text:
Should a Buddhist "have faith"?
In many religions it is common to say: "Have faith in God" or Jesus or Allah...
In Buddhism we believe in Kamma, meaning that what happens to us is due to our past actions and it is usually not (or never) influenced by an external being. (It can change from school to school, some may pray and ask for things)
So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true? Or should I just do what I think is right and forget about it? What is the best way for a Buddhist to act in this situation?
PS: Please ignore the fact that I want something, I know this could be questioned in Buddhism as the wrong way to happiness, but that would be a different question :)

Are you asking if buddhist, in general, should have faith (in buddhist doctrine, in the Buddha, etc.), or if buddhism supports the idea that merely having faith in an outcome turns the outcome into reality?

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha is reported as saying that Buddhist principles should not be accepted without evidence, and that 'it is proper ... to doubt'. Confidence/trust (sraddha) in the teachings is important, but 'blind' faith is actively discouraged. Here's what he is reported as saying:

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them...
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.

Kalama Sutta: The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry

Well, not to get too academic in one's understanding, but it would be advisable to check out The Five Strengths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Strengths
Which are also known as The 5 Powers, The 5 Spiritual Powers.  Edward Conze calls them The Five Spiritual Faculties.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html
This article by Sarah Doering from 1999 is really awesome from what I can tell so far

Such faith is born in experience. It can’t be given. It arises spontaneously, out of seeing and knowing for oneself. From it flow devotion and gratitude and commitment. It’s a natural self-giving. It stems from knowing the problematic nature of life, from realizing that human existence is very imperfect. Because of this one is sensitive to what else might be, to some other way of being. Faith may arise from hearing the Buddha’s words that say there’s a cause for suffering, a cause that can be removed so that suffering comes to an end. It may arise from seeing someone whose presence, whose manner or words, are so compelling, that they suggest possibilities not at all understood. It may come from reading something that suddenly reveals a meaning that speaks to the heart. It may dawn through music or art or, as happened to me, from a glimpse of something seen in nature.

more at http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma7/5powers.html
So, in a way, faith is very foundational to Buddhism.  Reasoned faith is stronger than blind faith, but both are good if they are genuine, because the path actually works.
People born in places where Buddhism is the norm might not have looked very much at the teachings at all and still be living a life very in accord with Dhamma.  For people where the teachings appear later (in life) it's natural and good to reason and weigh things.  Eventually confidence is born, and with great faith come great blessings.

The Brahmajala Sutta lists 62 confused views or categories.  These views are reduced to the "causes" of Nagarjuna's epic Mulamadhyamakakarika; Chapter 1.1 which "causes" he then disproves.  With careful examination and contemplation there is the realization that all "-isms", "-ologies", "-ocracies", and so forth can be reduced to one of these 62 confused views and subsequently to one of the four erroneous "causes" which Nagarjuna disputes.  "Faith" and "belief" have no basis in experiential and/or empirical knowledge which is the foundation that leads to becoming thus gone.  Since dhamma-vinaya does not fit into any of these views or categories, dhamma-vinaya is not a "belief system" or a religious faith.  It is the human science of living in the world while becoming liberated from dispositions that are the causal conditions and effects of karma and samsara.  Nibbana does not depend on faith or belief but the effort utilized to appease those dispositions of greed, hatred and delusion.
I hope this is of some benefit and comfort. Shanti.

thanks, very good answer from a good mahayana's point of view. IMHO I would just be more carefoul with the word "science" as it can confuse people.

bad answer IMHO, it may be that some traditions frown on it but that simply is NOT always the case

Religion is a system of beliefs not founded on anything but faith in metaphysics.  Dhamma-vinaya is a science founded on empirical knowledge that anyone can verify by experience and observation of the mental processes of meditation and concentration.  This was the teaching of the Enlightened One.  As for traditions, I put little value in them.

You should have some faith in the Buddha, the practice the Buddha taught (the way out of unsatisfactory nature of existence) and your teacher and the spiritual community you rely on.
If you do not have some faith in any of the above you will not learn the technique properly or practice in earnest.
The ultimate faith would be gained when you experience the results of the practice. If faith is not backed by experience then it can be very dangerous as you can develop confidence in erroneous concepts and hold on to them.

So if there is something I want, something I judge important, should I have faith that it will come true?

