text:
Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?
Tibetan texts that belong to the genre of tenets (doctrinal classification) usually claim that the Cittamatra school refutes external existence. These texts further claim that Cittamatrin posit that 'the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness are empty of being different substances'. They say that, according to Cittamatrin, the apprehending consciousness and the object it apprehends both arise simultaneously from a seed that was left in the mind-basis-of-all (alaya-vijñana), and that, given so, the object is not a cause of the consciousness apprehending it (as opposed to what Vaïbashikas and Sautrantika posit). Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

An illustration of the selflessness of phenomena is, for example, the
  emptiness that is a form and the valid cognizer apprehending that form
  being empty of being different substances.

It is difficult for me to conceive, and to admit, that Cittamatrin refute external existence altogether. It would mean they refute that one is born from a mother and a father, and so forth. Moreover, I doubt Tibetan scholars who claim that 'Cittamatrin refute external existence' because they have an agenda. Tibetan scholars often simplify (if not even caricature) their opponent's positions (in this case, Cittamatrin). So, not sticking to Tibetan literature only, my idea was to seek whether Cittamatrin actually refute external existence by reading works written by proponents of the Cittamatra school. Let us consider Suzuki, in Studies in the Lankavatara (p. 114). He writes:

As indeed the idealistic Mahayana does not admit the
  existence of an external world, whatever qualities we ordinarily think
  as belonging to the latter are creations or constructions of our own
  mind.

Suzuki seems to say "Cittamatra refute external existence", but he does not do so explicitly. He says "they do not admit the existence of an external world" but this does not necessarily amount to "refuting the existence of external world". As far as I know, he could be saying "We can not know anything but the aspects our consciousness takes. We can not see beyond our perceptions. We can not know for sure whether our perceptions are perceptions of something external. So, let us not bother with thinking of an external world - be it to refute its existence or claim its existence - and let us stick with what we know: that the eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that we know nothing else."

Thus, the question is: Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world? Or do they simply "not admit, not take into acount" the existence of an external world?
References are welcome.

Also see What is the different between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

According to Kagyu understanding, Yogacara's position isn't metaphysical, it is methodological. It's not that the external world does not exist, it is that our experience of the world is 100% always represented by organs and/or mind, there is no experience outside of that, so practically speaking mind-made experience is "all we have"*
Which is why trying to figure out how exactly the experience is generated and mastering the practical skills for working with mind and experience is of key importance in Yogacara (comparing to the earlier Buddhism's focus on discipline/ethics and the Madhyamika's focus on philosophy).

Yogacarins put so much emphasis on the mind because they are concerned with
  practice. Some people have thought they were saying that everything is in your
  mind. Some of these people were influenced by certain Western philosophies.   -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

Generally speaking Kaguypas seem to prefer to stay away from philosophical discussions and focus on practice, which makes sense given their self-identification as "the practice lineage":

We are not concerned about whether or not a chair exists. That's
  secondary. Why spend so much time arguing about whether or not a chair exists,
  instead of learning how we experience and relate to the chair, and what sort of
  experience we've got? -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

*Using the modern language we could say, reality is an interpretation we make, there is no reality to be experienced outside of an interpretation. In other words, there is no absolute truth separate from the conventional truth.

Downplaying the external world (is "external world" quite the same as 'form (rūpa)'?), saying that our ideas of it are reified fabrications of the mind created from (or dependent on) sense-contact, seems to me a feature even of the Pali suttas ... with the proviso that nihilism (e.g. "There is nothing given, nothing offered, etc."), and presumably solipsism, are identified as a "wrong view".
Distinguishing or reconciling these views is I think known as the 'two truths' doctrine[s].
The following answer is not expert; it's slightly referenced but just recently researched because of your question.

The Theory of Two Truths in India seems to me to support the thesis (that Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world).
Some quotes from this article are:

The central thesis in the Yogācāra philosophy, the theory of the two truths echoes this, is the assertion that all that is conventionally real is only ideas, representations, images, creations of the mind, and that there is no conventionally real object that exists outside the mind to which it corresponds. These ideas are the only objects of any cognition. The whole universe is a mental universe.
Apart from those representations, consciousnesses, which appear to be external objects, there is no conventionally real external content which corresponds to what appears.
All these arguments based on the facts of experience show that the objects do not exist really outside the mind, that they are the products of mental creation and that their appearance is entirely mind dependent. Therefore Yogācāra's theory of the two truths concludes that the whole world is a product of mind—it is the collective mental action (karma) of all beings. All living beings see the same world because of the identical maturation of their karmic consequences. Since the karmic histories of beings are same, there is homogeneity in the way in which the world is experienced and perceived. This is the reason there is an orderly world instead of chaotic and arbitrariness. This is also the reason behind the impressions of the objectivity of the world.

I expect you'll want to investigate the author's claims in more detail (using the references which he cites).

Conversely Yogācāra Critiques of the Two Truths seems to me to present a different picture, in which the Yogacara aren't so external-world-doesn't-exist extreme:

These remarks of Vasubandhu’s are probably the very first attempt on
the Yogācāra side to incorporate the two truths into their more complicated
structure of the three natures. Based on these remarks, we can
draw the following diagram:
                      emptiness of persons & dharmas —existent(?)
ultimate truth —
                      no persons or dharmas —nonexistent(?)

                      dependent nature —existent(?)
conventional truth —
                      imagined nature —nonexistent(?)

As we see, the conventional truth is described as having two aspects.
Viewed as the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), it does not exist;
while viewed as the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), it does exist.
So conventional reality cannot be one-sidedly taken as purely imaginary
or illusory; this would be to fall into nihilism. Nor can conventional reality
be taken as utterly existent, on the other hand, because the imagined
nature does not exist. That is why the Yogācāra criticizes both of the extremes
into which his Madhyamaka opponent tends to fall.

According to this paper, the Yogacara doctrine isn't just that the conventional (external?) world is imaginary: it has a merely-imaginary (unreal) component but also a dependent (existent albeit empty) component.
And allegedly the Yogācāra criticizes and accuses their "Madhyamaka opponents" of nihilism and extremism, which implies that they hold their own doctrine to be innocent of such extremism.
In conclusion:

One of the goals of the Yogācāra theory of the three natures was to
improve on this two-tiered paradigm, and to restore a more robust and
holistic worldview. My study of some scattered sources from Maitreyanātha,
Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu has demonstrated that they criticized
the Madhyamaka version of two truths doctrine on the basis of the Yogā-
cāra theory of the three natures.

So the Yogācāra develop the doctrine of The Three Natures, one of which is the world as it's understood according to the theory of dependent origination.

For your use: The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature

I think Cittamatra texts do explicitly refute it. Vasubhandu's Twenty Stanzas and autocommentary is a text that gives logical arguments against the presence of an external world. The very begining of this text reads:

"The three realms are consciousness only" of the Mahayana is
  established through the scriptural expression, "the three realms are
  mind only." "Mind," "thought," "consciousness," and "perception"
  (uijñapti) are different names. Here, "mind" and "thought" are lumped
  together with mental activities (caitta). "Only" excludes objects of
  perception (artha) that are external to consciousness, not associates
  of consciousness. When internal consciousness is born, it appears
  resembling external objects of perception, I but in the same way that
  one with diseased eyesight sees nonexistent hairs, flies, etc. Here
  there is not the slightest aspect of reality.

and the text goes on to refute various objections to the nonexistence of external objects.
Also, in his autocommentary on the Thirty Verses he writes:

If there is nothing at all but consciousness and no external condi-
  tions at all, from what are the many imaginations born? The Verses
  say,
From the consciousness that is all seeds Transformation [occurs] in
  such - and -such ways. Due to the power of mutual influence, That- and
  -that imagination is born. (18)
Even though internal consciousness exists, still, there are no
  external conditions, so what is the basis for the continuity of birth
  and death among sentient beings? The Verses say,
The habit energy of various actions Together with the habit energy of
  the two graspings, When prior retribution is exhausted, Subsequently
  produce other retribution. (19)

Asanga's Mahayana-Samgraha is probably another good place to look but I haven't read that text yet so I'm not sure if it is explicit.

No. Nothing exists as we perceive it. We are seeing through eyes, hearing through ears, never experiential: or first hand. So essentially the world does not exist as we think it does, so is that non-existent or different?

Is this your personal opinion? To answer the question properly, you would need to provide authoritative sources regarding cittamatra / yogacara.


text:
What are signs of the three marks of existence?
What are some signs that one might be seeing the three characteristics with more clarity or depth? What might represent that one is having a new and more profound experience of impermanence, dukkha or not-self during one's practice or during any time?
Here are some examples of what is  meant by sign:

When we finish sweeping the floor, that might be a sign of impermanence.
If an annoying song keeps repeating in the mind that we can't control then that might be a sign of not-self.
We strongly misidentify the body as the self. If while meditating we see past the concept of the body then we might strangely feel like we have no body at some point. This no body effect might be a sign of not-self.

Rob Burbea's bool A seeing that frees is very good on this point. He's got several chapters on the lakshanas that are very readable and well explained

@Crab Bucket That sounds like a good book for the subtleties of practice. I like that it's endorsed by Joseph Goldstein.

