text:
What is bhanga?
Bhanga: the dissolution of the ego.
Can it be described as a synonym of wisdom (panna)? As the realization (experiential seeing and knowing) of the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha; and anatta)?

Modern Buddhism refers to 'magga-phala-nibbana'. 'Magga' is 'path', 'phala' is 'fruition'; 'Nibbana' is final outcome. To quote an opinion:

magga-phala-nibbana, path, fruition and nibbana: this compound (although the three terms appear separately throughout the Pali texts,
their compound is found only in Thai) refers to the three activities
that occur in rapid succession in the realization of  Dhamma. Magga
(path) is the activity of  vipassana cutting through defilements.
Phala (fruit) is the successful completion of that cutting, the result
of magga. Nibbana is the coolness which appears once the defilements
are cut.
Glossary of terms

Based on the definition above, the final dissolution of the defilement of ego-delusion is a fruition.

An examination of Pali suttas finds at least the following:

(13) He trains himself; constantly contemplating impermanence (unsatisfactoriness & not-self) I shall breathe in. He trains himself; constantly contemplating impermanence I
shall breathe out.
(14) He trains himself; constantly contemplating fading away (dispassion) I shall breathe in. He trains himself: constantly contemplating fading away I
shall breathe out.
(15) He trains himself: constantly contemplating quenching (nirodha) I shall breathe in. He trains himself: constantly contemplating quenching I
shall breathe out.
(16) He trains himself: constantly contemplating tossing back (relinquishment) I shall breathe in. He trains himself: constantly contemplating tossing back I
shall breathe out.
MN 118

Here, the dissolution of ego-delusion (fading away & relinquishment) is a result of the realization of the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha; and anatta). Therefore, realisation of the tilakkhana comes first, followed by the result or fruition, which includes the dissolution of ego-delusion.
Or SN 22.59, about the tilakkana:

Seeing (the three characteristics) thus , the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted
with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with
fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he
becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With
full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns
that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is
nothing further for this world.'

Again, seeing or realising the three characteristics comes first. This is wisdom. As a result, there is 'dispassion' (dissolution of craving & ego) and the ending of 'birth'. This is fruition. The Pali word 'birth' ('jati') actually means the 'birth' of the ego-delusion (rather than birth from a woman's womb).
The 'unborn' is also a synonym for Nibbana, so all these dhammas are very close.

Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Nibbana, I
reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana. MN 26

In summary, the dissolution of ego is not a synonym of wisdom (panna) nor is it the realization (experiential seeing and knowing) of the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha; and anatta). Instead, the dissolution of ego is a result or fruition of wisdom & realization.
An analogy is using medicine to cure an illness. Ego is the illness. Wisdom is the medicine. By taking the medicine the illness is ended. What remains is the wisdom & freedom from illness.

Thank you. However, I am not sure it is completely correct. I might revise it later.

Bhanga: the dissolution of the ego.

Bhanga is the experience of total dissolution of the body and not necessary ego. Everywhere in your body you experience arising and passing. This experience can be vivid like vibration, bubbling, electric pulses running through you body, or even feel the body is a cluster of particles caught in brownian motion like vibrations.

Can it be described as a synonym of wisdom (panna)?

This itself is a level of wisdom but still you wisdom to realise is not complete.

As the realization (experiential seeing and knowing) of the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha; and anatta)?

At Bhanga you start seeing anicca but this is not realization, though some teachers teach it as such, but a step before realisation.
For more on this see: Page 51, A Meditator's Handbook by Bill Crecelius, A Map of the Journey by Sayadaw U Jotika, The Progress of Insight by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw

Bhanga can be meant to refer to Bhanga-ñana, "the knowledge of dissolution" defined in Vissudhimagga as #5 within the 16-stages progress of insight. Some Vipassana lineages (Thai and Mahasi, those I know of and have first-hand experience with) use the 16-stages model extensively. This stage of the naturally occuring progression is often accompanied by (see e.g. http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html#fourb) feelings of losing ground (hence "dissolution") and sadness.
By acknowledging these conditions, insight into 3 characteristics is strenghtened. Experiencing sadness is by itself not insight, only a condition of the practice, which does not lead to wisdom without being acknowledged.

Bhaṅga means the last arising phases of aggregate.
According to A.N.Tikanipāta Saṅkhatalakkhaṇasutta, each form's and mind's arising consists of three phases - uppāda-khaṇa (genesis-phase), thiti-khaṇa (continuum-phase), and bhanga-khaṇa (dissolution-phase or cessation-phase).
Bhaṅga-ñāṇa means wisdom focusing just that bhaṅga-khaṇa. Bhaṅga-ñāṇa is a high class of insight-meditation that the practitioner will practice after his insight meditation can perfectly and clearly focus in 3 characters, without any doubt or any other unwholesome mind's arising.
The beginner practitioner must avoid Bhaṅga-ñāṇa at first because this class can be a cause of suicide.
For more information about insight meditation class, you can use "Bhaṅga" to search inside this link. For the meaning is inside this link.
However, the main description is in Tipitaka K.N. Paṭisambhidāmagga by sāriputta-aggasāvaka.


text:
According to the Noble Eightfold Path, is it poor practice to speak poorly in solitude?
I had this question yesterday, when I was using my navigation system to navigate somewhere completely new in my car. I, by accident, took a wrong turn that resulted in multiple miles of detour. When I realized my mistake, I verbally spoke an explicit word out loud. I was completely alone in the car at the time.
I immediately realized my second mistake in speaking as such and I verbally corrected myself to a non-explicit word.
The Noble Eightfold Path puts emphasis on right speech, and not saying anything to harm others and self. I was not meaning to harm anyone in my outburst, but to express the anguish of a delayed trip.
Buddhism writings (specifically the Dhammapada) also put emphasis on sage qualities, more specifically in the quote "a sage tames himself". Certainly what I did in that situation was not a kusula action, and thus can help breed other akusula actions.
My question is: Is it bad practice to display this kind of poor self-control when in solitude?

Solitude is the best time to practice skillful behavior!  When you don't have anyone else watching you, it's that much easier to lag in your discipline.  The best noble qualities are ones that are intrinsic to your character.  They show that your integrity is deep and that your practice is strong.

Right Speech in the Noble Eightfold Path certainly refers to not saying anything that harm others and self. However, as a 'morality' factor of the path, it would seem Right Speech is about words spoken to others because morality is generally about our actions in social relationship with others.
I think your situation of angry speech in solitude probably falls under the 2nd path factor, namely, Right Thought. Essentially, you had a mind of ill-will.
Expressing the mind of ill-will via speech in solitude would not change the suffering (harmful) effects of that ill-will upon the mind.

It's not the word that's the problem but the arising of sudden unmindful pushing away of what is arising in one's experience(AKA anger). This is why we try to be mindful continuously.
Also, if someone else was there and you intended to hurt them with words that you know they will be sensitive to then that is a defilement. It all boils down to our intentions even if they don't come to transgression.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
New to the site, new to Buddhism
New to the idea of getting external help, too. I have several questions about this path after read this Q&A:

New to Buddhism
How to get to Nirvana?

What attracted me to buddhism was

Meditation: Practice it many times on Padmasana because I thought that was the unique meditation form. Then I knew I can meditate over a skateboard, too.
Mindfulness: Dreaming about achieving it.
Hatha Yoga: Practiced it many times.
Ninjutsu: Practiced it several months on Bujinkan Dojo school (not a recommendation to go there). The concepts I got from Japanese culture were great though. They are attached to Buddhism but I think they misimpreted the message.
Kriya yoga: Autobiography of a yogi.

Some of my greater achievements:

Leave drugs
Leave alcohol
Became vegan
Practiced a lot in the non-attachment in objects and people too.

These questions are general, mine are more precise. Please be open minded about my questions, they are very real.

Was Buddha an artist of our times?
Edit: I know a lot of teachers, I don't know any monks I can remember.

What's special about Buddha?
Why should someone follow him?
I see this like being someone else. Is this a bad concept about Buddhism?
Why he has in fist sight all the answers?

I read that is some kind of comparison about Buddhism schools and Cristians religions, but I learned that Buddhism is not a religion but a lifestyle. Is it or not?
About Yin and Yang, is that part of Buddhism?
The 12 universal laws are part of Buddhism?

That's all for the moment. Oh, I forgot, the most important one: About this little part of me you could read, is there a school recommendation?
Thanks for reading.

Welcome to the site. There's something I don't understand, about the question, could you explain it: what is "an artist of our times"? What is "an artist" and what is "of our times"? An obvious/superficial reply could be, "No, the Buddha was a teacher and ... like a monk, who lived about 2400 years ago"; but I'm not sure whether that's what you're asking.

i'll edit that question.

