text:
How many types of Buddhism are there?
And what is the main differences between them?  Is it like Christianity where there seems to be a couple of main ones and then dozens of smaller ones doing their own thing?

There have been several attempts before, to ask this question. I think it's probably better to link to some of those, than to ask another question on the same topic -- unless you want to make this question more specific somehow (to distinguish it from previous questions).

Also see Could someone provide a list of all Buddhist schools?


text:
Virtual things that emerge from interaction and exist as interaction
According to this comment:

"Form is like a lump of foam ... And consciousness like an illusion" (SN 22.95)
  means something more subtle and interesting, much more deep than just
  "empty of self". It means that these things are "virtual" (in the
  original sense of the word) - they emerge from interaction and only
  exist as interaction, they only seem solid "from inside" but in
  actuality they are like sleight of hand.

I guess this comes from one of the Mahayana schools' interpretation of Madhyamaka shunyata (emptiness).
What does this really mean?
Let's say I have a piece of apple in my hand. I see that it's an apple. I feel that it's an apple when I touch it. I can smell it as an apple. It also tastes like an apple when I bite into it.
How does the apple emerge only from interaction?
How does the apple exist only as interaction?
How is the apple like a sleight of hand that only appears solid, although it's virtual?
I originally thought this is related to physics, where things that we can experience are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. However, Buddhism is almost always related to the mind. So, how does this apply to the mind?
Does this interpretation come from Yogachara?

"However, Buddhism is almost always related to the mind.", well if the Buddha was capable of seeing through things in the macro-scale (the forming and destruction of the universe, the coming and going of beings through countless lives, etc.), then it shouldn't be a problem for Him to see through things in the microscopic scale (the scale of the atoms and sub-atomic particles). So we should be careful not pigeon-holing Buddhism into some specific box. It's a lot bigger than what we think it is.

While I'm not refuting the Buddha's ability to look into subatomic particles' structure, I don't think the structure of atoms contribute towards the ending of suffering.

Maybe the clue is in the common translation of dhamma (phenomenon) as 'thing-event'. This accords with the modern scientific understanding of corporeal phenomena. Perhaps check-out the idea that these phenomena are 'effervescent', as would be mental 'thing-events' also. Another way to look at it may be that all existing phenomena are composite.   . .

It was said:

Form [is void, hollow, insubstantial] like a lump of foam,
  Feeling like a water bubble;
  Perception is like a mirage,
  Volitions like a plantain trunk,
  And consciousness like an illusion,
  So explained the Kinsman of the Sun

And then it was said

[the above] means something more subtle and interesting, much more deep than just "empty of self". It means that these things are "virtual" (in the original sense of the word) - they emerge from interaction and only exist as interaction, they only seem solid "from inside" but in actuality they are like sleight of hand.

This was said in reference to subjective phenomena like feeling, perception - up to and including the overall subjective experience (consciousness) itself. They are "virtual" (=seeming), in the sense that they only exist "inside the subjective space". If you look at a human being from the outside, you can measure its brain activities, the neurons firing etc. - and based on that you can guess what they experience, but the actual features of their subjective experience only exist virtually, as mind-phenomena. And there they are very solid. A pain from a cut finger is a very solid and concrete experience, even though from the outside it is only a tiny change in some neurons' firing rate.
Now, this makes sense about feeling etc. but what about form (rupa), how is that virtual. This piece is usually explained in Mahayana folklore on examples of various non-human beings, either real or imaginary.
For example, we could say, imagine subjective experience of a worm born from an egg attached to the skin of apple. Does their experience involve what we call apple? Clearly, experience of a worm is nothing like ours. For a newborn worm the apple is its entire universe, and as they grow up they may or may not reach a point where they realize that the apple has boundaries and is round. So for the worm the rupa (form) of apple is nowhere to be found. They deal with entirely different scale of things on which the rupas are different. So the form, just like other phenomena, emerges from interaction.
Now, this is not to say that the Buddhism of Mahayana subscribes to some kind of Subjective Idealism. This just means that (per Mahayana), our ideas of objects, entities, properties, qualities, events, boundaries, interactions etc. - are deeply rooted in incorrect (anthropocentric, egocentric, americentric etc) assumptions about these things (objects, entities, properties, qualities, events, interactions) being actually
(ontologically) the same as what they appear to us in our subjective experience.
When this particular realization is made and is practiced in daily life, our habits of seeing the world start changing - and slowly we go from naive materialistic superficial what Buddhists call "tainted" vision to what's called the enlightened vision, which is to say, a vision that involves seeing beyond the superficial appearances, and beyond our singlesided anthropocentric and egocentric perspectives.
The reason Mahayana says this entire line of thinking is connected with the Buddhist quest to end suffering, is because, according to Mahayana, suffering (and its causes of craving, aversion, and conflict) come from attachment to appearances that arise in our tainted vision, and from assuming that these appearances are solid.
So, to understand "emptiness" of phenomena emerging in tainted vision and to go beyond its limits in our own daily life, is a crucial step towards Enlightenment and Liberation, according to Mahayana.

You only really know of the apples existence by touching it, smelling it and tasting it.  That is, interacting with it. Even looking at it is an interaction.

Sorta.  Before we get into the meat of things here, remember that Yogacara (which is where that argument grows out of) is first and foremost concerned with liberation, karmic obstacles, and the like.  It doesn't seek to establish some ontological theory regarding the nature of "things out there".  It is a practice methodology, nothing more.
But about your apple.  Seen from the the perspective of the Yogacara school, it starts to make a whole lot more sense (though it becomes way less mysterious).  Yogacara posits eight consciousnesses.  The first six are sense-based.  If you don't have your six senses engaging the world, you can't have those six consciousness.  No consciousness, no world.  In order for that apple ever to register, it has to impact something's consciousness.  If there is no subject, there can be no object.
Unlike the schools that precede them, the Yogacara peeps weren't happy with a six sense based model.  Wouldn't, they surmised, the loss of consciousness ultimately lead to instantaneous enlightenment?  Why don't we awaken when someone hits us in the head with a baseball bat?  Wouldn't we become Buddha's if we stopped seeing apples?  More interestingly, how can there be enlightenment when consciousness is still conditioned by sense perception? To answer these questions (which are actually not insignificant) they posited the existence of two more consciousness.  The second, I think, everyone knows at least something about.  That would be the storehouse consciousness.  This is what contains all of our habitual patterning, reactions, memories, etc.  Storehouse consciousness is the reason you hate apples because the kids down the block used to pelt you with them your way home from school.  The other consciousness they identified was the consciousness of identity view; this is the consciousness that groups the other seven into a consistent sense of self.
So, a concrete example.  You pick up an apple.  You feel it's weight, see its red color, smell the phenolic compounds from where the stem broke off.  You think you haven't had lunch, so you bite into it and taste it.  You immediately remember that you like apples and really should eat them more often.  Notice that every statement is from your perspective.  This whole picture is the Yogacara model of reality.  And it's that pesky you in there - how it ultimately binds together the whole interaction and makes it about some seemingly independent actor - that they were most concerned about.  The question of if that apple exists until you pick it up is only important if it's an obstacle to you overcoming that youview.  Whether that tree falling in the woods makes any sound with no one around to hear is only important if that falling tree is keeping you bound to you.
(Side note, the falling tree is an example of how koans can work in the context of the alaya.  This koan could be used to "point at" some part of our storehouse consciousness that we might take to be automatic and inevitable but is really originating in our minds and is under our power to disrupt.)

What does this really mean?

Before enlightenment, the world is seen through the illusion of duality. It is believed that you (a human being) exists and is interacting with a multitude of objects that exist separate from yourself. This belief system has been historically given the label materialism. In this belief system, what is real is the atoms and physical matter that exists in the material world, and your mind (5 senses and thought) are side effects, created by the complex system that exists as your physical body.
Based on your questions, it seems as if you still believe this is the case. Before I answer your questions, it is easier to understand what I am saying if you reflect on your own experience first.
It is important to first pause to consider if you have ever experienced anything "physical" in your entire life. Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking are all immaterial sensations that can not be given to another nor placed in a box. Have you ever experienced anything other than these sensations? If no, what proof can you find that something physical does exist? Is it possible to find proof?
Now, on to your questions.

Let's say I have a piece of apple in my hand. I see that it's an apple. I feel that it's an apple when I touch it. I can smell it as an apple. It also tastes like an apple when I bite into it.

Look over these sentences again. You are describing sight, touch, smell, and taste. You are not describing an apple. What you call an apple, is simply a label you place on a subsection of your sight, touch, smell, and taste. You are saying "this sight I identify as an apple, this touch I identify as an apple, etc."
What is happening is you are breaking down and dividing these sensations into multiple different concepts. When you are observing sight, you are only ever seeing one thing, sight itself. But then, we take sight as a whole and break it down into multiple subsections and concepts. What once was sight is now your hand, the apple, and the room around you. This process of breaking apart a single thing and classifying it as multiple is one way the illusion around you persists. You see your hand and the apple as two different things, but that is not true. At first you may think both your hand and the apple exist within sight, but both are simply the same sight you have broken apart into different ideas. Sight is what is real and exists, and you have imagined your sight to be objects, instead of simply sight.

