text:
Body Scan Versus Feeling Breath Overall
Upon reading this post, I realized I always focused on the tip of the nose rather than the whole body, which may be less effective (for me). I was reminded of my Buddhist college teacher who said that meditation upon the body may cause psychosis or a mental breakdown for some.
Hence, I wonder: Is there any difference between mindfulness of the body (e.g. body scan) and focusing on the breath as it arises all across the body?
My teacher specified he believed focusing on the tip of the nose would avoid any such problems. Is meditation on the breath as it arises across the body a variant or even partial form of body meditation?
Thank you

What do you mean by "arises across rhs body."?

Based on my study of Buddhist texts, the guidance of my teachers, and my own experience - the most effective meditation (of this type) is to maintain awareness of the entire breath AND feelings, while releasing any mental/emotional blocks that you notice thanks to this awareness.
First of all, there is no magic in merely holding your attention - whether it is the tip of the nose or the diaphragm or abdomen or anything else. There is no magic button somewhere that will open some door if only you keep pushing, nothing like that.
Instead the key principle is to stop creating/maintaining trouble in your mental continuum. This is called "samatha". In order to stop creating/maintaining trouble we must notice it first. This is called "vipashyana". The better you see, the better you stop, the better you see.
When you watch the entire "body" of your inner experience, it is likely dominated by thoughts. This is expected in this era. There is another type of meditation for working with thoughts. But for this meditation you need to tune your awareness to predominantly watch everything but thoughts. This includes sensations of the body, the somatic components of emotions (the part of emotions felt in and around the body), and the emotional aspect of your mindstate (colloquially known as "the mood"). Sensations of the body include the muscle tonus, posture, and any acute neuroses manifesting in body shaking, tensions, or blocks. In the very center of this entire body of non-discursive experience is the cluster of sensations connected with breathing.
The breathing sits right on the intersection between physical and mental, which is what makes it special. If you center your awareness on the breathing, you will naturally include most of the bodily sensations on one side and most of the emotional aspect on the other side. This makes breathing a perfect focal point.
Specifically, it is the muscles involved in breathing in and breathing out. Because, if you watch carefully, you will notice that these muscles are extremely sensitive to all emotions. Any change in emotional "weather" results in the change of tension and affects the speed with which these muscles contract and relax. So by watching the state of muscles connected with breathing you can very clearly see your emotional state.
Once you learn to see the emotional state, you don't really have to focus on breathing. The point of all this exercise is not breathing, after all, it is perfection of samtha and vipashyana.
So the entire exercise of meditation is to watch all that, and to trace these blocks and neuroses to their emotional roots, so you can uproot them. This process of tracing may involve a little bit of thinking, but for the most part your job is to dwell on the feelings. The hangups are something you discover by seeing, not by reasoning.
Once you see them, you let them go, release them, dismiss them - whatever you want to call it. As said in the sutta, you watch your breathing in long, you watch your breathing out long, you watch your breathing in short, you watch your breathing out short, you watch your breathing while paying attention to the whole experience, you watch your breathing while relaxing the mind, you watch your breathing while gladdening the mind, you watch your breathing while liberating the mind.
This is not all there is to Buddhist meditation, and not all there is to Buddhism - but this is a big chunk. Just practicing this for a while (months? years?) will be of great benefit to most anyone.

Whatever you make the spatial focus point for breath meditation, nose, middle of skull, belly, feet, all focal points can have pros and cons. In general, breath meditation is very safe to do, but people can have all kinds of unique and strange physical/mental health problems, so really any kind of meditation can 'cause', induce, or aggravate psychosis.
In general, people with hypertension, prone to headaches, by focusing on the nostril area, to the exclusion to the rest of the body, is going to tend to exacerbate those problems. Focusing on the entire body, every cell in the body, is in general going to be much more conducive to relaxation, pacification, bliss, leading into deeper states of meditation. And that's what the Buddha teaches in steps 3 and 4 of the 16 steps of breath meditation.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Contents.html
With Each & Every Breath
A Guide To Meditation
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
(Geoffrey DeGraff)
The same site also has the book in various ebook formats (epub, mobi, etc.).
This is the best book available for a comprehensive guide on the topic of breath meditation, an authentic interpetation of the EBT (early buddhist texts).

If you overlook mindfulness of your body you run the risk of missing out on a lot of important self observations regarding the rupa and vedana skandhas (your bodily sensations and/or emotions). For that reason i'd recommend widening the scope of investigation.
The consecutive tetrads in anapanasati meditation provides a suggested framework for this, going from examining your breath, and further on to your body and so forth.
The full scope is covered in the anapanasati sutta.

The topic of Karma is only understood by a Buddha, but having said this I think if you have the karma to have a breakdown most probably this will happen if you meditate or not. The type of meditation may not play much of a factor as both are Vipssana type meditation. The probability can be lessened if you meditate.
There is some belief that doing Samatha meditation without a teacher and proper guidance may lead to breakdowns.
So finding a good teacher and having access to a teacher to clarify would diminish any possibility of break downs.
Part of breath meditation is mindfulness of the body. So is scanning the body. In this aspect, there is no difference in term of what frame of mindfulness (the type of sathipattana) is used.
In case you do not have a proper guide it is best that you take a course:

http://dhamma.org
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org

Just breathe.  If you spend your meditation time worrying about how you are breathing, then you are not meditating.

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications[sn41.006].
“On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, breathing in long, knows, ‘I breathe in long’; or breathing out long, knows, ‘I breathe out long’; breathing in short, knows, ‘I breathe in short’; or breathing out short, knows, ‘I breathe out short’; trains thus: ‘I shall breathe in experiencing the whole (breath) body’; trains thus, ‘I shall breathe out experiencing the
whole (breath) body’; trains thus, ‘I shall breathe in calming the bodily formation;’ trains thus, ‘I shall breathe out calming the bodily formations’—on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world. “I say that this, bhikkhus, is a certain body among the bodies, namely, the breath. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world. [modified by me to make clear my preferred interpretation of mn118]
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. (Satipatthana Sutta)
Person consists of 6 element; one of the six is wind element, in & out breaths are wind element.
"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind. (Mn140)


text:
Detachment in breathing meditation
I read this answer, and it made me wonder something deeply; the answer seemed to imply strenuous or volitional attention was inferior to watching the mind for breath meditation, and that merely observing was more effective. I have heard such a statement many times elsewhere, that too much 'expecting' or 'grasping' inhibits concentration.
If this is so, how does a practitioner loosen their grip on the mind? How does one observe the breath with detachment?

Put this into one of your other questions. But here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kY4zVThpro
From experience I can only say that any 'forceful' or strenuous attention implies wrong concentration, leading to things like dissociation and other stuff. Hope this helps.  :)

Hahaha! Excellent question! What if the body did the breathing for the mind?
The biorhythm attached to the breath has its own tempo, as does the heart, the viscera, etc. When you exercise, fatigue accrues when there are disharmonies in those biorhythms - you don't get tired from being at rest.
The premise is enveloping one biorhythm in another, centralising your potential constant energy output. In other words your breathing is a result of your actions, therefore taking the conscious energy input (the mind) is on the action and not the breath.
To help wrap your head around this here is a practical exercise:

Find a quiet place.
Plant your feet comfortably wide apart, parallel.
Knees and hips remain stationary.
Tighten the belly.
Hands in 'prayer' comfortably above your heart (doesn't need to be touching the chest).
Following the movement of your latissimus dorsi muscles compress one side of your spine as if you were attempting to make your shoulder and your hip meet.
Gently shift that compression to the other side, and then back and forth. This will lead to a rocking motion which imitates two accordions working in tandem.
For those who know how to open the throat doing so may result in being able to hear your breath while your diaphragm remains stationary...
If you you do not know how to open your throat, continue the exercise while you think of other people yawning.
Listen for the gasping sound and experiment with the amount of movement required keep yourself going.

I have called it Bi-valve breathing and the benefits of the technique would be more clearly useful for martial artists however there are many applications.
Cultivate in harmony

Granted and agreed that too much expectation or grasping (investment in results) inhibits meditation.
Loosening the grip on the mind involves entering into a state of repose with respect to what is observed: Not reacting to what is being observed, not trying to influence of control it in any way, accepting it as it is or becomes and letting go of all ideation, interests, or accidental affects one has had on it.