I think it depends on what you want.
If you want to win the lottery then, probably not. I mean, maybe having such a faith might help you psychologically somehow, but there's no real reason to assume that faith is justified i.e. that you will in reality win the lottery.
Conversely if you want to follow the Buddha's teaching, then maybe that faith is justified. The Buddha said that he taught suffering and the end of suffering, and there's probably reason to believe that if you learn what he taught then the outcome may be as predicted.
According to answers to this topic which, describe faith in Buddhism i.e. śraddhā, having 'faith' will help you to begin to practice even before you have a complete/perfect knowledge/wisdom.

The faith follower basically has faith in the Buddha as the teacher of the path to the end of suffering, the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the 8 types of individuals on the path). This faith will eventually drive him towards making progress on the path.
The Kitagiri Sutta defines a faith follower as follows:

“What kind of person is a faith-follower? Here some person does not
  contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful
  and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet
  destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, yet he has sufficient faith in
  and love for the Tathāgata. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the
  faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
  concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
  called a faith-follower. I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has
  work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable
  one makes use of suitable resting places and associates with good
  friends and nurtures his spiritual faculties, he may by realising for
  himself with direct knowledge here and now enter upon and abide in
  that supreme goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen
  rightly go forth from the home life into homelessness. Seeing this
  fruit of diligence for such a bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to
  do with diligence.

Also from the Vinnana Sutta (and other suttas from SN25):

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Kītāgirisutta:

"Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once.
  Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after  respectively training,
  respectively action, respectively practice. And how is there the
  attainment of gnosis after respectively training, respectively action,
  respectively practice?

There is the case where, when conviction (faith) has arisen, one visits [a
  teacher].
Having visited, one request to be his attendant (see vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka, and CH. III TAKING A MEDITATION SUBJECT of Visuddhimagga)
Having been attendant, one listen carefully.
Having listened carefully, one hears the Dhamma.
Having heard the Dhamma, one memorizes it (dhatā=sutadharo).
Having remembered by memorizing, one ponders the meaning of the teachings.
Having pondered the meaning, one comes to an agreement through
  pondering the teachings.
There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, wish-to-do
  arises.
When wishing-to-do has arisen, one exerts.
When one exerted (an effort), one meditates insight.
Having meditated insight, one dedicates his life.
Having dedicated his life, one realizes with the mind (discernment's body) the ultimate truth and, having penetrated,
  enlightened, it with discernment, sees it.

"Now, monks, there hasn't been that conviction, there hasn't been that
  visiting, there hasn't been that attending ... that listening
  carefully ... that hearing of the Dhamma ... that memorizing ... that
  penetration of the meaning of the teachings ... that agreement through
  pondering the teachings ... that wishing-to-do ... that effort ...
  that meditating insight ... that dedicating his life. You have lost
  the way, monks. You have gone the wrong way, monks. How far have you
  strayed, foolish men (moghapurisa), from this Dhamma & Discipline!

I have edited many part of the translated sutta follow to many pali of many sutta and commentaries. I wish the editing makes easier for the reader to connect the sequence of steps.

If not having faith in Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, such would not valid allow the use of "Buddh(a)ist" per definition of the Buddha.
"Should I have faith that it will come true?" vs. "Or should I just do what I think is right?"
If seeing that there is not different, than one has actually faith, but just to the amout of the quality of "think that is right". Now for more better than used, one has to open ones faith in doing good more than used.
There is not a single action, all of the time, that does not require faith at first place, that expected results will come by it. Each step, each word, each taken on thought. Only an Arahat acts on knowing as he has no more what he desires to gain.
As for wishing to be a Buddhist, better do Buddhist, it requires min. faith into Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
Saddha increases and gets firm only by practice, doing and by no other way: Dana, Sila, Reflecting the Dhamma. And without faith, doubt (one of the 5 hindances), no progress or even worse.
Nothing is more importand as to associate with people of less to no doubts to gain required faith. Something that is surely hard to gain if under people who didn't left home.
Faith, Saddha (meaning willing to sacrifices toward skillful) is the primare cause of the "depending co-disappearing", e.g. gaining path and fruit.

joy has conviction/faith as it's prerequisite...concentration...release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite."