How does the apple emerge only from interaction?
How does the apple exist only as interaction?

Interaction is only possible to occur if duality exists. You believe you are one thing. You believe the apple is another, separate from you. Believing both of these things is what makes interaction seemingly possible.
If there is no you, and there is no apple, can interaction occur? If there is simply sight appearing, is any interaction taking place?
By holding the false belief that you are "this" and not "that", you instantaneously create the belief in both your and the apple's existence. If you did not believe you were separate from the apple, would the apple still exist? Or would it simply be a part of you?

How is the apple like a sleight of hand that only appears solid, although it's virtual?

Now that Virtual reality technology is accessible to the masses, lets have a VR example.
Image you put on a virtual reality headset and turn it on. Immediately you find yourself standing in front of a table. On the table sits an apple.
Imagine you bend down and inspect the apple from multiple angles. You see the light shimmering off, and it looks tasty. Imagine you are wearing gloves that allow you to pick up the apple. You reach down and grab the apple and lift it off the table and toss it across the room.
Does the apple you see in your headset physically exist? Is there physical matter there making up the apple you are holding? No. In VR, you are simply looking at a screen, and although you are seeing and interacting with many things that seem real, its really just images on a screen. Although the VR apple appears solid, it is not. Its virtual.
There is no difference between that example, and the sight you experience every day. Just because you see, taste, and smell an apple in your fridge, does not mean there is a physical entity that exists outside of the realm of your senses. The illusion of "physical" reality is brought about by our religious devotion to the idea that something exists other than the contents of our minds. Even though we never have, nor never will experience anything other than the 5 senses and thought, people are still trapped by the belief that there is something else out there.

I originally thought this is related to physics, where things that we can experience are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. However, Buddhism is almost always related to the mind. So, how does this apply to the mind?

Physics is a useful conceptual framework for accomplishing a task. Just because it is useful for something, does not mean it reflects the nature of reality or even exists. Many amazing things have come about due to an understanding of this very deep and amazing conceptual framework that has been developed. Although it is useful, does that mean it is accurate in describing our universe?
It can be a hard pill to swallow that all of physics may not describe anything real, so lets give a smaller example that is more manageable, but the concept still applies to all of physics. Think about the number two. Mathematics wouldn't be the same without two. Think of all the amazing uses we have for two. Although the number two is extremely useful, does two even exist in reality? Can you find a two and save it for later? Does it describe anything real? Or is it simply a concept we have constructed as a useful tool?
When exploring reality, it is important to be meticulous and question everything you believe to be true. Even something everyone in America is taught to be "true" like physics should be scrutinized. All you have ever experienced is the mind. On what basis do you believe something exists other than the mind? Beginning to follow this movement inward is paramount to understanding and experiencing the freedom that is enlightenment.
I hope what I wrote will be helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

It's an axiom of Physics that you can "observe" something only by "interacting" with it -- for example, by bouncing a photon off of it, to see it.
Also what you observe depends on the type of interaction -- if you observe something using the "fire a bullet at it" method, then perhaps using that method you couldn't tell the difference between an apple and a potato.
Hominids (and other primates) can distinguish "red", incidentally -- that type of colour vision is rare among mammals, and perhaps it exists because primates uniquely evolved to climb trees and to recognise by sight which fruits are ripe -- a human might (literally as well as figuratively) see an apple as food in a way that e.g. a cat would not.
An apple appears to be "solid" until or unless you bite it. You have learned how to handle an apple carefully (so as not to damage it).
To me the comment about "interaction" implied:

It depends on "learning" -- you learn how to recognise an apple, how to use an apple, how to preserve an apple, how to name an apple, how to classify apples, how to compare current experiences with previous "apple-related" experiences
You learn a limited set of appropriate interactions with apples -- e.g. "hold it in your hand and feel it", "sniff it", etc. -- those interactions elicit the familiar apple-like properties
You learn to use your test apparatus -- i.e. your senses -- e.g. (perhaps as a child) you learn how different things feel when you pick them up and handle them
And of course you learned how to name as well as recognise apples (e.g. when you learned your "first language")

More literally than learning how "things" feel, you learn the "feelings" or sensations you experience -- e.g. learn to associate the "feeling of hefting 'an apple'" with the "sight of what 'an apple' looks like". It's the interaction of several senses (and memory) that leads to you declare that something should be named "an apple" -- not to be confused with e.g. "a picture of an apple", "apple juice", "a rotten apple", "a apple made of wax or plastic", "an apple seed", "a whole wagon-load of apples", "an apple tree", etc.
I'm not sure I understand what sankhara and nama-rupa mean in the context of the 12 nidanas, but perhaps this is related to that.

interaction means there is a    reciprocal action between at least 2 things. it is quite a generic word. You do not say anything when you say something is an interaction because most things is an interaction. At best the liberated citta does not interact with the attractive things and disgusting things, because the arhant is not excited. If you want you can call ''contact'' an interaction.
in the sutta the buddha does not talk about interaction at all. he says only

“Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception
  seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness
  like a magic trick: so taught the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you contemplate them, examining them carefully, they’re void
  and hollow when you look at them closely.

what you talk about looks like the usual mistake of the puthujjanas who confuses anicca with their fantasy of ''interconnectedness''. And puthujjanas already know that things are interconnected and they still remain puthujjanas.

Avuso, dependent on the [eye, ear, nose. tongue, body, mind] and
  [form, sound, smell, taste, touch, mind-object], [eye, ear, nose.
  tongue, body, mind]-consciousness arises.
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
Interaction is essentially contact. When you interact a step down the line is one perceives.
In Buddhism perception and consciousness is considered independently arisen, unlike the contemporary view that consciousness is self. See Ātman (Hinduism)
Though a later composition by Adi Shankaracharya, the following shows the Hindu view of consciousness and self:

1) I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (citta). I am not the five senses. I am beyond that. I am not the seven elements or the five sheaths. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.
2) Neither can I be termed as energy (prāṇa), nor five types of breath (vāyus), nor the seven material essences, nor the five sheaths(pañca-kośa). Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.
3)    I have no hatred or dislike, nor affiliation or liking, nor greed, nor delusion, nor pride or haughtiness, nor feelings of envy or jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kāma), nor even liberation (mokṣa). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.
4) I have neither merit (virtue), nor demerit (vice). I do not commit sins or good deeds, nor have happiness or sorrow, pain or pleasure. I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yajñas). I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.
5)    I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death. I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence, nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.
6)    I am all pervasive. I am without any attributes, and without any form. I have neither attachment to the world, nor to liberation (mukti). I have no wishes for anything because I am everything, everywhere, every time, always in equilibrium. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness.

Atma Shatkam / Nirvanashatkam
The Buddhist view contrasts with this as both consciousness and perception are not real. What this entails is that is it dependently arisen, hence they do not exist on their own nor are they an identifiable entity, core or shell.
So the apple in your hand is a collection of illusion than being anything substantial. Also it came about due to the interaction of the 6 sense bases with the environment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Alternative to Willpower in Fighting Cravings
I noticed that I almost unconsciously revert to trying to fight cravings via willpower, i.e. resisting them. Let's take the example of food cravings. I usually make an internal commitment to avoid junk food, but the cravings nevertheless arise, and when my mood is low I fail to resist.
Are there alternatives to willpower in fighting cravings? I had been wondering whether other solutions  -- like mindfulness or even seeking healthier sources of pleasure -- might be more effective.
More so, I believe I crave more because recently I experience less pleasure from activities or emotional sources. Does Buddhism have any technique specifically linked to pleasure?

Willpower is one of the five strategies to remove distracted thought in MN 20. Try to follow the sequence of operation as suggested by the sutta before resorting to applying willpower. (ref: https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/bodhi )

Firstly, don't buy and store any junk food. If they are within easy reach, you would be tempted to consume them.
Secondly, think about why you should not eat junk food. Do you have diabetes or are at risk of diabetes? See this talk about diabetes. If you understand why too much carbohydrates are bad, you will avoid them, just as how you avoid snakes. Same applies to other types of health risks e.g. high blood pressure, bad cholesterol etc.
Thirdly, replace junk food with healthier snacks that are within easy reach. For e.g. mixed nuts, fruits, seaweed snacks, kale chips, unsweetened natural yogurt etc.
Natural Buddhist way to induce pleasure? Yes, there's mindfulness of breathing according to SN 54.9.