"investment in results", does housholder Troll likes to go more deeper into it without much expecting results at the same time?

Connecting the lack of expectation, return to meditation, and expenditure of effort with valuable results is a combination of difficulty, but insight may yield it.

In contemporary practices, some control was exerted over the breath. In Anapanasatti you are just aware of the breath without trying to control or change the nature of the breath. This is the detachment one must exercise towards the breath.

Don't forget; Volition is not only a free ride into Yama's mouth from the nidana link called volition; But also a skandha... kinda like the Monopoly card that says: Do not pass go, Do not collect two hundred dollars, Go straight to jail.
Best to think of the Ox Herding pictures when getting the ol' mental elephant out of the mud. The Buddha just sat there as his "friend" lamented about what his "family" was doing to his house not getting a clear drink or bath... not seeing himself; Being the only one churning the great ocean and thrashing about in such attachment, in that very moment of recollection.
Breath is not an easy thing to hold as meditation; without noticing it? You may have not breathed in forty kalpas, and on noticing it? Pow right in the kisser.
Tactile sensation is an easier one; and breath thought of as a last resort... Zen meditation posture where the tips of the thumbs are lightly touching is my suggestion as a better grip... breath arouses different states of mind to notice arising and passing away... basically in seeing the rising and falling of the three poisons. As soon as one releases all three? Who knows how long has passed... an aeon in a moment. First glimpse of Nirvana... Which ever of the three attaches greed, hate or delusion at that bubble bursting? Never you mind as all three have returned like a council of Anagamin expecting you to be their new sacrificial lord and savior; to wallow and thrash about in their greed craving and desire.
Oh and you will thinking you have attained something other than letting go is an even worse attachment; as it only mires one in delusion. Eventually you'll come out on top of that animal be it greed, be it hate, or be it delusion. Keep on sitting and they will just eat each other out of house and home.
Jhana states and siddhi/riddhi are their biggest attachment and failings on the path... having grasped at one feeling and equating it to nirvana/nibbana thinking it attainment? Yours, mine, and countless others too.
Chasing jhana states and the siddhi/riddhi is the downfall of every meditator at some point.
After that point; One sees the truth of: "No god no brahma can be said to be the maker of all of this."
~Visuddhimagga
I have no problem saying that; that book is poison on the path to Buddhahood/Dakinihood from direct experience of it as a path and result. That quote above; Is really the only thing to be learned from it.

When meditation, observe your meditation object and not anything else.
Put effort in mind cultivation and dhamma cultivation, there is no short cut.  Be patient as the fruit will come if we continue to garden the tree well, our job is to garden (the process) not to attach to the fruit (end result).
Quote from here, by Ajahn Chah:

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do
not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it
be. What you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does an Arahant yawn? Or: What are the characteristics of the Noble Ones: Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi and Arahant?
The Abhidhamma seems to talk only in terms of eradications. According to the Abhidhamma the following defilements are eradicated (different list than the fetters):

by Sotāpanna: wrong view, avarice, envy, doubt;
by Sakadāgāmi: nothing; He 'just' eliminates grosser forms of lust, hatered and delusion;
by Anāgāmi: sensual greed; hatred and worry;
by Arahant: delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrong, restlessness, greed (other), conceit, sloth and torpor.

With other words: once eradicated those emotions will never ever show up in ones mind. So far, so good.
I'm interested now in the following:
What doe the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones?  The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.
Are there more? What are noticeable characteristics of the other stages?
So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?
So, I'm not really interested in the list of the fetters. But more in the characteristics by which Noble Ones could be recognised. Like the not breaking of the 5 precepts by the Sotāpanna.
This answer, for instance, is not what I'm looking for.
Edit:
In case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for characteristics noticeable by others. So, not internal ones only noticeable for the person in question.
Thanks. :)

What does the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones? The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then.

It's from Sutta, not Abhidhamma. Sutta Pitaka Vol 10 : Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. pāṭaliyaSutta...

“Gāmaṇi, I know the destruction of living things, results for the destruction of living things, I know the method by which the destruction of living things after death lead to loss, to birth in hell.

...

“Here, Gāmaṇi, the noble disciple gives up and abstains from destroying the life of living things, gives up and abstains from taking the not given, gives up and abstains from sexual misbehavior, gives up and abstains from telling lies, gives up and abstains from slandering, gives up and abstains from rough talk, gives up and abstains from frivolous talk, giving up the coveting mind abstains from coveting, giving up the angry mind abstains from the defilement anger, giving up wrong view develops right view.

So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness?

In short you can see this search result.
In detail, Sotapanna has the powerful craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings, but he understood the dependent origination (right relativity of five aggregates) already, so he clearly realizes the result of all unwholesome formations. However, he can completely decide to cease only the craving in the actions which caused by wrong view, such as the five precepts because he still has the powerful craving in five strings.
Sakadagami has the weak craving in five strings and still able to angry because of those five strings. Sotapunna is just at the beginning to cease craving, but Sakadagami is at  more than half of the cessation way. It's similar to a fresh man and a senior because both of them still not graduate, but they are completely different from each other because of their experience in the university. Sakadagami is seasoned.
Anagami has no sexual feeling any more. He has no craving in any five strings. He still has only the sleepiness in meditation, the forgetfulness in meditation, the craving in being, the craving in not being, and the craving in the difference of own being and the others'.

A stream-enterer has become free from the identity-view, but s/he is not free from attachment to things. There are different phases for a stream-enterer in the process of the development of the mind and the most important one is the last(end) phase. A stream-enterer can have short or long periods of bliss but the defilements would start to effect his/her mind again. That's why it's not complete enlightenment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w
A once-returner has continous bliss and contentment and the mind states are not seriously effecting him/her anymore. Which means neither the external world nor the internal forms(thoughts, feelings, emotions) are not damaging the person's inner peace and stability anymore. But as there is no limit of development of the mind, even this stage is imperfect in comparison of non-returner etc. But some people (outside of Buddhism) refers this stage as "attaining enlightenment". Also there are different phases in each enlightenment stages so a "10 years old once-returner" would be definitely be different than the "few days old once-returner"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRquhvbfVp4
Non-returner is the stage that sensual desire and ill-will is completely purified from a person's mind. This is a very blissfull stage. But the weak intentions of "wanting to be something" or "wanting to do something" still exists in this stage.
Arahant stage is complete and permanent purification of the mind. There is no "karmic intentions" left in a person's mind. And "not yawning" or any other physical characteristics are not necessary to exist in a fully enlightened being. Also, old habits can continue to exist even in a fully enlightened being, but that old habits would not connected to greed anger and delusion for an Arahant. Here is a speech of an Arahant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Isd8tSOXw
These talks about the enlightenment stages are also helpful:
Once-returner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn-xKG2zP4w
Non-Returner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ELXPFD0t4

I assume that you're trying to find ways to correctly identify a person's level of attainment.
The problem with this approach is that the expression of anger is proof that one is not an Arahant. However, the absence of anger is not proof that one is an Arahant. The same applies to the other levels.
In fact, "expression of X is proof that one is not an Arahant" is easily applied to an Arahant, but not easily applied to the other levels, because it gets fuzzier due to the presence of one or more fetters. A stream enterer can get angry but he would not kill anyone. But not killing someone is not proof that he is a stream enterer. Meanwhile, getting angry doesn't have any relevance to stream entry in particular.
In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant.

Nice answer, thanks.
I guess that leaves us with just one certainty: the not-Arahant.
Meaning that an Arahant cannot: have anger in his mind, lust, sleepiness and so on and therefore can't react angry, with lust, get tired (yawn ;)) etc. So, if one would spot that in someone one could be certain that said person is not an Arahant.
On the other hand, one could ask question to get a hint of the level of wisdom and understanding. That should do it, or not?