Hello Germán and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources. Enjoy your time here.

Thanks @Lanka, I will ! I didn't know about that Help Center link. I'll definetly check it when the time comes.

Books and other written material can be helpful, but they can also be misleading, especially if you're new to Buddhism. Buddhism is a practice, the best way to learn about Buddhism is to do a retreat at a monastery or other practice centre.

What do mean 'was buddha an artist of our times?'  some people think that god is an artist...

Some quick answers, which I may add to later:

Buddhism is certainly not a religion because it states all of its teachings are to be known & verified by its wise followers. It is certainly a way of life, which leads away from suffering to peace. Buddha defined it as the 'holy way of life'.
Buddha is the most special individual human being because history shows he was the first to fully & truly diagnose what suffering really is and, more importantly, the methods to overcome suffering. Although today there are many religions & disciplines incorporating direct or indirect principles of the Buddha to overcome suffering, the Buddha was the 1st to fully diagnose suffering & its solution.
The Buddha actually does have all of the answers to all important questions. The teachings of the Buddha cover all facets of life, including money, work, relationships, human behaviour, meditation & spiritual wisdom that overcomes suffering. However, as the saying goes: "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear". To test the Buddha, we can ask questions about different things and a well-educated Buddhist can offer answers from the Buddha. By asking questions, we can learn how wise the Buddha was.
Buddhism is not the same as Christianity because Buddhism holds everything is just natural elements (dhatu) where as Christianity believes in God. However, Christianity does share some principles with Buddhism about charity, morality, love, non-violence & some aspects of mental development. But Christianity does not explicitly teach the higher wisdom of Buddhism, such as the four noble truths, three-characteristics, not-self (anatta), emptiness (sunnata), the elements (dhatu), etc.
Buddhism is very straightforward, extremely thorough in its analysis and the language used is literal. Where as Christianity can often be very vague and the language used is often metaphorical. Jesus himself said he taught in parables to hide his teachings from certain people.
Ying & yang is not really related to Buddhism because ying & yang is a principle that explains the creation of natural things where as Buddhism is about ending suffering (rather than natural creation). However, some ying & yang principles are found in Buddhism, such as in its description of male & female faculties & it is description of the vicissitudes of life. While the psychology of Buddhism certainly explains ying & yang principles pertaining to the cyclical relationship between pleasure, craving & suffering, the goal of Buddhism is to transcend or be beyond ying & yang (rather than to embrace or celebrate ying & yang).
Similar to ying & yang, the 12 laws of the universe are mostly about creationism & therefore not related to the liberative purpose of Buddhism (although Buddhism would agree with some of them but not all). For example, since Buddhism transcends 'self', the idea of 'we reap what we sow' is not central to Buddhism, although it does exist in Buddhism. This idea is only morality for worldly people that believe they are a 'self' & believe 'they personally' reap & sow.
As for being an "artist of our times", most of the world still must advance towards the spiritual evolution of the Buddha. Buddhism states the way/path of the Buddha is "timeless" (akaliko). As long as beings or minds exist that can experience suffering, the way/path of the Buddha will properly address such suffering.
Finally, about 'schools of Buddhism', this depends on your disposition. i.e., the Law of Attraction. The Buddha taught individuals of different dispositions are attracted to different teachers with different emphasis. The general distinctions between Buddhism schools are:
(1) Helping oneself versus helping others.
(2) Individual self-reliant practice versus teacher lead
(3) One present life focus versus reincarnation/rebirth focus.

This answers are really helpful to me. I'll be great if you could answer the questions left. This are doubts I carry long time ago.

OK..........done

I appreciate your answer. Even though I wouldn't agree with some point here or there but you have articulated it so well!! I am sure any new person can greatly benefit from it. However, I must say something about the last point - in all schools of Buddhism, helping oneself and helping others are important. The difference can be that certain schools emphasise one over the other or the way to one is through the other or it can simply be a matter of begining with helping oneself or the other. "Versus" may give an impression that some schools make a choice and neglect the other.

You have many questions. For my knowledge the most important question out of all those why one should follow Buddha and his teachings? I would like to give detailed answer for that.
As a buddhist according to our master's supreme mandane he understood and told us that we are traveling birth after birth infinite period of time that we cannot count in this "samsara". it is like a circle and even lord buddha not able to find the one's beginning of the life. See this below picture. We called this is journey of "Samsara"

We believe 31 levels in this universe under this sun and moon.

Four main hells [semi 186]  - 04
Human World on this earth   - 01
Six Heavens                 - 06
Brahma loka                 - 20

To get better understand of their ages refer below chart.

So we keep on traveling as a result[Vipaka] of our past present future actions[Karma]. There is no creator. What we are experiencing now is mainly due to your previous result or vipaka of your karma or action. There were few more things that might be resulting into. Those are

Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena
of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic
changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat,
etc., all belong to this group.
Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic
order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-
cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The
scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of
twins may be ascribed to this order.
Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and
undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As
surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given
opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a
reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of
deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun
and the moon.
Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena
occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth.
Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason
for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of
consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents
of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy,
telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance,
clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena
which are inexplicable to modern science.

Now you have an idea basically 95% of our present due to our Karmic actions. Lord Buddha before enlightened [we called "Bodhisathwa"] as bodhisathwa met 512,027 Buddha's and traveled "Suwisi Asankya Kalpalakshya" to experienced this world and find the path to overcome this continuous rebirth and stop birth again and again. For well understanding of those periods read this article: Explanation of time periods
Buddha gave one example for kalpa: take 1 Yoduna = 16 Miles depth height and width tank and filled with Mustard. Then every 100 year one seed removed from the tank. Lord Buddha said one day tank will be finished but kalpa not finished. Maha Kalpa includes 4 Anthak Kalpas One Antha kalpa includes 256 kalpas.
Now you have basic idea of the traveling of this Samsara through the 31 levels with their time periods.  Lord buddha said the hells are our main house. For Example If a family has 7 members including mother and father. Once those 5 members married and have 5 separate houses we used to visit our main house and regularly and have family gathering.  Similarly because of bad karmas we used to got hells than visiting heavens.
Lord Buddha Said:
“Unimaginable, bhikkhus, is a beginning to the round of births. For
beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving migrating and
going the round of births a starting point is not evident. It is not easy,
bhikkhus, to find a being who has not formerly been one’s mother… been
one’s father… one’s brother… sister… son… daughter during this long,
long time.”
People those who searching for salvation of these sufferings agonies should follow the buddhism. We have three sufferings:
Within the Buddhist sutras, duḥkha is divided in three categorie:

Dukkha-dukkha:- The suffering of suffering - This includes the physical and
mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying; distress from what is not
desirable.
Viparinama-dukkha:- The suffering of change - This is the duḥkha of pleasant
or happy experiences changing to unpleasant when the causes and conditions that
produced the pleasant experiences cease.
Sankhara-dukkha:- , All-pervasive suffering - the duḥkha of conditioned
experience. This includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence,
all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and
without any inner core or substance."[citation needed] On this level, the term
indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our
expectations or standards.

Also, Buddhism explained How to Occur "Dukka" and how to prevail "Dukka" and how to remove "Dukka" and be free from the rebirth forever. That is called "Nibbana".
I will answer your other questions one by one day by day. Was this article helpful for you.
If you want to learn buddhism visit here:- "Loving Kindness" Step by Step Guidance

There is a comment ask about Sansara and Samsara are both same or is it spelling mistake? In a comment I cannot type exact meaning because of limited letters.
The real reason is this. Actual word is "සංසාර" in Sinhala or "Pali". When it typed on Google Convert it gives "Samsara" and some times "Sansara". Because the letter showing like small zero have no representation in English letters. If you type "සං" alone it gives you San [in google convert sinhala to english,] but when you typed the full word "සංසාර" it gives you Samsara. Because of that we can say both are correct .
Hence most of the eminences when the write articles use both words sansara and samsara which gives the same meaning. That is eternal journey that we have in the past and for the future due to "Avidya" or "Moha" because of not knowing the Four Noble Truths. Actually there is no "M" sound and I do not know why google convert used "M" for small zero in Sinhala it is more close to "N". If we right sangsara in English to Sinhala Google convert you can have the exact word "සංසාර". For Some languages Google cannot give the exact translation, instead it gives very close.  hence there can be slight spelling  and pronunciation changes.
Somewhat tricky with converting languages in between. Just no need to bother so much of the words. Always try to grab the meaning or the concept and try to understand them with the nature. I mean in its features. Example: "Rupa"[ matters]. in it the very first matter "Earth" By the word it means this earth we live. But in its deep meaning goes to Softness to Hardness to softness again. In between you can find different stages water, air, etc. In meditation we are trying to understand then and there hardness as earth.
May Triple Gem bless you!