Some stuff for you to try:

Pace yourself, by letting cravings go in manageable steps (If everyone else deserves compassion, so do you in your practice of letting go)
Don't quit cold turkey, instead replace your habits with alternative
activitites (essentially anything related to the eightfold path, not
least meditation)
Do Asubha bhavana (foulness meditation)
Study dhamma (disperses ignorance on this topic, and is also conducive to comprehension/panna and hope/saddha, as alternatives to viriya/willpower)
Ask your sangha (You already did)

I usually make an internal commitment to avoid junk food

Buddhism teaches to use wisdom. Constantly think about the dangers of junk food.

Craving food is tied to a bodily sensation. When a thorn pricks you get pain to avoid it, similarly sensations when your body signals you need fast food or a particular type.
When looking at bodily sensations try to isolate the particular sensation and develop equanimity and difference towards it. Sensations tied to different types of food also slightly varied. When you body the low in sugar the sensation is different from when craving to something savory.
Also when hungry you get another sensation. Do the same for the sensations tied to how your body signals that you are hungry or need to eat.
Our mind and body is programed to react to these sensations or signals your body generate. To take back control you have to have mastery over the bodily signals. So instead of developing willpower not to eat, use the will power to master the bodies signalling mechanism, to achieve the same through sensations / bodily signals as proxy.
This is easy said than done. Go get the real hang of it you will have to do a meditation course which train you to observe bodily sensation. You can try one of:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html

Also you can try "The perception of loathsomeness in food" meditation. You should not over do this of you might get anorexia.

yes sati is always the way to guard the senses and guarding the senses is always the way to nibanna

"And what is lack of restraint? There is the case where a monk, seeing
  a form with the eye, is obsessed with pleasing forms, is repelled by
  unpleasing forms, and remains with body-mindfulness unestablished,
  with limited awareness. He does not discern, as it actually is
  present, the awareness-release, the discernment-release where any
  evil, unskillful mental qualities that have arisen utterly cease
  without remainder.
"Hearing a sound with the ear...
"Smelling an aroma with the nose...
"Tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"Touching a tactile sensation with the body...
"Cognizing an idea with the intellect, he is obsessed with pleasing
  ideas, is repelled by unpleasing ideas, and remains with
  body-mindfulness unestablished, with limited awareness. He does not
  discern, as it actually is present, the awareness-release, the
  discernment-release where any evil, unskillful mental qualities that
  have arisen utterly cease without remainder.
"Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of
  different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope. Catching a
  snake, he would bind it with a strong rope. Catching a crocodile... a
  bird... a dog... a hyena... a monkey, he would bind it with a strong
  rope. Binding them all with a strong rope, and tying a knot in the
  middle, he would set chase to them.
"Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats,
  would each pull toward its own range & habitat. The snake would pull,
  thinking, 'I'll go into the anthill.' The crocodile would pull,
  thinking, 'I'll go into the water.' The bird would pull, thinking,
  'I'll fly up into the air.' The dog would pull, thinking, 'I'll go
  into the village.' The hyena would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the
  charnel ground.' The monkey would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the
  forest.' And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they
  would submit, they would surrender, they would come under the sway of
  whichever among them was the strongest. In the same way, when a monk
  whose mindfulness immersed in the body is undeveloped & unpursued, the
  eye pulls toward pleasing forms, while unpleasing forms are repellent.
  The ear pulls toward pleasing sounds... The nose pulls toward pleasing
  aromas... The tongue pulls toward pleasing flavors... The body pulls
  toward pleasing tactile sensations... The intellect pulls toward
  pleasing ideas, while unpleasing ideas are repellent. This, monks, is
  lack of restraint.
"And what is restraint? There is the case where a monk, seeing a form
  with the eye, is not obsessed with pleasing forms, is not repelled by
  unpleasing forms, and remains with body-mindfulness established, with
  immeasurable awareness. He discerns, as it actually is present, the
  awareness-release, the discernment-release where all evil, unskillful
  mental qualities that have arisen utterly cease without remainder.
"Hearing a sound with the ear...
"Smelling an aroma with the nose...
"Tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"Touching a tactile sensation with the body...
"Cognizing an idea with the intellect, he is not obsessed with
  pleasing ideas, is not repelled by unpleasing ideas, and remains with
  body-mindfulness established, with immeasurable awareness. He
  discerns, as it actually is present, the awareness-release, the
  discernment-release where all evil, unskillful mental qualities that
  have arisen utterly cease without remainder.
"Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of
  different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope. Catching a
  snake, he would bind it with a strong rope. Catching a crocodile... a
  bird... a dog... a hyena... a monkey, he would bind it with a strong
  rope. Binding them all with a strong rope, he would tether them to a
  strong post or stake.[1]
"Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats,
  would each pull toward its own range & habitat. The snake would pull,
  thinking, 'I'll go into the anthill.' The crocodile would pull,
  thinking, 'I'll go into the water.' The bird would pull, thinking,
  'I'll fly up into the air.' The dog would pull, thinking, 'I'll go
  into the village.' The hyena would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the
  charnel ground.' The monkey would pull, thinking, 'I'll go into the
  forest.' And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they
  would stand, sit, or lie down right there next to the post or stake.
  In the same way, when a monk whose mindfulness immersed in the body is
  developed & pursued, the eye does not pull toward pleasing forms, and
  unpleasing forms are not repellent. The ear does not pull toward
  pleasing sounds... The nose does not pull toward pleasing aromas...
  The tongue does not pull toward pleasing flavors... The body does not
  pull toward pleasing tactile sensations... The intellect does not pull
  toward pleasing ideas, and unpleasing ideas are not repellent. This,
  monks, is restraint.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will develop mindfulness
  immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it
  as a basis, give it a grounding. We will steady it, consolidate it,
  and set about it properly.' That's how you should train yourselves."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.206.than.html

Practice samatha meditation.  The feeling of calm and well being that it engenders reduces and even altogether replaces the pull of addictive, impulsive behaviors.  This has effect has been extremely well documented in regards to TM (which is basically just a riff on samatha).

This is on Eliminating bias, but it works just as well for other unskillful traits.
We are told that bias/prejudice is bad and that we should get rid of it. But being biased and thinking "I am biased"; one will never be able to get rid of bias.
How come?
Because there is no thing there that is this "I" in which there is this bias.
There is no way to find this bias to see it, analyze it, understand it, get rid of it because it is not where you are looking.
But thinking "There is bias in me" (the 'me' there being conventional speech) and focusing on getting rid of every instance of the expression of that bias, eventually gets rid of that bias. It dies out from lack of deployment. This is another way of describing kamma that ends kamma. The impulse to act (to react) is not responded to and that ends that kammic force right there.
This way of dealing with faults completely eliminates the reluctance one has to admit faults because seeing things this way, faults are never a reflection on the core values one wishes to see in one's self, they are always 'out there'; it is curiously impersonal and liberating.

Householder, Interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
In relation to all various kinds of touches which could be encountered with kama-raga/tanha, sensual desire/craving, the Sublime Buddha gave a set of different contra-actions to them for his monks, which may be possible to addopt to certain extent also for lay practitioner, but of course not easy:
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

There are fermentations

to be abandoned by seeing,
those to be abandoned by restraining,
those to be abandoned by using,
those to be abandoned by tolerating,
those to be abandoned by avoiding,
those to be abandoned by destroying,
and those to be abandoned by developing....

(Note that this works also in regard of bhava-tanha and vibhava-tanha in same way if not clear of what might be the danger)
What might be conductive in regard of the hindrance of sensual-desire is generously given in "The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest" under 1. Sensual Desire
Will-power, how ever, till reaching the certain path, is in all cases always and for all of those actions required.
Only after perfection of the path, no more will-power is needed: Cetana Sutta: Act of will

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises in a person free from remorse...
..."For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.

As for the "food-aspect" Silas are the means at first place. 1. not violation the 5 serious, incl. not indulging in inproper sense pleasures, also livelihood, trade, and secound to take the precept of not eating at the wrong time, making the aspects of the five more strict.
It would be hard to ever overcome raw sensual-desires and developing Samadhi and Panna, if not looking after observing the 8. precepts.
In regard of alternative pleasures instead of sensual-pleasures, Jhanas, dwelling in refined areas, are mentioned as replacement for finding needed joy to walk on and of which, at least when doing, would not harm anybody and protect good silas. Of course if after the possibility to dwell in Jhanas, one would not lead proper livelihood, such seek after refined pleasures could be also for no long lasting happiness (a usual case is modern use of meditation for manager, more productivity... without Silas).
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

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


text:
Acting nice for karma's sake?
If I recall correctly, karma is constituted of two parts - action and intention. Which means if one wishes to "gain" positive karma, one would have to conduct a positive action AND do so with a positive mind. With that being said, if I were to help an old lady to cross the street for the sole purpose of obtaining good karma, am I going to get good karma?