Sweeping is a process made up of many experiences. An experience is made up of the five aggregates. Each of the five aggregates is Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in nature. That makes each experience Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. It's not about waiting for something to finish and calling it impermanent. That's obvious even without meditation. That is not strong enough to cut off craving or loosen your grip on conditioned phenomena. You have to develop Sati(awareness) through meditation until you can see these 3 characteristics here and now with each experience(moment to moment).
Yes, not able to stop unpleasant experiences or not able to prolong pleasant experiences is a sign of Anatta. Then again, reasoning it out like that is not what is expected from Vipassana. You have to be able see it then and there. You have to be able to note that each experience is born due to causes, not because there's a self in them or not because they belong to a self.
Feeling that there is a body or feeling that there is no body are both Anatta. Because both are mere feelings born of causes. Nothing more.

Yes but what I meant is what are signs that one is seeing impermanence, dukkha or not-self more clearly even though one might not realize it.

Rising and falling of each experience exhibit all 3

vedana (feelings) is easiest to spot for me .   For example, whatever makes you happy or pleasurable, you wont be able to stay in that state forever.  if you observe it carefully you will see the causal of that happiness (pleasure) and when causal ends, the happiness ends.   same thing as anger or suffering.  it comes and goes and there is no owner, just a causal.   and when you apply this knowledge on everything coming your way, it reduces its "value" and hopefully one day, no value to us at all.  to me, anger is easiest to spot, since buddha said dosa (anger) is quick to arise and also quick to diminish.  Next time when someone cuts you off on a highway, dont feed the anger, just imagine you are a curious scientist trying to observe the development of the anger and you will see.    personal story.  someone made me angry over some thing.  it was pretty bad.  i used everything in the book to control it, metta bhavana, meditation, etc.. i was so angry for 7 days. one the last day, i was extremely exhausted and decided to forget it, i just let it be, not involved.  at that moment, the anger left, not even just a tiny trace. zero.  at that moment i realized that maybe this was what it meant to let it go.

There are 2 types of signs:

Gross
Subtle

Many of the gross realities many intelligent people can deduce. It is the subtle ones they cannot deduce though logic. E.g. If you ask any one "Can I live for ever?", they would respond "No".
At the subtle level is what you need to see through meditation. Everything arises and passes away. (Udayawaya nana) You just have to see this to realise impedance. What arises you cannot control hence non self. What ever feeling that arises passesaway hence all feelings are unsatisfactory.

So one tends to deeply understand impermanence, dukkha and not-self better the more one can see clearly subtle phenomena?

You have to try to understand impermanence 1st as this is the basis of the Knowledge of Arising and Passing and the Knowledge of Dissolution.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddha as "lord" and Buddha as "choosing" his followers
The following section in the Modernist poem The Waste Land is often linked to Buddhism, in the academic literature.

Burning burning burning burning / O Lord Thou pluckest me out / O Lord
  Thou pluckest // burning

It ends section three, The Fire Sermon.
I wanted to ask

How common is the term "lord" for Buddha?
Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out?

I'm just a little skeptical that it is about the Buddha, despite the title to that section.

Was your question more about Buddhism, or was it more about whether The Waste Land references Buddhist literature? If it's the latter then a better title might be something like, "Did Eliot reference Buddhism when he wrote The Waste Land?"

i don't think that title would fit cos i'm asking about one specific section

How common is the term "lord" for Buddha?

People use it about 150 times in posts on this site.

Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out?

I don't think so (it implies there's a 'me' and implies that I'm not responsible for my own salvation).
This is the closest I've heard to that "being plucked" (e.g. it mentions "an effort of calling to Amida for salvation"), yet this says that Eliot studied Pali.
Beware that the Wasteland was published in 1922, which I think was relatively early in the history of Buddhism in England.
This says that "Burning burning burning burning" is a quote from the (Lord) Buddha's Fire Sermon, but that "O Lord Thou pluckest me out" is a quote from Saint Augustine's Confessions.

thanks,, especially for the st augustine quote! i feel that he retained the christianity of it

I agree; but fwiw but he was also "under the influence of [the] Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" at one time, and (studying the Classics) he must have been introduced to 'pagan' (i.e. pre-Christian) thought as well; and he knew e.g. Kipling's work, in summary maybe not exclusively Christian. Furthermore "Theosophy" was a thing at that time, and influenced the way in which some people then interpreted Buddhism.

Anyway those are the author's own explanations there, in the notes.

"Lord Buddha" is used all the time ". Translations from Pali would often use language from the Bible, at least in earlier translations.
Sounds like appreciation to Lord Buddha for plucking one out of the fire of sensual desire.
Many people asked to be taught the teachings in many ways, some misunderstood the teachings before they asked and some understood at least what they were basicly about but in the above I think perhaps they are using poetic licence.

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


text:
When is the right time to meditate?
I was watching "how to meditate" in internet. In one video, a master said, not to meditate in the night in dark. If one meditates in dark, they should light candle or incense stick. The reason he gave was, one meditating in night will be possessed by spirits. Is this true? When is the right time to meditate.

The right time is whenever you can, wherever you are, starting if possibile with a calm mind. Try to maintain a constant practice, whichever technique do you follow. As a reminder read Webu Sayadaw's To Light a Fire.

I agree with robermann's comment, and if I am to add something to it, it is this.
We have to have a strong belief that the path to Nibbana exists in this Dhamma. One who has that confidence meditates carefully. Does it in an orderly manner. This requires some time. It does not happen in a day or two. Not in a week, in a month or two or in a year or two. We cannot restrict it to a short period.
With metta....


text:
Does levitation really exist?
Sometimes you hear of people who can levitate from the ground. It looks like it is not just a state of mind but a real physical happening.
So is there any prove of the existence of it and how is it is physically possible.

See also Is it possible to fly?

I think this question is essentially a duplicate of "Has anyone seen any meditation master demonstrating abhinna or supernatural powers?", isn't it, and could be closed as a duplicate?

Well lets answer this as a Supernatural question

Yes it is possible and Lord Buddha had to show some supernatural powers in certain incidents. But Lord Buddha's perspective was a bit different from what you might expect....

One day Lord Buddha and some monks were on path to reach a certain village / city. On the way the group had to cross a river, there was a boat and people had to pat the boat owner to cross the river (Like a ferry). Suddenly a person who looked like a sage crossed the river levitating above the river. It was done by him to show off as the Lord Buddha's group was there.
Lord Buddha asked "how much does it cost to cost the river".
The amount was told to Lord Buddha, Then Lord Buddha said "That is how much that person's Power is worth"
(Because the power he had only helped him cross the river and that costed a certain amount,no matter how many river he cross that has no value other that the money he save when using the power. In the Grand scale of things he is just as helpless as any other being because his power does not free him from "Samsara")

Lord Buddha asked us to focus on the path and not on fancy powers. Because you do not necessarily need to be a Buddhist to do all of that. Because even Before Lord Buddha's birth people was able to do so much more (Like inter-realm travel).

One day a sage from another teaching wanted to know the answer to the same question that you are asking, So he came to Lord Buddha's Monastery and became a monk. All he ever did was practicing hard to reach the same level as the monks. He was sent by the elder sages of his earlier practice to learn Lord Buddha's teaching so they can show powers and attract people to their teaching (Foreigners to india and even some indians to this day ask questions like why are there so many similarities among Buddhism and other religions without knowing the kind of foul play Buddhism had to deal with).
He tried his best and he couldn't reach the level he wanted and he started asking questions from "Arahats" who visited Lord Buddha to acknowledge their completion of the path. But at the time all the Arahats visited was not with any powers (There are two different practices to reach the end and depending on what path you choose you either get or miss the powers,but there is no lack of the path between the two versions).
In the end he was fed up and directly went to Lord Buddha and told the truth. Lord Buddha kindly advised him and he became an "Arahat". But never returned to the older practice.

There is also another side to Powers....

One day a monk who had reached "Universal hearing (Dibba sotha)" came to Lord Buddha and asked Lord Buddha's guidance to gain (Dibba chakku) "Universal seeing/eye".
Lord Buddha looked at the monk's Karma and said you have not done enough good Karma to reach that level

So there is a clear mention that not only powers vary in the path also the powers can only be reached by ones who have done enough Karma to make it available.

Please provide the sources for the excerpts

@ruben2020 , i'm sorry that i do not remember the sources but it is from Sutras of pali cannon.

Yes...it does, yet the probability of seeing this depends on you and not the Ones who can achieve such feats.


text:
How to overcome the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence (in Western modernity)?
An important part of the Path is overcoming the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence. I don't know if that's desire for living or aversion to death - maybe a combination. Therefore, I'm wodering if someone can share their experiences on this very essential aspect of the practice - preparing to die.
In the Buddhas teachings we are adviced to watch the after death-process; dead bodies on a charnel ground. But this is very difficult in modern (Western) society. I managed to get three days in meditation with a dead friend (no more is allowed in my country). They'd put some cotton in his orifices and some lubricant on the body. He looked like wax and I felt like I were at Madame Tussaud or watching Lenin. My friend didn't rot or stink so it was no good really, because the whole point is meditation on the process.
I've tought about trying some hospices and morgues. Surely they'd kick me out, but I also think it might be disrespectful; they're grieving and probably not Buddhists! Everything would be better with a charnel ground.
What are your ways of preparing for death? If you are living in a county where death is a taboo, you probably have met some of the same challenges as me.