A good collection of how to recognize an admirable person can be found in I: The Way to Stream Entry.
Keep in mind:

"'It's through ... ... that a person's ... may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning': Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

And one fact, seldom pointed out, Ariya puggala are free of the five kinds of stinginess, signs which help one probably most, i.e. generous people and never traders.
Feel given to get deeper into in a sphere given for such.
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining one but as a tiny door to escape)

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


text:
I am confused about certain things, I really hope some kind person can help
What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all. Advaita says that there is only the universal conciousness and all the objects and people are ilusions what is the Buddhist view here?. Advaita says that in deep sleep conciousness do not stop what is the buddhist view here?.
In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let conciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do buddhist explain that experience of our true nature. Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality conciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was conciousness.
What is the view of Buddhism here? What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?. What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which impliyes that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a ilusion that we are not.
Hopefully someone will be able to answer my questions I would really be thankful.
Thank you for Everything.
Kind Regards

Related topic -- How do time and space exist?

From Buddhist perspective, the key ideas of Advaita Vedanta are pretty similar to (Mahayana) Buddhism except the parts where it says that consciousness is everything and that our true nature is consciousness.
Instead we say that consciousness is just one of the phenomena, albeit a very important one. We also say that identifying with anything (including consciousness) leads to suffering, because it makes you vulnerable to change (of that).
What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.
I mean, obviously time exists in some sense. It's 4:27pm when I write this. I'm not making this up, really ;) Similarly, space exists in some sense. My cubicle at work has very little space. So in some sense space is real too.
In Buddhism we say, that every thing is valid within its certain context or within its certain frame of reference. But outside of that frame of reference, it makes no sense. So we try not to say "exists" or "does not exist" - we think these categories are naive. Instead we say, "here is the context in which it can be observed, here are the limits of that context, so this is the extent to which it can be said to exist".
Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?
Well, in Buddhism we agree that everything is connected, or interrelated. Things influence each other and our consciousness arises based on those interactions. But we don't say it's "one" or "many" - because again that depends on perspective. In one sense its one, in another sense its many. We don't want to make one-sided statements.
In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say that separate objects and people are illusion, and that instead it's an interconnected network. We also say that the way things look to us is "like an illusion" because what we see is the models our mind builds, not the actual things. These models can be approximate or completely wrong, but that's what we see. In this sense too, objects and people as they appear to us are illusions.
Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness do not stop what is the Buddhist view here?
There are different levels of mind, some more coarse and some more subtle. There is a kind of mind that does not stop in deep sleep and there is a kind of mind that does not stop with death.
In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do Buddhist explain that experience of our true nature.
There are many "schools" in Buddhism that teach different styles, created by different temperaments of teachers and thus better fitting for different temperaments of students. Some teach meditation that is very similar to what you describe, "relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself". Others teach different methods. It depends on the student.
In Buddhism we would say that our true nature is "the way things really are" aka "truth" or "suchness". Which is more broad and more correct than "consciousness" because consciousness is just one part of the mix.
Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?
In Buddhism we also say that things are nondual - meaning that matter, energy, information and mind are different aspects of same stuff, that it is not fundamentally two or three or four different things. So, when you understand that matter, energy, information, and mind are different aspects of same stuff, you wake up from the dream that coarse phenomena are important, and realize that in fact subtle influences are much more important.
What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana? What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.
Yes of course. Generally speaking you are right, and Buddhism says the same. But it is important to really understand this in-depth, not just repeat someone's words.
Brahman is a fancy word for the Absolute, the totality of everything in space and time. Nirvana is the word for the absolutely perfect peace, freedom, and harmony. This perfect peace or perfect harmony is achieved when there is complete integration of all dualities, when there is no more conflict.
In Buddhism we say, it's not enough to just say that everything is already perfect, that universe is in harmony, and that samsara is nirvana. This is true, but not enough. We also say, it's not enough to just sit and let consciousness be aware of itself. Instead, we say, we should work on eliminating the conflict, both in our lives and in our minds. And how do we eliminate conflict?
We don't create outer conflict with our behavior. We create outer harmony with our behavior. We don't create inner conflict with our thinking. We create inner harmony with our thinking. We let go of childish simplifications and attain real understanding. This way we don't just say that everything is Brahman, Nirvana, Harmony and Peace - we actualize it in our life.

Nice answer. I tend to see the difference you mention regarding consciousness as being a matter of terminology rather than a difference in the teaching. The various meanings of 'consciousness' is often a problem; 'intentional'. 'phenomenal' and so forth. For instance, on the one hand we have 'Being, Consciousness, Bliss' and on the other the Vedic comment that there is no consciousness after death. This suggests two different meanings for the word.   ,

I will answer based on the Pali discourses and the Theravadin interpretation as i understand it.
What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.
It is known in the world that time exists as well as space but the nature of these phenomena is to be explored. The Sutta do speak of a space-element.
Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?
If one says that "there is only a universal consciousness" or "we are all one" it can probably be inferred that this All is also a self. This is not the Buddhist position which would be that Consciouness is dependently arisen, impermanent and is not self.
Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness do not stop what is the Buddhist view here?
It is similar in word but the meaning and definitions of consciousness itself will vary when the two schools are compared so even tho the expression might be agreeable the meaning would be disagreeable.
In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do Buddhist explain that experience of our true nature.
Buddhism makes a point of existing phenomena not being a self, as not belonging to a self nor constituting a self. There are dependently arisen external and internal phenomena which can be taken to be self or belonging to self but these phenomena are at that time grasped with wrong view.
Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?
The World is explained as that in the world which perceives and conceives of the world. All phenomena are said to be created by mind, made and led by mind. There is also a passage explaining that one should regard the world as a mirrage.
What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana? What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.
There are two elements the Conditioned and the Unconditioned, the Conditioned is manyfold and the Unconditioned is unvarying; a singleness. The world which can be taken to be Samsara is Conditioned, with the extinguishment of the Conditioned there is only the Unconditioned Element.

Thank you for your answer. So in Buddhism we have no iniversal conciousness no self. You said that conciousness is dependently arisen in other Words its not who I am. That seems to contradict advaita vedanta because they say that conciousness is ever present? does that mean that buddhism says that conciousness can stop ?

yes in Theravada Buddhism consciousness as well as perception and feeling can cease and consciousness is said to arise as one thing and cease as another by day and night. These phenomena are called dependently arisen, if i was to explain in short; what is felt is perceived and what is perceived is cognized, whatever is felt does not arise without contact as the meeting of the three; consciousness, that which is cognized and that which cognizes, only then there is contact and experience, it is in that experience that those various dependently arisen phenomena can be delineated.

the consciousness element is also spoken of as; "that which is called consciousness, mind or intellect, arises as one thing and ceases as another".

@Buddhism7 - You need to be very wary here, You must be very that the word 'Consciousness'; is being used in the same way when you see seemingly-contradictroy statements about it. There is no necessary reason to suppose Buddhism and advaita discover different hings about consciousness, and it is not very plausible that they do given that both are 'empirical' studies.  .

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?
I once found this dictionary definition of the Pali words akalika ("timeless") and kalika (not timeless) ...

Ñánavíra on Citta, see footnote: "The notion of two successive 'moments', A and B, as akálika or non-temporal is a confusion. Either A and B are simultaneous (as e.g. viññána and námarúpa), in which case they are indeed akálika; or B follows A and they are successive (as e.g. the in-&-out-breaths), in which case they are kálika."
I think this is sometimes the intended meaning in the Pali, sometimes not. When one speaks of the simultaneous arising of nama/rupa+consciousness the meaning is simultaneity; when one speaks of consciousness depending on nama/rupa or other cases of 'fruition' the use is without interval, immediately successive.
It is probably most useful here to go to the ultimate roots: a = no; ka = shit; li = line; ka = shit. The track of scat left by an animal. The hunter sees: This is the track a week old, this is only two days old, this is from yesterday, and here it is now, eating. That would point to the original meaning of the term to be closer to successive than to simultaneity.