This is a triple win in term of accumulating and strengthening the effectiveness of the karmic action:

Being nice
Knowing being nice has consequences
Acting knowing there are consequences

When doing good, believing in Karma and knowing there are consequences, reinforce the good results.

Sadhu, sadhu,  Upasaka

For the purpose of obtaining good karma, one would in most cases accumulate more good than for any other common purpose, yes. "Just" for the sake of doing good is a very noble intention, householder Timothy Hung.

Yes, you are exercising the muscle of kindness. Eventually the action will become more natural.

You can comment instead.

@Swapnil Short answers are permitted -- and if it is an answer I'd prefer it posted as an answer than as a comment (I often even delete short-answer-posted-as-a-comment to encourage people to post answers instead). A longer answer is sometimes better, e.g. an answer that's "based on" something -- some experience (i.e. "something which happened to you personally"), and/or a reference (to scripture).

@ChrisW I thought it should be comment cause of flagged as short answer.

@Swapnil Was it flagged, are you using the "Review queue?" Thank you! But anyway there's When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead? -- also When shouldn't I comment? says, "Comments are not recommended for ... Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer"

Yes I used "review queue" . Thanks for mentioned links for short answer.

Karma is how this world behaves. As an example in general how world behave is ; if we change the state of a weight (put a stone from the ground on the table) to a more unstable position (being on the table is more unstable than being on the ground) what would happen? Once its got a chance it comes to a stable position right? You can name this as gravity or any other concept in Science. The same model is happening in Karma too.
By helping a lady to cross the road you are changing the state, and once the nature got a chance it gives you similar thing back. But main thing to remember is that ‘chethana han bikkha wè kamman wadami’ means thought (intention) is the karma. So if you do this without the intention of really helping that lady, you will not get similar help in future. The intention you meant here may cause you to be used by someone else (as return karma) to get what they want while you will feel some easiness.

It will still be positive, but not as beneficial as if it was done selflessly.

for the sake of doing good is selfish perse?

As stated in the question, of course it is.  Generosity is always self giving, not self building.

Is self-giving then not a way toward a more refined buulding up of existence, householder? Does one not give strengh by mind, signs and deeds, one time? And if it is for the sake of that, a better self?

The purpose of accumulating good kamma has not mentioned, or? Of course one can assume this or that heading, tendecy of one, but that would be assume behind the words, or?


text:
It is said that arahants never dream. What are the textual sources for this claim?
On various web pages relating to the Dhamma I have read the claim that arahants never dream. A few examples:

Buddhist scholar Lily de Silva writes:

We may also note the tradition maintaining that arahants never dream, maybe because they have attained such perfect mental health that there is no necessity to release tension through dreams.

The ven. Dhammananda Maha Thera writes:

Buddhas and Arahants never dream. The first three kinds of dream cannot occur in their minds, because their minds have been permanently 'stilled' and cannot be activated to dream. The last kind of dream cannot happen to them because they have eradicated all their craving energy completely, and there is no 'residual' energy of anxiety or unsatisfied desire to activate the mind to produce dreams.

And the Czech monk U Sarana writes:

At that time Mahasi Sayadaw told to U Pandita that to his (Mahasi Sayadaw's) surprise, Mahasi Sayadaw had a dream. It is impossible for an Arahant to have a dream - and thus Sayadaw U Pandita knew, that Mahasi Sayadaw was not an Arahant at the time when this was said.

Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any Suttas or other textual sources for the claim that arahants never dream. Do any of you guys know of such sources? Is it in the Suttas, the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, or in a later text such as the Visuddhimagga? Thanks in advance for your answers!

These views seems to imply that the dreams only have functions related to the releasing of tension and the unconscious expression of craving. But there are recent studies that suggest may have other functions as well, such as the consolidation of recently acquired memories, in order to "include" such information in the long-term memory. Kind regards!

Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara. So there is no need for accumulation of memory.

I posted the same question in DW but not much luck.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22280&hilit=

@SarathW Hi! From my ignorance, I would argue that not all sankhara are uprooted, but only those conditioned by the craving, aversion and delusion. There's still mind and aggregates to be conditioned by other kammically pure intentions. Kind regards!

Dreams are not mentioned a lot int he suttas. Perhaps you can search the vinaya instead of the suttas.
THe best there is for the suttas is ''the lack of evil dreams'', from metta

"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness[1], by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?
"He sleeps in comfort. He awakes in comfort He sees no evil dreams.
  http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/11_elevens/an11.016.piya.ati.htm

there is the same thing with mindfulness http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/05_fives/an05.210.hare.pts.htm
In the suttanipata, the buddha says dreams are worthless, contrary to what puthujjanas believe

Who has destroyed (belief) in omens, in luck, the occurrence of dreams
  and other signs such, who is rid of the bane of what is auspicious,
  such a one rightly would wander in the world.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_13.html

Whoso ’mong them strong efforts made resembling Brahma, best, he never
  did engage in sex not even in a dream.
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_7.html
One of my followers would not cast spells, Or interpret dreams, Nor
  would they practice astrology, Prognosticate animal sounds,
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_14.html

Householder, interested,
dreams, and how one takes on them, should be seen as experiences of actions, kamma. In this relation it is easier to trace their value.
That is right, as long heedful. Even if one reaches the area of perfection in virtue, the first section of the path, eager staying heedful with mindfulness arosen, such as dreams do no more appear.
One may simply put it into test by seriously practicing the path for a while and one will know it for oneself.
Even if practiced to the extend of unripe right view, say developed metta in a good manner, one will observe the fading away of dreams like they might have been before. Such as "really" bad dream do no more arise as soon one enters into the sphere of integrity.
Not that also an Arahat could dwell heedless (not reflecting inconstancy, dukkha,... permanently, not dwelling in Jhana, not engaging in discussing the Dhamma), what they are not encouraged to, and it may be that such may be confronted by dreams, yet not that much burdened or exited by it.
It might not be found directly in words in the Canaon, but for one who's mindfulness does not collapse any more, it's not possible to enter into a deluded state, not knowing what's real.
Surely the source, transferred by the elders, derives from the Commentaries.
The pali supin(a), dream, gives:

158 matches on 48 pages (vaggas/books) in the Tipitaka
328 matches on 79 pages (vaggas/books) in Atthakatha
260 matches on 67 pages (vaggas/books) in Tika
92 matches on 54 pages (") in Anya

...so far. (Account reqired, if not for now, and given to do such for noble research, dedicated toward the gems, toward Liberation.)
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Upasaka @Bonn might be that generous to look after a share from the commentaries.

"Even if one reaches the area of perfection in virtue, the first section of the path, eager staying heedful with mindfulness arosen, such as dreams do no more appear." Does this refer to stream entry?

Yes, householder @gooiditnietweg? Does he like to ask something in this regard? Ohh, added: Yes. At the time of practicing. It might decay again with time, but evil dreams do no more appear, even heedless.

do you have any sources?

Try it. Everything else will leave doubts.

Do stream enterers never dream at all? BTW I mean dreaming in the literal sense, when you're asleep.

They still do/would, even both, householder. But as said, no more "real" evil dreams, "real" caught in pains and lower states. At the time of enter, or while firm on the path, no, no dreams arises at all, since mindfullness, heedfulness is hold up strongly.

"At the time of enter" does this mean reaching the arahant state?

One is also no more able to "perform" wrong deeds while dreaming.

"At the time of enter" does this mean reaching the arahant state?  it refers to the time when going after all paths and the time around fruits.

There is a sutta somewhere in the AN, I don't remember if it takes place before or after the Buddha's awakening. The dream goes something like he's lying down, and there are white worms, they represent future disciples gathering around to learn from him. And other symbols of that nature.
In MN 23, the ant hill sutta, it doesn't say it's a dream, but it is exactly like the kind of dreams Buddhists often have.

"There is a sutta somewhere in the AN, I don't remember if it takes place before or after the Buddha's awakening. The dream goes something like he's lying down, and there are white worms, they represent future disciples gathering around to learn from him. And other symbols of that nature."
That's AN 5.196, the Supina Sutta. The dreams take place before the Buddha's enlightenment.

They must be in the preset moment and live their lives totally. Osho gave a good answer on that question.
Source: https://youtu.be/h3_8wgDx9_4


text:
Have Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara?
I read on the internet:

Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara. So there is no need for
  accumulation of memory.

Have Arahants really eliminated all Sankhara?
Please answer with Pali sutta references.

In Udana 6.1, we see the Buddha having intentions and making plans for the afternoon - this showed that he still had mental formations, volition and intention as a living arahant. So, he still had sankhara.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
  morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
  went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
  the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
  "Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
  day's abiding."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
  followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
  Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
  down on the seat laid out.
Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing,
  Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine,
  the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the
  Pāvāla shrine.