In preparation for death you should:

accept the fact everyone must die and let go of the fear of death
not procrastinate meditation to develop wisdom
make your mind equanimous as possible to handle the pain of death so you do not lose the balance and get re born in a lower realm

In order to achieve 1, best is to contemplate that everyone must die and it is inevitable.
In preparation for 3, 2 will be helpful contemplation and meditation as each breath you take might very well be you last.
When you die your mind must be equanimous. This is the target of preparation to die. This can only achived through wisdom by realising the arising and passing away nature of things and realising any worldly phenomena experienced is unsatisfactory and not under one's control to make satisfactory hence let go and be equanimous no matter what your your experience is.

Meditating on a corpse is partly to realise that death is common to all and imminent, but another is to counteract the perception of beauty by seeing it rot. If the body is preserved it does not serve the latter purpose.
What you have to realise is beauty results when someone takes a certain shape and form here is beauty this might bring pleasure - attractive, displeasure - attractive, neutral - average or no special looks. When you analyse the anatomical parts separately this perception of beauty do not arise. Only when they are compounded and take a particular shape this perception of beauty happen. Likewise we take beauty or looks to be a constant than transitory. By looking at a old corpse you realize this, even perhaps even a old person. When it rots you see shape and form is subjected to decay, especially in a young corpse, and you see the transitory nature of beauty, i.e., something that was perceive so beautiful has suddenly become so repulsive. Since the subject is repulsive there is a change your mind may develop aversion towards the object or even the body itself. This is not the objective of repulsive meditation. You have to maintain absolute equanimity throughout, though initially if you are lustful some repulsion can be used to counteract it. If your mind is feeling disgusted at the subject or your body or someone else's body then this is not the type of meditation for your and can become dangerous as your mind is left unbalanced due to the meditation.
Also knowledge that whatever happened to the beauty of this person will also happen to me. The knowledge un un attempt to both beauty of oneself and others should happen.
You should meditate on how your mind constructs beauty and the sensation that follow and the attractions or aversions (you may just not like how someone looks) that result from this perceived beauty. Look at the sensation arising and passing regarding the subject of the meditation and realise the unsatisfactoriness in it (pleasantness when your mind perceives the attraction due to looks, unpleasantness when you perceive repulsiveness of looks and the subject, neutrality towards looks and the subject) and the non self nature. Though this develop revulsion and let go of the attachment to your body and mind or the 5 aggregates or the sense faculties or the world itself.

We as Buddhists are not preparing to die

Death is something that should be understood....
Death happens whether we are ready or not, and even if we are ready that does not make any difference because death is death and there is no escape.

So what about death?
Understand that death is inevitable and realize that like all that there is on the universe your body has an expiry date too. What is made of 4 elements has few common characteristics....
They decay,change and die.

So death is to be understood and in your understanding you become a one who is prepared to continue the path.

What we are all about?
Buddhism is all about preparing to end dying and birth. As Lord Buddha once said
"The greatest threat to beings is the lower realm, They have been born so many time there it is correct to say that the lower realms are like home to living beings..."
This is the danger that we run away from not petty pains and threats like a war or a flu.

About the meditation you are asking details for.....

This meditation was done in the form that you are trying to do in the age of kings and the practice was changed with time and monks adapted to change.

You can Continue the practice of this meditation  in the new way and note that the older way is limited to a country or two now.

The new way...

Here is a audio link you are going to need

Click this link (Audio file)

First you need to find some good pictures and print it into your mind (Looking at it with calmness in mind would help).
Then practice with the audio that i link to the answer and once you are ready do it without the Audio.
Here are some Images that i use...

There are also other Meditations that can help you...

Audio link 2 Meditation_on_Elements
Audio link 3 Meditation_of_Foulness
Audio link 4 Asuba_Aanaapaana_sathi

In my opinion, meditation on death is good for reducing the naive infatuation with sensual pleasures and the overall heedlessness coming from "intoxication with youth" and "intoxication with health". However, it does not address the more subtle root of suffering, what OP called "attachment to the body's continued existence".
According to Mahayana explanations, although attachment to body as "me, mine" seems obvious and well-based, it is in fact pretty arbitrary. In traditional Lam-Rim literature there are descriptions of hellish states caused by confused identification with other arbitrary objects. Imagine the pain someone experiences when they think they are a door, craving the peace but constantly getting slammed instead.
From Mahayana perspective, our confused identification with a living organism comes from our egotism. We have this deep habit of chasing our personal goals and contrasting them with the goals of other beings. (This works similar to the Stockholm Syndrome, when the hostage  temporary aligning with the captor's goals leads to the hostage identifying (bonding) with the captor. In this case the captor is our body or more broadly our social persona). Instead, the Mahayana solution to the identification problem is deconstructing one's ego, first and foremost through the practice of altruism. Indeed, taking an active interest in other people's well-being assists in switching one's focus from "self" to "all" - which reduces and eventually eliminates attachment to an individual organism.
The Mahayana Buddhist term for this is "bodhi-citta", the mind of the Buddha. A simple explanation of bodhicitta is when we make the entire world our business, no longer restricting our sense of care to just ourselves and our close circle.
Coming back to the self-identification, the Buddha explained it like this (in my interpretation):

Aging, decay, death come from the fact that we are born
Birth comes from the fact that we identify with a living being
Individualized existence comes from the egocentric activity
Egocentric activity comes from craving
Craving comes from the memory of a good feeling
The memory of a good feeling comes from experience of a contact
Experience of a contact comes from the experience of the boundary between the external and the internal
Experience of the boundary between the external and the internal comes from the objectification
Objectification comes from the mind constructing/interpreting the world
The mind constructing/interpreting the world comes from the accumulation of random imprints and memories
Accumulation of random imprints and memories comes from not knowing how things work.

The multiple ways to break this chain are either: to stop the egocentric activity, or to give up craving, or to stop objectification (via analytical deconstruction of the mind-made models to see their emptiness), or to stop constructing/interpreting the world (by non-maintaining the narratives, non-abiding), or to gain a direct insight into how things work.

the Buddha gained insight into how things work,
therefore the Buddha no longer accumulates random imprints and memories,
the Buddha no longer naively constructs/interprets the world,
the Buddha no longer naively objectifies the experience,
the Buddha no longer naively assume the boundary between the outer and the inner,
the Buddha no longer naively experiences the contact,
the Buddha no longer naively enjoys the good experience,
the Buddha no longer craves the object of good experience,
the Buddha no longer acts egoistically towards the object of craving,
the Buddha no longer identifies oneself as the same one who craves, the same one who acts, and the same one who enjoys the result,
the Buddha no longer has a notion of "I have been born as this human being",
the Buddha no longer has a notion of "I age, decay and will eventually die"

Something like this. This may be a little rough around the edges - please don't  get hung up on the details -- but it should give you an idea of the overall approach.


text:
Watching Darma Talks on 2x Speed
I really like Ajahn Brahm's Darma talks on YouTube. But, I can perfectly understand what he's saying on 2x speed.
Am I losing anything by listening at this speed or is it ok as long as it's not for any other reason than I can understand it so I can watch two in the same amount of time as one?

I have done the same thing for slower speakers. In my opinion, it's just fine to speed up your listening as long as you grasp the content.

Good idea but be mindful because in sometime your mind will feed your ego with "I am faster" feeling and you mind end up trying to listen or read faster than you should. That can cause some harm because i have seen that sometimes it is better to listen slower when learning certain teachings.
And as Lord Buddha advised you should listen to things you have already learnt again and again because sometimes even if you know something going over and over makes you realize a whole another side of it.

It is said that the Buddha spoke very quickly. How
  quickly? During the time an ordinary person speaks one word
  the Buddha could speak 128 words. Buddha spoke very fast.

Source: Handbook of Abhidhamma Studies, by Venerable Sayādaw U Sīlānanda, Volume 1, page 19.
So it might be OK to listen fast but if you can comprehend what is been said. Perhaps to 128x times faster. But remember though the Buddha spoke (I would say communicated) 128 words when someone else spoke 1 word, each listener would hear a subset as if this has been said to him. So in this case the amount you can speedup is something less than 128x but also limited by the rate you can understand what is spoken and also comprehend what is spoken. If you can

understand what is spoken and
comprehend what is spoken

at the rate of 2x speed then it is OK.

If the content of the Dhamma talk can be understood in a satisfactory way, there should be no problem in increasing the speed.
If increasing the speed is done due to restlessness, then that is a hindrance that should be dealt with by taking it as a meditation object, in order to cultivate insights.

