a Magician, with parlor card tricks, slight of hand, and means of illusion and tricks, was to without malice and without swindling an audience, only for entertainment, or perhaps also the case where it was their means to a right livelihood to take care of their responsibilities. The only possible transgression I can see is lying. But the deception in such shows is not to harm, and those going want to see these feats of showmanship.
So if a magic trick led to the thought process of searching for ultimate truth, while not rejecting conventional truth, as is the stance of most schools of Buddhism, what kind of karma would that create?
I can see some edge cases where the wrong view of magic being real could be a possible down side, where causing another sentient being to chase this view would have some kind of possible repercussions.
But also the less likely and hypothetical situation that these questions could lead one, maybe through many lives, to studying emptiness and dependent origination, and to the perfection of the 6th paramita of wisdom.

In closing, a paragraph from A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher, Which provides commentary to the work of Patrul Rinpoche.
  The paragraph starts with the word "Here" and ends with the word "name."

Anything can give rise to good and bad consequences. One may treat another harshly yet the other may find an insight into human suffering there and choose to forgive the tormentor. Or, one may treat one kindly, and the recipient of the kindness may choose to hate. The active intentions matters. That said, I am having trouble differentiating this fine question from the previous one?

@Buddho well you had trouble differentiating the previous one from the one you wanted to tag as a duplicate as well. I can assure you they are two very different, yet related, lines of thought.

True, and I hope you realize my intention is not to censor or police, in my head the answers to all are fundamentally the same - intention and mind state matter. The Abhidhamma goes into a ridiculous amount of detail on this, see http://vipassanadhura.com/abhidhamma.html for a taste.

@Buddho I'll have to check the reference out tomorrow. Thanks. Also don't worry, you're doing what you are supposed to do on the site. No worries at all.

Also watch https://youtu.be/maJXNAZAQT8

There's only one question mark in this long statement and it seems somewhat peripheral. Is there actually a question here? Are you looking for a critique of your interpretation of these ideas?

@jayarava attwood I'd work backwards from the question mark to the word "So", and there is the question.

In the Introduction section 1 state > The world is all that is the case. it is the Zen spirit of taking

things as they are. Are All agree on this?

Please edit. all are welcome .
This question is base on the previous asked question’s answer.
That question was Do artists/entertainers accumulate positive merit when people enjoy their craft?
The answer depends on the questioner’s 'world view'. If the person belongs to the ’normal world’ (Laymen life) the answer is YES. But if he considering the 'transcendental world' view then the answer is NO.

6.43 If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be
  expressed by means of language. In short the effect must be that it
  becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to speak, wax and
  wane as a whole. The world of the happy man is a different one from
  that of the unhappy man.( Tractatus)

SO the magician belongs to the lay world, But the philosopher is different.  He may belong to the lay world or the transcendental world according to his wish.
The Conventional truths belong to the lay world and Ultimate truths are for the transcendental word. The merits and sins are related to the lay world. Comparing the transcendental world to merits and sins should be avoided. ("Pungna papa paheenassa.." or Avid merit and sin) ('Thalaputta sutta' should consider on this view.)
To get some idea about the normal world.

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in
  it no value exists—and if it did exist, it would have no value. If
  there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole
  sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is
  the case is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within
  the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental. It must lie
  outside the world.( Tractatus)

For example take forest and trees  paradox.
Is there a forest? Only trees.
Only trees are real , Forest is a construct of a viewer.

6.45 To view the world sub specie aeterni is to view it as a whole—a limited whole. Feeling the world as a limited whole—it is this that is
  mystical. (Tractatus)

So the forest is the ( limited) world.  That is

Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a
  cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
6.5  When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question
  can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
5.61 Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. So we cannot say in logic, 'The world has this in it, and
  this, but not that.' For that would appear to presuppose that we were
  excluding certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it
  would require that logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for
  only in that way could it view those limits from the other side as
  well. We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we
  cannot say either. (Tractatus)

Eastern philosophy riddle – In Yoga Vasistha,

“O sage, kindly enlighten me on this problem of liberation - which one
  of the two is conducive to liberation, work or knowledge?
    Agastya  replied:
  Verily, birds are able to fly with their two wings; even so
  both work and knowledge together lead to the supreme goal of
  liberation.”

Here work means ethics,  and knowledge   is for wisdom about the reality.   Both factors are essential for liberation.(Ultimate truth).

6.42 So too it is impossible for there to be propositions of ethics. Propositions can express nothing that is higher.
  6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)
  (Tractatus)

So What is Ultimate Truth?

He who knows 'I am not', 'Nor does the other exist', "Nor is there
  non-existence', and whose mental activity has thus come to a
  standstill, is not engrossed in acquisitiveness. O Rama, there is no
  bondage here other than craving for acquisition, and the anxiety to
  avoid what one considers undesirable. Do not succumb to such anxiety,
  and do not let acquisition of what is considered desirable be your
  goal. Giving up both these attitudes, rest in what remains.

Some might say this contradicts with the Tractatus

• 5.621 The world and life are one.
    •5.63  I am my world. (The
  microcosm.)

If you feel different then consider this, In the Tractatus
 6.54 he states

My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me
  finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through
  them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder,
  after he has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions,
  and then he will see the world aright.

So now the question;
If a magic trick led to the thought process of searching for ultimate truth, while not rejecting conventional truth, as is the stance of most schools of Buddhism, what kind of karma would that create?
So the answer will be depend on the world.(regarding)
Your closing paragraph should be read in context with the paragraph before and after it.

Pungna papa paheenassa.." Not sure what this means? English translation?

Avid merit and sin (in lay man's view) in pali . this is some what referent in "Kusal" and "Akusal" in Pali.

It would create good karma. Why?

From what I understand and in line with Buddho's comments above, the kind of karma created depends on the motivation of the magician or philosopher (at least as far as he/she is concerned).
A more complete understanding of conventional would help here I think. It is not limited to the physical, but consists of all appearances that make up our ordinary experience (whether taken as physical or mental). The sanskrit is saṃvṛtisatya, with a root meaning of something that 'covers' or 'conceals' truth (satya).
So by its very nature conventional truth always give us opportunities to recognize its delusive and obscuring qualities, simply through looking directly into it. Being misleading (generating the impression of reified subjects and objects from the experience of dependent origination) is simply the nature of conventional experience; and something's true nature will become more evident the more it is examined.  Not only a magician, but a rainbow or your reflection in a pond can trigger insight by highlighting this pervasive quality of conventional truth. I'm not used to seeing philosophers added to the mix - but why not, unless the philosopher is teaching some intellectual viewpoint (like reductive materialism) that further obscures direct experience.
Thus, great teachers such as Āryadeva encourage us to contemplate various examples that highlight this pervasive quality of conventional reality:

Samsaric existence is the same as / A fire-brand wheel, an emanation, a dream, / An illusion, a moon in water, fog, / An interior echo, a mirage, a cloud”


text:
Does each person have a particular True Nature, according to Buddhism?
I know that there is what is described as universal True Nature - aspects common to everyone. I know about Karma, which can be seen as how beings have tendencies even from birth (which otherwise has no explanation that I can see). This question is whether each person (regardless how you think they exist or not) has a particular set of characteristics that are theirs to express in living their full potential?
Buddhism is sometimes accused of being nihilistic in the way that it seems to leave no reason for people to function when they overcome ignorance and realize the truths. This is your chance to explain, using references, that no, every person is a valid and necessary part of the complex web of Experience, not just a wrinkle that escaped temporarily from The Void.

Self Tag was so compelling... Oh! Soul Tag! But I do not accept the concept of a Soul, as I understand it, so don't go there. Don't go in to Reincarnation either - it is not to the point. "Take the instant way..."

Could you clarify the term "true nature"? Thank you.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.007.wlsh.html

@Ryan: thank you for the link. I am not worried, neither am I grasping. It is merely that we can observe that people vary, in obvious ways like height, and also in less-obvious ways, like temperament. I am asking if Dasein has any characteristics that sprang in to being with it, and are like unto only itself? A purpose or strengths, etc? Every living thing can have different DNA, so why can not people have Different Natural Abilities? Does Buddhism assert that everyone is the same? To what purpose?

True Nature - Voltaire said that a book is finished, not when nothing more can be added, but when nothing more can be taken away. If we can't take away everything, then what is essential? Was it there to begin with? Can different people be different (else why have them?) Need a few more ?...? ? ? .........?

To the best of my knowledge Essentialism is not a part of any school of Buddhism. Essentialism deals with metaphysical essentialism, and is essentially on the opposite end of the spectrum from emptiness/sunyata, which might be refereed to by some as Metaphysical anti-realism. However I have not met many Buddhists that want to jump into that classification. Taoists love it though. The Buddhists will assert that there is an Ultimate truth, and so can never truely be metaphysical anti-realists. At least not in the most extreme case of the view. They do show some grey areas from time to time.
A quick dirty and brief summery of metaphysical anti-realism is that there is no "Truth"
but some views are more true than others. It is found in various places within eastern philosophy.
Also Buddhism is not nihilistic, never do they throw up their hands and say, nothing matters do whatever you want. The only term with nihilism in it that might come close to paralleling with the Buddhist worldview that I can think of is Mereological nihilism.

Mmkay... Essentialism is not quite what I was thinking. If I understand properly, it means that an object of type X has certain essential characteristics (Platonic Idealism), which is actually what I see Buddhism saying: people have senses, objects of the senses, consciousness of the sense objects, and on and on through the 52 things. To me this is somewhat silly and I never thought of it as factual, just a nice description. I was asking: when my friend Mark came in to being, did some "unique particulars" come with him? Otherwise, how in the world can we distinguish him from anyone else?