More on the huge importance of faith:
 - "For a lay person, there are these five rewards of conviction. Which five?
  - Respect, Confidence and Patient
  -  Faith In Awakening
  -  Refuge: An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha
  -  The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
or
  -  A Look at the Kalama Sutta
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds, is for bounds, but as a tiny door for an exit from the wheel)


text:
Can a Buddhist monk use social media for his teaching?
As far as I understand, there are sets of rules to be observed as a monastic monk and I'm not sure if TV, radio and other source of media is allowed?
Just curious to know, no offense.

See also Does using or watching YouTube break a bhikkhu's rules? and How are bhikkhus using social networking sites?

A monk can appear in all social media, but there are, according to the Navakovada, some things he cannot talk about, if certain conditions are not met. Since he does not know whom is out there doing what, he might choose not to teach the Dhamma.
This is a bit of a grayzone, so it is up to each monks own evaluation whether he will do it or not.

Householder Sunset_Limited, interested,
a monk serious in taking only what if given in faith, without strings, may use social medias to teach if given, invited.
In regard of online social medias such will be very seldom the case and he is not able to get into contracts or take things with strings binding him. It would be also not proper to use third part, not given maintained recources, can not relay one common folk given rights (for duties or getting bond).
It's also improper to share Dhamma as a means of trade, direct or indirect.
How ever, to draw cases form the Vinaya, he might make shortly make use of such, similar the Buddha allowed to approach places of common charity alms giving for two or three times.
General the case of teaching not able to perceive others proper or improper regard is problematic since Bhikkhus would not be allowed to teach people showing marks of disrespect or disregarding attention. People are reading and watching in what ever situations... even on the toilet!
As long as not perceived... good, an escape, but not really good for freedom of remorse.
One might also perceive others as sick or not capable to go on, and modern world is at large to be regarded sick.
Some advices therefore on [Avatar and User placements](Avatar and User placements - Avatar und Benutzereinstellungen).
It's also not proper to disturb in medias which have different interests and seeing, watching, reading Dhamma next even porns or low entertainment, market... even encouraged to such places by monks... how inspiring whould such be, how dangerous for both?
It's surely because there are many not ashamed in all this things that there are nearly no proper places dedicated for the tripple Gems and where monks are proper invited. Even so called Dhamma places are actually not accessable, welcoming and inviting monks! Not to understand as claim but to possible see your own situation around you might be used of and not aware.
To found such places, found and give the foundation for such is not only of high merits but also that difficult to perform.
In a world that does not fear the debts of consume, one is really blessed if tracing fundamental wrongs and starts to understand the requirement of generosity at first place.
There is all proper place for gratitude toward those who make one receive Dhamma or engage in other merits on proper places, proper circumstances, at least also toward your past own sacrifices, which caused you to be touched and come this here and possible further, into borderland.
Some possible inspirations also here, in an older meta-topic: Would it be of interest to get answers from Monks and Nuns?, longer time ago.
At last but not least, from the highest blessings:

To reside in a suitable locality,6 to have done meritorious actions in the past and to set oneself in the right course7 — this is the greatest blessing.
To be respectful,13 humble, contented and grateful; and to listen to the Dhamma on due occasions14 — this is the greatest blessing.
To be patient and obedient, to associate with monks and to have religious discussions on due occasions — this is the greatest blessing.

Mudita! Yet be also clear that ones gained merits are not for sure, decay, and required inwardly and outwardly nourishement to die not off as fast as touched by past.
One may feel always given to make use of given possibilities here, at least, even and of coures welcome, if just taking as inspiration to take on of what is difficult to take on and since beginn and enter of the rains tomorrow, here also a best wishes, blessing and encouragement for all around and touched.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Are there any alternative formulations of the five skandas?
Considering the 5 skandas of

Form
Feeling
Perception
Volition
Consciousness

I was told during a study group once that this was only one of many possible formulations of the skandas and other groupings and numbers of skandas were possible and used. However I have never come across any variation in this scheme. Is anyone aware of any alternative formulations of the five skandas?

If you want to go outside of Buddhism, you can look into Bundle Theory.

The 18 Dhatus
Which is a breakdown or ultimate-categorization of Experience utilizing the

six (sense-)consciousnesses
six sense faculties / sense organs
six types of object or "focality"

If you enjoy thinking about [the world/scene/experience] in terms of
vibrations, you might consider harmonic spots or resonant lengths along a wave as being able to build up and "accumulate"
Have also heard of the aggregates spoken of as "heaps"

There is also the Three kayas or "Buddha bodies" which might be of interest
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Three_kayas

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of alternatives:
Onefold: saṅkhāra

formations; everything that arises and ceases
all five aggregates fit in this category.