Thanks for answering this question with such a detail. I'm still learning as the years go by, like a natural flow of things.
It's hard for me to follow all this information and how is useful to me. Maybe I give too much thinking to this.
It will be awesome if you have the time to answer all the questions. It'll be a rich post for all of us. Thanks again.

Small advise.  Buddhism is so simple to follow.  only you have to do let it go. See this if you take a cup and turn it upside down and pour water on to it.  Can it be able to hold that water no. But turn it other side and you pour water into that cup it will hold.  But when it filled up again going out.  Similarly,  in this long journey of samsara we have field our mind with lot of unnecessary things.  we need to remove them all.  That is where you need to learn Buddhism.  Do not hurry.  start step by step from the beginning. Only you need desire, courage, wisdom and mind set towards Nibbana.

Great info put accordingly.

Artist Buddha?
The Buddha denounces individual expression and passion in favor of being grounded in peace and happiness.
How to get to Nirvana?
Follow the Buddha's Eightfold Path to cultivate an ability to let go of everything you want to pull to you(greed, clinging, desire) and develop acceptance of reality you normally push away(anger, aversion).
Yin Yang is a Taoism concept but it was remixed into Mahayana Buddhism.
What's special apout the Buddha?
He is appropriately ordinary and fully enlightened. He developed special teachings that arn't seen in any other religions like Anatta and the 12 links of Dependant Origination.

Thanks for your time, still there is lack of answers and I dont like your tone on the first answer, regards.

I don't know, I suppose I couldn't come up with a good answer for all the questions. I appreciate the comments. I will try to do better next time :)

A few comments on Dhammadhatu's excellent answer, for now mostly pertaining to "Is Buddhism a religion?" and "Does Buddhism answer important questions?
First, it is correct to say that Buddhism is not a religion. However, I believe that

It is absolutely not the case that Buddhists are atheists.
It is probably not the case that Buddhists are agnostics in the Western sense.

Many Buddhist artworks of Ancient India depict the Buddha teaching various Hindu deities. While Hindus considered this blasphemy, the artists were making an important point; whether or not the Hindu gods (or any Gods) exist, they cannot be a source of "ultimate knowledge". If all things and beings are arising and perishing (and therefore cannot access "ultimate knowledge"), then either Gods are somehow "not things or beings" (special pleading, and leads to problems of causal efficacy) or they are also arising and perishing, and therefore have no access to "ultimate knowledge". But, since Buddha teaches that the only "ultimate knowledge" is "arising and perishing" now all gods (Hindu included) will have to learn from him! So, to return to the matter at hand, in fact Buddhists do not think that the existence or non-existence of God/Gods is an "Important Question (r)(tm)"!
Second, when Dhammadhatu says "Buddhism answers important questions", the word "important" must be exceedingly carefully used and interpreted. Questions regarding any "soul" and "afterlife" are mostly regarded as unimportant. Also, questions regarding the origin of the universe and the end of the universe, origin of man, etc. are almost totally dismissed. For greater detail, see this. In my not-so-humble opinion this is the most important part of Buddhism and gets short shrift in the literature; wiki: parable of the poisoned arrow
EDIT: I retract my statement that Buddhism is not a religion, because I was using a wrong definition of religion. See here; https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8236/isnt-buddhism-a-religion. I do not insist that it is or is not a religion. Probably this is an "unimportant question"! =P

So Buddhism is not metaphysical but physical-practical? This is really interesting.

@Jamesson. I generally edit out references to my posts made by other members however since I fully agree with your comments, I will thank you instead. That said, my answer is strictly my view & slightly extreme or "core" Buddhism. Kind regards.

@GermánAcosta. well, the way one of my teachers put it - not metaphysics, meta-psychcics. "Supra-normal" phenomena exist, but they come from humans, not god(s).

To answering above few questions.  Lord Buddha is everything.  Once he is a teacher, master, farmer, king, acertic, artist, singer, preacher, scientist,  astrologer, technician, lawyer, doctor,  etc etc. Because he is the  "Sarwagna" means knows everything. We do not know.  But he knows very well. He knows every nook and corner of this world, other Worlds infinite worlds from the past to the present and in the future as well. Because of that he is called as "Sarwagna"
If i ask a question. To whom do you love mostly? Most probably your answer would be Mum or Dad, or your fiance, or else your brother and sisters, or your sons and daughters, all others, but except you.  Why ?  This is because of ignorance**["Avidya"]**.
Lord buddha understood through his supreme powers that all the creatures including human being, deva's and Brahma's are traveling in this continuous journey of samsara while experiencing below sorrows[Dukkha]

Birth is duḥkha,
aging is duḥkha,
illness is duḥkha,
death is duḥkha
Sorrow,lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are duḥkha
Association with the unbeloved is duḥkha
separation from the loved is duḥkha
Not getting what is wanted is duḥkha
In conclusion, the five clinging-aggregates are duḥkha. Evan Gods and Brahma's are suffering from all these Dukkhas. No need to talk about the Hell Dukkha.

Because of those continuous suffering he asked us to overcome and escape from this agony if we really loving ourselves.
Also, Lord Buddha found the cause of this continuous travelling. That is because of not knowing the four noble truths just because of the ignorance.
Not only that, lord buddha find the way to eradicate these sorrowfulness, and how to stop  walking through the mirage of samsara.
Also, Lord Buddha taught us the path that he followed to achieve Nibbana.  He taught us through his experience and we have enough evidences that the followers achieved the Nibbana.
Four Nobel Truths are;

Life is suffering (Dukkha) [Dukkha sathya]– our desires and expectations do not conform to the reality of the world, which is in a constant state of flux (Anicca), so we experience Dukkha.

The origin of suffering is attachment[Dukkha Samudaya sathya] – not only do we fail to know reality but we mis-know it. We attribute permanence to impermanence. The physical universe is constant change, but we know it as permanent – change is the only thing there is. Our ideas, the objects that surround us, and our perceptions, are all transient. Even our idea of “self” is a delusion since there is no permanent self. Craving and clinging to these inevitably leads to suffering.

It is possible to end suffering in this life[Dukkha Nirodha sathya] – Like the moksha in Hinduism, nibbana can be realized in life, through discipline and effort. Nibbana means freedom from troubles, worries, ideas, and the annihilation of the illusion of the self where one understands Dhamma – the Buddha’s teaching and becomes an arahant.

The path to cessation of suffering[Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada sathya] – The Middle Way – is a path between the extremes of clinging and aversion, both expressions of attachment, arriving at a state of complete equanimity. It is achieved through the Eightfold Path.

Lean More about 4 Noble Truths check first page below links for other 3 noble truths.
A study guide for  4 Noble Truths
When we talk about Dukkha you should be aware about the past dukkha, present dukkha, and future dukka, as well.
Dukkha samudaya - is the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
Dukkha Nirodha - is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving."
Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada - is the way that we need to follow to stop sufferings and attain Nibbana. The one and only Eight Fold Path
Noble EightFold Path
I hope now you got the clear path to follow and achieve Nibbana.
For supporting this Lord buddha asked us to know the reality of this world. For that you need to understand about the ultimate realities. The Chiththa - 1, Chethasika - 52, Rupa -28, Nibban -1
[Learn about 4 Ultimate realities]4
Once you gain the fair knowledge of those above factors you can seek the help of the monk to start meditaion.  For that you need to take guidance from the eminante teacher of the meditaion.  Lord Buddha taught us 40 meditation methods and we should know how to select one for us according to our behavioural characteristics.
If not you can start with Anapana sathi[Inhale - Exhale]meditaion.
[learn about 40 meditaion methods in brief]5
Kind Advise:
The path lord buddha taught us is very clear. Results also achievable in this world once you fulfill the requirements and it is automatically happening.
There is nothing for us to search or doing experiments and find the results. Lord Buddha never kept us to search and find things.  He taught us everything.  Only we need to follow the path he taught us exactly. What I have provided here gives you all the answers for the above questions.
Take your time forget all other things that you taught and learn from different places.  Just limited to Lord Buddha words and trust those words and follow the path.
May Triple Gem Bless you and soon be able to achieve Nibbana!

You have spent great time with these answers. Grate.

What is "samsara"?

samsara is , according to buddhism , all the living beings (not only humans and animals , there are lot of other living things in this univers according to buddhism  ) are having a rebirth after death .everytime a living being dies he will be reborn,( where you going to born next will be decided on several facts, I will talk about that later.) samsara means all the lives that a living being will have till he finds the nirvana.