So e.g. time and space exist at least "conventionally" -- to whatever extent e.g. "an animal" and "shit" exist.
You might also say though that things don't exist: "That isn't really a chair -- it's just bits of wood which we use as a chair. And wood doesn't really exist (doesn't exist by itself) -- it's just cellulose, or just something which seems hard to the touch and which we call 'wood'. And it doesn't last forever, yesterday it was a tree and a carpenter, tomorrow it will be broken sticks and smoke."
Or even, "Space doesn't really exist, it's just a word, an interpretation we use to explain what we perceive via our senses. Or space doesn't exist independently, e.g. it's the distance between two things, but if those things don't really exist maybe the alleged space between them is also arbitrary".
does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature
One view is that there's no "me", or more particularly that for example moments of consciousness aren't permanent and aren't mine.
Another is that trying to define what "me" is is futile and unsatisfactory.
Another -- different schools of Buddhism explain this in different ways -- is that there are various "defilements", that "the mind" is "originally pure" (without defilement), that defilements too might be impermanent and not-me ... and that originally purity is Buddha-like (perhaps called "Buddha-nature").
I guess Buddhism says we might be aware of mental defilements, and of what causes them, and not cling them, and so ...

Ceasing to do evil, learning to do good, purifying the heart — this is the teaching of the Buddhas
-- Dhammapada (verse 183)

So, is this to say that timelessness and nontimelessness coexist? I could visualize how this might not be contradictory because one is limited by condition and the other is part and parcel of the unconditioned. Great thread, great answers, thanks.

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist??
Nagarjuna is clear. Nothing really exists.
In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.
Thus they agree with Nagarjuna. But he would say it is unrigorous to say they do not exist at all, for this takes account only of the ultimate truth. To grasp this point    would mean having a look at his Doctrine of Two Truths.
Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?.
The same. But the word 'consciousness' may be used in different ways. Both traditions speak of transcending experience and thus 'intentional' consciousness, but 'consciousness' may be used with a different meaning, as in 'Being, Consiousness, Bliss'.
Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness does not stop what is the buddhist view here?.
The same.
In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here?
The same.
Does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta ....?
The same view in both cases, afaik, but I've never heard either put it quite like this. Awareness being aware of awareness is awareness.
Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?
The same.
What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?.
Nirvana is a relative term opposed to Samsara and as such the idea would be to transcend both to see beyond this distinction. There would lie Brahman. In his Vision of God Nicolas de Cusa discovers that what is ultimate lies 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', thus beyond all conceptual distinctions. Buddhism teaches the transcendence of Samsara/Nirvana for Ultimate Reality. Non-dualism does not allow two things to be real.
What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita Vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.
This seems correct. The teaching that Samsara and Nirvana are the same is subtle and takes some work to untangle. As for most of these issues there are always two ways of conceiving and speaking of the situation due to the inability of words and concepts to describe it. (Thus Lao Tsu 'True words seem paradoxical'.)
In my opinion many of these questions are best approached by way of Nagarjuna's Two Truths doctrine. This explains the reason why what is said about these things often seems contradictory. I would recommend The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso.

Quite some deep quesitons there. Notice Buddhism is a pragmatic doctrine. “In the past, monks, and also now, I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering.” So while there's nothing wrong pondering all the deep questions while sitting in one's own comfy chair sipping hot chocolate, none of those would really matter for real life practice, especially in life-and-death situation. Imagine someone with a knife stuck in his belly and then you proceed and ask him if time and space really exist? or if his ongoing unbearable excruciating pain truly exist? What'd you think if you are the one with a knife stuck in your belly? We all are and we all will face "a knife stuck in the belly" situation in our life time, and so the answer would be that yes, time and space exist, and consciousness and objects are real... to the extent that they're useful to help one cultivates Virtues, Meditation, Wisdom, to make progress on the Path, and to put an end to Dukkha.

Thank you for your answer.In order to liberate ourselves from negative feelings (I have a strong sense that there is an I that is trapped in pain) what would you reccomend to do. Is it to learn the paticca samupada?? I know that I just need clear seeing of my ilusion and I would be free if I saw it.

As mentioned, theoretical knowledge about the inherent emptiness of phenomena will not go far when the rubber hits the road (ie. when one's actually hit with Dukkha). One'd need to start with the fundamentals: cultivating Moral Virtues (like the Five Precepts, Eight Precepts, etc.), practice Meditation (Samatha/Vipassana, etc.), and develop Insight (changing one's perception about phenomena, slowly removing the "I", "mine", or "myself" from the equation thru contemplation on 4NT, 8FP, 12DO, 37 aids to enlightenment, etc.).

Thank you very much for your answer

It's good to imagine that time in a good situation is running out and the space to actually match the path is getting smaller and smaller. Therefore one should turn over to do merits as long as possible and where ever is given such a space. Time and space to not enlarge by thinking around in wheels but by deed, from gross to refined.
(Note that it is not given to cheat about much time and space by trading around, exchanges, stacks and entertainments of laziness but as a tiny door to go beyond)

Thanks for your answer.


text:
How do you practice outwardly giving?
Since most of you have neither much chances to practicing generosity toward the Sangha and aside probably not easy finding individual people worthy of gifts, how do you, living in outer lands, try to practice such to have a basement for further training toward path?

Are you asking only about the Sangha? Perhaps yes, because you regard the Sangha as the only base one can have for further training?

My person thought, aside of encouraging to help each other to do merits also in very gross form, to give some tips of what might be conductive for getting and staying in contact with good people and perform also some merits by things even if far off:
That you may have admirable people in your real of living near, at least internet:
Look that you can provide space, connection, accounts... without strings, but given by your effort and strength, keeping them away from getting bond by contracts and duties.
There are (a devoted Upasaka found out and informed) today even possibilities to fill up such as cell-phone credits if you can manage that people living on alms can access devices and maintain them.
If you have room, space... try to let them know that they are always welcome. Also if having joy in giving alms-food, medicine and clothes, let it be known and try to maintain places where it could touch those who do not ask or write wish lists.
My person encourages you not only to share ways but also to share the merits, because otherwise, how many theoretical input you may gain, the Gems would not prosper for one who makes no scarifies at first place. One is wise if being that selfish in this way and does not much doubt in it's benefit.
Don't act like a consumer or even a trader. When just giving out of owning something or just to get something later back of which is perceivable, such wouldn't make you glad to an extend that you gain real joy with your self and the found freedom and richness you actually would have all the time.
Try it, and stick firm to precepts while doing so, or preparing for such, since without it would not last that long, just like a sort holiday with a lot of debts when returning home again.
May a lot of rejoice-worthy and for you inspiring hints and tips follow and it's always best not only to share ones merits as much as possible but to also invite others to join this or that undertaking.
Mudita
(Note that this is given only for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that nourishes your secure way out of the bond where trapped)

Many monasteries with foundations/trusts which accept and manage money/gifts for Sangha do take checks and other forms of electronic fund transfer. And they often publish "wish list" which could be purchased and shipped directly from Amazon.


text:
Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana?
Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana?
It appears you still have the sadness in first Jhana.
What sort of sadness it is?
The Vitakka and Vicara in First Jhana are wholesome. That is loving kindness thoughts and renunciation thoughts which cannot be leading to sadness.
======
While a mendicant is meditating—diligent, keen, and resolute—the faculty of sadness arises. They understand: ‘The faculty of sadness has arisen in me. And that has a foundation, a source, a condition, and a reason. It’s not possible for the faculty of sadness to arise without a foundation, a source, a condition, or a reason.’ They understand the faculty of sadness, its origin, its cessation, and where that faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. And where does that faculty of sadness that’s arisen cease without anything left over? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s where the faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of sadness, and who applies their mind to that end.
https://suttacentral.net/sn48.40/en/sujato

This is an interesting question, because the first jhana explicitly involves seclusion from the five hindrances, one of which relates to domanassa (translated in your quotation as "sadness"). According to the abhidhamma, domanassa can only arise in anger-based minds, which one might think would be totally absent in the first jhana. The commentary to SN 48.40 blames vitakka and vicaara explicitly for the potential arising of domanassa:

nānāvajjaneyeva ca dutiyajjhānupacāre pahīnassa domanassindriyassa yasmā etaṃ vitakkavicārapaccayepi kāyakilamathe cittupaghāte ca sati uppajjati, vitakkavicārābhāve neva uppajjati.