Twofold: nāmarūpa

name and form (body and mind); divided into material (rūpa) and immaterial (arūpa)
the first aggregate is rūpa, the rest are nāma.

Threefold: paramattha-dhamma

ultimate reality; divided into citta, cetasika and rūpa (excluding nibbāna, which is khandha-vimutti - liberated from the khandas)
the first aggregate is rūpa, the fifth is citta, the other three are cetasika.

Fourfold: satipaṭṭhāna

objects of the establishing of remembrance; body, feelings, mind, dhammas
body is first aggregate, feelings is second, mind is fifth, dhammas is all five.

Fourfold: ariyasacca

noble truths
all five fall under the first noble truth, besides tanha (under the fourth aggregate), which constitutes the second noble truth.

Twelvefold: āyatana

bases; the six internal (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and six external (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, thoughts)
all five aggregates arise based on the contact between each of the first five internal bases with their external counterpart. As for the sixth, rūpa is excluded (but still present as hadayavatthu) since thoughts are not physical, nor is the mind.

Twelvefold: paticcasamupāda

dependent origination; ignorance, mental formations, consciousness, body and mind, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, suffering.
ignorance and mental formations are part of the fourth aggregate; consciousness is the fifth; body and mind are all five; six sense bases as above; contact is fourth; feeling is second; craving, clinging, and becoming are fourth; birth is probably fifth?; suffering is all five except tanha.

Eighteenfold: dhatu

elements; as with the āyatana, adding the six viññāṇa
as with āyatana, but described as contact between the three.

Twentytwofold: indriya

faculties; the six sense faculties, the two genders and the life faculty, the five feeling faculties, the five mental faculties, and three enlightenment faculties (see here for details)
the first group involves all five aggregates, the second is part of the first aggregate,, the third is equivalent to the second aggregate, the fourth falls under the fourth aggregate, and the fifth may be khandha-vimutti, but I'm not sure.

'Birth' is the 4th aggregate. It is a 'formation'. Refer to: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html

Yes the 18 dhatus but there are others -  the titles here IIRC
If you think about it, the skandhas are said to be everything that exists, so any complete description of what exists will be equivalent ways of formulating the skandhas.
Though that wouldn't necessarily include the study of say theoretical physics, because the Buddha taught (at least according to abhidammma) that reality is composed of both matter AND mind.
I'd recommend reading some commentaries on the abhidamma, maybe someone can advise on what :)

Awesome link!  Yes there are many possible breakdowns/formulations.

One may speak of the skandhas (Sanskrit), khandhas (Pāḷi) or aggregates (English) named as matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon contains the teachings of the Buddha, as preserved by the Theravada tradition. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta the Buddha explains how the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering. A diagram based on the Majjhima Nikaya sutta #109 is presented here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PancaKhandha].

i voted down cos OP isn't asking for different words bubt different conceptions - RIGHT ?

yes, this answer doesn't appear to answer the question.

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


text:
MN26: "not even has Alaro Kalamo..." or "not only Alaro Kalamo has ..." or "Alaro Kalamo has not only..."?
I have a problem with that -in my feeling- contradictory translations of a remark in MN26. While K.E.Neumann uses an expression like "(...) not even Alaro Kalamo has (...), but I have (...) " Kay Zumwinkel translates: " not only Alaro Kalamo has (...), but also I have (...)"
The Zumwinkel's version is also compatible with the english version by Thanissaro Bhikku at AtI.org (still the focus of the sentence is a bit shifted). But the two other versions suggest that Neumann has an error here.
But of what type is the error with respect to the original? Is the expression in the original ambiguous (look at the additional tiny discrepancy between Zuminkel and Thanissaro)? Or is there some other reason why Neumann could possibly have made that translation which could be a bit more sensical than a simple error?

Palikanon.com, MN26, K. E. Neumann

Da kam mir, ihr Mönche, der Gedanke: 'Nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat
  Zuversicht, ich aber habe Zuversicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo hat
  Standhaftigkeit, ich aber habe Standhaftigkeit; nicht einmal Alaro
  Kalamo hat Einsicht, ich aber habe Einsicht; nicht einmal Alaro Kalamo
  hat Selbstvertiefung, ich aber habe Selbstvertiefung; nicht einmal
  Alaro Kalamo hat Weisheit, ich aber habe Weisheit.