In SN 12.38, we read that intention and planning alone are insufficient for the continuation of suffering. There must also be latent tendencies (anusaya). This was discussed in this answer.
So, living arahants still have sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
More precisely, living arahants have the aggregate of sankhara but not the clinging-aggregate of sankhara, because they have stopped clinging. See SN 22.48.
Also, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary of Iti 44 implies that living arahants still have the five aggregates operating till physical death (sa-upadisesa), but there is no continuation of suffering from the point of their enlightenment.

It's not proper to say that the Tathagata has still sankhara. If so understood, it is ill-taken and would misinterpret. So it would be good if correcting that part.

If saying "used them", it might be possible to do not suggest wrong ideas of being or not being as acting just Such.

Isn't it clear? The Tathagata has no clinging sankhara, but he does have sankhara.

Again "...he does have sankhara" does not apply. To that extant it seems to be totally not clear to householder Ruben and misinterprets the Tathagata and his Dhamma to that important extend and shares it as answer.

SN 22.85 says Arahants have "sankhara":

“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, friend Yamaka!

MN 43 says a living individual has ayu-sankhara (vitality/life force):

But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are
  different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of
  perception and feeling can emerge from it.
Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā
  saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṃ paññāyatī”ti.
When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled.
  But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and
  their faculties are very clear.
Yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā
  niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
  cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā
  avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.

MN 26 describes Nibbana as the "calming (samatho) of all sankhara" rather than "destruction of all sankhara":

It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of
  all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of
  craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho
  sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.

The arsing and decay of aggregates, including fabrications, do not disappear for an Arahat, as long as alive, but he is already detached from them, no more taking on them. The usual similar is that of the skin of a cow when patched on it's body again, after having been cut away.
For Such, only dukkha arises, when Dhammas do arising, and fades away, when Dhammas are fading.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.046.than.html

This quote merely appears to say that sankhara arising from ignorance cease when ignorance ceases. There is no evidence this above sutta quote refers to all sankhara.

Agree. What is eliminated is Patisandhi Sankhara same applies to Vinnana. (ie. Patisandi Vinnana or rebirth consciousness.

The Buddha never ever taught Patisandi Vinnana.

Actually, he did. But I can't remember the Sutta. If you insist I can ask Bhante Sujato. I pointed it out to him due to a translation error.

More to the point in Sri Lanka monks teach that as Patitha Vinnana. The Buddha's consciousness is termed as Appatitha Vinnana.

Buddhism nearly became extinct in Ceylon because the local people cannot understand it. This is why Muslims and Christians have more virtue than Buddhists in Sri Lanka. As for "viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ", it is not the same as "Patisandi Vinnana". "Viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ" is "bhava". Refer to AN 3.76. Regards


text:
is dependent origination akaliko and Nibbana
I heard from a Monk that dependent origination is akaliko or timeless what did he exactly mean with that.
Is Nibbana outside of time and space and could you explain how and why if it is.
Is the prinicple of dependent origination of suffering the same as what happens outside in nature like when a seed is planted then with enough sunshine and rain etc the flower grows if not what is the difference between them.
Thank you.

Akalio means that it is timeless, which is it works all the time and not specific times, it is unconditioned by time and season, it is effective immediately with the laps in time, the past and future. It's working is never suspended or stopped.
The society may believe or not believe it. The Buddha's dhamma may exit or not, even if a Buddha (who preaches this dhamma) exists or not. Regardless this is the reality for all times unconditioned by time.

The Dhamma Law exists all the time but this is not the meaning of "akaliko". Refer to AN 3.136 https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato & SN 12.20 https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi which refer to "whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma".  Regards

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

Is Nibbana outside of time and space and could you explain how and why if it is.

I do not recall the Buddha ever teaching the above. The Buddha taught Nibbana is here-&-now (diṭṭhadhammanibbāna); for example in AN 9.51.

Is the prinicple of dependent origination of suffering the same as what happens outside in nature like when a seed is planted then with
  enough sunshine and rain etc the flower grows if not what is the
  difference between them.

Both the dependent origination of suffering and the causality leading to a flower are examples of "conditionality" ("idappaccayatā") or "law of cause & effect". However, in the original Pali teachings (but not in Mahayana), the term "dependent origination" ("paticcasamuppada") is used or reserved for the arising of suffering.

I heard from a Monk that dependent origination is akaliko or timeless what did he exactly mean with that.

"Akaliko" does not mean "outside of time & space". "Timeless" is a wrong or misleading translation of "akaliko". The word "akaliko" means "immediate" or "immediately effective". Its "immediacy" or "without delay" is what relates "akaliko" is the notion of "time".
Thus, is respect to dependent origination, the term "akaliko", for example, means as soon as there is arising of "attachment", there will be the arising of stress. Or as soon as there is the ceasing of "attachment", there will be the cessation of stress. It means that one condition or cause that leads to the arising of another condition or cause is "not delayed by time". It is "immediate". MN 28 says:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.”

That dependent origination is "akaliko" is confirmed in MN 38, which says:

Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it
  was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this
  Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting
  inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for
  themselves.’

That dependent origination is "akaliko" shows clearly why the Three Lifetimes theory of dependent origination is wrong.

Thank you Dhammadhatu, so Nibbana is nothing metaphysical and instead condiered part of nature? Also is it possible to reach Nibbana by understanding dependent origination and thereby understanding how we unconciously create the emotional existence of the separte self or is the Jhanas also necessary, to me personaly and i think the Buddha said it also, dependent origination when fully understood leads to Nibbana am I right, we are stoping that unconcious process of becoming a emotionally attached separate self when we understood it and then the unconditioned appear am I right about this.

Nibbana is a dhatu or element of nature, per MN 115, which refers to the asankhata dhatu and other suttas that refer to the Nibbana Element and Deathless Element

Seeing dependent origination will result in the ending of dependent origination to the degree of the seeing. For the aspirant & stream-enterer jhana is not required to begin seeing dependent origination. Only practising for Arahant needs 4th jhana. To see D.O it must 1st be properly intellectually understood so to know where & what to look at

I heard from a Monk that dependent origination is akaliko or timeless
  what did he exactly mean with that.

Akalika means non expiring or valid for any given time. Actually time is something that does not exist in the world. It's introduces to the world to explain things. Dependent Origination (DO) is what exist in the world. This is a very complex thing to explain here. So this DO is a model of how the thoughts process happens in a mind and it causes to change the outside world as well. When there are causes it makes a result this is a cycle-process (happening again and again). No matter time exist ot not it happens. Someone who wants to measure this (eg: science) can define a dimension of time. In buddhism it only considers is past present and future this is also just because its needed to explain things.

Is Nibbana outside of time and space and could you explain how and why
  if it is.

By now time is already covered and answered. The Nibbana is a state in the mind. Mind is what inside. We always change our inside minds based on outside world expecting it will make us satisfy, but it doesn't. Because real/ultimate/noble satisfaction (Nibbana) is inside the mind. Once someone sees that satisfaction inside the mind, he realizes worrying or being happy based on the out side world is THE MOST stupid thing in the world. So since Nibbana is a state of a mind it has nothing to do woth time and space.

Is the prinicple of dependent origination of suffering the same as
  what happens outside in nature like when a seed is planted then with
  enough sunshine and rain etc the flower grows if not what is the
  difference between them.

Dependent Origination (DO) is a model to explain how mind works. And in that it uses the word 'paccaya' which means A causes to result B, or if A exists then B exists. This 'paccaya' is one principal out of 24 principals explained in buddhism. So the different is (based on scenarios you given) DO is inside mind.
And also DO is not only based on suffering. It talks about suffering only when its initiated from 'Avidya'. There are some DO cycles expalined in Thripitaka without 'Avidya' these called 'avyakrutha' This is what runs inside Arhanth person's mind.


text:
Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned?
Is the experience of jhana considered dukkha because of its impermanence? If yes, is it still considered dukkha after attaining Nibbana?
Is the experience of jhana conditioned? Is it still considered conditioned after attaining Nibbana?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience.
Kind regards!

What you mean by ‘because of its impermanence’

Hi! I mean the sensations (or lack thereof) felt in Jhana are not permanent, and at least for normal people, I'd hardly say that one can stay in jhana all day long. Lind regards!