What is Nirvana ?

Nirvana is a state of mind where you no longer have any kind of attachment to anything, not even to yourself , not even to nirvana itself, SO when someone achieve this state of mind he will not born again in another life , that is the end of his 'samsara'.

Who is Buddha ?

Buddha was the first person to achieve Nirvana. the first person to stop the samsara from happening . As his teaching all the sadness starts with birth . If one is able to stop the birth , he will be able to end all the sadness, that means achieving nirvana.

P.S. I will add things to this answer soon ,

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. I noticed you have spelled Samsara with an "n", i.e. "Sansara" numerous of times. Is that an error? I'm not familiar with that kind of spelling of the word.

@Lanka Thank you . I edited . Actually I didn't know the correct word.

@Lanka  and theModerator713: Actually, it appears to be a valid variation. https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-concepts-that-have-been-hidden/what-is-san/

@Uuu yeah In Sri Lanka , We call it "sansara" with a 'n'.

Thanks for the info. If you use that word and its a valid variation then you do not need to edit your post. I just never heard that variation before thats why I asked. Enjoy your time here.

if most people know it as your suggestion, I think its okay to edit it :)

As a minor addition, samsara is the Hindi (and also Sanskrit and Pali) word for the 'world'.

please check at the end of my answer above I have given the answer for your question about Samsara and Sansara. Thanks

I will give my answer to just one of your questions: Why should someone follow the Buddha?
From my own experience, both reading many of the talks that he gave, and putting them into practice, I've noticed that what he focuses on are the basics of human psychology that were visible to him then, and are still visible to us now. He not only notices what we do, and explains why we do it, but he gives us tools to use to see all this for ourselves, and to put the solutions he provides into practice, and to see for ourselves whether they work or not (they do).

Thanks for the answer Linda, can you share the talks he gave ?

Hi Germán. I'm not actually referring to any particular talks. Because the Buddha used teaching methods particular to his time, it is not actually possible to see the pattern from one, two, three, or even several suttas. But they are well worth reading, rewarding efforts to understand what he's saying, how he says it, and the whys, over time. You can read them online at https://suttacentral.net/ or https://www.accesstoinsight.org/, or in books like those published by Wisdom (https://wisdomexperience.org/).

Thanks @linda-blanchard

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

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


text:
Is Meditation And Concentration Mutually Exclusive?
I'm relatively new to mindfulness meditation and I've been having trouble focusing / concentrating during my sessions. Even thought my meditation sessions are around 10 - 20 minutes, I feel like my mind is just wandering. I've tried to really focus on my breathing but after a while I notice myself thinking about something else. I've read this article: How A Few Simple Things Helped Me Meditate Without Losing Concentration and it has helped me a bit.
But I'm reading around other websites and people are saying that meditation is the opposite of concentration and if you're concentrating then you're not meditating. That meditation is expanding the mind while concentration is narrowing it and that the two are mutually exclusive.
I feel lost on what I should be practicing.

It's should be the other way around. One needs concentration for meditation and one can't attain concentration without diligently meditate. It's also a common misconception that insight/vipassana and serenity/samatha are 2 mutually exclusive practices. Furthermore, insight and serenity by themselves are still not sufficient. Various other factors are also needed to make progress in meditation: observing the precepts, diets, surrounding environment, etc. For further details, please see Ven. Buddhadasa's  http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf and Ven. Nanamoli's http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf1/MindfulnessBreathing.pdf . Some introduction to meditation in general from Ven. Gunaratana's http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html

Gah!  Don't read anymore.  Just relax and count every out breath up to ten.  When you reach ten, start again.  If you make it to ten, great.  If not, start back at one and try again.  Your mind will wander.  You will get agitated, sleepy, annoyed, and think about all sorts of things.  You will have doubts about the method and probably will have a strong feeling that your aren't doing it right.  That's all part of the process.  Don't worry about it; keep returning to the breath.  Just sit, breath, and count.

The idea is wrong that meditation is 'expanding the mind' while 'concentration is narrowing the mind' and that the two are mutually exclusive.
The word 'mindfulness' ('sati') in Buddhism means to 'remember to apply' or 'keep in mind' the Buddhist path; which means to keep the mind in a clear & aware state that is free from unwholesome & unbeneficial mental states, such as craving & distracting thoughts.
The word for 'concentration' in Buddhism is 'samadhi'. The word 'samadhi' means 'collectedness' & refers to when the mind gathers together its energy, power, awareness, wisdom & other wholesome qualities due to its practise of 'mindfulness'. The Pali scriptures states:

Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration
with its supports & requisite conditions
MN 117

When the mind achieves the perfection of 'samadhi', this is called 'one-pointedness' or 'jhana'. The mind here is completely exalted & expanded, i.e., 'heavenly'. The term 'one-pointedness' does not refer to a 'narrow' awareness. Instead, it refers to a mind that is completely undistracted.
An analogy is a wheel that spins around an axle. The wheel is fixed to & revolves around the axle. This being fixed to the axle is 'one-pointedness'. However, the wheel itself, which is an analogy for the mind, is not 'narrow'. Instead, the wheel/mind is both expanded & perfectly functional. If the wheel is not fixed to the wheel, the wheel cannot function properly.
In summary, the proper practise of 'mindfulness' causes 'concentration' to happen. The Buddhist scriptures state:

In one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being...
MN 117

I will try an experiment because it is finals week and I am kinda short on time. I will answer without sources. If I get upvoted I will put sources, if I get no upvotes/get downvoted I will not put sources.
All meditation (Buddhist or otherwise) is concentration. Tibetan and other esoteric traditions have mandalas/mantras/deities/mudras/"other stuff". Zen and other Madhyamaka derived things have impermanence/no-abiding-nature/no-essence/Buddha-nature (not identical ideas but closely related in complex ways). Hua-yen has/had "interpenetration"/"constituent/constituted("golden lion")". Pure land/"folk traditions" have various bodhisattvas with powers of salvation. Nichiren (SGI) has its mantra and scroll (Gohonzon). Etc.
Point being, one of the complexities of Buddhist thought is that "something" and "nothing" are not always different! So, when you meditate, you concentrate, but not necessarily on "something!"

Is Meditation And Concentration Mutually Exclusive?
No it's not.In fact meditation develops concentration.Scientific studies have shown that meditation improves attention and memory.Meditation requires attention to be anchored to an object.Repetitively doing so would strengthen focus.
A recent paper in the journal Psychological Science tries to identify brain functions that are actually enhanced by meditating.

When you meditate you need to concentrate about one thing,one positive feeling which relax you eventually.
But when you try that, your mind/feelings do not obey to you and it will give to different feelings and later you will feel tired of concentrating.
So then you can do one thing, you can fallow the feelings, you do not try to control the feelings, just go with the feelings and aware that you are fallowing the thoughts.
After a while you will be able to tell the feelings that, lets concentrate about breathing.

In MN 125 the Buddha compares the mind that tries to settle down in meditation with taming a forest elephant. If you pull a forest elephant out of his residence into the open, it'll rage and battle for some time, before the elephant tamer is able to tame him. The same thing goes for the mind: If you take the mind out of the world of the senses by focusing it on an object, it'll at first rage and battle, too. This is just how the mind naturally reacts.

"As, Aggivessana, a noble anointed king addresses an elephant hunter saying; 'You, good elephant hunter, mount the king's elephant and go into an elephant forest. When you see a forest elephant, tie him to the neck of the king's elephant.' And, Aggivessana, the elephant hunter having answered: 'Yes, sire,' in assent to the noble anointed king, mounts the king's elephant and goes into an elephant forest. Seeing a forest elephant, he ties him to the neck of the king's elephant. So the king's elephant brings him out into the open. But, Aggivessana, the forest elephant has this longing, that is to say for the elephant forest. But in regard to him the elephant hunter tells the noble anointed king that the forest elephant has got out into the open. The noble anointed king then addresses an elephant tamer, saying: 'Come you, good elephant tamer, tame the forest elephant by subduing his forest ways, by subduing his forest memories, and aspirations and by subduing his distress, his fretting and fever for the forest, by making him pleased with the villages and by accustoming him to human ways.'