"(...) not even Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, but I have; not even Alaro Kalamo has persistence, but I have (...)"
Palikanon.com, MN26, Kay Zumwinkel

"Ich erwog: 'Nicht nur Āḷāra Kālāma hat Vertrauen, Energie,
  Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit. Auch ich habe Vertrauen,
  Energie, Achtsamkeit, Konzentration und Weisheit.

"(...) not only Alaro Kalamo has faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... Also I have faith/conviction, persistence, mindfulness... (...)"
Access to Insight, MN 26, Thanissaro Bhikku

"I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence,
  mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction,
  persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment.(...)

Palikanon.com, MN26, Pali
(I hope I managed to extract the correct, relevant record below.... )

Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi –
  ‘na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi saddhā, mayhaṃpatthi saddhā;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi vīriyaṃ, mayhaṃpatthi vīriyaṃ;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi sati, mayhaṃpatthi sati;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi samādhi, mayhaṃpatthi samādhi;
   na kho āḷārasseva kālāmassa atthi paññā, mayhaṃpatthi paññā.
      (...)

(If in fact that is the relevant Pali-expression, then at least the form <something> kalama, <something> me seems to be preserved by the translation of K.E. Neumann as far as I can regognize the pattern of sentences)

Either is technically possible, I think, but only one makes sense in the context. Here eva in āḷārasseva means "only", not "even", since we know that āḷāra indeed has faith, etc., according to the passage prior to this:

tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi — ‘na kho āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ kevalaṃ saddhāmattakena sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharāmīti pavedeti; addhā āḷāro kālāmo imaṃ dhammaṃ jānaṃ passaṃ viharatī’ti.
"At that, monks, it came to me thus: 'not indeed by faith alone does āḷāra kālāma declare this dhamma in its entirety thus: "having known for myself with higher knowledge I dwell having attained it". Indeed, āḷāra kālāma dwells having known and seen this dhamma."

So the context implies that indeed he does have the faith, etc., he's just not alone in having that faith, etc..
Also, if it was going to be "but I have faith...", we would expect mayhaṃ pana rather than mayhaṃpi (mayhaṃpatthi = mayhaṃ+pi+atthi), since pi generally means "and, also", and not usually "but".

Thanks for working that out! It still left me a bit puzzled; with K.E. Neumann not being squarely wrong I try to find an intuition, why he might have put the former seeker Siddharta in such a bold position. For me, reading the Palicanon suttas, it is also important to "taste" the occuring personality of the Buddha (which helps for instance in sorting out apocryphas which paint out a completely different person than that in the suttas) - and even if Neumann's bold ascetic here could be realistic: is it likely? ... Hmm, too little info, I think I'd postpone this for another time...

... and better assume your interpretation as the best one for the time being.


text:
Is another person necessary to produce merit?
Can someone produce merit without impacting directly another person? For instance: Meditating alone.
I appreciate all answers but I'm more curious about Theravada view. While meditating with Tibetan teachers (Mahayana) they did mention meditation alone can create merit.

can you accept the answer on this?

From Iti 60:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three grounds for meritorious activity. Which three? The ground for meritorious activity made of giving, the ground for meritorious activity made of virtue, and the ground for meritorious activity made of development [meditation]. These are the three grounds for meritorious activity.

And with just meditation alone, the generated peace and serenity could very well benefit many other beings with form or without form living nearby..


text:
Is buddha nature active?
Is Buddha nature active or passive?
Would anyone say that enlightenment means we can suffer (frustration) in an active way?

What do you mean by 'active' and 'passive'?

oh that's a good question... a passive suffering would be feeling bad, an active suffering would i guess be feeling bad but feeling also like you're doing something about it. oh i guess that's a little atmanistic .

It could be the two simultaneously - paradoxes. But "active" or "passive" in relation to what?

oh another good question. suffering, by that our own or someone elses. i guess ? !