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

Because the mind is an informational (~representational) phenomenon, subjective experience arises as a with-feedback-process of converting signs into their interpretations. Dukkha is an experience of unresolvable contradiction somewhere in the stream of interpretation. This condition requires a basis (some sort of internalized framework, model, a set of conceptual boundaries etc) and an input - usually a factual observation about the current state of affairs (which, again, is an interpretation). The perfect Nirvana by definition entails no Dukkha, therefore must involve no conflict of information. Therefore, Nirvana cannot occur in the presence of ANY subconsciously internalized dualistic conceptual boundaries taken as absolute reference points. In simple words, Nirvana requires perfectly "objective" (=detached) mind that does not take sides.
Jhana is practice of incrementally approaching Nirvana by removing mental conflict and the causes of conflict, starting from the coarser and gradually onto the subtler instances of Dukkha. Since the practice itself is framed as a conceptual model, with target state by definition being "better" (more desirable) than the initial state, the practice itself creates a form of conflict (between the current state and the state being sought) that is experienced as Dukkha. This is why the practice of Jhana itself necessarily needs be recursive or self-reflecting in order to be truly effective. In other words, on its moderately-advanced stages the practice of Jhana becomes an exercise of identifying and removing Dukkha inherent to the practice of Jhana itself, or to be more precise, inherent to our current frame of reference: our assumptions about and our attitudes to Jhana, to Noble Path, to Buddhism, and to life in general.
In light of the above, it should be easy to understand that, since Jhana involves setting the goal and working towards the goal (a state of perfect suchness that comes from the absence of all conflict), it necessarily involves implicit conflict which by its very nature is Dukkha. However, this Dukkha should not be abandoned altogether by abandoning the entire practice and indeed the entire Path. The Buddha warned against this very clearly, and insisted on gradual/incremental approximation. So a practitioner cultivating correct incremental Jhana will not switch from Dukkha to no-Dukkha in one step, but rather will experience a step by step reduction and removal of coarse Dukkha, with more and more subtle Dukkha becoming noticeable as the practice develops.
The final result (Unbinding) by definition involves no Dukkha. As said above, having no Dukkha requires having no basis for Dukkha. The basis for Dukkha is internalized, self-identified, stubborn, attached, tainted comparison. The basis for such comparison is conceptual directionality of the kind: "the current state is not good enough, there is a better state". The basis for conceptual directionality is attachment, and, ultimately, the limited mind of duality.
From this it should be clear that Jhana as practice based on duality of "current state vs. better state" cannot possibly be conflictless. Only the culmination of Jhana, which is attainment of the non-dual mind, is free of conflict and suffering.
There is no reason why post-attainment, arahant cannot engage in the practice of meditation, both to groom the local mind, as well as to set an example for others. To an extent that this post-attainment Jhana is defined dualistically (that is, in terms of "seeking/maintaining a better state"), it may still be a source of Dukkha. In an ideal case when the post-attainment Jhana is not defined dualistically -- meaning, the goal of Jhana is not defined as anything other than this -- it will be pure tathata with no Dukkha whatsoever.

Hi Andrei! Thanks again for this wonderful explanation. In the last part, did you meant "dukkha" instead of "Jhana"?: "To an extent that this post-attainment Jhana is defined dualistically, it may still be a source of Jhana." Kind regards!

Yup, fixed that - thanks!

The word "dukkha" has three meanings in context:

Unpleasant/painful feelings (dukkha vedana), which Arahants have.
Unsatisfactoriness of impermanent conditioned things, which Arahants must experience for dispassionate enlightenment.
Suffering of attachment (1st noble truth), which Arahants do not have or experience.

Jhana is certainly something "conditioned" & something "unsatisfactory" but jhana is only "suffering" if attached to.
Note: The Western translators (Bodhi, Thanissaro, Sujato, Anandajoti, etc) all translate "dukkha" incorrectly in relation to impermanence. Refer to the Mendis translation of SN 22.59, the Buddharakkhita translation of the Maggavagga or Buddhadasa's Anapanasati for the proper translation in this 2nd context.

Householder Brian Díaz Flores, interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
Yes, Jhana is something fabricated. Jhana, for itself can even lead to long time suffering, long time being cut off from attaining patgs and fruits, liberation, especially Jhana based on householder-equanimity, headed toward asanna-existance. Therefore Jhana practiced for liberation has to be practiced with yoniso manasikara, attention of what gives birth, reflecting/observing the four Noble truth, and this makes the Noble practice of Jhana different to the wrong concentration, wrong use of Jhana, of other sects. What ever in the sphere of the world is suffering, direct or indirect (as for Jhana).
As for the question whether Jhana is considered as dukkha before or after awakening. Before and after dwelling in Jhana is lifelihood, good lifelihood, for the mind, since it would not harm others, is no fault, not related direct to sense pleasure.
Before awakening, is used for the right purpose, to maintain an existance simply to cross the world, it can not be considered as headed toward suffering, yet letting go to archive it may cause suffering for lesser.
After awakening Jhana, heedful practiced, meaning with reflection, if as well promoted as "the right, pleasant dwelling", also for Arahats. This pleasure, subtile, no more related to world attained, nourished by what is given exclusively, does no more cause any dukkha for others, and since an Arahat does no more take on it as his, no more take pleasure for real and a refuge, it also causes no more suffering for him, neither present nor later.
Worthy to note is that the end oft the world can not be reached without traveling in this sphere, without having reached Jhana, right concentration, once.
*A possible extended and revised answer as well as given space for giving deeper into it and discussion can be found here: [Q&A] Is Jhana considered dukkha and/or conditioned?
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Thank you for your kindness and knowledge. I really appreciate this and all of your answers in general. I have a question: is the bliss felt in jhana considered as pleasent vedana? In which sense is different from other wordly pleasent feelings? Kind regards, dear samana.

" is the bliss felt in jhana considered as pleasent vedana?" Yes, householder @BrianDíazFlores . Best explained in Bahuvedaniya Sutta: Many Things to be Experienced, feelings toward the most refined to experience. 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'

Well there is the jhana as "in the Noble One's discipline called 'abidings in ease here and now.'"  which is the abiding in the present moment, and it is a meritorious activity which generates good karma, [whereas some puthujjanas call  ''the present moment'' what would be alterness here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.035.than.html ] and there is the jhanas as right samadhi, which is ''jhana when there is sati", ie ''practicing for effacement'', ie the end of karma, ie

He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form,
  feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. At the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in conjunction with the Devas of
  the Pure Abodes. This rebirth is not in common with run-of-the-mill
  people.
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_126.html

Sati is forcing to view whatever phenomena properly, contrary to any world view  invented by puthujjanas, ie any stuff linked to ''form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness'' directly as annicca, dukkha, anatta  with lots of nekkhamma, contentment, non-ill will and so on . This is why any practice with Sati in it is the direct and fastest way to reach nibanna [Puthujjanas who invented Dzogchen will never understand that].
This sutta is for the famous metta, karuna, mudita, Upekkha and you have the exact same thing for the 4 jhanas and before that Sati applied to vitakka, sanna and vedanna is called satisampajanna or satipatthana, so it goes like this,

he dwells observing vedanā in vedanā, ātāpī sampajāno, satimā, having
  given up abhijjhā·domanassa towards the world;

Sati can be applied to the 4 Brahmaviharas like in the sutta above, just like it can be applied to the jhanas.
The only difference between those 3 things is that  satisapamjanna  leads to the right samadhi, because it cleanses vitakka, then sanna and vedanna (when the citta is in samadhi, sanna and vedanna are good, meritorious, pleasant),  and right samadhi or sati applied to the  4 Brahmaviharas lead to at least non-returner.
So today puthujjanas already confuse alterness with the abiding in the here and now, whereas, as usual with the dhamma, there is not much merit associated to the senses, then they struggle to ''do good karma'' by reaching the jhanas, ie the present moment, and since puthujjanas hate, by lack of faith, sati, because sati is the opposite of whatever puthujjanas believe,  they fail to stop being puthujjanas.

There 121 mind states as per long classification and 89 as per short classification.
Lokuttara Cittas does not fall into Dukkha but all have a Jhanic state associated. But they only occur at the point of realising.
So any Jhana before realisation is Dukkha, but not at the moment of realising.

What about after attaining, which was part of the answer, Upasaka Sirinath? The Jhana of a Sekha, the Jhana of Asekha?

It seems to be even worse after editing, now actually meaning that existence in rupa/arupa-realms is free of dukkha: i.e. within Samsara. Maybe another reformulation needs to be found or the statement. "Lokuttara Citta" is not dukkha is actually not right, not right to that extent that Sukha is also dukkha because not lasting and even called an arrow. Right, wrong, Upasaka? Jhana is not the aim of this ariya-magga.

Samana Johann. Please stop aggressively criticizing every user post on this site. We all have opinions about Buddha-Dharma but it does not mean each user should go to other users' answers and criticize them. What if Suminda goes to your and my answers? What if I go to your and Suminda answers? This is a Q&A site, which means, someone asks question - you answer. Your opinion is limited to your territory, which is your answer. Please don't go to other people's land with your comments.

This is too intelectual. Try experiencing first jhana. Consistent and gradual practice of metta will lead you to that exerience.