Great question...I would say consider the fact that his calmness and slowness might be characteristics you want to absorb/emulate


text:
Did Japanese Buddhists once use sky burial?
In the Chinese Wikipedia article on sky burial, there's a section saying that sky burial is illegal in Japan:

棄屍嫌疑
在某些地方，天葬的行為，可能觸犯遺棄屍體的罪行。
日本
刑法第190條（死体損壊罪）

Google translation:

Dumped suspect [My assumption for translation: Illegality of
  abandoning bodies]
In some places, burial behavior may violate abandoned corpses offense.
Japan
Penal Code section 190 (dead body damage Huai crime)

Did Japanese Buddhists once use sky burial for their dead? Or is the ban just a broader ban that just happens to include sky burial?

I was curious about this question and I found some sources that might answer this question more or less:
...in ancient Japanese society, prior to the introduction of Buddhism and the funerary practice of cremation, the corpse was exposed in a manner very similar to the Tibetan sky burial.
This excerpt is from the wiki article on Excarnation.
The following link opens to a part in an ebook that might help answer this question:
https://books.google.com/books?id=CZM2AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Excarnation+~Japanese&source=bl&ots=DF_qKCS7PC&sig=H9zvNsP284SQteLueDyDmyvWmjI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQurPevcDKAhVW2mMKHS6ADKkQ6AEIMTAG#v=onepage&q=Excarnation%20~Japanese&f=false

Can you quote a sentence or two from the eBook which would tend to answer the question? I didn't notice one that seemed relevant.

I remember reading something about sky burial like practices being done in pre-Buddhist Japan where the corpse was placed on top a tall platform to be picked clean by birds, but when Buddhism was introduced, they brought with them the practice of cremation which then became standard. In Shinto, death is considered unclean, so the fact that the Buddhists had formal funeral rites made Buddhist style funerals popular very quickly, so the sky burial like practices were abandoned.


text:
What are the issues related to medical treatment that prolongs life of questionable quality?
While reading an answer to How to overcome the suffering of attachement to the body's continued existence (in Western modernity)?, I began to wonder about a related matter.
In the answer:

In preparation for death you should:
  1) accept the fact everyone must die and let go of the fear of death

OK, but how about this situation:
Let's say I have terminal cancer, and the doctor says I will only live another 6 months. However, if I get some difficult treatment (let's say chemotherapy that often causes severe pain), I may live up to 10 years longer.
So from a Buddhism point of view:
1) Would there be any concern if I didn't get any treatment? It isn't suicide, but I am not taking an action will hasten death.
2) Would there be any concern if I did get the treatment? Does that imply a fear of death, by postponing the inevitable? And since a goal of Buddhism is to reduce suffering, while understanding pain can be managed, can voluntarily increasing ones suffering be justified?
In each case, is there any impact on karma looking to the next rebirth?
Finally, I am not referring to medical treatment in general.  Only when it is very invasive and severely impacts ones normal life (and lifespan).

Here are some quotes from commentaries on the monastic rules.
The Bhikkhus' Rules --
A Guide for Laypeople

Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and for the maximum freedom from disease.

Also, "praising the advantages of dying" is considered in the same category as "intentionally causing death":

Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an
  assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): “My
  good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than
  life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways
  praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in
  affiliation.

The Khandhaka Rules

“A sick person endowed with five qualities is hard to tend to: He does what is
  not amenable to his cure; he does not know the proper amount in things
  amenable to his cure; he does not take his medicine; he does not tell his
  symptoms, as they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare ...

I think the above implies that the patient has some kind of duty of care towards their nurse (as well as vice versa).
The Patimokkha Rules

The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukka˛a to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.
The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here. Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death; and
  from SN 35.87, where the Buddha says that one who puts down this body
  without taking up another body dies blamelessly. However, in arriving at its
  verdict in this case, the Commentary has to add the factors of motivation and
  perception to the equation, factors that are absent from the rule on which the
  judgment is based. It also leaves unanswered the question of how harsh the
  86
  disease has to be, and how near the anticipated attainments, to qualify for this
  exemption.
This same holds true for case (a), which entails even more dubious reasoning.
  The Commentary’s judgment here has no clear precedent in the Canon; there is
  no clear line for deciding exactly how bad the illness and how fed up the
  attendants have to be for this case to apply; and why should the feelings of other
  people determine when it is or is not allowable to refuse food?
It is worth noting that the origin story to the original rule here gave the
  Buddha the opportunity, had he wanted it, to formulate a general rule against
  attempted suicides, but he chose not to. He later formulated this subsidiary rule
  only when a bhikkhu attempted a suicide in a way that endangered the life and
  safety of another person. Thus a more appropriate way of applying the Great
  Standards to this subsidiary rule would be to extend it only to cases of that sort:
  where a bhikkhu’s attempts at suicide would bring danger to another person’s
  life and limb.
As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.

Human life is rare and precious hence prolonging it maybe a good option or a person who is not liberated yet. This gives more room for pratice on case your next birth is not conducive for pratice.
The motivation in refusing medication can happen due to few factors:

A deluded ideal or wrong view; for example:

"I have done my part for the world" (i.e. I-centered)
"Everyone has a right to decide whether to live or die" (i.e. no belief of karmic retribution)
"When I die the suffering will be over" (i.e. no belief of after life)

Aversion towards to sickness

If any of the above cases are the motivation then this is not a Buddhist take on the matter as thinking has unwholesome roots. In the 1st instance you are holding on to some ideal or view either originating or leading to foster unwholesome roots; and in the latter you are averse towards the condition. Hence you are unlikely to get a good birth in the next life by either choice if you refuse medication.
In principle if you do it the Buddhist way then you have to try to understand the 4 Noble Truths in experiences due to the sickness or otherwise and Dependent Origination of the condition during your sickness or otherwise. One of the main links for both is sensations / feeling / unsatisfactoriness which you should look at them closely being equanimous and seeing the arising from start to the end. Due to the greater pain of the sickness you might miss more subtle sensation. You have to be attentive to the also.
Also please take time to read:

A Buddhist Perspective on Pain, Stress and Illness
by Bhikkhu Sumedha
Bright and Shining Mind in a Disabled Body by Kampol Thongbunnum
Meditation on Perception: Ten Healing Practices to Cultivate Mindfulness by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana

Are you saying that any view (or understanding) cannot be a right (Buddhist) reason for doing something, i.e. that no view is right? Or were you saying only that those specific views aren't right?

Any views that can lead to unwholesome action in not right.

It all depends on each individual's unique situation. If s/he is an ascetic or a lay person who is not married and has no kids, then one can afford the option to let one's condition runs its natural course without introducing a mean to prolong one's life. On the other hand, if one is a lay person who's the breadwinner for his family with spouse, kids, or maybe old parents, then one'd need to do whatever it takes to prolong one's life. This is why the Buddha said living the lay life is difficult for one's life is invariably tied to his loved ones and he has to fulfill his obligation to take care of his wife and kids.

Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell.. ~ DN 2

the fact that one refuses treatment which may prolong one's life doesn't indicate that one's free from attachment to the body and to being
detachment must be genuine, based on insight into the nature of phenomena and existence
while consent to accept treatment and thus extension of one's lifespan may increase one's chances to attain real detachment through continuing practice


text:
Symbols of mercy in Buddhism?
What are the possible symbols of mercy and/or compassion in Buddhism? As always answers with supporting references are appreciated.

Take a look at the 8 auspicious symbols,
The
Auspicious Drawing, sometimes refereed to as the infinite knot
represents the intertwining of wisdom and compassion.

The manji (Japanese Buddhism) is said to represent love and mercy, in certain situations.
This symbol should not be confused with the swastika, which is completely different.

The right hand of this statue shows the Varada Mudrā which represents generosity and compassion.

Nice, can't believe I forgot to look for mudras


text:
Does Buddhism explain the past karma, and rebirth, of a short-lived fetus?
When the rebirth-linking consciousness arises in the fetus (I read elsewhere at around 26 weeks), but the fetus dies (somehow) prior to or during birth, is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened? And could it be a result of previous lifetime good or bad karma?
In this situation, while there are senses, the fetus cannot make any conscious decision or thought processes or have any understandings yet. Of course depending on the situation physical suffering may have occurred.
So I am trying to understand what kind of link this lifetime is, between the previous and next lifetime, and the effect on continuing rebirths.

is it possible to understand why this kind of existence happened?

not for a worldling
workings of kamma are inexplicable, and are not to be pondered upon lest they cause disquietude and agitation and because such pondering isn't conducive to attainment of nibbana, that's from the Buddha
workings of destiny are yet less explicable, if i may add, because destiny is a combination of personal kamma and fortuity

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to
be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
about them."

Acinteyya sutta (AN 4.77)

Buddhism's version of birth is not coming out from an egg or the birth we recognize.

This is Birth As to Lord Buddha....

The necessary conditions for a birth to happen in realms below Deva
realms

Joining of parents
A suitable mother
The coming of gandhabba*
(*The materials for a new  viññāṇa (consciousness) to be born {not the misunderstood inter-birth being})

Consciousness and awareness before birth (coming out to the world).

1:- Some are born into the womb without any awareness of anything, stays in the womb without any awareness and are born to the world without any awareness.
2:- Some are born into the womb with awareness, stays in the womb without any awareness and are born to the world without any awareness.
3:- Some are born into the womb with awareness, stays in the womb with awareness and are born to the world without any awareness.
4:- Some are born into the womb with awareness, stays in the womb with awareness and are born to the world with.