@nocomprende so your asking if the "you" that travels with "you" from life to life has particulars that separate it from other "souls" going from life to life? The answer is no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

At least from the Buddhist perspective...
If I am still misunderstanding, please edit your original question.
Also Buddhism != Platonic Idealism either...

How about just within this life?

@nocomprende In most cases no "unique particulars"... But I can think of some fringe cases, like being the first to get particular tattoo, or holding a particular belief.
Any particular you have that is unique to you, sure. But they do not come with you, when you die. People gain and lose particulars all the time.

Very good question though, great way to narrow the scope.

I still find this question compelling. So let's imagine a building. It is unique in all the world, presumably. It didn't have a past life, and will not reincarnate. Yet it has characteristics now, for good or ill, that no other building has. This is the opposite of the familiar "where does the fire go when it goes out?" idea: I am asking, where did the fire come from? Where did the unique building come from? If you say, someone's head, then the question becomes: where did their head come from? It is all very well to say that things dissolve in to nothing, but what brings them about initially?

So you are asking for first cause? In Buddhism there is no first cause.

Not so much first as: If things have causes and people's experience is a series of events, what events brought my experience in to being? Was I prepared with something different from everyone else? Otherwise, how could identical causes produce very different people? Another Vexing Question, I suppose...

Was I prepared with something different from everyone else? Just the causes of your previous lives. Karma cause becomes effect, becomes cause, becomes effect.

And so on and so forth, as for identical causes, I have no idea what you are talking about....

Appealing to previous lives as a cause is just kicking the can down the road. What about the causes in those lives? Question-begging. If people manifest differently, causes must have been different somewhere along the line. I suppose it is not important, nothing can be made of it. I just think that it is good for people to recognize their strengths and build on them. Cause is not important for that. I withdraw my question.

The road does not begin or end, the "can" just keeps tumbling down it. Cyclic existence is not linear, but it is linear. I think you could compile all this into a new question maybe, as really there have been several questions throughout this thread.

(two years later) I guess it comes down to "the Butterfly Effect". Which is part of the reason my symbol is a butterfly. How Interesting! What I used to call Teleology becomes Connected Causes. Future becomes past, becomes now becomes nothing. I don't know. Heart Sutra!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mahasi Sayadaw Walking
In the tradition of Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, it is taught that walking and sitting meditation should be practiced balanced with one another. I am wondering where it can be found that the Buddha taught this, or how the venerable sir came to this instruction. Thank you.

The Buddha did in fact teach just this practice:

Bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the first watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the middle watch of the night we will lie down on the right side in the lion’s pose with one foot overlapping the other, mindful and fully aware, after noting in our minds the time for rising. After rising, in the third watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states.’
-- MN 39 (Bodhi, trans)

This passage occurs frequently in the suttas. The Buddha taught there are five benefits to walking meditation:

addhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate long-distance travel
padhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate exertion
appābādho hoti - one has little sickness
asitaṃ pītaṃ khāyitaṃ sāyitaṃ sammā pariṇāmaṃ gacchati - what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted goes to proper digestion
caṅkamādhigato samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko hoti - walking-produced concentration is of long duration.

-- AN 5.29

I believe that some foundation for this way of practicing can be derived from the "Five Spiritual Faculties (when fully developed they are called the Five Powers)". These are briefly:

Mindfulness (sati)
Energy (viriya)
Concentration (samadhi)
Faith (saddha)
Wisdom (paññā)

These five faculties must be balanced in order for one to progress on the path.
A common example which Mahasi Sayadaw addresses in his book "Satipatthana Vipassana", p. 11, is the 3rd hindrance, i.e. Sloth and torpor also called Dulness and drowsiness or short Laziness.
The Sayadaw explains that laziness happens when there is an excess of concentration and too little energy to fuel or drive that concentration. On the other hand if one has too little concentration and too much energy there will arise restlessness.
So these faculties need to be balanced and one way of doing that is to balance sitting with walking meditation. If one's energy faculty is low but concentration high then one needs to arouse energy. There are several ways of doing that. One way is to do walking meditation in a brisk tempo before doing sitting meditation.
So to partly answer your question. I think the answer could be based on the need for balancing the five spiritual faculties.
Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo (teaches the Mahasi-method) about how to balance the spiritual faculties.
(The website is down at the moment, I will add the link when it becomes available).

... I am wondering where it can be found that the Buddha taught ...

Walking is considered an antidote to drowsiness and sleepiness in the spirit of the following Sutta, when practiced in combination with sitting practice.

... Bhikshus, what more should be done? Bhikshus, you should train yourselves thus, We will devote ourselves to wakefulness.
  During the day, while walking to and fro and sitting down, we will purify the mind of obstructions.
  During the first watch of the night, while walking to and fro and sitting down, we will purify
  the mind of obstructions (avarana synonym for nīvarana).
  During the middle watch of the night, we will, after mentally noting the time for rising,
   mindfully
  and fully aware lie down, lion-like on our right side, one foot placed on the other. ...

Source: Maha Assa,pura Sutta. Also see footnote 30. The context here is staying awake and fighting drowsiness.
and

If, Moggallāna, that drowsiness still would not go away, then, Moggallāna,
  you should, perceiving before and after, be resolute in walking back and for, with the senses
  turned inward, with the mind not straying outward. **It is possible that when you do so, that drowsiness would go away.

Source: Pacalā Sutta. The context here is staying awake and fighting drowsiness.
These suttas only advocate this as an antidote to sleepiness and as a means to keep awake than any other form of pratice.

Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

... or how the venerable sir came to this instruction.

Perhaps this is a preventive measure to avoid sleepiness during meditation with both being in equal proportions there is less probability of this happening than being the Buddha's instructions. Or perhaps this is what he found successful in the way he practiced hence taught this way. If you find this suitable for your pratice then suitable for you then pratice it as some may find it helpful, though this may vary from individual to individual.

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


text:
Could someone provide a list of all Buddhist schools?
If someone could provide a list of all Buddhist schools (both extinct and extant) it would be much appreciated. If this is unmanageable due to the high number, major schools would be good, or a link to such a list would be great. Thank you

Out of thousands schools, sub-schools, and hybrids, here are some of the most notable outlines:
Early Buddhism and conservative descendants

=======Popular wing=======

Mahasanghika (developed into Mahayana)

Gokulika (in Varanasi/Pataliputra)

Bahusrutiya (in Kosala)

Satyasiddhi / Tattvasiddhi (Chinese, extinct)

Jojitsu (Japanese)

Prajnaptivada (in Magadha)

Lokottaravada
Caitika

Pudgalavada heresy (extinct)

Vatsiputriya (extinct)

Sanmitiya (extinct)

=======Conservative center=======

Tamraparniya (the Sri Lanka offshoot)

Theravada

Mahisasaka (absorbed into Theravada)
Dharmaguptaka (in Gandhara, extinct)

Ritsu (Japanese)

=======Abhidharma wing=======

Sarvastivada (in Gandhara, extinct)

Vaibhashika (extinct)
Sautrantika (developed into Yogacara)
Kusha (Japanese, extinct)

Mahayana

=======Prajnaparamita / emptiness group=======

Yogacara line

Faxiang (Chinese)
Hosso (Japanese)

Madhyamaka line

Tibetan family

Kadam (extinct)

Gelug (Dalai Lama's school)

Sakya

Sanlun (Chinese, extinct)

Sanron (Japanese, extinct)

Chan (Chinese)

Zen (Japanese)

Soto
Rinzai

Fuke (extinct)

Obaku

Seon (Korean)

Jogye / Chogye (my Zen Master's school)

Thien (Vietnamese)

=======Tantric group=======

Tibetan tantra

Nyingma

Aro gTér

Kagyu

Karma-Kagyu (Chogyam Trungpa's school)

New Kadampa (Gelug breakaway)

Tangmi (Chinese)

Shingon (Japanese)

=======Sincretic group=======

Bon-Nyingma hybrid (Tibetan)
Shugendo (Japanese)
Ari Gaing (Burma, extinct)
Newar (Nepal)

=======Popular wing / Ekayana=======

Pure Land / Amitabha line

Jodo (Japanese)
Yuzu Nembutsu (Japanese)

Lotus Sutra line

Tiantai (Chinese)

Cheontae (Korean)
Tendai (Japanese)
Nichiren (Japanese)

Nipponzan-Myohoji (my first encounter with Buddhism)

Avatamsaka Sutra line

Huayan (Chinese)

Kegon (Japanese)
Hwaeom (Korean, subsumed by Seon)

There are the following links to Buddhist Schools:

Wikipedia - "Schools of Buddhism".
BuddhaNet - "Schools / Lineages".
Rigpawiki - "The four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism"
DharmaNet - "The Principal Spiritual Traditions of Buddhism"
Budsas "Two Main Schools of Buddhism"
"History & Timeline of Buddhism’s Spread"
SiddhartaBuddhism - "Buddhist Sects"
"Schools of Buddhism and their countries: An overview"


text:
All about seats
I am looking for first hand accounts of what might make a good sitting mat/cushion. I've been using regular bed pillows but the fabric in them has given way, offering little support aside from lumps of stuff. I looked around online, and the cushions sold are rather expensive, so I'd like some advice/input from people who have used specific cushions/equipment before I go and buy a glorified 80$ beanbag chair. Is there any one in particular that is worth the steep price tag associated with these products? What should I look for in particular? Is there anything I should look to avoid? I realize this is only tangential to the practice, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to ask such a specific question. Thank you.