My Pali is rusty, but this passage basically means that the bodily distress and mental harm which would arise based on vitakka and vicaara do not arise with the non-existence of vitakka and vicaara.
This gives some insight into the nature of vitakka and vicaara as per the texts; they allow for some instability by which the mind still engages in perceptions leading to domanassa, even though the mind is otherwise fixed and focused on a single object (ekaggata).

You are quoting sn48.40.
In this sutta, the following five faculties are transcended as one enters various jhanas:

pain: first jhana
sadness: second jhana
pleasure: third jhana
happiness: fourth jhana
equanimity: "ninth jhana"

Pain is coarser than sadness, for both householders and Noble Ones.
For a householder, someone sad over the death of a loved one might not notice ongoing pain from illness or injury--the personal sadness exceeds the personal pain.
For a mendicant, as personal bodily aches and pains recede with first jhana, one becomes more aware of the immense suffering of others and a sadness arises out of that awareness. Or an older mendicant might feel sadness arise from realizing that Nibbana might be personally unreachable in this very life.
One can also personally experience the relative coarseness of pain vs. sadness without jhana in regular meditation. It's actually quite interesting to meditate when one is in pain and/or suffering. They both attenuate, but pain attenuates first.
Lastly, just because sadness or pain disappears does not mean one has attained one the above jhanas--there are other conditions. There are also different degrees of pain and sadness.

I thought you experience equanimity in the fourth Jhana.

equanimity is transcended (i.e., relinquished) at the end of SN48.40: "...They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of equanimity, and who applies their mind to that end.”

The first jhana is where we sit and deliberately think about our luck of encountering true Dharma and our circumstantial advantages over regular people, in order to transform our insatisfaction with personal life into joy. (e.g. Instead of thinking that having no money, no friends etc. is horrible, we sit and think that we are lucky to be uninvolved in Samsaric activities etc.) We also think about typical problems of the worldly people in order to transform our hatred of the world into compassion.
This deliberately contrived change of perspective brings understanding that we are much luckier than regular people, and that regular life is actually pretty bad. This brings joy about ourselves, and at the same time it brings sadness about the regular world and about life in general.
This sadness or grudge towards life is domanassa described in this sutta.
Then on the second jhana, you do not think - not in the sense of forcing your thoughts to stop, but in the sense of not using the comparisons anymore. You just sit there and cultivate an overall feeling of no conflict, feeling of peace and unification, feeling of rightness, feeling of confidence, of being sure, feeling of being strong. This is a much more refined meditation at this point, but Buddha said, you can't just jump to it, first you must learn to overcome coarse craving/aversion, and generate coarse joy using your thinking, and once you get good at that, then you can practice the second jhana.
On the second jhana you do not use coarse thinking, you do not polarize Everything into "awesome I" and "sad world". Because you do not polarize, sadness is not generated.

Sadness exists in the first jhana because it has not been eradicated yet. Sustained and focused thinking, thought in general, and cognitive processes still have free reign in the first jhana. Only in the second jhana are the ruminating thoughts reigned in.

"There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara[1] devas.[2] The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing."

-- from AN 4.123 PTS: A ii 126
Jhana Sutta: Mental Absorption

It's not clear why asking, since the answer is contained in the question already. There are two kinds of sadness, of one is that of a housholder and the other of one having gone forth.
There is a "cutting off" which is compiled with wisdom and leads as already stated to path elements.
But since you see no reason to leave home and keep on holding a stand, how could you ever experience the meaning of giving and let go? Only one how let go knows what let go means. There is no possibility to explain. Never turn around to manage it.
(note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchanges and entertainments which will naturally cause you unskilfull sadness but as a tiny door out of this wheel)


text:
Compassion's Unity
My question is two-fold.
First, I believe that metta is classified as a meditation object involving concentration. Yet, in this study, researchers suggest it is a mixture of focused attention (e.g. shamatha) and open monitoring (e.g. vipassana). Does Buddhism suggest in certain passages or teachings that compassion is dual in this way?
More so, from my experience, compassion meditations deepens insight. Theravada involves a mixture of shamatha and vipassana, and the Mahayana involves (more so) a union of compassion and wisdom recognizing sunyata. I feel the depth of metta might occur from its union of concentration and insight (as suggested in the previous paragraph) and from metta itself and the realization of sunyata (implied by their merging promoted by the Mahayana). I feel all these things occur with metta in my experience.
When talking about metta a researcher described the occurrence of gamma waves:

Davidson found their brainwaves showed never-before-seen levels of gamma, one of the strongest types of brain waves,  theorized to appear when the different regions of the brain harmonize.

In Buddhism teachings and texts, is metta said to unite a variety of mental factors together?
Thank you

You are always a perfect subject for training metta, Eggman, yet it wouldn't unite other then wisdom very individual, if. In the case Eggman is giving other such possibilities consciously he might even gain some merits by it.
Maybe Eggman likes to perceive hungry small beings running around bind in search for food and even if given are not capable to grasp. When certain sense of samvega, reflecting ones own situation, comes along with it, you possible got the right "wave", possible gain even a first taste of food.
(note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining by joint-adventures but to escape from that very wheel)


text:
Do we "deserve" our bad fortune?
If I recall correctly, the term karma is used to explain the concept of dependent origination and how one thing leads to another, consequently creating every event that happens in our lives. It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result.
However, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, can karma explain the causes of these events and why seemingly innocent people suffer because of it? Furthermore, if we accept the notion that karma is behind everything in our lives, is that equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it?
Much appreciated.

This topic may be a duplicate of Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist, i.e. perhaps the answers to that question and relevant to this question.

Not sure if "deserve" is the correct word to use. As you already said, kamma is just the natural law of dependent origination, so it's just cause/consequence without any emotional connotation like deserve or un-deserve. For example, while one'd feel very bad if a child touches a stove and got burned, but to the hot stove, there's simply no emotion involved. Whether it's an adult or a child, if one touches it, the burn will just be the same.

In the Sivaka Sutta (quoted below), the Buddha stated that some events that happen to us are a result of karma. But other things are caused by other causes including bile disorders, phlegm disorders, wind disorders, change of climate, careless behaviour, assault etc. The belief that all that happens to you is due to past karma is contradictory to Buddhism.
Elsewhere in the suttas, we find the Jain belief that in order to become liberated, one has to do penance to "burn" accumulated bad karma. This is contradictory to Buddhism.
Another belief that is contradictory to Buddhism is that karma is a system of universal justice, whose purpose is to mete out punishment on the wicked and reward the good.
In Buddhism, karma is the expression of our volition. Basically, by the expression of our thoughts, words and deeds, we try to fulfill our craving towards sensual things (of the six senses including the intellect), and to fulfill our craving towards becoming something. This is our response to greed.
However, if we do not receive what we crave after, or if what we are enjoying is suddenly taken from us, we may become angry or unhappy. In this case, we may express our thoughts, words and deeds as a reaction to our aversion.
In general, how we think, talk and act, would somehow influence our future. It's not hard to see how that works. If we act virtuously, the world responds to us positively and vice versa. It's not like if I donate exactly 10 dollars, in future, somebody will give me exactly 10 dollars in return (or the equivalent future value). Rather, it's like if I am a kind person who likes to help people, this will attract other kind and helpful people to trust me and help me too. And similarly for bad karma.
If you intentionally knock your head on the wall, you will feel pain. That's karma too.
If a change in climate causes you to catch a cold, that's not karma. That's just caused by a change in climate.
The result of karma and the result of other causes, based on the Sivaka Sutta, seem to be quite "natural" and in accordance with our experience of the world.
Of course, the "supernatural" aspect of the result of karma is rebirth. But we should not care too much about how we were born into our present life. That's not skillful or useful. What is skillful or useful is to use our volition to minimize suffering and increase happiness in future.
Also, it's useful to think of rebirth not as the rebirth of a person, but rather, as the continuation of suffering that can be ended only by Nibbana, and not by physical death.
As written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "To Suffer Is an Active Verb":

This is one of the reasons why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go
  back into the past and ask, “What did I do to deserve an illness, a
  mental state, a situation in life?” He said that if you tried to trace
  all those things back, you’d go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t
  trace back and find a beginning point for the ignorance that underlies
  suffering. But you can see what you’re doing to sustain it now.