I wouldn't get too fixed on the idea to get concentrated in meditation.In general, the practice is to bring your mind back to the present and be aware of any of the 5 hindrances which prevent you from having a clear mind:

Desire
Aversion
Drowsiness
Distraction/Restlessness/Worry
Doubt & Confusion

If you're looking for some instructions, I would recommend those which refer to the original teachings of the Buddha. A good one is How to meditate. There is also a meditation community where you can sign up for an online course, if you need some guidance, at https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/

Meditation is sitting:

nondistracted, collected
(focus is too specific a term, yet you don't want to be scattered),
with clarity (not clouded)
joyfully / happily / blissfully

These are the recent words of a very kind teacher of mine, may they be a cause for everyone to reach true relaxation of body, speech, and mind.
Sit for short periods and sit with good quality of meditation.
Quality over quantity.


text:
How to tolerate if someone insulting Buddhism?
I first apologize to ask like this, I'm so sorry but I found people who don't respect other religions by my one older question I had to ask almost like this one that one I'm asking. As this religion is secular and against violence. Teaching kindness, forgiveness and beyond the concept of god and religion. But at the time when someone insulting Buddhism what to do ? In Buddha's time he was en lighted he could make them feel what they are doing, there were so many incidents he changed them but when I seen someone insulting Buddhism I feel like I must break first precept; all the time I tolerate because I'm not violent and it's not what I learn, but I get really really angry.
Also bad people look at us as beneficial sake and annoying that we are non-violence and so can't do nothing. There's quote of Napoleon Bonaparte “The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people."
I don't expecting war and violence but peace. Thank you.

In DN 1, the Buddha explains how to deal with people who insults the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha:

“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?”
“Certainly not, Lord.”
“If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: ‘For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us.’

The following are a few excerpts from the sutras on how the Buddha dealt with and instructed his disciples to train when thoughts of anger and ill will are present:

[...] As I abided thus, diligent, ardent and resolute, a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. I understood thus: 'This thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna'. When I considered: 'This leads to my own affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to others affliction', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This leads to the affliction of both', it subsided in me; When I considered: 'This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna', it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of [sensual desire, ill will, cruelty] arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu  frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. [...]
But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

and:

[...] If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. [...]
If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation(*) of those thoughts. [...]
If while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind(**) (***).
-- Vitakkasanthāna Sutta, [Bodhi Trans.] MN 20

(*) "relaxing of thought-fabrication", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(**) "crush his mind with his awarenes", per Thanissaro Bhikku
(***) "crush unwholesome states of mind with wholesome states of mind", per Majjhima Nikāya Atthakathā

But at the time when someone insulting Buddhism what to do ?
I think you're supposed to remember that people are heir to their own karma.
If people insult Buddhism instead of respecting and learning from it, instead of benefiting from it, then you might feel pity for them (or preferably compassion).
I'm not sure you or I should see a need for forgiveness (i.e. a need for us to forgive them) because I (hypothetically) don't see their disrespect as hurtful towards "you" or "me". Perhaps you're identifying with Buddhism in some way (thinking that their disrespect is hurts others or hurts you, and needs forgiveness)?
I get really really angry.
See for example the Dhammapada, which
begins with,

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Getting really angry doesn't seem to me appropriate. I think of replying with anger as being like "putting out fire with gasoline", i.e. it may fuel disrespect and further anger, rather than putting it out.
I realize many people feel that they shouldn't usually get angry, but might feel that sometimes anger is excusable, normal, necessary, even praise-worthy, and inevitable (e.g. "if I get angry that their fault for being disrespectful, not my fault"); for example:

I don't usually get angry; but if you insult my mother then I'll punch you!
I wouldn't usually fight; if you attack my country then of course I will!
I'm usually a nice guy; but if you attack my religion then I can't stand it!

I also realize that some countries/societies criminalize disrespect, which might make it see normal to try to punish disrespect (e.g. by meeting it with anger), and/or to be averse to (and unaccustomed to) disrespect.
But ignoring what society does and looking at the scripture, remember the parable of the saw:

Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

because of the silence of the good people
If you think it might help, maybe you can disagree without getting angry.
If someone tells a lie about Buddhism, for example, maybe you can say what the truth is; or if it's not an appropriate place and time for a lecture, maybe say something short like "I disagree" or "I don't think so" ... enough so that if someone is interested then they can ask for more.
The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.
I think that Buddhism teaches that causes of suffering are ignorance, craving and attachment and so on.

See also Akkosa Sutta: Insult

So an example from another faith.  I met a gentleman by the name of Ron.  He was from Barbados and had moved to the US for better opportunity.  Back when he lived in his homeland, Ron had been a doctor.  Before he could practice medicine in America, Ron had to recertify in a number of areas (I remember him complaining about hematology the most!)  I was working at a bookstore at the time and everyday, he'd come to our cafe to study.
Now Ron was a well dressed chap and nice as any person you'd ever want to meet.  Everyday he'd come and talk to me and the other staff members for a bit.  He had a great sense of humor and always had a kind word for everyone.  Ron used to spend a lot of time talking to me because I was a competitive weight lifter at the time.  Ron had been Mr. Barbados back when he was younger, so we had a lot to talk about.  I even used to even call him after my weight lifting meets to tell him how I did.  Whenever I placed, I swear he was happier for me than I was.  You could not love this man!
Ron studied at our store for about a year.  Right before he went off to take his medical boards, he joked about how he had to present all kinds of ID as a security measure against cheating.  "Cheating!" he says to me.  "I'm a Jehovah's Witness!  We don't cheat!"  Now, I don't know if you know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses, but a prime tenant of there faith is to spread it.  Where I live, they'll even go door to door proselytizing.  They call it "bearing witness"  Ron never did any of that.  In fact, it was such a departure from what I was used to, I asked him how after a year, he never spoke a word about his religion.  I'll never forget his words.
"To convince someone with words is cheap.  The mind is not the place of faith.  My whole life is my witness for others."
The only way you are going to convince anyone of the efficacy of the dharma is in how you conduct yourself.  It's a waste of effort to try and argue with someone else about Buddhism.  You aren't going to convince them.  The only thing that is going to change their minds are your actions of body, speech, and mind.

No I'm not going to convince. I got what you want to say. Mind is witnesse. Thank you  @-}--

Just don't get attached to Buddhism
Example :
In school , if a teacher scolded you , you get really upset and humiliated, but that does not happen if your teacher scolded someone you don't know . Let's ask why ,  because you are attached to yourself and not to a some  person who you don't know.
This applies to everything. If you take something as yours , you will make a bond with it, thus all the sadness and anger will come along eventually because of that bond you made.
So if you take Buddhism as your religion, the best religion(we all know it is the best ) and try to make attachments with it, you will be sad and angry if someone insulted it.
Religions can make terrorists
Yes above statement is true. We have seen on news , people becoming terrorists because of some religions.
Basically it happens when someone doesn't know what that religion really taught , but when trying to make bonds with it. So those people think the only religion in the world is their religion.
Conclusion
We should not make attachments with anything. At least we should try not to. When following the path to nirvana, you have to give up everything, if you gave everything up and still stuck without achieving nirvana, that's the time you should give up the desire to achieve nirvana. Then only you can achieve nirvana. It is a very complex point, think about it more.

According to Buddhism you should tolerate it.

Should i accept it even unreasonably and except it's false ?

Basically It's not yours to accept, so just let it go , follow the path to nirvana , people can say anything, if u stopped to hit a dog which barks at you when you are going somewhere, you will never get there.

Ok Thank You so much @-}-- It means don't let nothing distracted us from path of nirvana. Thank you

Yes , exactly ! you are welcome:-)

Buddhists don't do nothing do they? Cultivate compassion and Metta for them instead of anger like they are cultivating anger or ignorance and you will be doing something as a good person :)


text:
If a snake is eating a frog in front of me, what should I do?
I always wondered what should I do according to buddhism in a situation like that. Obviously I have two options.

Hit the snake and save the frogs' life.
Just keep watching without doing anything.

Can someone explain this

Samsara means we live in a world where things are as great as we'd like them and we are often faced with choices without a good alternative. (For a western contrived example, see the Trolly Problem)
Modern biologist often conclude that predator and prey, while not in a situation that benefits the prey, have worked out a solution that is horrible, but the best among the options. When predators are removed from an ecosystem, creatures that evolved expecting predators will over graze and create worse problems than when there were predators, e.g. wolves.
Mahayana Buddhism, which is the most close to modern Animal Liberation encourages not getting involved with the world of the animals-- let them be, do no harm. (Except for providing medical assistance, Buddhists in the time of Ashoka advocated providing medical help for wild animals.) And in the Bhrama Net Sutra, there is a precept prohibiting owning predator pets, such as cats, but nothing along the line of eliminating cats from nature.

Bhrama Net Sutra is like the Vinaya?

What if there is a human child instead of frog ? as @lasan suggested

@Uuu Brahma Net Sutra is a Mahayana text that more or less replaces the Vinaya in 200AD China. Begging for food as dictated by the vinaya would have been an recipe for starvation and probably was illegal.