I'm about to buy one of these Zafu's: http://www.denintelligentekrop.dk/mudra-meditationspude-m-speltkerner-zafu-rund.

Thailand style http://www.houseofthailand.com/Thai-Buddhist-Prayer-Mats

@Robin111 why are those mats 3 for 90$? comparable cotton ones ive found are around the same price for a single mat. Is kapok not as desirable ?

@Ryan, I believe its the traditional filling in Thailand. These are made there. I have some being sent to me now. I'll let you know how they are when they arrive. :-)

@Robin111 Please do!

@Robin111 they look really nice, the only thing I have doubts about are the size and what Kapok feels like to sit on, or if it loses its supportive quality over time, like a cotton cushion will.

The reason i looked for that type is because it was the same type used at the meditation course which i found comfortable.

@Robin. Would you happen to know how long it takes for a cotton cushion to looose it's supportive quality? If one has daily sittings one it.

@SriLanka, personally I don't. But this page from the website talks about various aspects of the kapok filled cushions; have to scroll down a bit on the page. http://www.houseofthailand.com/Pillow-Talk

I saw these same pillows at a New Age type store in New York recently for $90 each. I think they just get marked up a lot and we're used to the marked up price so think it's strange when something costs less. But I'll write an answer when mine arrive this week to confirm how they are. :)

I forgot to use the right word. By cushion i meant "Zafu". I'm going to buy this Zafu: http://www.denintelligentekrop.dk/mudra-meditationspude-m-speltkerner-zafu-rund. I never used one before so i wondered how long before they loose their shape.

@SriLanka, I can't read that ad. I had a Zafu made with buckwheat hulls at one time. Those don't seem to lose their shape. I had to remove some of the hulls because it felt too high to me. I ended up giving it away; but I think those made with buckwheat hulls don't really lose their shape. http://www.amazon.com/Zafu-Meditation-Cushion-Organic-Buckwheat/dp/B003M1ZSOM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438001015&sr=8-1&keywords=meditation+cushions+zafu

Thanks for the info Robin. This Zafu is with wheats too but i don't know the english word for them. They are similar to buckwheat. I never meditated on a Zafu before so i'm looking forward to it.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Let's do it. Just say when you are available.

@Ryan, my meditation cushions arrived yesterday and I'm very happy with the size and quality of them. They feel very firm, sort of like a seat in a car. But the instructions did say they are meant to get soft over time. I think the idea with these cushions is just to provide some padding for the "sitting bones" and ankles, not necessarily to provide serious support like a more elaborate set up. But I like the minimalism of them. Makes it easier to switch over to not using a cushion at all for the occasional chance to meditate outdoors. :)

I've been meditating for a couple years or so. I understand that, for sitting meditation (Burmese posture, half-louts, whatever), one should elevate the pelvis above the knees to gain a proper pelvis/spine posture. I've tried to use pillows, blankets, inflatable cushions, etc. Nothing that I tried to improvise worked for extended sitting (e.g. sitting for more than a few minutes). I have been sitting for an hour for a few months, and am gradually increasing the time beyond one hour. I finally bit the money bullet and bought a buckwheat hull Zafu from StillSitting. That purchase was well worthy the cost!! Yes, it's heavy; but,yes, it works great!! It perfectly supports the sitting bones and elevates the pelvis!! I put a folded (folded over half, I.e. one fold) ThermaRest Z-Lite backpacking sleeping pad on the floor; atop that I place a twice-folded yoga mat; atop that I place the Zafu. All of that supports my ankles, legs, knees and Zafu. I sit in what I call a quarter lotus posture. Note that one should sit on the front third of the Zafu, not in the middle. I also cut two discs from an old ensolite foam backpacking sleep mat, sized to the the diameter of the Zafu, and put those beneath the Zafu for a bit more elevation (~3/4"). That all sounds involve; but, hey, I can sit comfortably enough to allow for extending the sit time. HAPPY SITTING

I don't have much to add - all of this is great info.  I personally use a buckwheat filled zafu vs. the kapok.  It's really a matter of personal preference.  I find the kapok tends to get squashed after a year or so.  The buckwheat cushions tend to hold their shape better and are easily refillable.  They also conform to your butt a little better.  Side note - rolled up tents actually make amazing improvised cushions!  :-)

@nemo - good info re the distinction(s) between kapok and buckwheat. I think the buckwheat can add to the initial cost of a zafu.

Possibly.  The ones I get run me about $40. http://amzn.to/1LPxgSP .  I have no idea what a kapok cushion runs as I've never bought one!  :-)

I lay out a yoga mat (1/2 inch thick) on the floor for cushioning my ankle(s), and a woollen blanket folded into an eighth to sit on. This is perfect for my sits for 2-3 hours. Both are very firm, and don't sag under my weight. As a bonus, if I am sitting for a long time through the night, it becomes my bed to sleep on when I am ready to sleep.
For longer sits, because I have a back condition I find a wall to lean against.
It's not uncommon here in India to find Brahmin priests who sit for long hours with crossed legs on the bare earth to develop hard calluses on the sides of their soles and ankles. It's a natural protection that works better than any zafu.
See also my answer elsewhere to dealing with discomfort.

the wool blanket is BRILLIANT. now i just need to adjust the thickness properly

Glad you got it to work. Forgot to add that, as long as the blanket weave is thick and coarse like a cheap military blanket it works fine. Softer blankets will sag. If I lean against a wall I find it easier to sit directly on the mat, without any elevation.


text:
At what point in the path is one able to recall their past lives?
In most traditions of Buddhism there is talk of the Buddha, or various Bodhisattvas talking about their past lives.
At what point in the path to enlightenment is the ability to remember ones past lives gained?

this sutta seems to indicate it is after the attainment of the material jannas http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.100.01-10.than.html

Powers are generally orthogonal to insight.
Most enlightened people have some powers, but not all people with powers are enlightened.
The six higher powers (chalabhiññā) include the cessation of ignorance, leading to becoming an arhat and the knowledge of past lives.
Thus theoretically one can be an arhat but not have knowledge of past lives, if one isn't interested in pursuing such skills or vice versa. However, this is contentious, since popular lore expects arhats to walk through walls or be able to perform other special deeds, but the Buddha himself never solely equates powers with enlightenment.
Devadutta, the villainous cousin of the Buddha had lots of powers, including transforming himself into other beings through jhana cultivation, but he was no arhat even though he was only a short hop away from it - he simply had no interest in enlightenment. He was interested instead in profiting from the psychic and political powers of being a spiritual guru.

"Remember one's former abodes" (pubbe-nivāsanussati), that is, recalling ones own past lives;
"Extinction of mental intoxicants" (āsavakkhaya), upon which arahantship follows.

See Abhijñā or direct knowing
"Are powers strictly necessary for enlightenment?" is a separate question. While they can be a distraction keeping one away from enlightenment, after enlightenment they can become useful tools. For example, those on the Bodhisattva path are expected at some point to focus their training on attaining mind reading powers so that they may help others to liberation.
Yet, adherents of the Zen tradition would say enlightenment is very ordinary, it was never not there. Enlightenment is doing ordinary things in a most extraordinary way.
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
Watch "Ten Oxherding Pictures" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/bN126j4FH7g

It is true that one can gain the ability (Iddhividha-niddesa) to recall past lives.
The Visuddhimagga has a large section on how to develop these supernatural powers.
In here they go into great detail on how one can develop them. There is a section on "Recollection of Past Lives" (p. 404-415), but it's too large to quote. Instead here is a quote from the introduction chapter, p. 369.

CHAPTER XII
THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS (Iddhividha-niddesa)
[THE BENEFITS OF CONCENTRATION (CONTINUED)]

It was said above with reference to the mundane kinds of direct- knowledge that this development of concentration “provides ... the benefit of the kinds of direct-knowledge” (XI.122). Now, in order to perfect those kinds of direct-knowledge the task must be undertaken by a meditator who has reached the fourth jhána in the earth kasióa, and so on. And in doing this, not only will this development of concentration have provided benefits in this way, it will also have become more advanced; and when he thus possesses concentration so developed as to have both provided benefits and become more advanced, he will then more easily perfect the development of understanding. So meanwhile we shall deal with the explanation of the kinds of direct-knowledge now.

In order to show the benefits of developing concentration to clansmen whose concentration has reached the fourth jhána, and in order to teach progressively refined Dhamma, five kinds of mundane direct-knowledge have been described by the Blessed One.

They are: (1) the kinds of supernormal power, described in the way beginning, “When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, and has become malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability,1 he directs, he inclines, his mind to the kinds of supernormal power. He wields the various kinds of supernormal power. Having been one, he becomes many ...” (D I 77); (2) the knowledge of the divine ear element; (3) the knowledge of penetration of minds; (4) the knowledge of recollection of past lives; and (5) the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings.

Another way to recall past lives (only one life though) is to remain conscious throughout the death-process. If you are fully conscious throughout the entire process you will become liberated. If there is still some clinging left you will be reborn as a Brahma or Deva and be able to recall fully the last life.
I asked a question on exactly that and Ven. Yuttadhammo gave this answer to my question. You can read the question and the answer here.

I remember once in a talk by Ajahn Brahms he said that a lot of his monks would recall past life memories as they were coming out of dhyana states...