The Sivaka Sutta:

Moḷiyasīvaka:
  “Master Gotama, there are some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a
  doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it
  be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is
  caused by what was done in the past.’ What does Master Gotama say
  about this?”
Buddha:
  “Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from bile disorders:
  that some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders one can
  know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now
  when those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as
  this, ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or
  painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what
  was done in the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and
  they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I
  say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.
“Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders …
  originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the
  three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour
  … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some
  feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for
  oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world. Now when
  those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this,
  ‘Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in
  the past,’ they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot
  what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this
  is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins.”

Nice answer. I like the comment that this wrong view arises from 'overshooting' experience. Or, in other words, imagining one knows more than one does.   .

Before, answering this question, it is important to understand there are two types of Buddhism:
(i) supramundane/ultimate truth;
(ii) mundane/worldly. Refer to MN 117.
Dependent Origination is supramundane. Karma is mundane. In other words, karma is only a "generalisation" about the results of actions in an imperfect world. It is not absolutely true.
The above said, the term karma does not explain the concept of Dependent Origination. Its the opposite. Dependent Origination can be used to explain karma.
This Dependent Origination also explains how good karma may not necessarily lead to a good result. For example, if you are a perfect parent & bring up your children perfectly, you may obtain the good result of having a perfect family but if your family suddenly die in an accident, disaster, war or terrorist attack, because you are attached to your perfectly good family, Dependent Origination says suffering will arise.
Therefore, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, the personal karma of the innocent victims cannot explain the causes of these events. Buddhism teaches beings are the heirs to their actions. It does not say beings are heirs to the actions of others.
However, Dependent Origination can explain why innocent people suffer because of these events. They suffer because of attachment to things as "I", "me" & "mine" (aka "acquisition").
Dependent Origination explains suffering occurs due to death of loved ones; and that death of loved ones occurs due to "birth" of loved ones. The word "birth" means "birth of self or social identity". In brief, SN 12.66 says:

Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores
  thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world
  headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering, what
  is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When what exists
  does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
  aging-and-death not come to be?’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
  suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born and produced from acquisition.

To conclude, karma is not behind everything in our lives. Therefore karma is not equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it. The cause of these synthetic terror events is the ignorant evil New World Order. Dependent Origination explains, according to ultimate truth, these events arise due to the ignorance of the doers (rather than due to the past unknowable karma of the victims). Buddhism teaches there are "innocent" victims, as follows:

He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed, and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:

138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or
  derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
Dhammapada

How'd you interpret the last point in the last sentence in Dhp 138-140 "Upon dissolution of the body? Is it in your opinion a conventional teaching?

In the Pali, the word for "bodily" ("sarīrassa") injury is not the same as dissolution of "the body" ("kāya"). "Kaya" means "group" or "collection". It is the collection of mental & physical actions that comprise of an act of kamma. So when the violent man is confined in prison, those violent aggregates dissolve and the new aggregates experience the hell of prison, for example. Regards

If I recall correctly, the term karma is used to explain the concept of dependent origination ...
No, it doesn't. Dependent origination is a different thing altogether. It is about the gradual semiotic development of subjectivity.
...and how one thing leads to another, consequently creating every event that happens in our lives. It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result.
Correct, karma is basically a teaching about 1) subtle causal influences that condition and shape future possibilities. It is also a teaching about 2) the fundamental principle of subjective experience and how it relates to ethics.

subtle causal influences that condition and shape future possibilities:

Things happen for a reason, nothing just happens randomly.
Things happen because of many factors and conditions coming together in just a certain way, not just one cause.
Many factors do not play active roles but create boundaries that condition the influence of the active factors, thereby shaping development of the situation.
When we act in the present, many of our choices do not create coarse/active factors, but do create these subtle latent conditioning factors.
Such subtle factors that have been created but have not yet came to play, are what's colloquially known as "karma".

fundamental principle of subjective experience and how it relates to ethics

Conflict is subjectively painful, harmony is subjectively peaceful.
Whenever there is conflict -- whether an internal conflict of ideas, or external conflict of people (which underneath is again a conflict of ideas) -- there is (often? always?) suffering.
This is because the nature of mind is integrated information, and in integrated information the two conflicting facts pertaining to the same referent clash, they can't peacefully co-exist (unless they are integrated into some sort of higher-level theory that would make this conflicting situation into a higher-order harmony)
Therefore, all behavior that leads to such conflict, whether short or long term, leads to suffering.
From this general principle we go down to specific instances that create conflict of information, such as lies, divisive speech, taking others' property, violence etc. - to give some more obvious examples, but also countless other behaviors that create subtle factors that eventually shape experience in such way as to increase division and conflict.

So, based on the above you should understand that according to Buddhist ethics a broad class of behavior should be avoided because it conditions long-term "division" and "conflict of information" which subjectively manifests as suffering. Instead, behavior that leads to cessation of conflict and establishment of peace and harmony is to be cultivated. Makes sense, right?
However, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, can karma explain the causes of these events and why seemingly innocent people suffer because of it? Furthermore, if we accept the notion that karma is behind everything in our lives, is that equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it?
It depends. Some of these events are results of previous behavior done long time in the past. "Sentient beings are heirs to their karma" - as a whole. So, if the ancestors did something stupid like destroyed the planet ecologically, the descendants have no choice but inherit the fruits of that behavior.
Terrorist attacks are a result of a clash of ideas in people's minds. Specifically, the attacks of radical religious fanatics, are a result of the clash between the religious ideals of the past era, with the consumption-centric paradigm pioneered by the western society. Both of these sets of ideas are something we (humans, all of us in general) pass down to our next generation. So in some sense we (all of us in general) are responsible for these ideas and the results they bring.
Once the social paradigm evolves in such way that humanity has a new ethical theory that would both satisfy the idealistically inclined members of society AND support economic development, then the need for expressing the conflict between the two would have been resolved and the terrorism of this kind will go away.

I gather -- e.g. from Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist and elsewhere -- that:

Karma doesn't cause everything (e.g. a tsunami)
A person's karma even doesn't cause everything that's conventionally considered to be "a person", e.g. people are also caused by "a seed", and "food", and so on
People's karma does affect how and whether they perceive and react (to whatever happens)

I think we're also warned that "unfortunate" events (or maybe "coincidences") are normal -- sabbe sankhara dukkha -- almost inevitable, natural.
And then there's e.g. the four noble truths, which I think say that suffering arises and ceases, that there's a Way toward the ending of suffering, and and so on -- e.g. changing the amount suffering by reducing "craving" and "attachment" (and "identification" etc.).
So I guess it's not especially that people deserve it, but it's what happens, and Buddhism tries to help people understand that and maybe find some alternative (a different view, set of habits, reactions, etc.).

But I guess people also seem to deserve things -- e.g. if they're harmful or helpful, silly or wise, there are consequences.
And there are bits in the canon which explain that something which happens now is a consequence of an action in a previous life. I'm not sure what good that does though, i.e. how to act on that doctrine -- so I rarely think about that theory (and the canon says that being able to see and understand the details, of how karma works out, is a supernatural ability of the Buddha) -- apart from being careful in this life, and maybe not complaining when things happen, e.g. "oh the world is so unjust!".

It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result.
Not always so, see e.g. Kamma & the Ending of Kamma -- some people are taught the ending of kamma -- and, perhaps, find "good things" unsatisfactory and not a goal.

Everything does not happen due to Karma, but it is the principal cause of experiences in life. Good Karma causes pleasant experiences, bad Karma causes unpleasant experiences.
Having said that, the word 'deserve' is not a word used in Buddhism to describe the workings of Karma. Because it can imply that you approve or recommend someone's misfortune.