@theModerator713 Same answer. We are in samsara and samsara presents us with misery, sometimes in the form of situations without a good answer. The general goal of the precepts is to preserve life. Maybe you'd offer your own self to the snake instead, which is a common story plot point in jataka tales.

Don't hit snake, but better we understand it's the nature. We cannot get snakes to eat non-veg. We can't change the nature of the world.
Animal world is described as one of 4 hells in Buddhism. Their Karma stance causes them to born in different worlds. The most eligible karma they have done in their sansara (chain of lives birth, live, die) will bring their life events to them.
Also If we kill the snake, we get it on our Karma account. Karma is like a chain which keep our lives continuing through sansara.
Please refer http://justbegood.net/MoreQuestions.htm for better understanding of Karma and their consequences.

If the snake already ate the frog then there is nothing that can be done. I assumed the snake was just getting seperated from the frog :)

@pasan , What if there is a human child instead of frog ? as a below answer suggested

@theModerator713 As we see it's value to us, we're going to save it. But as long as we involve with that, it creates your sansara!, so better stay away from making contact with it. Ideal one going towards nirwana, practice 'Let go'. In reality Noting belongs to us, as we see it's all seems like rented, we can't hold things with us, impermanence!

@PasanEeriyagama true ! thank you for the answer :)

Snake charmers would know how to apply pressure at the neck or head to subdue them without causing injury.
But you can try hitting the ground next to the snake with a stick and try to scare it. If it does not work, practice Uppekkha to keep yourself from giving into sadness.

Well, there are those who can just stand there and say "frog karma, snake karma" and they might get accused of having no empathy when really they are just trying to see the situation in a broader way.
There are those who will try to help a fellow being and they might get accused of only superficially understanding the Buddha's teachings when really they are just practicing compassion.
Both sides have there points , probably  either way is correct or it depends on the person. If not saving the animal would cause one distress then one should save the animal.


text:
1. While wearing my new warm jacket, is it okay to kill animals for their fur?

While having a concrete floor, is it okay to chop off trees for a wooden floor?

"If [a monk or nun] is ruthless with regard to plants, this is an offence to be atoned." (Patimokkhasutta Pacittiya 11)

There are many other questions already addressing the killing or eating of animals or using their products. AFAIK, when Buddhist do disapprove of killing animals, the problem isn't that they end up in our stomach, the problem is they are killed, so jackets would have the same problem.

Let's rephrase: If killing an animal simply for wearing their fur is disapproved of, is killing a tree simply for decorating the floor okay?

To make the point clearer: The first action many people would disapprove of as unwarranted killing. The second action - while also ending life for unwarranted reasons - most people would not disapprove of. But I could only find one quote that says something about treating plants. So maybe someone knows other quotes in that direction.

There are also already questions on killing what in the buddhist system would be non-sentient beings (plants, bacteria). For the pro-meat eating group, killing is about if you are mentally upset/mean/angry while killing, for the anti-meant eating group, it is about if the creature is sentient (plant's aren't).

There is a Mahayana story about a monk being tied to a blade of grass by bandits because the bandits knew the monk wouldn't kill a living thing. I can't tell if it was a joke (there are jokes in the canonical sutras!) or a rhetorical flourish (there are a lot of these, which later readers take very literal, e.g. self immolation is probably a rhetorical flourish/exaggeration)

The rules for monks and nuns outlined in the Patimokkha do not apply to lay people. The things you mention are not violations of the code of ethics for non-monastics.

To kill animals is a violation of the first precept

I understood the question about the jacket to be about wearing a jacket made from the fur of an animal that the asker did not personally kill. I should clarify that killing animals for their fur is against the lay precepts but wearing a fur coat is not.

Sorry, the question seems to be misleading. See my comment above. Let's assume I'm a monk, can I chop a tree just to decorate my floor?

A monk would violate the monastic code of conduct by chopping down a tree to decorate his floor. Cf. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#harmlessness

Wearing your jacket or being naked it is not okay to kill any living being
But according to Buddhism cutting trees is okay .

Your question is, animal and plant, both are lives, if killing animal is an offence why not killing a plant?
1) Animal has feeling of pain, plant has feeling but it's not the same as pain to animal. Meditate: why some plants grow fruits for animals to eat to propagate? Is the fruit "painful" when being eaten?
2) Plant is also life, thus the monks are taught not to step on the grass if they could avoid; the summer retreat is also one reason to avoid destroying the flourishing plants in a season of growth. But plant life is different from animal life: grasses trod, will continuous to grow afterwards, even stronger; a tree when a branch is chopped, will regrown, or split from the cut more branches...
3) The plant in the Cycle of Life the only mean is to offer itself to accumulate merits for enlightenment, since it's not able to act (immobile) nor speak. Meditate on this...
4) A log after chopped down (a tree's life is ended in a simple sense however, the roots are deep buried some could spring to life again. But it's different the modern way of timbering I don't know, for the modern way tends to uproot everything and take it all), is it going to die spilling blood and rotten like an animal carcass? No. Normally a log could last for thousands of years if it's not attacked by bugs or mold. Some logs may appear even more polished or with fragrance if it's aged. In contrast, a tree may be attacked by bugs or molds or even ivies while still "alive". Thus we cannot determine what is "death" to a tree like defining an animal. I'm sure if I'm a log being crafted into a Buddha image and adorned in the temple I'm "happier" than exposed in the forest ;) Meditate: the bees' world view - social structure, individuality? Sure it's different from human; thus the plant's is different.
5) Buddha did instruct the students not to wear fur, leather or silk (from the cocoon of silkworm) clothes in Surangama Sutra, if they wish to have clean practice.
It's important to grasp the core idea of having loving-kindness to all beings. However to sustain a body that's conditioned with material, we can't avoid taking material from around. Thus we shall vow to become enlightened quickly, to end this dependency. Before that's achieved, we shall opt for the minimum of harm and consumption.


text:
Do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity?
I don't think "self" is the right term in English for the sort of quality I want to ask about.
So, regardless of its ontological status, or that of what it relates to (objects), do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity?

Are you thinking of Kierkegaard, or maybe more along the line of phenomenology (Husserl, etc)?

I am also curious to this subject as I think that the virtual reality model fits Buddhism teaching FAFAIK perfectly, solves lots of current physics 'problems' like special relativity, big bang, speed of light limit. With respect to the self, I think it is like there is this experience of space and time, but one is not contained in it. That which observes is more fundamental. In my experience there is a self, only not 'in' this universe. Much like a player in a multiplayer online video game isn't 'in' the game but connected to it experiencing the physics of the game.

Some person got wet in the rain, and so he feels wet. Some other person didn't walk in the rain, and so he feels dry.
Thus feelings of people standing side by side in the same room can be very different.
Likewise, their thoughts can be very different. Likewise, their actions can be very different.
To explain that, it's enough to have understanding of causes and effects. Thus the explanation doesn't need notions like "subjectivity" or "self".
Investigating our experiences from the point of view of causality, we can discover illusoriness of "self" and "subjectivity".
Imagine such ideas - "self" and "subjectivity" - as opaque spots which taint our field of vision. When we realize that such ideas are illusory, it's like the spots became transparent. If we focus on them, we still might see them, but they don't hinder our sight anymore. We just look through.
Then we don't need to rely on such ideas anymore. Thus they will not lead to attachments.
That's what Mahayana (and Buddhism in general) teaches. "Self" and "subjectivity" are opaque spots where actually everything is transparent. Likewise, all the other ideas are like opaque spots, if we don't see through them.


text:
How to inculcate metta in me?
Metta was natural to me when I was young. I didn't give much thought to it then.
Now I find it difficult. So many thoughts come when I want to donate to charity like,
is it a recognized charitable institution? how is it run? if they are adequately funded, should I donate to an institution which does not do marketing? or whether I should give the part to the homeless person?   All these thoughts makes metta a mental process of deciding who is worthy and who is not with limited funds I have for donation.
How does one inculcate metta? Is it influenced by skandhas ? Can metta itself become an attachment leading to mental craving for that feeling when one can observe on giving?

If funds are limited and the opportunities to donate are plenty, you should find out which is the best place to donate as in who is genuine, who will benefit the most, who is the most worthy etc. It's an aspect of wisdom which guides Metta to have the best possible outcome.
It's important to note the difference between worrying and looking for the best available option. The former is a consequence of clinging whereas the latter is a form of wisdom.
The Skandhas(5 aggregates) is a different teaching which has nothing to do with Metta, except for Metta bieing an instance of Sankhara-skandha(mental formations).
Metta can never be craving, but craving can disguise itself as Metta.
Ex: Wanting to donate because the collection girl is pretty; wanting to join community service to get a chance to spend time with someone you are  attracted to; wanting to donate to impress someone; wanting to donate to get a heavenly birth etc.
Technically speaking, wanting to help the poor & the afflicted is more Karuna(compassion) than Metta. Metta is simply kindness.