Would you happen to have a link to the talk?

don't know if it was recorded, saw it in person at monash university in melbourne, Australia, you can find his other talks here: https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA/videos maybe he says it somewhere in there as well

pubbe-nivāsanussati is the name of that dhyana

I don't think so, from what I recall he was talking about the attainment of pubbe-nivāsanussati (remembering past lives) as a result of entering in to dhyana states during regular concentration based meditation, could be wrong though

@srilanka He says it often in his talks on jhanas.  Several retreat videos on YouTube.


text:
prajna vs jnana across schools
Can anyone explain the difference between the terms prajna and jnana and how they differ between schools? I learnt for several years with a chinese tradition, where we were taught that prajna is experiential wisdom as opposed to jnana being intellectual wisdom, a view which I am told by my friends who read pali is shared by the pali cannon, however my understanding is that in tibetan buddhism the useage often seems to be the opposite (see for example John Reynolds' "the golden letters")
Can anyone shed some light on this issue?

just for clarification, i believe this is the term being asked about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jnana

you can see here in this article linked above by robin111, In Tibetan Buddhism, it refers to pure awareness that is free of conceptual encumbrances, and is contrasted with vijnana, which is a moment of 'divided knowing'.

Also in the context of the ten Bhumis, the tenth being jnana paramita, or primordial wisdom, in which case it seems to me that primordial wisdom becomes somewhat synonymous with "nouminal wisdom" as suggested below by Andrei for Prajna. I am confused because I had also heard in my days of mahayana study of prajna as "supraconceptual" as opposed to jnana, which was more general, however It seems in that this is not always the case...

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

From Pali linguistics perspective, both words share the common root jna ("to know"). So jnana literally means "knowledge", while pra- in prajna means "before" and "super", making it into "super-knowledge" or perhaps "proto-knowledge" or even "meta-knowledge".
Traditionally in Buddhism (Tibetan or not), jnana is used to refer to various insights (realizations, recognitions) one gets along the way, while prajna is taken to mean the noumenal aspect of the Ultimate Realization (Enlightenment).
Unfortunately the schools disagree on what exactly it means to be enlightened, and therefore on the exact nature of prajna. Here I'll speak from Mahayana/Madhyamaka perspective, as I understand it.
Most Mahayana schools of Madhyamaka heritage equate prajna with either direct supraconceptual realization of Emptiness ("the ultimate reality") or, taking it a step further, with direct realization of inseparability of "the ultimate reality" and "the conventional reality" (the world as we know it in day-to-day living).
The Chan family of schools traditionally emphasizes the "supraconceptual" part of Realization, for them understanding is incomplete until your really "get it" deep in your guts, so to speak. So when they talk about prajna they mean not as much intellectual understanding of "the two truths", as realization of its practical implications to our life -- and the resulting modus-operandi.
From this realization comes certain skill in dealing with phenomena, now seen as lacking substantial existence. One can jungle alternative designations without getting stuck. This skill, in my understanding, is the prajna proper. At the same time the Realization comes with coemergent compassion towards sentient beings trying to organize their lives around the wrong assumption that reality they deal with is solid and reliable. As well as with clear understanding that a sentient being can't simply jump from its modus-operandi based on innate confusion, to the modus-operandi based on enlightenment. There is time and effort and the right conditions required. This drives even more compassion on the side of the ones acquainted with "the knowledge of the two truths", due to which they see the need to employ upaya or skillful means, to gradually take sentient begins from point A to point B.
This conglomerate of realizations, concerns, considerations, and the resulting behavior is known as "prajna-karuna", the unity of wisdom and compassion.
The reason some teachers may downplay prajna, is because without the water of compassion it is considered a dry understanding of emptiness, lacking life, therefore incomplete. I suppose their praise of jnana could refer specifically to "knowledge of the two truths", which is said to be the root of compassion.
As always in Buddhism, the words are used as designations to refer to some real stuff going on. As long as we know what we are talking about, we won't get confused as to what's what.


text:
Right speech in social situations
My boss has a tendency to gossip and speak negatively about his clients when they are not present. Sometimes he speaks to me about these people, and I am unsure of how to respond with regard to right speech. To not respond at all may hurt his feelings and create friction in our workplace. But to engage in such a discussion about others surely is wrong speech. How should one go about responding to gossip while maintaining right speech and prevent hurt feelings/social awkwardness?

There are a few tactics which I have employed in the workplace when dealing with people such as this. They don't ALWAYS work, but with some practice they can definitely help.
1) You can try to push the conversation off tangentially to a different subject.
"Such and such customer did this when we were talking about the smith account."
"Oh right, about the smith account, I was meaning to ask you.."
2) Little to no feedback
Pretty much just what it sounds like. Just be mindful of the persons rant as nothing but noise, only giving enough mindfulness to the actual content as to be able to interact when absolutely necessary.
This sometimes works when the person either takes the hint that you aren't interested, or they become bored that their need to gossip isn't being fulfilled by you.

#2 is very effective. It seems people run out of gas pretty quickly when you don't keep refueling them with your reactions. :)

indeed! well said

Agree, being difficult to gossip with is a very effective turn off. Sometimes we actually enjoy the gossip or the company of friends who seek us out to chatter, and so we may feel it's not in our personality to do it, but that is a very good point in time to introspect.

Antagonising a boss may bring difficulties, but this is exactly why it is very hard to break away from samsara, it is often too easy to fold, and compromise just this one time.
Dharma is not a magic formula that fixes all the problems of samsara, it merely teaches us to be okay with a hard landing if one's only choices are between soft quicksand, a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps there is a right time and way to tell him that you don't enjoy his gossip or a way to remain silent without giving offense, but it is also wise to consider that you may fail at this.
There's a Zen saying that the tiger needs to live in the forest to be safe, a tiger out and about in the town is quickly dead.
Merely awakening to one's true self may even seem easier in comparison to mixing nirvana with samsara.

There are several contemporary world leaders like the Dalai Lama, or Barack Obama who are in my opinion very skilled in saying the right thing to people at the right time, but they always have detractors. The Dalai Lama gets a number of negative comments on his social media posts, even if he is only saying something harmless and wise.
The Buddha too didn't attempt to make everyone happy.
It is naive to assume that merely because one is pure hearted, soft spoken and gentle one won't have detractors. Following right speech or right action is not automatically easy, there are tough choices to be made all through life.
The Buddha knew of several people who were angry with him, including his father at one time, and some of them regularly tried to harm or kill him, but this didn't stop him from doing what was correct.
People are quite attached to their world view and will not agree to change their views no matter what is said. In these cases silence maybe the best among available choices even if they all appear unsatisfactory.

When King Ajatasattu, newly coronated, meets the Buddha after killing his father King Bimbisara at the urging of Devadatta, the Buddha never brings up the topic of patricide; though it must have hung heavily in the air. Instead he speaks to him as if nothing had happened, telling him about the benefits of being a monastic.
See: Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life

"Dharma is not a magic formula that fixes all the problems of samsara, it merely teaches us to be okay with a hard landing if one's only choices are between soft quicksand, a rock and a hard place." I like that statement. One knows the outcome of ones action to a certain extent thereby knowing what responsibility comes next.

Yes @SriLanka, maturity to do what is necessary even if it isn't pleasant arises from practice. Glad you agree.

What if you replied, something like, "I'm sorry you feel that way"?
If so then your talk with your boss would be about the boss' feelings, instead of gossip about the client.
Or ask, "Is he really so bad?" That would give the boss feedback that he is speaking negatively, and an opportunity to come up with a more balanced view.
Or turn the conversation to the boss' opinion about the business relationship, rather than the boss' opinion about the person.
If you know the client can you contradict the boss: "Oh I don't think he's so bad. He's always polite when I talk with him. He's a good customer. He pays his bills on time." or whatever?
If I read through the right speech guidelines a lot of them are about being timely (not an issue in this case sine it's the boss that decided when to bring up the subject), gentle, and not malicious.

Great answer Chris. I especially like the first 3 tactics/advice.

I like your suggestions. I also think it's the personality we project. When we speak to the point and precisely, without engaging in gossip, others usually get the hint that we don't like gossip or idle chatter. Being busy is also helpful, we can point to a long list of things to do and say, I hope you don't mind, I need to get back to this, but maybe if it's important you could schedule a meeting to talk about it in detail?

Find out what is really bothering the other person and give them an opportunity to be heard about that. We have two ears and one mouth, so Right Listening is more important than planning a response.
If you redirect the conversation away from external things and back to how the person is feeling and what they want, then you will be assisting them to re-see, which is the most important thing.
When I was a programmer, lots of people used to "chat me up" because I would listen with empathy. Usually I could offer some kind of suggestion that they tried which helped. After the conversation they would be more focused and productive. (I usually had to go to the "thinking room" and splash water on my face or go outside for a non-smoking break. Being the "Ship's Counsellor" is not easy work.)
Someone said, "90% of life is just showing up." If you work with others, then showing up for them in a clear and unconditional way, with attunement and congruence, will solve most problems to a large degree. Please seek out the book Becoming a Technical Leader by Gerald M. Weinberg and read the part called "The Payoff For Being Congruent" on pages 169-171. It could very well change your life, as it did mine. (But then, I am a Hetaira Archetype person, so I look for this sort of thing in striving to improve relationships.)


text:
Tathagatagarbha and dhammakaya
Can we consider 'tathagatagarbha' and 'dhammakaya' as synonyms? If not, what is the difference between those words.