Source :- (Amazing understanding) by Ven. Kiribathgoda Knanananda thero.

What is Lord Buddha's definition of birth?

Vibhanga Sutta

When does the suffering begin?

Uppada sutta

It is worth noting, in conjunction with the other answers provided, that the fetus in question is going through karma from it's past lives in a scenario like this.

the fetus cannot make any conscious decision or thought processes or have any understandings yet.

This is true, but karma is not always from this life, karma can manifest in lifetimes after the life it is planted in.

could it be a result of previous lifetime good or bad karma?

Every thing happening in this universe is not due to Karma. Karma is only one out of five reasons (Five Niyama). more can be found from below link.
The Five Niyamas

A rebirth is a rebirth and the life-span does not have a restriction, A life can end as soon as it starts or last a hundred years. The last life will end as soon as the being has mastered all states of physical,mental and emotional endurance and acknowledges that it is a everlasting spirit and not nothing eles.
Here is a well described link to the start of consciousness of a being at the beginning stages of life.But the answer to your question is what I stated above.
There are Five levels of self-awareness
http://psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf


text:
Is is better to search for the stages of insight while meditating or to allow them to arise "naturally"?
Are there differences between a person who progresses through insight while looking for the different stages and someone who progresses through insight ignorant of the stages? What are the pros and cons of each approach?

Aware of stage - If you develop craving to move to the next stage this will make excessive Effort and Striving, which isn't balanced by Focus and Concentration, which will lead to Restlessness and Worry.
Unaware of stage - You might not know what is happening. Also you may not know what to do next.

So best is to balance both. Occasionally look into the stage you are, but not frequently. Perhaps once a month review would be OK.
NB: any stage of Insight Meditation happens naturally. You cannot force it. Trying to force if you will not reach the insight you are trying to achieve.

Anupada Sutta  where Buddha explained the enlightening process of ven. Sariputta.  Ven Saripitta had the insight DURING meditation. It is very detail. basically, Ven Sariputta (was a very detail oriented person) looked into each state of meditation and observed what features came to be and ended with each state of meditation on all levels, and with the last two, cessation and neither perception nor non-perception, one no longer has enough consciousness to pay attention to detail so he had to move in and out of these two states to see the truth. Ven, saw raise and fall and three marks of existence and achieve full liberation.

i'd think the difference as between people who travel by the map and who just roam
the second method of traveling might be more exciting, but it will take longer to get to the destination if ever


text:
Views of world during insight meditation
I am reading books on Buddhism and I come across this sentence in every book.
It states that our world view will change and we will know actual working of the world during insight meditation.
It doesn't provide any explanation on how  different it is / will be from the view which I have. Whether this actual view of world is same for everyone who does insight meditation or it is different based on the experience one has?
What is difference between these two views?

How can a book know what view you currently have?

One who reads a book knows his views and how it differs from the view mentioned in the book. So I want to know what is that view to which my current view differs and will change to.

Then you would need to begin the practice of insight meditation and find out first hand.

I didn't understand the last question, which two views? May you clarify it?

@eric - I have my views of the world and you have your views of the world based on the experiences we encountered. Now during insight meditation, this view changes. How it changes is my query and their differences.

@eric - I have my views of the world and you have your views of the world based on the experiences we encountered. Now during insight meditation, this view changes. How it changes is my query and their differences.

@eric - I have my views of the world and you have your views of the world based on the experiences we encountered. Now during insight meditation, this view changes. How it changes is my query and their differences.

It's a moment by moment view of our own individual experience. You know the workings of your imediate experience more and more the more you practice seeing reality as it is. Seeing reality as it is means putting more focus on whatever you're aware of on purpose, in your own experiencial reality, moment by moment. This is basically insight meditation or mindfulness.
When you understand your own world of experience then you know the rest of the world because it all works fundamentally the same. Approached another way, your experience is the world for you as my experience is my world for me.-Metta

Then our worlds are different based on our experience.

@8CK8 Yes and no. Really , ultimatley, there is no "our world" but just experience moment by moment but conceptually there is "our world". Ultimately there is no future or past so any memories or knowlege about "our world" and things that happened in the past or will happen in the future that you or I have are just  experiences in the present moment,  thought experiences  in the present moment.

Your world view changes when you become Sotāpanna. I.e. you have understood dependent origination (DO) and 4 Noble Truths and Ignorance is no more hence you see things as they are. The difference is that before you mind had Ignorance, i.e., you had a mind with Ignorance and Delusion and subsequently becomes a that is a mind without Ignorance due to the paradigm shift when you perfectly understand DO and the 4 Noble Truths. When you reach the final goal your mind is rootless or without mental influxes or broken from the fetters or devoid of Defilements. In understanding the DO and the 4 Noble Truths the 3 Marks of Existence is instrumental.

When one does not practice insight meditation ones world view is subjective and not in line with reality. One has no reference point so to say.
When one is practicing insight meditation one sees for oneself how reality functions and delusion is done away with, e.g. the illusion of permanence and an enduring Self-entity.
An enduring Self-entity can also be called a Self, Me, Soul etc. There is no such thing which is verifiable through the practice of insight meditation. What is believed to be a Self is merely a mental formation.
When practicing insight meditation one will see how conditioned phenomena are not stand alone units. They have causes and conditions and they themselves become causes for the arising of other phenomena. The relational factor and interdependency of conditioned phenomena becomes visible to the insight meditator.

Pl. explain about enduring Self-entity.

I would like the answer from one who is practicing insight meditation to tell about how reality functions.

@8CK8. Answer updated.


text:
Does thinking during an action improve the quality of the action or reduce it?
Does thinking during an action improve the quality of the action or reduce it?
For example, I am writing, and I am aware that I am writing: when I repeat, "I am writing", "I am writing", in my mind, when performing the action of writing, isn't there a split between action and thought?
I remember in a Bruce Lee film in which he says, "Don't Think". If there is a split between action and thought, wouldn't the processing of action slow down?

I would be interested in how this query might relate to the practice of "noting" :)

Lets begin with our good old actor Bruce lee and ascend to Buddhism afterwards....
What you are referring to is something called "Reflexes". In martial arts the reason they practice long hours is to train their bodies to fight automatically. This is the extreme level of fighting and he who is in this level is considered an elite. Here your muscles do the thinking for you and there is no need for logical reasoning (like your hand is feeling heat from a candle and immediately taking the hand away).
The Scientific explanation is very simple on this. There is a thing called "Muscle memory". Muscle memory is your muscles learning the things that you do constantly. This allows you to do things very fast and better than a novice.
for example :- Playing a guitar without looking at the strings, Typing something without looking at the keyboard and etc.

There is a common misinterpretation of what "Mindfulness" truly is, my school teach us differently and the form you are mentioning is "Not so effective" as to my teacher. So here is what we have learned as Mindfulness.....

Lets discuss your own example,
When i'm writing,like any other time my mind starts to wander and start many discussions within. I may even get angry or bored. I might even start to focus on the debate my mind has generated within a couple of minutes and jump into it. I am no longer focused on my writing and i may even write a wrong letter or a word.

Clearly here i have lost my focus and i'm jumping back and forth on my writing and debating with my mind. this is clearly not being mindful.
So if i focus on my writing and focus my thinking on what i have written and what i am about to write that focus my mind on the task at hand. Now i'm mindful about what i am actually doing this instance.

When asked about the version of mindfulness that is mentioned on the question my teacher had a reply like this....

(The person who asked the question asked......)
Is it correct to think i'm walking now,  now i'm taking the right foot, now i'm taking the left foot. as a form of mindfulness?
(My teachers answer....)
What is the reason that we as Buddhists go on to practice mindfulness?
Because we are trying to reach Nirvana. And when we are not mindful the mind start to wonder.
Where does the mind wander?

Mind wander in the adoring nice memories of the past, Bright hopes of
the future and in the moment we enjoy currently and it gets
attached.
Mind wander in the cruel worrying past, dread for what future may bring and finds a reason to start hating right now
Mind wander in a chaos. it jumps here and there, a moment ago you were laughing and now you are feeling bad and almost about to cry. Seconds later you are angry and a half an hour later you are burning in lust.