"There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from
  sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained
  in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion,
  accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities
  there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture,
  pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention,
  consciousness,[2] desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness,
  equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another.
  Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they
  subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having
  been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained
  unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent,
  detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He
  discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there
  really was for him. -- Anupada Sutta: One After Another

There is so much less dukkha and conditioning in first jhana. It can be the cause of repeted births if you cling to that state of concentration. That's my understanding.

Consider Jhana to be a training period for Nibbana. In the state of Jhana, you practice to fight back temporary changing worldly desires that had earlier preoccupied your mind and senses completely and were dragging you here and there like a slave. When you practice Jhana and advance in it, you will begin to empty your mind and become more mindful of your mind and body. Once, this mindfulness becomes permanent, you identify real self, that is Nibbana. You cant escape this reality because you were never this reality i.e. body and mind, its all temporary, thats why Buddha even after enlightenment preached for so many years instead of disappearing from world.

Nibbana is not a REAL self in Buddhism. Sabbe dhamma anatta means all phenomena is not self.

@ruben2020 Nibbana is not real self, there is no self, its extinguished fire of individual self. Fire is light, the individuality, the soul and desires latched to it causes reincarnation. When you are talking with me, there is an energy, a fire burning within body. Science call its metabolism, but in spiritual words, its Karma/desires attached from soul to mind to body. Hence, when there is no Karma, no desires, no body, no mind, no fire, no soul will exist.


text:
Buddhist origin of tobacco and its relation to Native American use
Can anything wholesome, helpful, wise and skillful be mentioned about the (Chinese and/or nearby regions) origin(s) of tobacco and how it may and/or may not relate to tobacco use among Native American people — especially the types of tobacco Native Americans approve of now and throughout the known past?
Context from https://bodhiactivity.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/the-defects-of-tobacco-and-smoking-dudjom-rinpoche/ on this topic:
Approximately a hundred years after Buddha Shakyamuni’s parinirvana, a Chinese demon, maddened with obsession, spoke these dying words:
“Through my body I wish to lead the beings of this earth to lower realms. Bury my body intact and eventually a plant, different from all others, will grow out of my remains. Merely by smelling it, people will experience pleasure in body and mind, far more joyful than the union of male and female. It will spread far and wide until most of the beings on this earth will enjoy it.”
And a description from a talk https://www.pathgate.org/index.php/audio-teachings-by-lama-dondrup-dorje/18-old-audio-teachings/104-old-the-buddhist-perspective-on-tobacco on the topic:
Lama Dondrup Dorje gives a teaching based on the Terma and prediction of Chogyal Ratna, Sangay Lingpa, Rinzin Godem, Dundul Dorje and other great masters. The teaching explains the origin of tobacco and other drugs, the negative influences of the Four Maras, and the harm caused by tobacco, which brings war, famine, disease and chaos to the world, and separates those who are users of tobacco from ever attaining any understanding of the Dharma, leading them to take rebirth in the lower realms.

I don't understand what you mean by "Chinese origin of tobacco". It originated in America, and was introduced to Japan and China in the 16th century.

What does that have to do with the Dhamma? It's "medicine", allowed, nothing about developing paths upwardly. Medicine might differ from country to country, region to region, culture... nothing "buddhist" at all.

Maybe include those contents in the question, householder Vimutti, and make the focus on "are this teachings correct and useful on the path" on it.

what is the relation between Buddhism and tobacco ?

By the description the 'plant' mentioned seems more likely to be marijuana.

No plant is 'evil'. This sounds more like a fairy tale, imagination, or old wives/monks tale. If anything, the great scourge in Asia, especially China, that was robbing people of their ability to function in the world was opium dens.

This question is about 'terma' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terma_(religion) of the Vajrayana Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. The reason that it probably says 'Chinese demon' is because the originator of the terma was Tibetan and believed that Tobacco came from the east and was not aware of its origin in the Americas.

Closing as not specific enough.

Looking at the comments I feel it is taken as plenty specific just not neatly able to wrap up due to its metaphysical nature and the world's currently lack of metaphysical knowledge or suppression of such knowledge. Even it it is not specific there are plenty of questions and vaguenesses to be derived and cleared up from the source material I've included

Householder Vimutti, interested,
Only that far, as possible related (not so much in folk-culture relation):
The Buddha allowed his monks to make use of allowed medicine to be inhaled via smoke trough nose or moth, as well as using pipes for such treatment, incl. even to hold one fr each of the seven week days and a bag to keep them good.
What is not allowed is using medicine for simple sense pleasure and to take means which cause heedlessness (indoxicants causing lose of moral shame and fear of wrong doing)
There are many sorts of "tobacco", plant-leaves, other plant medicine used in ways of inhalation of their smoke till today and this being so the usual name for this "tobaccos", plants for inhalation, is "medicine" (smoking medicine). Many monks and Yogies, till this days, smoke, of course not always just for medication.
As not really violating the Vinaya, outwardly aspects, smoking tobacco is not regarded as break of precepts principle and very common under monks in SEAsia, at least also because sense pleasure that does only harm possible one self and no other beings.
As for normal smoke tobacco, used this days in most cigarettes, it easy leads to addiction regarded to strong sense-pleasure-addition, so one is not at all encouraged to make use of such.
Medicine, one of the four requirements to practice and maintain the body for that, bas to be taken in this manner:

Wisely reflecting I will make use of medicine only as an aid to eliminate bodily pains that have arisen, and also to maintain that important condition, freedom from disease. (The Fourfold Reflection of a Monk )

Medizine, in and of itself, is no direct means of practice, while it's use and how to gain it, is.
Smoking of things not causing carelessness (lack of moral shame, fear of wrong doing), for lay people (5 Silas, is no breaking of any precept. When observing Uposatha, use at wrong time, not as just medicine, might be, in regard of mental factor, intention, if for just sense pleasure.
At least: if humans only sense addiction whould be tobacco, there would be no harm of others, no war, no conflicts and nature destruction in this world. People who enjoy other sense-pleasures, stating from using vehicles of nice clothers, even in regard of air-pollution, are no match in harming others at all.
(my person has not investigated the links and teaching given in the comments to the question)
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
How to find specific lessons in Zen Buddhism?
As an example of what I mean, suppose I want to find Zen Buddhist teachings on diet. How should I go about finding this? Googling anything as it pertains to Buddhism (especially Buddhism) gets a tonne of results from Americanized Yoga types, which is less than authentic teaching.

I found this glossary page by sotozen-net. You might find it helpful.
Here's the Zen Buddhism WWW Virtual Library which has some collection of Zen writings.
If you want to go beyond Zen, there's the AccessToInsight index by subject.

From my U.S. perspective... Try using the word "Dharma" in your search terms. Most large Zen centers have web sites that list recommended reading, and other resources. Focus on translations of, or by ordained Zen Roshis (cross reference American Zen Teachers Association).  Ask a librarian.


text:
What is Bodhicitta?
What is Bodhicitta?
I recall reading that the "power" of it is what ends up making someone a Bodhisattva or Buddha. So my specific question is whether it is nirvana, and if it is qualitative, felt etc..

Bodhicitta means awakening-mind, from 'bodhi' meaning awakening and 'citta' meaning mind or consciousness. In Mahayana Buddhism, three aspects liberate one from cyclic existence: the attitude of renunciation (which turns away from worldly attachments), the wisdom of emptiness (which sees object without grasping at intrinsic existence), and finally bodhicitta, which is the intention to help all sentient beings.
Bodhicitta is of two types: first, the very intention and aspiration to free all sentient beings from suffering; second, the process and implementation of doing so. Bodhicitta is also categorized as relative and absolute, where relative bodhicitta implies a compassionate wish and striving to help others, and ultimate bodhicitta is seeing the empty nature of things. I believe this is linked with either training compassion or gaining compassion through wisdom.
There are various ways of training bodhicitta. Among these, one may train the four immeasurables: loving-kindness (wishing for others' well being), compassion (wishing to alleviate others' suffering), sympathetic joy (partaking in others' well-being), and equanimity (considering others equally). Other means exist in Buddhism to develop bodhicitta, as equalizing oneself and others, which involves going past the distinctions between persons via an understanding in emptiness. Also, seeing all beings as one's mother relies on an understanding of karma to conceive others as having helped us in past lives.
--
Relative to your question, bodhicitta is not nirvana as it relies on worldy attachment (i.e. compassion) to occur. I understand, though I'm unsure, that you're asking if it is felt or cognitive. Interestingly, the Dalai Lama has said its best to focus on feeling when generating compassion, after having produced reasons. And, I have read a scientific papers 1 2 claiming the value of both motivational/affective aspects and cognitive aspects of compassion meditation. So, both components are clearly experienced in compassion.
More so, given that the union of compassion and emptiness is the aim of the Mahayana, and that emptiness entails initially an analytical training, one might consider how compassion merges with cognitive processes to see the world differently. So, it is indeed felt and realized.
Finally, given emptiness is related to non-duality, I feel the separation between cognition and feeling is illusory, as everything is highly related via cause and effect.
Hope this helps!

good answer, thanks! could use something more explicit for "felt and realized"

i'll accept, though i wish that ^^


text:
Cutting Computer in Evening
I have recently managed to restrict my eating period to about 8h per day, which is supposed to help circadian rhythm.
Yet, to further promote sleep and circadian rhythm, I should also cut out blue light from a computer a few hours before bed (and go to bed at the same time each day). Since I get bored when I cut the computer at this hour, I always revert to using the computer, delaying bedtime in the process.
What would Buddhism suggest as solution towards such a computer use? In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer.
Would avoiding the computer at other times decrease my attachment to it overall? What might help?