Paul William's "Mahayana Buddhism" has a good section on this. Dharmakaya is the list of qualities of a Buddha that make him a Buddha. Tathatagatagarbha is either the qualities that enable you to become a Buddha, or something more special that doesn't fit in this small box. Paul Williams also has a whole chapter for that.

I noticed you used the Pali term Dhammakaya instead of the Sanskrit Dharmakaya. Are you asking about how the term Dhammakaya in Theravada compares with the Mahayana teaching of Tathagatagarbha?

No, they are not synonyms. They are mutually exclusive: If it is 'tathagatagarbha', then it is not 'dhammakaya'. If it is 'dhammakaya', it is not 'tathagatagarbha'.
Tathagatagarbha is 'suchness with defilement', which is the emptiness of the minds of sentient beings.
Dharmakaya is 'suchness without defilement', which is the emptiness of the omniscient mind of a buddha. (more specifically any of the 'nature truth body', according to Prasangika). Although they are undifferenciated in nature (pure by nature), Dharmakaya and Tathagatagarbha are not the same.
As Gyaltsab-Je states in his commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum
differentiating the Lineage of the Three Jewels:

Suchness with defilement is the basic element not liberated from the
  obscurations of mental afflictions, and is known as tathagata
  essence." By nature it is pure and is the ultimate truth. The term
  "tathagata essence" is not used anywhere by either the Tathagata
  Essence Sutra or this treatise and its commentary, which explain the
  thinking of that sutra, to teach the  twofold purity [i.e. the
  dharmakaya endowed with the twofold purity]. Therefore, to apply the
  ultimate dharmakaya to "tathagata essence" is a mere fabrication

Yes they are synonyms but like every synonym there is a fine difference: the dharmakaya (dharmmakaya) refer to the non-physical component of the Trikaya
I find the dharmakaya to be a more useful understanding because it helps to contrasts the mental component of Buddhist practice with the physical component of Buddhist/Taoist practice (chi channels, chakras, kundalini, warmth, Taoist practices, etc.). This can help your practice because one principle of Mind is that the  body and mind are in sync and follow each other: if you train/purify the body, you also train/purify the mind... to a certain point. This rupakaya development has its limits and that is why the dharmakaya is helpful to be contrasted. The rupakaya goes very deep into the physical powers and improvements listed in Buddhism from just basic health to creating full on Taoist yang shen bodies (nirmanakaya). Anyway, it is more important to understand the contrast between the rupakaya and dharmakaya and focus on cultivating dharmakaya, because this is literally Reality. Ways to cultivate this tend to be non-physical, which in terms of self-actualization, means: achieving samadhis, prajnas, and stages described in the texts (through whatever method).
That is the lesson that the word "dharmakaya" teaches, which is why I like that term to help understand different practices.
The Tathagatagarbha refers to the "womb" of reality/"Buddha"... basically Buddha-nature, basically dharmakaya.
In other sense: the Tathagatagarbha refers to a group of sutras for the most part, the Tathagatagarbha Sutras, but also to the Buddha-nature itself.
Nonetheless, it is disputed whether buddha-nature = Tathagatagarbha: the tathagatagarbha is thus described in Wikipedia:
According to Wikipedia, the Tathagatagarbha:

and the Buddha-nature have not exactly the same meaning, in the Buddhist tradition they became equated. In
  the Angulimaliya Sūtra and in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the
  terms "Buddha-nature" (Buddha-dhātu) and "tathāgatagarbha" are
  synonyms.
All are agreed that the tathāgatagarbha is an immortal, inherent
  transcendental essence or potency and that it resides in a concealed
  state (concealed by mental and behavioural negativities) in every
  single being, even the worst - the icchantika.[citation needed]
Although attempts are made in the Buddhist sutras to explain the
  tathāgatagarbha, it remains ultimately mysterious and allegedly
  unfathomable to the ordinary, unawakened person, being only fully
  knowable by perfect Buddhas themselves.
The tathāgatagarbha itself needs no cultivation, only uncovering or
  dis-covery, as it is already present and perfect within each being:
An unknown treasure exists under the home of a poor person that must
  be uncovered through removing obstructive dirt, yielding the treasure
  that always was there. Just as the treasure already exists and thus
  requires no further fashioning, so the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e.
  the tathāgatagarbha], endowed with ultimate buddha qualities, already
  dwells within each sentient being and needs only to be freed from
  defilements.[8]
Charles Muller comments that the tathagatagarbha is the mind's
  original pure nature and has neither a point of origination nor a
  point of cessation: 'tathagatagarbha expresses the already perfect
  aspect of the original nature of the mind that is clear and pure
  without arising or cessation.'[9]
The tathāgatagarbha is the ultimate, pure, ungraspable, inconceivable,
  irreducible, unassailable, boundless, true and deathless quintessence
  of the Buddha's emancipatory reality, the very core of his sublime
  nature.

I agree with the above that there is a small difference:
My linguistic analysis is that "garbha" basically means womb, a word that emphasizes the physical, whereas the "tathagata" is referring more to the formless component "Buddha-nature."
The term Trikaya, which is what the dhammakaya and rupakaya are collectively called, is more equatable to the term Tathagatagarbha. Dhammakaya refers more to just the mental component of the achievements while the Tathagatagarbha refers vaguely to the Buddha-nature, the dharmakaya.. especially as described in the respective Tathagatagarbha sutras.
Thus... yes I would say they are essentially synonyms but one is more specific.

I think that the question is not yet properly answered, and confusion remains. So let's try some exploration.
First of all, we can approach understanding of "Tathagatagarbha" with two very different ideas:

Tathagatagarbha is Buddha mind "inside of us", i.e. underlying our impure reality. Let's call it "Buddha-fetus in the womb".
Tathagatagarbha is our impure reality which has Buddha mind as its foundation. Let's call it "the womb with Buddha-fetus".

Naturally these two views lead to different understanding.
If we try to connect the concepts together, not realizing that they show the opposite viewpoints, we naturally get confused.
For example, in some texts we read (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10470/11762):

Just as the treasure already exists and thus requires no further fashioning, so the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. the tathāgatagarbha], endowed with ultimate buddha qualities, already dwells within each sentient being and needs only to be freed from defilements.

Here Tathāgatagarbha is obviously "Buddha-fetus in the [earthly] womb".
But Gyaltsab-Je says (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11757/11762):

Suchness with defilement is the basic element not liberated from the obscurations of mental afflictions, and is known as tathagata essence. By nature it is pure and is the ultimate truth.

If it is the essence, then how it can be with defilement? Does Buddha contain defilements in his essence?
Sounds very strange. If it is pure by nature and is the ultimate truth, then how can it have defilements?
So if we take Tathagatagarbha in the first sense, "Buddha-fetus which is in the earthly womb", then how can we understand Gyaltsab-Je?
But if we take it in the second sense, "the womb with Buddha-fetus", then it becomes reasonable. The womb is "suchness with defilement" - "our impure reality". It is the womb where the Buddha-fetus resides. Though it might seem strange to call it "essence", that might point to a deep meaning.
"Impure reality" is the essence of Buddha. How wonderful!
But then, how can we understand that "ultimate truth" is "with defilement"?
I understand the ultimate truth as "a place" where there is no duality of defilement or purity.
There it can't be said it's with defilement.
I understand the ultimate truth is the same as Buddha nature and the same as Dharmakaya.
I'm planning to explain "Dharmakaya" in another answer, and then to add a link here; so now I just want to say the following:
"Tathagatagarbha" and "Dharmakaya" are slightly different concepts, in the sense that they point at the same place - ultimate reality - from slightly different angles.
In that regard, they are different. But the ultimate reality at which they both point at - is the same. In that regard they are not different.
So it's not possible to say just "Tathagatagarbha and Dharmakaya are different" or "not different". They are both different and not different.


text:
What is Direct Seeing?
Am I wrong or is "beginner's mind" a Zen term that means "seeing the experience you are aware of, moment by moment, as if you have never experienced concepts before... Like you have just been born with a mind that has not developed concepts yet and so you see things as they really are?
Is "Beginner's Mind" equivalent to  direct seeing or very related to direct seeing(or even clear comprehension)? Should insight meditators be "trying" to see this way, "trying" to see things as if the meditator was just born?
 ...OR...
Does direct seeing develop when a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each meditation object mixed with what really is and then  slowly through continuous practice the meditator  will be able to understand what is concept and what is direct experience? If this is true then its not a matter of effort or trying to see direct reality but more about "discerning"  what are concepts and what is the real object that is arising in experience by just seeing what the meditator sees. Maybe, I'm mistaken somewhere because it's not totally clear to me.
EDIT: to sum it up, I'm trying to see if I have the right idea about "direct seeing" and "Beginner's Mind". Also, I'm  generally asking if we put forth effort to experience directly or not. --Thank You & Metta

Note:
Beginner's Mind, or Shoshin, is a Chinese Buddhist term exported Japan, translated into English. The Chinese 初心 (pinyin: Chūxīn) is from Avatamsaka Sutra 《華嚴經》, describing the Bodhisattva when first making the Bodhisattva vow:

三世一切諸如來　　靡不護念初發心
All past, present and future Buddhas, none won't protect nor won't remember
  those who first set motion this heart [citta/mind] (an usual
  Classical Chinese grammar unusal for English, for will protect and
  remember).
如菩薩初心　　不與後心俱
Like the Bodhisattva's initial heart (here it means the
  willing/vowing determination to go the Bodhisattva Path)

This initially may also include the meaning of an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject as brutally hacked off 80% of the rest of the meaning by Wikipedia amateur experts, further corrupted when hitch-hiking by book-writing Zen teachers such as wikipedia-ed Shunryū Suzuki.
Of Import is, one shouldn't further corrupt this term with Theravadin's Luminious Mind. It will be very hazardous to the normal Buddhist student's learning, like smoke is hazardous to health. The excitement caused by nicotine is like the student excited by novelty, both are trading excitement with detrimental to health. Like the Law of Entropy in Physics, this freely hitch-hiking terms activities will further pollute the Dharma/Dhamma; also like Entropy, the end result is un-pure Dharma/Dhamma, or, chaos.

Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of
  which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem
  to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and
  difficult of comprehension. Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the
  Thermodynamics of Fluids

Could you add a paragraph or two in your question? That would make it easier for the eyes to read. Thank you.

@Sri Lanka Sorry about that. I put a little summary on the end and hopefully it makes things clearer :)

No worries:) What i meant was if you could put a section or two in the text to add some space. At the moment the text is one large clump.

@Uilium i added some space to increase readability- feel free to undo/change how you see fit

i put a bounty on this question because i think it's important to differentiate belief that one has e.g. no more rebirths, and direct knowledge. i am not sure i can see what the difference is, beside ofc not having any more rebirths, which seems somewhat circular

If you never ate  a kiwi, how would someone who did taste a Kiwi describe it  to you? With words?That is conceptual truth. How would one "directly see" the taste of kiwi. Of course, by eating a kiwi but it won't be that last particular kiwi, it is a different piece of fruit.

hey @UUU i like the analogy, though i'm not sure i've eaten a kiwi! so you "just know" the taste of kiwi when you've eaten it, or ... ?

@user3293056 It's just regular knowing of the experience as opposed to describing the experience with words. It works with any moment of experience like thoughts, emotion, pain, seeing, hearing. This is what they mean by "seeing things as they are". Things are seen without any concepts, just raw and direct experience right now.

In the Theravada tradition, we learn Yoniso Manasikhara. It means paying wise attention. And the knowledge or vision gained by paying wise attention is called the Yathā Bhūta ñāna Dassana or the vision of manifestations in their real form.

My dear friend in Dhamma, @UUU… I sincerely hope that you try to understand what I write. Both you and I have a lot of un-learning to do. Today a relatively small group of dhamma farers are seeing dhamma in a new light, practicing it and getting very favourable results. I joined such a group, a month ago, and experienced the same. I was able to go to the four basic levels of jhana with ease. Most of what I’ve written, and what others write as answers in this forum are true only at a mundane level. When I told of this last week in this SE forum, I was told that in Pardes (Jewish exegesis) too there is a higher level of meaning.
In pardes,  the term, sometimes spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the same initials of the following four approaches:
Peshat — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.
Remez— "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash— from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
Thus, Sod represents the hidden meaning. Similar to this, the hidden meanings of many words have come to light in the recent past. So, to come to your question proper…
Direct seeing can happen if ever you get to discuss the Dhamma with someone who is fully established in the Path. For that, he or she has to be at least a Sotapanna (a stream entrant). Then you must develop a trust in what that person tells you – a trust that is unflinching. A connection is made between the two where the five Hindrances (nivarana) are kept at bay. ‘Direct Seeing’ happens at such a moment. It is a ‘vi-nivarana moment. It is a moment devoid of the five hindrances. At such a moment, that person can help you become a Sotapanna (a stream entrant) too.
Every person, animal or plant emanates an aura or human energy field which is a colored emanation. The rays that a Sotapanna (a stream entrant) radiates has a captivating effect when that trust is built between the two. Once you too gets established in the path, mentally you become distant from the ways of the world (world = Lokha). Then in meditation you experience 'Aloka' - radiant light. In the fourth Jhana, this radiant white light engulfs your whole body - a truly beautiful experience to have- it is bliss.
When a Sotapanna begins to meditate, he/she can easily suppress the five hindrances, and get to experience direct seeing. How to recognize a sotapanna would be your next question.
If a person tells you that it is INCORRECT to say that anicca, dukkha, anatta is  impermanence, suffering, and “no-soul” or “no-self”, then there is a greater possibility that he/she is a Sotapanna. That person will tell you that the correct meanings are, respectively: there is nothing in this world that can be maintained to one’s satisfaction, (therefore) suffering arises, and (therefore) one is truly helpless in this world. If you start to see this by contemplating on this, it will not be too long before you too will experience “Direct Seeing”.
Now let us try to understand what this “beginners mind” means as per the Dhamma. The Pali term for ‘beginners mind’ is called “pabhassara citta”.  A better term for it in the English language is ”Radiant/Luminous Mind”. When meditating what we desire is a mind that generate and maintain a citta at the level of the “radiant mind”.
Any given persons initial thought is a pabhassara citta, but gets contaminated no sooner it comes into being because of  our “abhi-Sankhara”. Our monkey mind can never be without being in the Vitakka/Vicara mode. In meditation, after the first jhana one can go beyond the Vitakka/Vicara mode to the Avitakka/Avicara or Savitakka/Savicara mode. These states are without discursive thinking (vitakka/vicara). When one gets to the fourth jhana, s/he gets to experience the Radiant/Luminous Mind.
The process of contamination of a citta is found in the Pabhassara Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya. The Sutta says that, “Bhikkus, citta (the first stage) is pabhassara until  “upakilesa” or defilements are introduced, when one starts to think through this initial thought, thereby leading to “upakilitta” or contamination. Those  “puthujjano” who do not understand this, cannot comprehend the reality (yathabhuta). Therefore “therefore, Buddha does not recommend citta bhavana to them.
There are two types of citta bhavana.  They are the Avitakka-Avicara Bhavana, and the Savitakka-Savicara Bhavana. These two are Ariya meditations. In the other type (the Anariya meditations), one can focus on any object; in the Ariya Meditations one focuses on Nibbana. Thus, vitakka, vicara for Anariya samatha meditation becomes savitakka, savicara, emphasizing the focus on Nibbana.

Am I wrong or is "beginner's mind" a Zen term that means "seeing the experience you are aware of, moment by moment, as if you have never
  experienced concepts before... Like you have just been born with a
  mind that has not developed concepts yet and so you see things as they
  really are?

Yes, this is wrong because it has already jumped ahead into the future with a conception of achievement (even though that conception of achievement is non-conceptual seeing). This question is already saturated in dogma & ambition.

Is "Beginner's Mind" equivalent to direct seeing or very related to direct seeing(or even clear comprehension)? Should insight meditators
  be "trying" to see this way, "trying" to see things as if the
  meditator was just born? ...OR...

OMG! This is even worse, when saying: "trying to see things". Zen Master big whack with big stick!
The pure mind automatically sees things clearly. The role of beginners mind is to allow the mind to see clearly (similar to pulling up an anchor so a boat can float freely down a river).

Does direct seeing develop when a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each
  meditation object mixed with what really is and then slowly through
  continuous practice the meditator will be able to understand what is
  concept and what is direct experience?

No. Direct seeing develops when the mind is free from thoughts, hindrances, concepts and, most of all, ambition.
It is simply not good enough to focus the mind with strength. Instead, for direct seeing to start, the mind must abandon ambition (craving) for concentration.

If this is true then its not a matter of effort or trying to see direct reality but more about "discerning" what are concepts and what
  is the real object that is arising in experience by just seeing what
  the meditator sees. Maybe, I'm mistaken somewhere because it's not
  totally clear to me.

To examine water clearly & directly, you cannot take a microscope into the waves of the ocean because you will be washed around by the waves. Instead, you must take a drop of water and place it quietly with stillness under a microscope.
Similarly, first the mind must be stabilised with (wrong) concentration. Then any intention or ambition to concentrate must be abandoned to manifest right concentration or flexible stillness. Then right concentration, without an act of will, will see things directly.
Therefore, beginners mind is to meditate without any ambition; as though you are completely virgin & innocent. Intellectual dogma about 'non-conceptualization', 'no-things' & 'no-inherent-existence' is not beginners mind.

Right, it's bad writing. You have never seen someone try to express something use the wrong words before? OMG I said we "should try", somebody call the dhamma police!!, lol.  I don't mean that we should try anything , I mean "is direct seeing the same as how a newborn sees?"

What is direct seeing?
It is your second option. As you said:

a beginner starts by watching meditation objects "imperfectly" with all the concepts of each meditation object mixed with what really is and then slowly through continuous practice the meditator will be able to understand what is concept and what is direct experience.

What is beginner's mind?
Beginner's mind is obviously not actual beginner's mind, it is the clarity you get when you let the dust settle down either through meditation or by creating some distance between yourself and the situation. It is when you are not bogged down with too many details, perspectives and ambiguities but see the configuration of the situation with clarity.
The difference between the two.
The two are related, in both cases we talk about experience or perception. But the contexts are different, in case of Direct Seeing we are talking about someone starting with conceptual map and then finally "getting it" for real. While in the case of Beginner's Mind we are talking about someone starting with ambiguous experience and then attaining clarity. The end result is the same but the starting points are different.
I don't think you put effort into Beginner's Mind. It comes by itself as a result of not proliferating the intoxication, not feeding the fire, the dust settling, the distance growing or whatever other metaphors you want to use. It's the effort of not-doing, not the effort of doing.
Direct seeing on the other hand does require effort. This effort is known as Vipassana or Inquiry or Insight into your direct experience, guided by the conceptual map of Dharma.