These three phases or sides of your mind feeds the craving you have for life,to be born again,to live forever,to chase the mirage of happiness.
This is bad because it's these three phases that drives a being further into "Samsara".
These 3 has brought you here and they will drag you through the dangerous lower realms to feed on innocent little animals,to be be hunted by lions and tigers,to be eaten alive and even to be tortured and burned in "hellish" realm. This is the true danger that a being face in Samsara. Because once there in a bad realm there is virtually no hope for a poor being.
And what about the good realms.....
Yes, those 3 sides of your mind also took you to "Deva" realm,to "Brahma" realm and here to "Human" realm. Not so bad you might say,won't you?
Well lets see. you have been born so many times in this samsara. Our Lord Buddha said
"Any being has been killed so many times.If someone collect all the blood that fell when he or she was decapitated,the amount of blood will be roughly equal to the amount of water in the sea."
Look at that old person next to you, after listening to the words of lord Buddha can you certify that he or she next to you has not being someone you loved?
Well lets see this in another way. We know what animals are,they are the poor beings who lost their way and ended up in a bad realm.
When you go home and eat a delicious meal like a fish curry or sausages,look at it closely. Imagine a one you had. Do you see your father or mother? How about that girl you promised to live eternity with in another life, don't you see her?
The sad fact is you do. Now you are eating them so greedily,just like they ate you. Look at this bizarre circle that we roam around from good realms to bad, from bad to good.
One day Lord Buddha smiled and there was Ven. Anandha thero nearby. As a smile from a Buddha is rare the venerable one asked why. Lord Buddha gave a strange reply, if you focus on this statement alone you can understand the true reason to practice "Mindfulness" and the true danger of Samsara. The answer was "Look Anandha, look at these ants here. There isn't a single ant in this long row of ants that hasn't been the king of earth".

Remember these words from Lord Buddha,
"Vinnana" is like a seed, attachment or craving is like water and Karma is the land.
Because your mind wander and get attached it creates Karma. Whatever you get attached to,you soon start to crave for it. There it is The land,the water and the seed, because of this you are born and will be born.
Practice to focus on the temporary nature of things and use your knowledge to see and feel the world not your body. practice to keep away from the 3 phases mentioned above.
Mindfulness Lord Buddha taught was keeping mind from those 3 phases mentioned above and maintaining your life and the very second you live in on 8 noble ways.

When most people use the word "think" they are referring to discursive thoughts, and these are the ones you mention, but thinking is more than that.
On a neurological level, you're (obviously) capable of doing several things at once. Not all the systems rely on others to work - you don't need to think discursive thoughts to breathe, but it does rely on mental activity (you won't be doing much breathing after death;) It is quite possible that discursive thought has no effect on physical actions directly, but it is eminently possible that it can have the effect of removing attention from what is being done, and in performing actions attention is incredibly important
If you are well concentrated then discursive thought would not be a problem, but also, it will be less likely to arise of its own accord, and is probably unnecessary.
(Right) Intention will drive attention, and attention will aid the quality.

Adding one thing, the proposal of meditation is not to cease discursive thought, but to improve presence (in Dzogchen terms). That is, to give more attention to what is happening, to what is felt and being done.

"Don't Think" -> Bruce Lee is student of Wing Chun master, Ip Man and Chi Sao can train that. It's a technique that body that react automatic instinct subconscious mind to fight. Using the conscious mind to think is too slow.
All form of Wing Chun or Tai Chi has concept of power absorption from opponent so it give some time for conscious mind to think too. If you know the one inch kinetic punch concept too then it will return enormous powerful strike.
https://medium.com/wing-chun-kung-fu/thinking-without-thinking-1ff332f46c27
one inch punch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMMS0Yx0Sa0
Well, my personal thought Bruce Lee is too over in physical strength training base on the documentary and comments by his peer movie actors. He is an atheist and free thinker base on his interview. "religious affiliation was, he replied "none whatsoever."
Bruce didnt make it to level 3 and above on Wing Chun because Ip Man refused to teach him. . Have u seen Bruce playing wooden dummy in movie action? Wing Chun Ip Man version has total of 6 levels. Certain levels of emptiness is the criteria to enter level 3. So, i personally dont recommend people to learn from his way of martial arts.
I am not sure what Bruce Lee meant by his version of emptiness too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMwBwFj5nQ

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I don't know if there is a Buddhist answer to this. But I would think it is more common sense.
It really depends on what you're doing.
Some acts require careful thinking before it is done. A little thought before speaking to a person, or if you're doing something like writing or programming, which are mental skills, is good.
Since you mentioned Martial Arts and Bruce Lee, I'd say martial arts has a way of repetitive action, in other words, a combination of moves being practised repeatedly, so that it just occurs naturally. Going with the flow is crucial.
Now, thinking or noting in the middle of that, may cause you to check the action unnecessarily when it is going correctly, consequentially the slowing down occurs, which may be detrimental, in that context. That's why all the thinking is done before-hand in martial arts practice, and unbroken, smooth repetition is of paramount importance.
(Commenting on movies would be inessential here. I'd advise you to take anything you hear in them with a pinch of salt. The dialogues may be used for effect rather than truth)
In conclusion, it really depends on the situation you're in. Be present in the moment and do mindfully what the situation entails.
If you're sitting in meditation practice, noting and letting go would help because that's the whole point of meditation. The mind's activity needs to be calmed, if I may say so. That's where noting and letting go helps.
In regular activities, just know where you are, be alert and aware of what you're doing, that is mindfulness. And the effect is that you're able to do things more productively (which is generally a good thing).

Meditation is also repetitive as we go through stages every time we sit and whether mindfulness is to be practiced during meditation. I am interested knowing the effect of mindfulness in everyday activities.

@8CK8 Well, in the answer, I have mentioned that it is good to be mindful while performing a daily activity. This includes talking to a person or writing or something that is mentally intensive. The effect? The activity generally goes smoothly? It is the same as Flow as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

@8CK8 I have edited the answer to be more clear.

Before, while and after, a mental, verbal, bodily deed,  in ways of skillful improvement, good householder, thinking, observing, reflecting, whether harmful for oneself, for others: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone, and there is actually (kammical) no deed without thought, without mind, as forerunner.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for improvements toward release]

I remember in a Bruce Lee film in which he says, "Don't Think". If there is a split between action and thought, wouldn't the processing of action slow down?
In the context of practising martial art I believe that's related to the endless training involved -- after which you can "reply" to an attack effectively and automatically (i.e. immediately and without thinking, and without over-doing it).
You might see something similar if you learn to play piano or guitar -- or other "motor skill". As a beginner you must think about where to place your fingers and how to move them. To play at all well and quickly, you need to have practised so the movement is automatic (also called "muscle memory") and your mind is free (e.g. to listen to and cooperate with the other musicians you're playing with).
That's also about "not thinking" in the sense of not getting upset -- e.g. "He's attacking me! I'm frightened!" etc. -- and not "thinking" (i.e. not focusing on an "internal object of the mind") may improve your awareness of "external" objects, your mind is already "in the right place" so you shouldn't be surprised and unready.
In Buddhist terms though you might want to be thinking (especially as beginner) -- e.g. about whether something (an activity) is worth doing at all, whether it's well-intentioned, what the motive is, what the result will be, etc. (see for example the sutta referenced in Samana Johann's answer).
For example, I am writing, and I am aware that I am writing: when I repeat, "I am writing", "I am writing", in my mind, when performing the action of writing, isn't there a split between action and thought?
I think you're talking about one of the ways to practice "Vipasanna".
I'm not sure what the purpose of that practice is, maybe it's to make you aware of what you're doing and what you're feeling and what you're aware of, and maybe why and how that's so. Or its purpose is, as you said "mindfulness" or sati -- i.e. to remember or be mindful of the doctrine (dhamma).
Conversely not-thinking -- perhaps what might be called "immersion" or "absorption" in an activity -- is that a form of samadhi?
This article -- Full-Stop Mind by Bhante Boddhidhamma -- seems to say that "noting" (or labelling) is intended as a step in the right direction, i.e. to be aware of something without thinking about it too much, wandering off-topic (into other thoughts), or attaching to it in the wrong way:

Noting is the second component of the vipassana technique that Mahasi Sayadaw taught. Paradoxically, the result of noting is that it takes a meditator beyond thinking. It is not an end in itself. The Buddha taught that there are two stages of concentrated thought before full concentration is established. The first is a simple noting or naming of the object. This act of labeling, vitakka, whereby the attention is pointed at the object, is likened to a bee flying toward a flower. The label encapsulates the whole experience. In children just beginning to speak, this process is very obvious and simplistic. They rejoice at being able to name an object—“Car! Car!” At their level of linguistic development, the word “car” simply points to the object. There’s not much thought around the word, since language itself, which allows us to think about an object, is not that developed yet.
For adults, the word “car” conjures up a host of memories and desires. We are thinking about an object, which is known as proliferation (papañca). [etc]
Noting is an acknowledgement of what the body, heart, and mind are doing. [etc]

Does thinking during an action improve the quality of the action or
reduce it?

What is the nature of thinking ? It is impermanent. Meaning thinking ability arises. Thinking ability changes. Thinking ability vanishes.
As a Buddhist we must realise...if we attach thinking process with any action then sometimes it will improve the action , sometimes it will reduce the quality of action as  thought process will change , sometimes we will not be aware of any effects on the quality of action because thinking process will cease.
Only right thinking leads us to nirvana...wrong thinking may produce desired effects but it won’t help in spiritual progress.