It is comprehensible that you like know your donation goes not in vain and the one accepting your donation is legitimate. This is because you like please that your donation goes well and effective so that you will multiply good Karma when you rethink and think about how it is well contributed. The most important thing here is you need to multiply your pleasant feeling by thinking again and agin when you did a good, legitimate donation.
So for donation, it is wise to choose people to whom you donate. If you cannot choose (are you doing donation on regular basic and difficult to examine/check at the point of time of donation?) try not have second thought, regret, disappointment after donation. At least, try to please by reviewing yourself that you got rid of attachment on things/money that you just donated. You should not linger your thoughts about quality of donee(s) which could do harm on your pleasantness of doing donation (difficult and challenging mind exercise for most people).
Metta
To inculcate Metta, you need to know it is opposite of aversion and hatred. Our Lord Buddha said many times that Metta is unmeasurable, limitless making up of your mind. So Metta is not correlated with quality/value/ethic/intention or any physical quality or moral status of any living being you are trying to spread on. It is not appropriate just spreading Metta to good people or people good to you. You can put Metta to any living great benefactor as well as living tyrant dictator. To achieve this you have to understand that no matter the target living being shall receive your Metta or not, you definitely have peace and pleasant mind without aversion and hatred by spreading Metta to infinite living beings around all directions (east, west, south, north, ++, up and down).
By spreading Metta to all living beings(unlimited), you should expect the following effects of it (need citation in Pali Canon).

You can sleep soundly.
You can wake up gently.
You do not have bad dream.
You can be protected by Gods(Devas).
People loves you.
Gods(Devas) love you.
Weapons, fire and poisons cannot harm you.
Your face is cheerful.
You have elegant/respectable moral esteem.
You have strong Sati till you would have last breath.
If you cannot do leverage on your Metta Jhana to Vipasana, you can still be Brahma (rebirth at one of Brahma realms after life).


text:
If a snake is eating a human infant in front of me what should I do?
What is the difference if the snake was eating a frog or a human? What do Buddhist scriptures say about this?

When asked questions like this one, the Buddha would reply to the person asking something along the lines of "don't waste your time thinking about imagined scenarios; practice diligently and stay in the present"

@EduardoSerra true , according to buddha , if someone is following the path to nirvana , he should do it in a way , a person who has a flames on his head tries to make it go away.  Obviously we are not following the path to nirvana in this life , if we did, we wouldn't waste our time on SE :-)

@Eduardo Serra I disagree strongly. This question seeks attainable truth that would benefit metta practice and silla. In a way the question IS Metta practice but maybe your correct, perhaps the Buddha would agree with you but how can you be so sure? Can you refernence a sutta to  corroborate your comment?

@Eduardo Serrano As far as I know there are four unconjecturables that exist: (1) range of powers of a Buddha; (2) range of powers obtained while absorbed in jhana; (3) precise working out of the results of karma; (4) speculation about the origin (the first moment, purpose, etc.) of the cosmos. If the Buddha never mentioned an answer to this question perhaps nobody asked.-metta

Just kill the snake and save the baby
Ok , this would be the reaction of a person who has no idea what Buddhism is . But , even if we know Buddhism to some extent, we would do the same . Because still our minds are not developed.
According to Buddhism
Basically all lives are equal , if a snake is eating a frog , there will be no reaction from a person who has achieved nirvana. If the snake is eating a human (even if the infant is his own kid , there won't be a difference )he would never kill the snake , he will try to remove the snake using a stick , if it doesn't succeed,he will give himself to the snake and will save the life of his kid or any other human. But if the snake is eating some other animal, he will not interfere . Because according do Buddhism , people should not interfere with animal lives , all those things are unnecessary attachments. Buddha advises not to have pets , not to even give food to animals continuously , because if you do those animals will start to make bonds with you and you with them , that will definitely make ones samsara longer .
Conclusion
People should not interfere with actions of animals. But you can save any human being by sacrificing yourself or by using some strategy

Here are 2 stories from the Abhidhamma commentary.

A farmer who, after having taken his precepts from a respected monk,
  went to look for his buffalo that had strayed into the forest. Along
  the way, he was caught by a python. His first thought was to use his
  axe to kill the snake coiled around him. Then he remembered that he
  had taken his precepts from a respected monk. The thought came to him
  for a second time and again he refrained from killing. The third time
  he was prompted to kill, he threw away his axe. The snake uncoiled
  itself and freed him.
A lay devotee who was told by a physician to give rabbit meat to his
  sick mother to get her well. When he caught a rabbit, he thought that
  to take a life so that his mother could prolong hers was wrong. So, he
  freed the rabbit. On reaching home, he was scolded by his elder
  brother. However, he stood by his sick mother’s side and said, “Since
  I was matured enough, I’ve never intentionally taken a life. By the
  power of this truth, may my mother be healed.” This asseveration of
  truth saved his mother’s life.

What is the difference if the snake was eating a frog or a human?
Saving a human is much more meritorious compared to saving a frog
If a snake is eating a human infant in front of me what should I do?
Killing breaks the first precept no matter how you try to justify it!
So, try to save the human without killing the snake. Use wisdom instead of fear/aversion towards the snake.
They say snakes dislike clove, cinnamon smell. Even a pepper spray might work.
If you don't have those, try making loud noises and threatening gestures with sticks & stuff.

Sounds like some Christians that do not give their children medicine believing God will heal the children. When the children die, the Christians go to prison.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. Aversion is always the proximate cause of killing. On the other hand, justifying killing based on false views is similar to terrorist mentality. Isn't that what ISIS do? :D

Based on the monk's Vinaya (rules), intentionally killing a human being results in immediate expulsion from the monastic community where as killing a snake does not. Therefore, killing an infant is far more serious than killing a snake.
This is based on the natural laws of kamma known within our heart. If we must kill the snake to save the infant, we should kill the snake because if we allow the snake to kill the infant, we will feel great regret & remorse in our heart &, even worse, other people will blame us for our lack of compassion towards the child. We may be socially ostracised & rejected.
The snake was murdering the child thus the snake will reap its 'own kamma' (even though, in reality, animals are not subject to the laws of kamma).
The scriptures (AN 6.63) teach 'kamma is intention' & 'kamma only comes into play due to sense contact'. Therefore, the only repercussions/consequences of killing the snake will be known within your own heart & nowhere else.

When I lived in Thailand, alone near a village, I walked passed a very large cobra laying across the road to the village. Upon closer inspection, the cobra was fighting with an even larger python and had its jaws wrapped around the python's neck. A monk's house was nearby so I informed the monk, who returned with a big stick and hit the cobra until the cobra detached. We did this to save the cobra's life, since it could easily be crushed by a motor vehicle driving to the village.

On another occasion, a large cobra was in the visitor's quarters. Again, we had to use a large stick to remove the cobra. Although cobras are our friends, sometimes we must be firm with them.

Sounds like a great answer to me except I could have sworn that animals were subject to the laws of karma. I don't know why people assume the situation required lethal force.

Animals follow instinct. They have no faculty for reflection & decision. You would have to provide a scripture reference to shows animals follow the law of kamma. As for my post, I did not assume lethal force was required, since I said: "If we must kill the snake..." Regards

It is wonderful to chat with such a bright mind as yours. I wasn't saying you assume leathal force. I think I am to lazy to provide scriptures besides, it's everywhere in the suttas. You seem very bright when it comes to intellectual knowledge so perhaps  you can show me where it says animals don't follow the law of karma. Animals have no faculty for reflection & decision? I thought you didn't like to speculate. Truth is we probably all love to speculate because we are searching for the truth subjective or objective.

The suttas only refer to humans being 'reborn' as an 'animals' and, in one place, 'animals' realising the 4 noble truths. 'Animal' here refers to people with animalistic states of mind. For example, when monks talk about inappropriate topics, it is called 'animal talk'. The suttas do not talk about literal animals being reborn as people due to kamma. Animals in general do not have intentions of greed, hatred & delusion. They only have the intentions to eat, reproduce & protect their life (unlike people, who murder, rob, rape & enslave other people due to greed). Regards

And the animal realm is in the mind of a person who eats nothing but snackfoods, doesn't listen to wholesome things like Dhamma. I'll have to check that out. As far a science goes what conclusive studies have been done to prove or provide evidence that animals do not make decisions on some level? What about Dolphins, chimpanzees that do sign language.-Thank you Dhammadhatu

Sure. Some animals, particularly monkeys, due to their higher mental evolution, exhibit behaviours of greed. As for dolphins, yes, altruistic behaviors.