When using a computer you get a lot of input or information to process. This leads to more vitakka and vicara hence dispersion of the mind. It is best to limit this and try to be more mindful when using computer and phones.

well since the problem is that you cannot get sati or samadhi in your evening spare time, you destroy the evening spare time. To remove the spare time in the evening, you wake up earlier, so that you will be tired in the evening and directly go to bed.
Plus you wake earlier and striving for sati and samadhi in the morning is easier, since you have more energy and less papanca after you wake up. You can do that in bed too.
Plus since you will wake up earlier, you do not need an alarm clock to wake up.
Even if your activities are not related to the dhamma, People who wake up early have more energy for their spare time (which is in the morning), instead of doing their hobbies in the evening after a full at work.

In the evening, I'm unable to find activities interesting enough, I always revert to using the computer.
I have found two solutions:

When using the computer, I use it mindfully to educate myself on current events and trends (e.g., global warming, technology trends, national conflicts, etc.) that deepen my study of the suttas with current considerations. Or I work on projects that help myself and/or others.
I walk meditation listening to the suttas. This is difficult and interesting for my restless mind. At the very least my mind is occupied by wholesome thoughts.

MN20 has a good exposition of how to stop thinking. Restraining thoughts is important and it is difficult because we tend to identify with those thoughts such as "I am bored. Let's see what's on the computer tonight.":

Now, suppose that mendicant is ignoring and forgetting about those thoughts, but bad, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion keep coming up. They should focus on stopping the formation of thoughts.

First ask yourself, what do you want to see in Computer? Computer is for you, not you for computer. If you want to watch movies, or chat with friends, you can do that in morning as well. You cant think of mindfulness and meditation unless you are saturated with the sensual gratification. Buddha himself was born as a King with all kinds of luxuries, but eventually realized that earth will never be enough for an uncontrolled mind and hence renounced his kingdom.
Any addiction is created because of repetition and leads to misery eventually, for example an obese man is addicted to eating, a gambler is addicted to greed, all are desires born from untamed mind for non-self. If you can think and understand the cause of your bondage than you can also free yourself from it, as no one can free you except you. You are the writer of your own destiny in very first place. Follow the madhyakama or the middle path and maintain balance in everything food, sleep, life etc., Any crest of sense imbalance in life will be followed by a trough of miseries.


text:
Attachment Towards Environments and Objects
I have just asked a question about computer use, and it spurred another question in my mind: How does attachment towards objects and places occur?
I'm specifically wondering if all pleasurable activities and experiences reinforce attachment to their corresponding objects and places. For example, if a person watches different shows on television, and each are pleasurable, does this -- in addition to creating attachment to the different shows -- produce attachment to television overall aside from these shows?
In other words, I'm asking whether attachment transfers from activities to their related elements, the objects involved. Another example might be a person watching a theatre play which gives them pleasure; would such a person develop attachment to the theatre and the actors?
Finally, it seems relevant to include the example of someone engaging in casual sex for the sake of it but who then develops attachment towards the other person. Is this yet another case of strong pleasure forming at attachment via attribution?

Attachment is attachment and we become attached to attachment. Generating a desire and fulfilling it is a wonderful pleasure. You must have noticed that people usually prefer to transfer their attachments rather than lessen them. It's much easier.
It seems an important issue. Transferring attachments is a great way of avoiding doing without them, and I should know, but also a way of overcoming those that are unwanted and steering our attachment towards objects and activities that might be better for us.
Your point about the transferring of attachment to the object of pleasure seems right to me, and again it seems an important issue.

With each input you get a feeling which cases craving and generates metal concepts to which one gets attached. This can be films, actors, songs or any other concept or the experience from the 6 sense bases.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception
  and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to
  delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the
  end of
the latent tendency of lust, the latent tendency of aversion, the
  latent tendency of views, the latent tendency of doubt, the latent
  tendency of conceit, the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
  the latent tendency of ignorance. This is the ending of the taking up
  of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife],
  slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and
  [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear |
  nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.
From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception
  assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds |
  smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye |
  ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta

With ignorance as condition, there are volitional formations;
with volitional formations as condition, there is consciousness;
with consciousness as condition, there is name-and-form;
with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense-bases;
with the six sense-bases as condition, there is contact;
with contact as condition, there is feeling;
with feeling as condition, there is craving;
with craving as condition, there is clinging;
with clinging as condition, there is existence;
with existence as condition, there is birth;
with birth as condition, there arise decay and death, sorrow,
  lamentation, physical pain, mental pain and despair.
Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta

i. On seeing a form with the eye,
one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.
ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,
one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.
iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,
one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.
iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,
one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.
v. On feeling a touch with the body,
one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.
vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Also each input and perception is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral leads to negative mental states inclusive of attachment:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to
  pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful
  feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral
  feelings.

Pahāna Sutta

Oh standholder eggmann, and the same questions on and on... smile: so for those with possibility of a way out:
Places of dwelling are a matter of Upanissaya (strong conditions; peopie, dwelling, clima, food, are a matter of Upanissaya), meaning strong tendency toward certain "food" or often used association.
Strong attached to "virtual" existance, dwelling has surely to do that beings often used to dwell in fine sensual realms, lower Devas:

Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
Devas Delighting in Creation (nimmanarati deva)

...are the highest inhabitants in this "internet-realm".
While this Devas certain have done great merits to be able to dwell here, having Mara actually as their head, they are seldom of great wisdom.
To get ride of certain tendencies wisdom in regard of the disadvantages is needed: insight in regard of the dangers of sensuality.
Also developing Jhanas would bring one to more refined "food" (here all 4 kinds) tendency, above the kama-loka and sugati realm.
Caught in this realm, especially internet, Googlyana - a Dharma practice approach on internet-realm, i.e. addopting the Buddha Dhamma also here, is surely a good way out of this specific Upanissaya and even beyound.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
Can (an) Urban-Dhamma lead to path, fruits and liberation?
Urban-Dhamma, Urban-Dhamma they say and is a popular approach, but is it possible that Urban-Dhamma leads to path, fruits and beyond?
Is it possible to transport the Ariya-Magga under such an approach? Is it possible that Urban-Dhamma goes beyond material spheres?
What is the conventional meaning of "urban", how is it perceived at large, the common use of this quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/urban

(Note that this question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

I'm not sure what you mean by Urban Dhamma. Do you mean Dhamma practiced in the city? Yes. There's no problem with that.
In his lifetime, the Buddha spent 19 out of 45 vassas at the Jetavana Monastery. This monastery was built by the rich lay disciple Anathapindika.
This monastery was located in the city of Savatthi or Shravasti, which was the capital city of the Kingdom of Kosala with a population of 900,000 in 5th century BCE. It was one of the six largest cities in India, in the Buddha's time. The Buddha had many lay disciples in and around Savatthi, headed by wealthy merchant Anathapindika and wealthy aristocrat Visakha.
So I can't see anything wrong with the practice of the Dhamma in an urban setting.

Why answering in a manner as if actually respecting the question and "stand" of whom/what raised it, householder? Isn't the matter one of wishing to share pearls under pigs? Freedom under those trusting in security under cattles?

Google suggests the term is associated with Ven. Kusala (though the urbandharma.org web site isn't very up-to-date).
I haven't listened to his podcasts -- I first heard of him in the comments under this question.
The word "urban" conventionally means "in a city" (or "of a city"), contrasted with "rural" ("in the country-side" perhaps farmland or even woodland), or "suburban".
It doesn't mean much to me as a word -- except that if I were living in a big city (which a lot of people in North America do), the term "urban dhamma" might seem to me to imply a meaning like "dhamma here" (e.g. sandiṭṭhiko).

Not sure how much google matches and related to what might return on "urban dhamma" or "urban dharma", just often came across, as well as also related to this Question (translated into German)

There are incredible amounts of distraction in a City. Effort, determination, patience, generosity, virtue, truthfulness. Many important qualities can be developed.

There are many benefits to staying in or close to the city like the access to public facilities, toilets, sauna, healthcare, shelter, food and whatnot.
I think that being otherwise secluded in the forest or a private place to do walking and sitting meditation is the important part.