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


text:
Did the Buddha have special instructions to deal with masturbation?
Did he teach special ways to handle those sexual lusts, did he prohibit it, or just not paying any attention to it? If so what were they?

he didn't prohibit it for secular people, it's not even subsumed under sexual misconduct
but since it's a lustful urge and act it is unwholesome and unskillful, and those need to be handled using the Right effort

[i]"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

Maggavibhanga Sutta (SN 45.8)
Four Right Exertions
avoid situations and sensory stimuli which may provoke sexual desire, at that guarding of the sense doors is helpful
when and if it still arises think of the drawbacks which giving in to the urge may bring, contemplate its impermanence, develop understanding that it's going to eventually subside anyway, so that it loses a degree of its attractiveness and immediacy

I think this will be helpful: Ask A Monk: Pornography and Masturbation (and Addiction in General)

Here is a summary what's said in the video (heavily paraphrased):
The first way to overcome an addiction is re-evaluate it: the Buddha started his talk on DO with 'ignorance'; it's not addiction that's the problem, why do we crave? It's because of ignorance, i.e. misunderstanding the object of our desires. It's not that we have to cut something out, what we have to do is see the object clearly. We're addicted because we don't understand (if we did understand then we wouldn't cling).
Your thinking that it's a problem means that you don't want to think about it. Instead of not thinking about it, you need to see it clearly.
If you practice meditation then you'll see that DO shows a path out of addiction.
We're craving a sense-object (e.g. something that we see). That produces a (pleasant) sensation. The sensation creates a desire. So you desire to see it again i.e. a clinging. Deciding that's good and repeating the sense-experience strengthens the clinging: it wires the brain.
There's no intrinsic connection between nakedness and desire.
When we were children we saw naked people without desire. It's the repeated connection (repeated sexual act) that causes attachment. Cows and fishes have a body like ours but we're not attracted to them, it's our repeated action which cause us to be "reborn" with these desires.
To get out of it, we need wisdom to see it as it is.
One way is to examine / analyze the human body, i.e. the object of the sense-experience: e.g. take it apart and don't mis-perceive it as something desirable ... so even if we're attached to pleasant sensations we don't associate those feelings with the senses (e.g. the sight of a naked body). We stop seeing the body is beautiful, e.g. hair is greasy etc., teeth bleed etc., nothing about the body is beautiful.
In ultimate reality you just see, without seeing it as hair, it's just light touching the eye. So note it as "seeing, seeing" not as "hair".
So that's one thing: change the connection between seeing and sensation (i.e. between the sense and the feeling).
The next thing you can change is the connection between the feeling and the craving. What benefit do you gain from pleasure? You might say "pleasure is good" which is a tautology. Buddhism says that if something is beneficial you should do that. So you have to decide whether masturbation and/or the feeling of pleasure is beneficial.
The third step is the desire. You're more likely to feel guilty about the desire than about the feeling. Desire is a tension, a stress ... and not worthwhile. It's not evil but it's stressful. Wanting something implies unease.
In summary, reinvestigate:

The object of the desire
The feeling (sensation)
The desire itself

Sometimes people (perhaps especially religious people) see sex as a high human state; but sex isn't the highest human state. And Buddhism lets you rise above the human state, the negative states.

Thank you for the link. If you wanted to make it not a link-only answer, an option would be to summarize (in your answer) what's said in the video.

I've seen the video. And for what I understood about it is that you must believe that the pleasure is not an intristic good and to deal with masturbation is just repeating what is going on when you masturbate or just the moment before. Something like that?

@Marijn Well, don't believe anything! The message is to see reality as it is (even if it's not the way you'd like it to be) and not to believe that 'pleasure is not an intrinsic good'. Practice mindfulness and see your lust objectively. Your sexual desire won't vanish by wishing or reading/watching buddhist teachings (That's anatta). And it doesn't seem to make you happy (That's dukkha). The desire often will go away just by watching it without reacting to it. If you are mindfully even before or at the time the lust arises you can drop it easier, because you SEE how it develops.

If you are looking for ways to be free from lust...check out an earlier question...Lust - How Can It Be Overcome?
In the Potaliya Sutta, the Buddha admonishes a householder (albeit a different kind), about sensual lust and compares it to bare bones, a lump of flesh, a torch of straw, a pit of burning coal, a dream, borrowed goods, a fruit tree, a slaughter house, a stake of swords or a snake's head.
In the Puttamansa Sutta, the Buddha talks about three kinds of nutriments - edible food, sense impression and volitional thought. If one is bent on overcoming craving in general and lust in particular, one must be mindful of how we use these nutriments. Food must be consumed mindfully and over-consumption should be avoided. In this age of internet, various media and websites are constantly affecting our senses and volitional thoughts. One must be mindful what we consume on internet.
In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta, Buddha suggests 5 strategies to overcome mind of any unwholesome thoughts. These are:

He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful
(Then, if evil thoughts still arise) he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts
(Then, if evil thoughts still arise) he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts
(Then, ...) he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts
(Then, ...) with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness

Also in Bhikkhuni Sutta, Ven Ananda admonishes a Bhikkhuni about sensual lust. He argues

'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.
This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.

The above answer contains a mix of Suttas addressed to lay people and to monks. As already pointed out in other answers, for lay people, Buddha advised refraining from sexual misconduct. But there are examples from Buddha's period of lay people living celibate life and reaching upto the Anagami stage. So pick and choose from the above sources.
Also I would like to add that Insight Meditation or Vipassana will help one greatly on this path. If one wishes to undertake a retreat to learn Vipassana, Ven S. N. Goenka's retreats would be a great place to start. And if one already practices Vipassana, it is important to preserve the regular practice without letting the feelings of guilt or anger overcoming us.

It's a bodily function. Let's remove the stigma and modernize our thoughts. You lose most of that motivation when you get older anyway. As a young man, or woman, just don't let it control you. When it's necessary then do it. To pay it such heed is to give the desire more power.  Don't consider it some moral victory if you dont or some moral dilemma if you do.
Not to minimize the impact they intended with their selfless action - but I liken this to the approach taken by the Dalai Lama recently when asked about self-immolation incidents. He wisely acknowledged that any position he took would seem either intolerable or heartless. So he chose silence. Sakyamuni would not turn down meat when offered as alms, but he did not seek animals to be killed for him. Sometimes it's important to know when to say or do nothing. I'd say wu wei.

The first sanghadisesa rule explains it for monks.

It's important that lay Buddhists keep the Uposatha practice, or at least once a week avoid all sexual activity, including masturbation.
Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha) AN 10.46


text:
Did anyone equate the tathagatagarbha with the past?
This question may sound strange, but in my secular frustrations, I'm thinking about "the past" as some kind of womb which has nourished and given birth to "me" now.
Do Buddhists, of any sort, have a name for the past? How does it feature in any doctrines of Buddhist salvation?
Does anyone equate the past with the womb of the Tathagata?

this is probably my fav. quote from any sastra: "He should observe that all that had been conceived in the past was as hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly"

None identify buddha nature with the past. Generally speaking and regardless of the school of thought, buddha nature points to you having (at present) the potential to achieve buddhahood.
Cittamatrin identify buddha-nature to the mind-basis-of-all (alaya vijnana) while Madhyamika identify it to suchness with defilements, that is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. The Lankavatara Sutra equates tathagatagarba with mind-basis-of-all.
In his commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum, Gyaltsab Je (Madhyamika-Prasangika) writes:

Suchness with defilement is the basic element not liberated from the
  obscurations of mental afflictions, and is known as tathagata essence (Skt. tathagatagarbha).

Madhyamika-Svatantrika speak of emptiness of true existence while Madhyamika-Prasangika speak of emptiness of inherent existence. The Madhyamika idea is basically that if your mind was not empty, it would not be dependent, no change could occur in it, it could not be subject to transformation, it could not be separated from the obscuring factors, it could not come to be endowed with the two purities, would not be suitable to transform into the bodies of a buddha, and so forth.

Some of the terms I can think of:

Kamma:

'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

ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) -- the answers to this topic suggest that's a description of how Karma is stored in the mind (in the Yogacara "mind-only" school of Buddhism)
See also Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana, which is too muddled to quote but which says that some schools relate these concepts (i.e. karmic seeds from the past, and Buddha-nature).

There's also Kālika (meaning "related to time") and Akalika ("not related to time"): it's the latter which is given as an attribute of the Dharma.


text:
Shoshin in regular buddhism
In Zen-Buddhism there is the concept of the "Beginner's mind" called "Sho Shin" which I find fascinating. I haven't heard of something analogous in "regular" buddhism (meaning the forms of buddhism relating closer to the historic buddha). Does it exist and have a different name, or is it something that conflicts with the original teachings of the buddha?

There is a related question here about beginners mind which you may find interesting.

the closest related thing i can think of is the teaching of overcoming mind tendency to objectification or conceptual proliferation (papañca), that is steering clear of preconceived concepts and notions about the world, reality and phenomena, which are dependent on our perception of those through the 6 sense organs, and disallowing ourselves to be obsessed with them
however this teaching in my view is much deeper because it aims immediately at the final goal, cessation of objectification is synonymous to attainment of nibbana
until then we need to learn to not fall victim to papañca and keep the mind in check


text:
Did Buddha walk on water? Was Jesus trained as a Buddhist?
In this video it is said that Buddha walked on water. Is that true and written down? And why did he do that?
It also says that Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism? Is there evidence to support this?