@Dhammadhatu Nothing is not subject to the laws of karma, incl. animals. Animal could be reborn into a human this was cited many times in the sutras: The episode referring to Shakya clan's "exterminated" by King Virūḍhaka (Pali: Viḍūḍabha), the seed of foul was sown when Virudhaka was the fish king and the Shakyas had eaten all the fish in the river suffering drought except a kid (Buddha) didn't but tapped 3 times on the head of the fish king. Sariputta in one of his previous lives was a snake; Buddha was a rabbit jumped into the fire to offer himself for Ajita (Maitreya) during famine.

@Dhammadhatu In the very contrast, an animal that's having the form of life as an animal is because it is very heavily stricken by the 5 Nivāraṇa - most the ignorance, out of the rest greed, anger, arrogance, distrust. How do you explain when animal males fight to death during mating? A python consumed a too large prey goes burst killing itself?

There is no evidence for what you are posting. It is superstition. At least the Pali suttas have many references to "animal behaviour", which is simply immoral behaviour of people. Regards

Sounds like a lot of instinct to kill the snake. Replace the snake with say a cannibal and tell me what you would do.
You would most logically attempt to disengage the predator from the baby. With the baby safe, then toss a good meal to the predator to make sure he doesnt go empty handed.


text:
Happiness for laypeople
I'm right now working on an application for increasing happiness in everyday life, inspired by practical teachings in Buddhism about happiness for laypeople.
My question is: What did the Buddha say about happiness for laypeople?
I have found these Sutras helpful:

Sigalovada Sutta
Dighajanu Sutta

What else did the Buddha say about happiness for laypeople?. (Is there a compilation of teachings regarding this?)
Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

There is a handy list of linked suttas at this link IV. The Happiness Visible in This Present Life
P.A. Payutto's A Constitution for Living is most excellent & includes the sutta reference for each list.
The Maha-Mangala Sutta is an excellent sutta.

Thank you for this! The Maha-Mangala Sutta is a Sutra that i have been looking for for some time (after seeing a translation of it but without any Sutra name)

If you want to be happy, just give up everything in your mind . What I meant was do not have any kind of attachment to anything, at least try not to have attachments , the lesser the number of attachments the more happy you will be.
Example :
You can have every physical thing in the world , (money , cars, houses etc) but do not have any kind of attachment towards them in mind. That does not mean give up everything and go to be a monk .
It means give up everything just from your mind , physically you work with them use them and do everything, but without making an attachment in mind. If you do this , you will be happier than ever ,


text:
What is the meaning of paramattha dhamma?

'Vipassana jahna is the focusing of the mind on paramattha dhammas'.   (Sayadaw U Pandita, In This Very Life, p. 179)

What is the meaning of paramattha dhamma?

Paramattha dhamma is an Abhidhamma term, meaning the 'highest' dhamma.
The equivalent in the Pali suttas is called 'lokattura (supramundane) dhamma' or 'heartwood'. Such dhamma is related to not-self ('anatta'), emptiness ('sunnata') & here-&-now liberation-&-Nibbana.
The Ani Sutta states:

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
  transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being
  recited'.

Paramattha dhamma is the opposite of 'lokiya (mundane) dhamma', which is about kamma, rebirth, metta & any other mundane moral dhamma which can be practised with 'self-view' by ordinary unenlightened people. The primary goal of lokiya dhamma is morality & non-harming. Where as the goal of paramattha dhamma is to extinguish all suffering. To quote:

Paramattha-dhamma (absolute truth of nature) is the Dhamma or the knowledge, which when we know it, will enable us to extinguish dukkha.
  Ultimate truth then is the way the thing that helps us, enables us to
  extinguish all dukkha.
Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu

The important distinction between 'lokuttara' ('paramattha') & 'lokiya' dhamma is found in the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta, which explains two sorts of Right View:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: (i) There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions [of becoming]; (ii) there is right view that is noble, without
  effluents, transcendent (lokuttara), a factor of the path.

For example, my posts on this forum are exclusively about 'paramattha dhamma'.

Is it correct when I say that 'parramatta dhamma' is the absolute, ultimate, 'pure' reality of all phenomena, in casu: the phenomena as they really are (anicca, dukkha, anatta); the sense objects without the delusions of the mind?

Yes. Parramatta dhamma' is the absolute, ultimate, 'pure' reality of all phenomena, in casu: the phenomena as they really are (anicca, dukkha, anatta);


text:
very strong cravings for compelling images of moving exciting images
The problem I find is that modern technology enables easy yielding to exciting moving images in a compulsive way via television, DVDs, cinema and the internet. How can I find free online Buddhist guidance to prevent and avoid online yielding to such powerful cravings which I find are so obsessive and compulsive in me.

Unwholesome cravings are extinguished by using wisdom rather than by using willpower.
This requires seeing clearly & reflecting upon the danger & harm of unwholesome phenomena.
The mind must examine & investigate cause & effect very deeply.
Examples of this method are found in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta & the Potaliya Sutta.
If pornography is a problem, this requires changing wrong views in order to understand what brings women real happiness.

And what Master Gotama, is a woman’s aim?
A man, O brahmin, is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal
  is domination.
AN 6.52

The psychological problem with pornography is related to wrong view or delusion (rather than lust).
Readings: Five Mindfulness Trainings & Sexual Responsibility by Thich Nhat Hanh

Meditate on your urge to watch movies.
Ex: wanting...wanting.... wanting... or bored... bored... bored... until it goes away.
Here's a good guide for you: http://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/

Just unplug.  A period of abstinence is the best way to moderate any compulsive behavior.  It's the basis for most addiction and 12 step programs.  You're over stimulating yourself.  Rather than bang around on the internet looking for a solution to your problem, go take a walk instead.
If you want a Buddhist answer - every time you cave in to one of those compulsive pressures, you are strengthening your karmic attachment to them.  Cut them off at the root.  If you don't allow for these behaviors to be born, the rest of the 12 links comprising the chain of dependent origination can't be established.

Just keep watching
Don't try to stop it . The more you try to stop it , the more the cravings be. So if you want to watch something watch it. Make your life goal just to watch it ,
example :
if you love "Titanic movie" watch it 100 times , 1000 times till you start thinking there is no point watching these stuff , I was wrong this whole time , I suffered a lot because of this cravings , Every time I watched , I needed more , there is no end to this. You have to understand that from within. Trying to stop it will just make it worse ,
At one point your mind will say , this is enough, there may be some other way to end my never ending needs and desires , then you can follow the path to nirvana. And you will reach it faster than others , because you have understood that there is no point doing those things practically ,

Never underestimate the power of craving - https://youtu.be/LtEFEdrrXc4 .  :)

@xxxx haha , but I believe human mind can understand he should stop "eating donuts" at some point

Tell that to an addict!  :-/

I try to portray a "non-dharmatic" solution which is effective. Expose yourself to as many as "exciting moving images" as you wish, continuously, until you can take no more; 24 hours 3 days or whole week consecutively. If you wish to cure yourself, opt a period out to do this non-stop exposure, the time required depends on the person. Then you will feel disgusted with all these stimulations.
Or, if it's related to sexual desire and images, try the White Skeleton Visualization; or see images of the Tibetan Sky Burial - which you can google, then you will feel disgusted with this perishable body that rotten and decayed like the meat on the butcher's chop board, putrefying and ugly.

Craving arises in conjunction with sensation. To let go of craving you have to be unanimous to what is pleasant and unpleasant sensation. In addition you have to remove ignorance by seeing the impermanence nature of neutral sensations. [Pahana Sutta]
I see that you have used "I" couple of times. I conceiving lead to craving. [Tanha Jalini Sutta, Cula Vedalla Sutta] Also thoughts of past and future has "I" and the subject. For this see perception of self arising, the evaluation being favorable (watching a good movie), unfavorable (I do not have this latest movie) and neutral (I do not care about this movie) and how this proliferates to sensations and finally craving. Through Vipassana you should see this sensations arising and passing while being equanimous. This will help you realise there is no controlling, everlasting self. Whatever which is not entirely pleasant cannot be taken as self.
When something pleasant changes it is unpleasant, the unpleasant is unpleasant on its own, the conditioned is unpleasant when unknown. [Cula Vedalla Sutta] Understanding sensation lead to understanding the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Arising and eradicating the unwholesome roots.