“Beings are owners of their deeds. Whose[if not theirs] is the choice
  by which they will become happy, or will get free from suffering, or
  will not fall away from the success they have reached?” -
  Visuddhimagga

This is how Buddhists use the understanding of Karma to develop equanimity(Upekkha).
To give an analogy, if a friend of you smokes and get lung cancer, you don't take delight in it or approve of his misery. But you still say that it happened due to his wrong choices in life. This keeps the mind from giving into sadness.
Even the perfectly enlightened Buddha had to face the consequences of his past bad Karma. So what more to talk about "seemingly innocent" people?

It's foremost good to replace "we" and "our" with "I" and "mine" since it is hard enough to look after yourself.
You, one who might be interested, may like to read "Wisdom over Justice" and "Justice vs. Skillfulness" to get a good understanding about the distinction of "causes have effects" and ideas of "deserving something" (punishment). Its also good to get a good understanding about what kamma (action) act-ually "is".
Much growing by exploring with good mind ahead.
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that keeps you bond in this wheel of it but as a tiny door out.)

At least in the Therevada tradition, it is widely understood and taught that:
'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'
But, do NOT mistaken this to something like..."You deserve it !" or "Serves you right hahah !". People who say this are either ignorant of the Dharma, ignorant of Kamma, or simply purely ill-willed, which is exactly opposite of any Buddhist teachings.
The central teaching is always about controlling your actions, be wholesome, at every single present moment. And Kamma will manifest according to your actions.
The "Algorithm" of Kamma is extremely complex and only the Lord Buddha is able to decipher it 100%.


text:
Did the Buddha praise the practice of incest?
Wikipedia says:

Incest is human sexual activity between family members or close
  relatives. This typically includes sexual activity between people in
  consanguinity (blood relations), and sometimes those related by
  affinity (marriage or stepfamily), adoption, clan or lineage.
In some societies, such as those of Ancient Egypt, brother–sister,
  father–daughter, mother–son, cousin–cousin, aunt–nephew, uncle–niece,
  and other combinations of relations within a royal family were married
  as a means of perpetuating the royal lineage.

DN 3 appears to say the Sakyan Aristocrats were superior to Brahmans because the Sakyans Aristocrats slept with their blood sisters and thus keep the Aristocrat lineage pure.

Recollecting the ancient name and clan of your mother and father,
  the Sakyans were the children of the masters, while you’re descended
  from the son of a female bondservant of the Sakyans. But the Sakyans
  claim King Okkāka as their grandfather.
Once upon a time, King Okkāka, wishing to divert the royal succession
  to the son of his most beloved queen, banished the elder princes from
  the realm—Okkāmukha, Karakaṇḍa, Hatthinika and Sinisūra. They made
  their home beside a lotus pond on the slopes of the Himalayas, where
  there was a large teak grove. For fear of diluting their lineage, they
  slept with their own sisters.
Then, Ambaṭṭha, King Okkāka was inspired to exclaim: ‘The princes are
  indeed Sakyans! The princes are indeed the best Sakyans!’ From that
  day on the Sakyans were recognized, and he was their founder.
For I also say this:
"The aristocrat is best of those people  who take clan as the standard.
  But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct  is best of gods and
  humans.”

It was only yesterday when an acquaintance was tell me how he was part of an Australian veterinary team that went to Thailand to rectify the birth deformities of in-bred goats by impregnating the Thai goats with sperm from Australian goats.
Did the Buddha praise the practise of incest? Are there any Commentary apologetics for this above, seemingly, ignorant teaching in DN 3? I thought the Buddha was supposed to be omniscient? Or is DN 3 just another fake DN sutta composed to convert eḷamūgo to Buddhism?

Quoting from Piya Tan's commentary:

On the first page:

The Buddha is
  not trying to humiliate Ambaṭṭha, but trying to show him that class is not due to birth (not birth alone,
  anyway).

That theme is found elsewhere too, the Dhammapada etc.
On the second page, after "Ambaṭṭha is humbled", the Buddha starts to explain "the fruits of asceticism" in terms of "knowlege and conduct", wishing to ...

impress on Ambaṭṭha‘s mind the importance of both theoretical knowledge
  and the trained mind. The Buddha expounds the well known sāmañña,phala stock passage on the
  threefold training in moral virtue, mental cultivation and wisdom, found in the first 13 suttas of the
  Dīgha Nikāya.

Footnote 66

It is important to note here that the Buddha does not approve of incest. Apparently, incest was not a taboo in
  such ancient times. In fact, it is practised in some societies, such as ancient Egypt and Achaemenid Persia, for sake
  of preserving the bloodline. The Buddha‘s wry humour is evident here. Apparently, by the Buddha‘s time (certainly
  by commentarial times), incest was unacceptable. For, we have an account of an inter-tribal quarrel, where the Koliyas derided the Sakyas as ―descendents of those who married their own sisters, like dogs or foxes!‖ (DhA 3:254). In
  the Chinese translations, this sibling marriage was replaced by those ―within the third degree of kinship, that is, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews‖ (Nakamura 2000: 33). The Dīgha Comy actually classes incest as ―abnormal lust‖ (adhamma,raga), ie, ―lust between mother and mother‘s sister and father‘s sister and maternal uncle‘s wife
  and other such improper situations‖ (mata matuccha pituccha matulanī ti adike ayutta-t,thane rago) (DA 3:853): see
  SD 8.7 (2).

As i suspected, "Commentary apologetics".

It's what makes sense -- it's how I read it without the commentary ... e.g. because that's the interpretation that fits with Dhammapada verse 396, "I do not call him a holy man because of his lineage or high-born mother." ... and because there are other DN suttas which are interpreted as something of a parody of Brahminical doctrine, e.g. DN 27 about the origin of humans.

None of it makes sense to me. To me, it all sounds like non-sense. Anyway, thank for your answer. Regards

Well the Four great references (in DN 16) say that Buddhist are to compare one sutta with another, to decide whether a sutta even is Buddha-vacana. So suttas is interpreted in the light of / according to others. Probably all the canonical ones fit together somehow (e.g. according to commentary), i.e. the compilers of the canon decided they fit. I guess I go into it assuming it makes sense and wondering how to understand it, perhaps instead of being too prejudiced and wondering whether to scorn it.

I don't really understand the question in the OP -- i.e. given that (according to the sutta) the Buddha said, "they slept with their own sisters", why do you interpret or imagine that as the Buddha's "praising the practice"?

because the buddha appeared to say the nobles who slept with their sisters were superior to brahmins who slept with slave-girl; i.e., if a read the sutta accurately.

That's this again isn't it. Again I interpret that as not, "The Buddha said they're superior", but instead, "The Buddha said they're considered superior (by those who believe in superiority-by-birth)". Anyway it didn't occur to me to interpret it as "praise", so.

Regardless, I found the argument unconvincing, similar to the other sutta in the DN where the monk gives these really dumb reasons for why there is an afterlife. The other DN sutta portrays the monk as convincing the other person but the other person's arguments were obviously superior.

Incest is occasionally mentioned in Buddhist literature too. In the Udaya Jàtaka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jàtaka the princes Ràma and Lakkhaõa marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakya people, the Buddha's kinsmen, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they "cohabited with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals" (Ja.V,413).
During the Buddha's life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Saïgha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha's notice he said, "Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?" (A.III,67-8). Perhaps referring to this incident the Buddha also said, "Shame and fear of blame, are the two states that protect the world. If they did not protect the world it would not be clear who was one's mother or mother's sister, one's uncle's wife and the world would fall into confusion. The promiscuity seen amongst goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, dogs and jackals would prevail" (A.I,51). These are some sources....we should understand what is "Adhamma ragaya"   (adhamma,raga), ie, ―lust between mother and mother‘s sister and father‘s sister and maternal uncle‘s wife and other such improper situations...
Truth is Buddha wasn't directly say siblings marriage is a SIN and didn't say directly  siblings' marriage is not SIN...So we must have use thrustfull source to get idea about it.......as well as we shouldn't look at dhamma according to cultural or tradition....dhamma is never change but culture and tradition change time to time and place to place......