41:37 to be precise.
In the Nikayas i haven't come across such evidence, maybe Jatakas

The video is citing this book (and it's labelled a "BBC Documentary" but it isn't).

There have been books supporting the idea suggested in your question ("Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism?").
Christianity was a religion not generated from a teaching and converted to text. If you study Christianity's origins as an outsider from a historical perspective you will see that Kings,Clergy & some other influential figures modified the religion to suit the needs and even the birth of modern Christianity is a bit of a untold story.
As Buddhists we do not speak bad of other people's faiths so what needs to be said about the suggestion you make is that there  hasn't been direct proof of any kind to support the idea. And even if Jesus was a Buddhist he would not go around offering food and walking on water because Lord Buddha forbid the acts of miracles unless it was an extremely necessary task.
Let me tell you a story for why i'm saying this.....

One day a Shepard boy saw a monk walking towards him while going to work. He saw that this is a good opportunity for him to gain some good karma and he stooped the monk and offered his lunch to the monk. After he was on his way back to work but he was bit by a snake only after taking few steps.
The monk saw this and thought to himself "This kid could die any moment,the best help i can give is to be more worthy of his offering". So he sat down and started meditating just few feet away from the child. He was able to reach nirvana Before the boy died. The boy died happily looking at the monk. He opened his eyes in the higher realm called "Deva realm" (Buddhist version of heaven). He returned to earth to tell the Arahat monk his story.

As you can see for a true Buddhist monk the real suffering is not hunger,slavery or poverty. It is "Samsara" and he only care to help a being's Karmic circle to end so he would be closer to Nirvana.

Walking on water....
Walking on water is a piece of cake compared to what Buddhist monks and Lord Buddha has done.

The best one of all miracles that only a  Lord Buddha can do is called "Ama maha pratiharya" which is basically spraying both fire and water at the same time from  the whole body.

Here are some very unique miracles Arahat monks have performed.
Optical illusions - Making moon or sun appear closer and show as if he or she is touching the surface.
Walking through mountains.
Making waves from solid objects like earth.
Sinking in to earth like oil and appearing from a desired location.
Transporting things trough space (Almost like teleportation)
Shrinking body size to fit through a keyhole of a door lock.

Lord Buddha's view on levitating upon water...
One day Lord Buddha and a group of monks were waiting next to a river until the boat arrives. A monk or a sage from another religion saw this and he immediately levitated off the ground and crossed the river. This was a mocking.
Lord Buddha asked "How much does it cost to reach across on this boat?". That is how much his practice is worth.

Lord Buddha said this because the ability to levitate can save him from the fee but that ability does not help him at all on his long journey of "Samsara".
Lord Buddha saw Miracles as a non important thing and never encouraged anyone to follow them. Because Lord Buddha's work is not to teach people how to do miracles, Lord Buddha knew that there is no need of Buddhism to give people super powers because those existed before Lord Buddha even though Buddhism unlocks some unique ones of its own.

One day in the early age of Buddhism Lord Buddha saw a misguided group of sages and went to make them understand the wrongful way of their understanding.
Lord Buddha saw that the leader of the group is full of ego and the best way to make them understand is to get the leader to a correct understanding.
So lord Buddha decided to spend some time among them.
One day Lord Buddha went to have a bath and thought "It would be easier if there was a branch to hold onto when getting in and out of water" then the King of Gods ("Sakra Devendra") came and bent a branch nearby. After having the bath Lord Buddha thought "It would be nice if there was a stone to wash my cloths on", and the King of Gods came and created a large stone.

Not only Lord Buddha was capable of miracles everyone was willing to assist Lord Buddha in any way possible knowing the power of Karma they could gain. That's why you see a "King of gods" acting like a personal assistant.

Truth about Jhanas and miracles...
You do not need Jesus to walk on water even you can. But as Buddhists we do not pursue such worldly goals. And there is no necessity of Buddhism to do miracles. Id you go to india you can finds many sages and monk who never knew the first thing about Buddhism and doing pretty amazing stuff. But they all do it to be praised or to gain a following. That is exactly the reason Lord Buddha forbid the showing off part of the practice.
Because soon as you feel special and more capable than the normal humans what you do is very simple. You go out there and say "Look at me vermin, i' the god".read the following to see why...

Here is a good example from lord Buddha's time....
One day a monk and his apprentice monk went to worship a temple and the teacher said "I would love to offer some flowers to this great stupa.".So the apprentice monk took off to the sky and disappeared, Soon he came back with a bucket full of flower from the "Himalayas forest". The flowers were offered and the elder monk gave advice to the younger "Be careful with your mind because if you don't you will be looked after by a one eyed woman".
One day the younger monk (Apprentice) was going somewhere through a jungle levitating in the air. Then the monk heard a nice song sung by a lovely voice. He lost his "Jhana" and slowly descended to earth. He has lost all of his powers because of the attachment he made up within seconds to that voice.
After few days he married the girl who sang and became a householder he was a monk no more. He had become a monk very young and had little knowledge about the life of a householder. After starting a fight with his wife he threw a knitting needle at his wife which ended up piercing her eye. He did not intend to do that but suddenly he realized the teacher's advice.

The is an event monks to this day teach to us and to apprentice monks to remind us the temporary nature of all things including powers.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Ultimate existence and the self in Mahayana
I was reading the SEP article on the two truths
According to the abhidharmakosa:

An entity, the cognition of which does not arise when it is destroyed
  and, mentally divided, is conventionally existent like a pot and
  water. Ultimate existence is otherwise

The article adds that:

For a thing to be ultimately real is for that thing to be
  “foundationally existent” (dravya-sat / rdzas yod)

Does any Buddhist school claim that what arises when it is divided or destroyed, whether or not that exists etc., is the self?

According to Tibetan system of tenets, the Vaibhāṣikas so-called 'Hinayana school of tenets' defines an ultimte truth as:

A phenomenon such that an awareness apprehending it is not cancelled
  if it is broken up or mentally separated into its individual parts.

Illustrations of ultimate truths are:

directionally partless particles, temporally partless [moments of]
  consciousness, uncompounded phenomena, any of the five aggregates.

Mahayana tenets assert that Vaïbashikas do not posit selflessness of phenomena, but merely [a grosser] selflessness of persons. Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

A selflessness of phenomena is not accepted because it is accepted
  that if it is an established base it is necessarily a self of
  phenomena.


text:
Is Chant of Metta from Tipitaka?
I came across 'The Chant of Metta' (Metta Gatha), in a beautiful rendition by Imee Ooi in this YouTube video.
Here is the full text in Pali, with English translation: THE CHANT OF METTA
Is this chant from the Tipitaka or is it a later composition? The Karaniya Metta Sutta from Tipitaka has different wordings in this translation.

The popular chant of metta is originated from the Theravada Tripitaka. This can be found in Kuddaka Nikaya->Patisambhidamagga->Yuganaddawagga Mettakatha
Read from page 130

Thank you for answering. The "Mettakatha" which you referenced includes many of the same words as the one referenced in the OP, but they're not identical; for example the one you referenced doesn't begin with "homi".

I agree. It is not identical. But apparently Chant of Metta has a greater influence from Mettakatha. That's why I used the term "originated". This is also widely used as metta meditation all over the world. So regardless of the origins, it is something valuable for daily use. :)

PS: Terms 'homi' and 'hontu' make it a chant

"homi" is the first person singular imperative of the verb "to be": so "may I be", or "I must be". And "hontu" is the third person plural imperative: so "may they be". [reference]

The chant which you're asking about included in, for example, The Complete Book
of
Pâli
Chanting
(Theravada Tradition)
By
Dr. Phra Achan Dhammarato, Bhikkhû, PhD. (page 152).
I think that it is traditional (not written recently by or for Imee Ooi).
It starts with "homi", i.e. "May I be".
That's compatible with the commentary in The Path of Purification, which says on page 292,

First of all it should be developed only towards oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: "May I be happy and free from suffering" or "May I keep myself free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety and live happily."

The next paragraphs explain why that "does not conflict with what is said in the texts": maybe that's evidence that this formula, i.e. starting with the first person singular, isn't found in the (earlier) suttas.

The Chant of Metta is not from the Tripitaka but the Karaniya Metta Sutta is from the Tripitaka. When translating Pali into a languages which does not have similar constructs there will be variations.

Then from where is the chant of metta from?

I am not sure who might have written it.

Mr. Bharat will find most part of it in the traditional Chant The Sublime Attitudes. Obviously the designer of this chant did not like to share some of the more insightful parts but merely replaced them with more heart beat. Here also an audio of it Sublime Attitudes - chanting in Pali and English
Aside of the entrance part "May I be..." the other parts are all copies from certain Suttas (That "I" derives also from the Canon, but from the commentary which explain the way to practice.).
The meaning of this quested linked one, is how ever, in line with the traditional ways.
You may find an explaining of practicing metta here: Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta: The Message of Peace and Universal Friendliness
As for who actually wrote it, the answer would be surely best places over the websites owners email: info(at)satipatthana.ca and the appearance of Yogi and other renderings like the teacher part, give hints, that it is written by lay people who have not much connection with the Sangha.