Think you messed up two unrelated terms that's why it added unnecessary confusion.
Beginner's Mind (初心):
It's for depicting the Buddhist, the seer, when at the 1st moment drawn to the Dharma, knowing there is a way out for this world and a mean for perfect liberation, the elation, joy and dedication. Like the newly wedded. But it will decline gradually, the newly wedded becomes old couples, boring, mandatory... So is the Buddhist, the seer. A Ch'an tagline: the 1st year, at the heart is the Buddha; 1 year later, he's at the door; 3rd year, at the other side of the azure (佛在天邊). And also, when Buddhist becomes old greasy, he is prone to be drown in the sea of Dukkha, suffocated by the wheel of Anicca, intoxicated by the liquor of Nibbana... he can't maintain proper thinking for his mind has been invaded and dissected by Buddhist Jargons, or/and, faking Jhanas like faking Ogsms.! :D. Like you said, only the words about how kiwi taste but never ever have a bite on it, tasting it himself. The worst is, he even starts to teach others how kiwi taste like.
Direct Seeing:
It has multiple meanings, depends on what level you are talking about. As I assumed you asked for trying to get hints about how to have advance vision of things - the thing of itself, not thing of concept (it's my cumsy way to depict your concern). Grossly I would say DS can only happen on the level of 7 Vijnana and the 8th. Below are the 6, most of us using conscious or unconsciously the 5 Vijnanas, some can use the 6 - 6th sense. The 5 are faculties of info inputing, the 6th, apart from managing the input info, also is able to draw past info, still, it works on info - concepts. The 7th is more pure, it's purely intention. The 8th is the Sea, the Reservoir, the Treasure House... For anything coming down it has to go passing the 6th, becomes concept, to become Form in this world. So, the task for the seer is to stop the interference of the lower 6, access the 7th then the 8th... If you can, you are able to do DS.

Before I get into the Zen part of this question, I'm going to lay out an assumption.  By "direct seeing" I'm assuming that you are referring to abhijna which is more often translated as "direct knowing".  This direct knowing includes knowledge of the destruction of the taints, beings arising and passing away according to their karma, recollection of past lives, the uprooting of ignorance, etc.  If that's what you are referring to, then no, beginners mind is more mundane than that.
You also use another phrase - clear comprehension.  In the mindfulness teachings of the Pali canon, this is the most commonly used translation of the word sampajanna.  This is most often taken to mean full awareness of an action.  If you are raising an arm, you are aware that you are raising an arm, when you are walking, you know that you are walking, etc.  This is getting a little closer to what is meant by beginners mind.
So what is beginners mind, then?  One way you might be able to get a handle on the concept is to think back to when you first started learning something.  We'll take driving a car for example.  During those first few times you drove, there was a sense of heightened awareness.  You probably remember everything about that experience - who you were with, what street you were driving down, etc.  You were extremely conscious of what your feet were doing, how you were holding your hands on the steering wheel, and so forth.  Your mind was in a place of novelty and immediacy.  It didn't wander very far from the task at hand.  It didn't devolve into conceptualizations about "driving theory" or other cars that you had driven before.  The more times you drove, the less immediacy that experience had for you.  Over time, you eventually started taking the whole thing for granted.
The Zen mind is always at the beginning.  To lose that immediacy is to fall into duality and conceptualization.  Practically speaking, you can work on developing that kind of awareness.  That's really the thrust of all mindfulness practices (and I HIGHLY recommend Ven. Analayo's Satipatthana). Don't try and imagine what it would be like to see something as if you were just born.  Just be aware of what you are doing - thoughtlessly yet attentively.

Base Direct Seeing (Kamma Sammādiṭṭhi)
Realizing/thinking of kamma system, wholesome actions and wholesome resultants of wholesome actions & unwholesome actions and unwholesome resultants of unwholesome actions, after know anything by any senses.
Concentration Direct Seeing (Jhāna Sammādiṭṭhi)
Realizing/thinking of jhāna system, wholesome minds and wholesome resultants of wholesome minds & unwholesome minds and unwholesome resultants of unwholesome minds, after know anything by any senses.
Access To Insight Direct Seeing (Vipassanā Sammādiṭṭhi)
Realizing/thinking of paticcasamuppāda system, causes of whole suffering (5 aggregates), after know anything by any senses. This viewing will lead to see 3 characterizes.
Note: I understand whole tipitaka-pali without cutting anything off, because I use this 6, the other 3 is for ariya, sammādiṭṭhi that summary from tipitaka by commentary.


text:
What does breaking the fetter 'Clinging to rites and rituals' actually mean?
The second fetter to break when one becomes a stream entrant is given as 'Clinging to rites and rituals'. I've always found that one a little puzzling. How do you know if you are clinging to a ritual? What would be the signs of it? Does the fetter apply exclusively to Buddhist rituals or does it apply to the little rituals we all indulge in as we navigate our way through daily life? I think I'm after someone to help unpack this one a little bit.

It seems to refer to the elimination of wrong view. In ancient India it was pretty common to believe that a rite or ritual can make amends for bad karma of wrong conduct. Even good conduct like generosity can become a rite or ritual if one isn't careful. Lots of generous people like to boast about their donations, so this too is wrong view. The '"four erroneous views" are to apprehend impurity as purity, to apprehend selflessness as self, to apprehend suffering as happiness, and to apprehend impermanence as permanence.

The coarser or more general context:
It's about not being attached to symbolic rites and rituals or taking them to be literally true.
For e.g. from SN 7.21:

The Buddha said to Sangarava:
“Is it really true, brahmin, that you practice purification by water,
believing in purification by water; that you live committed to the
practice of immersing yourself in water at dawn and dusk?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“But brahmin, for what reason do you practice purification by water?”
“It’s because, Master Gotama, whatever bad deeds I’ve done during the
day I wash off by bathing at dusk; and whatever bad deeds I’ve done
during the night, I wash off by bathing at dawn. That’s the reason why
I practice purification by water.”

“The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, brahmin,
unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledge-masters go to bathe,
and cross to the far shore without getting wet.”

When he had spoken, Saṅgārava said to the Buddha:
“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may
Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge
for life.”

The more refined context:
From AN 3.78:

“Take the case of someone who cultivates precepts and observances, a
lifestyle, and a spiritual path, taking this as the essence. If
unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline, that’s not
fruitful. However, if unskillful qualities decline while skillful
qualities grow, that is fruitful.”

From MN 24:

“Is the spiritual life lived under the Buddha for the sake of
purification of ethics?”
“Certainly not.”  ....
“In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the
sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the
sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the
sake of purification through overcoming doubt. Purification through
overcoming doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and
vision of the variety of paths. Purification of knowledge and vision
of the variety of paths is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and
vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for
the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is
lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not
grasping.”

From DN 16:

If it wishes, after my passing the Saṅgha may abolish the lesser and
minor training rules.

The purpose of precepts and observances, purification of ethics, and a spiritual path is only for the purification of the mind and cultivation of skillful qualities.
But being too attached to minor rules and rituals to the point that breaking them causes remorse and mental anguish, is unskillful and pollutes the mind.
It is enough to practise purification of ethics with the understanding that it is for the purification of the mind, and not be too attached to following minor rules and rituals to the letter.

I've often seen this sort of clinging interpreted as focusing on the rite or ritual itself rather than deeply experiencing the underlying insight or purpose, sometimes intended as a shortcut to doing the work. Examples abound in all religions actually, whereby people think that doing this or that act or repeating such and such a phrase will get you the desired result. Capturing the shell of something, playing the part, but not understanding or abiding in the core meaning. I recall one author writing to the effect that we must see rites and rituals as a means to an end and not mistake them as the ends in themselves.
So how do we know if we're clinging to a ritual? My feeling is that mindful examination is our best tool. Asking ourselves, "Am I just going through the motions with this ritual, perhaps sticking to it merely out of a sense of duty or so that I feel I put in the minimum effort?  Or is it truly helping me achieve insight or deepen my practice?"
I do think we all have our little rituals that we indulge in our daily lives, but I would differentiate between a neutral routine (e.g. cup of morning tea) and a ritual that we rely on for personal advancement but we may not be applying ourselves fully to.

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


text:
Found items and the Second Precept
There was a crumbled up dollar bill on the stairs when I was coming out of work today. I looked around and didn't see anyone who might have dropped it. I picked it up and walked away. Pretty soon I went back and laid it back on the steps again.
I realized I really didn't know how the 2nd precept, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given" should be applied to found items which don't have an apparent owner.
There are lots of examples:
*wild berries in the woods
*wild flowers in a vacant lot
*something interesting that washes up on the shore
*something that's been left on the side of the road
*money lying on the ground with no one anywhere around
*an apparently abandoned item in a desolate area
I hadn't really thought about this before, but as I was walking away with that dollar I actually felt kind of guilty. So I'd like to know found items should be considered for the future. Thanks!

The Vinaya actually goes into all of this under the rule against stealing. The question involves the factors involved in stealing:

the object has an owner,
you perceive that the object has an owner,
you intend to steal it,
you make effort to steal it,
you succeed in stealing it.