"Adhamma raga" comes when human age expectancy drops to 500 years according to sutta.
[The interpretation of "Adhamma raga" refers to engaging in inappropriate sexual relationships with one's mother, father, mother's sister, uncle's wife, or other unsuitable individuals. but this "other inappropriate individuals" mean can not describe as we think/feel.(because it can be wrong).
The beginning of the Sakyan clan between brothers and sisters. In DHASHARATHA Jataka Bodisathwa married his sister. The LICHAWEE clan also originates between siblings.
In UDHAYA BADDA, Jataka also Bodisathwa married  his half sister.
All the above clan origin and jathaka happened  when human age expectancy was more than about 1000 years.
Once, Buddha heard a monk having sex with his mother. So Buddha said "Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?


text:
What are ways "common" and not so known to practice the first kind of proper giving?
One may know, recognize or have ideas about the "fist proper kind/season of giving" which leads to a better and is trained by those devoted to the Gems, and probably like to share such.
How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done?
Mental, verbal (signs) and physical?
At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts?
Feel invited to share for theoretical up to very self investigated ways of merits around it.
(Note: this question is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door into another direction)

I'm not sure I understood, "At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts?" -- I guess it means, "At which point might it (i.e. the practice of giving) stop being good and, instead of being good, lead to increased bonds and debts".

A general run-down of all aspects of the practice of Dana - the first step in the Gradual Course, the instructions usually given by Ananda to lay disciples - the very first steps that should be taken by a very beginning Buddhist are described here:
http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/gradualdana.htm
In the list defining when to give, the first is to give to one arriving. That means when someone visits you or is new to an institution or neighborhood then it is a good time to make a gift to them. Welcome baskets, signing bonuses and so forth as well as the more basic: food, clothing, shelter and medicine that would be helpful to a visiting bhikkhu or for making good kamma giving what you would need in times of need.
But also of interest there: Who to give to, what to give, how to give, the best gift, repaying one's parents, etc. ... and then the rest of that Course.
The main problem with beginning Buddhists today: they want to start at the top, with jhana practice where what should be done first is the building of a strong foundation as described in this course. There is no attaining jhana without a platform based on giving, ethical behavior, self-control and organization of the mind as described in this course.

Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu. Actually all the knowledge leads the most to give up things they had learned as child, like "Say hello to..."

Nyom list six proper season in "when to give" listing 2 seperate and make two into "when in need". Arent the two actually duties in relation "Sila" and not classed as Dana?

Also "whom to give": many are actually a Sila matter. Maybe good if updating the Gift of teaching as there is giving to maintain relation (Sila) and to let go without feeding relation, bounds of duties., liberal.

How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done?
Where I live now, there is no Sangha -- but there are refugees and asylum seekers from other countries.
They tend to be homeless, jobless, perhaps don't speak the language. Sometimes (or in some countries) the country (i.e. the government) might have already accepted them as refugees, or sometimes their refugee claim will take months or longer to process.
The government can or will only do so much for them (e.g. receive asylum requests, issue temporary or permanent documents). Apart from the government, there some local organisation[s] of volunteers who try to help refugees -- find them a place to live (people who are willing to have them as guests, for few days or weeks or many months, until they can find a job and a place of their own), help them to apply for jobs, learn the local language, talk to government, get health care, food and clothing and so on, help with transport (e.g. driving), and school for any children.
Mental, verbal (signs) and physical?
If by that you're asking, "How does that happen?", I know how the local organisation started. There was (is) a man who speaks a foreign language, and who the government sometimes called to act as a translator when they interviewed a refugee.
Therefore he discovered the interaction between the government and refugees, and in particular that the government doesn't do everything to help refugees (or does more for some than for others), and that some refugees need help (e.g. are homeless).
When he retired he started an organisation of people to help refugees. And then, friends of these people find out -- e.g. your friend has a refugee couple staying in their home for months, you meet them and it seems alright, feasible, and you think "I could do that too" and you offer to try to help, and you meet someone from the organisation and they ask, "these people need a home, could you put them up for like three nights and see how it goes?" and if it works fine and it's supportable then you continue, and so on, lots of networking.
To some extent it's like ordinary guest-friendship, I guess, i.e. staying or visiting with people when travelling. My uncle (who in his youth hitch-hiked across Europe and the Middle East) once joked that, "I don't travel fro place to place, I travel from person to person."

Do you think it is not possible that a form of behavior might fall under two different categories? Both Dana and Sila? That both might encompass each other when seen from different perspectives?
Do you consider the gift of Dhamma (the best gift) and the gift of teaching to be two different things?
The idea of The Gradual Course is to provide a solid basis from which to expand one's knowledge and practice. Thus it is not intended to be absolutely comprehensive in depth, but only in scope. With that in mind I have provided numerous links to source material. The work should be regarded as a starting point and stimulus to further research, not a place where one will find one's work already done for one.


text:
Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?
Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood forever, but not for all sentient beings?
I do not, I suppose, mean because the "bodhisattva" enjoys life. I am trying to ask about "compassion" for some group or even individual, if that is possible?
I don't mind if the answer ignores the alledged universality of Buddha-nature, but would prefer if it was from that perspective.

just curious, not about to try to actualize that!

first karuna is not compassion. the pali word for compassion is anukampam.
second the buddha does not even claim he reached nibanna out of karuna, nor out of anukampam. The buddha claims that he taught out of anukampam though.

"Yes", the Buddha, since he thought of the best way for all in a non-naive way, compassionate (=wise) and naturally also didn't encourage anybody to such as "Bodhisattva-hood", as it is popular this days... for peoples livelihood and to justify their eating and harms.
If more interested in what the Buddha act-ually taught and what his way was, it's good if turning toward the "good teachings"

"Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to aging, not beyond aging, sees another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is aged, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely dropped away. (equal with illness and death)...

You may not like it since it would take away all of your excuses that you do no efforts for a better where it would be possible. The Buddha and wise can "live" with this normality of beings.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but to become free of "Buddha-nature"... an exit)


text:
Gratitude, Movement and Compassion
I noticed all the emotions mentioned in the title have a certain similarity. Does Buddhism talk about movement or gratitude?
Similarly, movement seems to occur spontaneously, but gratitude and compassion may be practised. Is movement more of a reaction, and less constructive on that basis?
Finally, movement seems akin to sympathetic joy. Would feeling sympathetic joy in itself -- i.e. the feeling or experience of it -- be constructive independently of practice, or is the implementation more constructive? In other words, would practise like meditation or action bring benefit much beyond merely feeling moved?
I guess I'm somewhat implying the question as well: Do experiences without effort (e.g. merely feeling compassion) have any potential for spiritual growth?
Thank you.

It seems to me that 'feeling moved' is just an emotional reaction. Meditation and practice are not about creating emotional reactions but about transcending them. The idea would be to establish who is moved, who is compassionate, who is emotional and so forth, as well as to engender compassion.
I suspect gratitude is just what happens naturally but maybe this should also be practiced. Perhaps this would be the same as practicing 'being moved' but such a practice would also require establishing who is being moved and even what 'moved' really means.
Experience without effort is not a practice but examining those experiences would be one. In short, I don't think there's anything in Buddhist practice one could call a free lunch.
All 'in my opinion' of course.

No, "experiences without effort do not have any potential for spiritual growth..." since you never really experienced the freedom of letting go, the first stages in doing merits and then even share it. How can you ever trace merits of others and even rejoice with them? So all your perceptions are defiled and intellectual constructed and as always told, no way at all to gain samadhi if not having practiced Generosity, Sharing merits... You need to come in a borderland first (access concentration) and to do so, you need to leave home first. If you have no base for remembering your goodness, never did such, how to remind, how to make anussati? The same with Budddha, Dhamma, Sangha. Never met, what do you call in mind aside of your defilements?
You are hopeless lost with your "Dhamma-friends" and "teachers" who do not even know the path themselves (never trained even generosity and goodness by themselves, having much lack of gratitude as well, devoted to materialism) are there not capable to teach what to do to reach samadhi. It's a product of precious actions and not something you can be taught.
One may hope long on the possibility to gain freedom without work, effort and starting by the gross things.
And Nyom ask redundant, always the same question with other words. Skepic-nature (similar to moha charita) is said to be incapable or hardly to ever gain anything. Yet think if even lazy and greedy in addition...
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment which keeps you bond here but as a door to exit if wished)