All have to be fulfilled in order for it to be stealing. So if you think something has been discarded, it is not stealing, even if it turns out that it has an owner. If you find out later that the item you took actually has an owner, any act you perform in relation to the item from that point on could potentially be an act of theft.
The point of the rule is to respect ownership; it has nothing to do with unowned items, or acts performed that do not breach that respect (e.g. taking something under the assumption that it has no owner).
The case where there is doubt about whether an object has an owner is more difficult, and it comes down to the third factor - intention. If you take an object that you think might have an owner with the intention to return it if you ever find out it has an owner, then it would not be considered stealing. Obviously, this becomes more unreasonable the more likely it is that the object has an owner. Really, the only way you could rationalize taking such an object is in the case where there is no compelling reason to think that the object has an owner still concerned with the object.
If it seems likely that the object has an owner who hasn't abandoned it, then it should be left alone - or the owner should be sought out. If it seems likely that the owner has long abandoned the object, then it may be taken as a possession if there is need.
The BMC I has some discussion about this sort of question as it relates to monks:

Because items that have been given away or discarded do not fulfil the factor of object here, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who takes a discarded object—such as rags from a pile of refuse—or unclaimed items from a wilderness. The Commentary, in some of its examples, includes items given up for lost under “abandoned,” but this interpretation has to be heavily qualified. If the owner retains a sense of ownership for the lost item, it would fall under the term claimed, and thus would still count as not given. Only if the owner abandons all sense of ownership would it genuinely count as abandoned.
...
None of the texts discuss the possible case in which one might be in doubt as to whether the object in question is not given, perhaps because the compilers felt that the factor of intention, discussed next, would not apply in such cases. Thus it would not be an offense under this rule. However, the wise policy when one is in doubt about an item’s ownership would be not to take the item for one’s own, or at most to take it on loan, as explained below.

This really clears things up. Thank you Bhante.

@Robin111 I made some changes... I think it was a bit off the first time - if you take an item the ownership of which you're not sure about, I would think it comes down to whether you disregard that potential ownership when you take it, thinking "if it does have an owner, I'll keep it from them."

@yuttadhammo I was walking and suddenly saw a green paper rolled in mud and I picked it up at that very moment, and it actually was a Rs. 1000. I couldn't think of anything to do since there was no one searching for a lost note and there was so much of crowd passing by. Knowing that I can't find the owner I took it and came. Have I broken the second precept? Any advice on what can I do now? If I use it for something, is that going to make things worse in terms of sins?

According to Atthasālinī, five conditions should be satisfied to break the 2nd precept.

An article belonging to another legally and blamelessly.
Knowledge that the article belongs to another.
There must be the intention to steal.
Action must be taken to steal.
By the action, the article must be taken.

A dollar bill dropped on the stairs may not qualify as an abandoned object or an object without an owner like "wild berries in the woods". Money is almost always owned by someone. People don't usually abandon it on purpose.
The owner might not care too much, if it's just a dollar. But if it's a large amount, he or she could be so worried and looking for it already. So you could practice compassion and look for the owner. Alternatively, you could simply think of it as something you didn't earn or something that does not belong to you and walk away.
If it starts troubling you or if you start worrying whether the next person will pick it up, you are already clinging to it. Think of it as a problem you didn't have until you saw it and let go.

That was my thought when I returned it. $1 is not worth having this guilty feeling. Thanks Sankha.

@Sankha I was in Pettah and suddenly saw a green paper rolled in mud and I picked it up at that very moment, and it actually was a Rs. 1000. I couldn't think of anything to do since there was no one searching for a lost note and there was so much of crowd passing by. Knowing that I can't find the owner I took it and came. Have I broken the second precept? Any advice on what can I do now? If I use it for something, is that going to make things worse in terms of sins?

@Achala You did not have an intention to steal. You would have given it back if you found the owner. So it didn't break the precept. So don't worry about it!

@SankhaKulathantille thank you. much appreciate the response

You're welcome!

I believe this is what you are looking for: Burnt by the fruit

I think it should be ok.  I asked myself similar question, a situation such as taking or using things in your house from your family members knowing in advance they dont care?  Example: using my gf's shaving cream she left in the bathroom?  I came across this sutta which i dont remember the reference number. It's called "vissasa"  literal translation means, "intimate, confidential, trust worthy", but in a context, "take liberty" is probably more direct. if you take liberty of something, knowing in advance it would not cause the owner griefs, anger, etc, and the the owner would be happy sharing it with you then the precept is unbroken, untorn, unblemished,  (my further reading, unbroken = you dont break the precept your self, untorn = you dont ask someone to break the precepts on your behalf, unblemished = you dont feel joy when see, hear, or know if someone breaks a precept). I usually ask first before i take Vissasa, just to be sure.  vissasa has two features.. the owner dont mind you taking it, and the owner is happy you taking it.  very normal in every household, i think.  however, i wouldnt dare to use my gf $80 skin lotion, that's for sure  :-)


text:
where to get Tattvasiddhi Śāstra
Anyone knows where I can get my hands on Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman, also known as Satyasiddhi Śāstra also known as Prodbhūtopadeśa also known as Chengshi lun. Paper or electronic format is fine.

It's available for download here at Scribd.com.
But it looks like one must buy a subscription in order to read their books.

Thank you. The quality of the scan is not so good but it is readable.

No problem:) It's a difficult book to find. Apparently it cannot be bought anymore and no libraries seemed to have a copy of it. I hope you can get through it in its current form.


text:
Dealing with extreme temperatures
During this current heat wave I've been struggling with heat related discomfort in my sits. (A/C isn't an option at my home) Any advise on dealing specifically with this, I'm sure the people who mediate in the east have it worse.

We must learn to thank the physically uncomfortable things in life, because it is a great teacher.
The retreat center in my city is right beneath the primary flight path to a busy airport. New meditators on their first retreat often get very irritated by this - because not only is it hot and sweaty, especially if they aren't from India, but they didn't sign up to deal with this infernal din from above.
We may not realize it, but we often live in our thoughts and memories and not in the present moment. Our memory of comfort is what comes in conflict with the present discomfort, not the physical pain itself, since it is the mind that gives meaning to pain.
When irritation swells up in us we must immediately thank it, and investigate it - who is getting irritated? Where is the clinging coming from? What exactly is uncomfortable? What is getting hurt? Is it our senses or our expectation? When exactly did the irritation begin? What happens to our attention at the moment of irritation? When does it end? How soon does it begin, and how soon does it end? What is its nature? Is it constant or does it arise and pass in waves? Can one see the three characteristics of anicca, anatta and dukkha in the irritation? and so on.
When the first aircraft flew above me, I was mildly irritated by it, but seeing that this was a great teacher who had come to guide me, I began to practice loving kindness towards the passengers in every aircraft that flew above me after that. Soon it became a habit, and so while there were some who would audibly sigh and hiss at the aircraft, I would be enveloped in a warm glow of love several times every hour.
It isn't the physical reality but our reaction to it that matters.

Your "investigate it" paragraph reminds me of the Arrow Parable, but in this case I see your point. "We wear out the shoe of samsara by walking on it through the practice of meditation." - Chögyam Trungpa, Rinpoche - The Myth of Freedom.

Try meditating outside sometimes if you can, making sure you are safe and secure.
That's how the forest monks did it back in the day of Buddha-lectures-at-full-moon.
The most important "technique" is just being aware (vipassana). Be aware of everything recursively as it occurs including any scattering of awareness itself.
Eventually everything will calm down and you will be quite alright and cool.
Also, take a cool shower and eat less (Buddhists do not eat past noon meal, thus reducing our sexual desires, creating a detox state, and many many positive effects including heat reduction).

The benefits you list of reduced or scheduled food intake are true: horses keep from freezing in winter by eating lots of grass, which ferments in their bellies. I find that eating more makes me more hungry and raises my resting metabolism - like throwing wood on a fire. I sometimes wake at night too warm due to a large meal in the evening. Most people eat more than they really need. But if you are doing physical work, you MUST eat enough, it is as simple as that. No points for starving yourself.

Yep! I agree and can confirm all the sub-topics you raised. It is also very necessary to eat for anyone who active, not just physically so, because the brain uses up to 70% of the energy produced anyway! In some ways, intellectual work uses more energy than mechanical work!

You could try doing walking meditation prior to sitting, at a fast pace. This would accomplish two things:
1) The walking itself would make you hot, therefore when you sit down, you would feel relatively cooler.
2) Doing walking meditation at a fast pace arouses energy, thereby making the drowsiness that comes along with being hot less of an issue.
Also, if you have a basement you could try sitting down there, instead. Basements are generally cooler.

Dealing with Heat: use a large and quiet fan on a slow setting. My Meditation Teacher said, "there must be movement of air." Ceiling fans are amazingly helpful, if the ceiling is high enough for one in your room.
Wear as little as possible. In your home you can wear a loose skirt even if you are male. (Perhaps in other situations people would not mind either.)
If the humidity is low, you should be comfortable in this way even at a fairly high temperature (90F / 32C). Most likely the problem is humidity, which impedes your body from cooling itself. The fan will help. If it is humid, dehumidify the room, or keep it closed to keep humidity out.
Some fresh air should be brought in while you are sitting, if at all possible. Cold is not so hard to deal with, as blankets wrapped around are comfortable. I used to live at a Retreat Centre, where outdoor temps varied from well below freezing for months, to "blood heat" (body temp) with humidity at times for weeks in the summer. For years we had no A/C, then only a large window unit for the whole house. But something can always be done, and it does not last forever in any case.

A lot of great suggestions, I'll get to work and report on what's been successful.

Put an icepack or a frozen waterbottle under/in between your feet. Remove it and replace as necessary.

Could you address the question in a more precise way? I think OP is asking for advice from a practical meditative point of view. Also icepacks and anything frozen should never be placed directly onto the skin since it can cause damages. One should always put a piece of cloth, such as a towell in between.

For something like this, a cool, damp cloth placed on the nape of the neck is highly effective. It cools the brain directly, and we lose much of our body heat through the head. Hands and Feet are next.