The Buddha nature is neither active, nor passive, nor both, nor neither.  :-)

It depends on who perceives it, depends on what's being talked about, and it can be the both at the same time.
Eastern philosophy and spirituality is very different from our western logic. For us, it must be A or not A, for them it can be A and not A at the same time. In Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" there is a handful of paradoxes.
Coming back to the question, to the western mindset it seems that being active is good and being passive is bad. But it wouldn't be correct to assert that Buddhism is active just to say that it is good. So I prefer to say that enlightenment isn't one nor another. Or, in mystical terms, it is a balance between active and passive energies.
Meditation can look like a very passive practice, since you stay still, you stop moving, you stop talking, you calm down thinking and other mind processes. Then you stay there passive to noise, to itches, to mosquitoes, to pain, to chatter in the mind, to boredom, and so on.
Now, if you look from another perspective, meditation is very active. Nowadays people fill their days with activities, there is always something to do avoid tedium. Usually when someone starts meditating, it requires a great amount of effort to not move and to calm down the thoughts. People usually need to actively practice meditation to achieve subtler states of mind.
You will never listen someone saying something like "There was nothing to do and I was bored and then I suddenly realized that I was meditating."
Now, in enlightenment the underlying constant existential suffering isn't produced. It isn't fed, as if the ground of mind wasn't fertile for growing suffering. So if it doesn't exist, there can't be a relation of passivity or activity to it.
If you take mundane suffering such as physical pain or emotional pain, it keeps happening, but there won't be a "me" that feels pain. But there is just pain. You could say that enlightenment is passive because there is just a stream of phenomena that flows and between these phenomena there is pain. You could also say that enlightenment is active because there is complete presence and clear awareness of all phenomena that emerges, and nothing we judge as bad could produce the slightest suffering.
And finally, "active" and "passive" are just concepts. If you are taking the path to enlightenment, instead of trying to define it take the path to get there. And if you are just trying to define it, be warned that words and thoughts are too limited for this task.

Is the redness of an apple an active or passive principle? The true nature of the apple is that it has no absolute colour to be either active or passive, the perception of colour being born in interdependence, not of the apple itself, and as this is its true nature, is it an active or passive nature?
Some questions are slippery and invalid. Does a dog have Buddha nature?


text:
Kamma and (psychiatric) delusions / madness
if I am mad and my action would not have been performed if not for loss of reality (i.e. psychosis) will I still bear its -ve fruit?
As a Buddhist or otherwise.
Please answer sensitively :)

"The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma"
You have to look at the action (good or bad) and the  consequence( Kamma & vipaka). whether one has a sound mind or unsound mind doesn't matter, without intention there is no action.
Even a person suffering from psychosis uses his mind to do things,  so without thoughts nothing good or bad  happens( the thoughts may be abnormal,incomplete,unclear or confusing)  ,but a person with psychosis may not feel the consequences like a normal person ,so the magnitude of suffering may differ for the same actions committed by different people.

I'm not sure I agree with jathin's answer. There was a case in my country a few years ago, where someone on a bus cut off someone else's head. They did that, because they thought that they were sitting next to a devil. The criminal justice trial found them "not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility", they were remanded for psychiatric care, and later released (with anti-psychotic medication).
I'm not sure I know about kamma but I think that intention follows from view, and if your view is psychotic (e.g. if you think you're sitting next to a devil) then I'm not sure.
I slightly doubt whether Buddhism would recommend you kill even a "devil" if you meet one: but still.
I think that the Vinaya (see page 74 through 86) identifies what constitutes murder:

Object: the victim must have been human
Intention and perception: the assailant must have intended to cause death
Effort: the assailant must have done something to cause death
Result: the victim had to actually die as a result

I'm not sure whether the Vinaya rule is the same as "kamma", but I'd argue that psychosis may prevent intention and/or perception.
In my country, an adult who is psychotic may be given a court-appointed legal guardian -- that is, if they're unable to make informed decisions, if they cannot give informed consent, because they are:

Unable to understand the choices available to them
Unable to understand the likely consequences of each choice.

The first story of the Dhammapada is about someone who couldn't see with their eyes. Maybe someone with psychosis cannot properly see with their mind (and cannot form criminal intent).


text:
How common is stream entry?
Lots of questions on stream entry here.
I have practiced Mahayana Buddhism without a huge success - for sure. But still, I was of the opinion that such attainment as stream entry was rare in the extreme.
Perhaps 1/1000 monks, and much less even in the devout laity.
How common is it? I have a somewhat devout Theravadin friend, is he a saint :o !

my working is pretty simple: self enlightenment is 1,000,000, a small amount of people have that seed. the rest p much have the arhat seed. suppose that a monk is half as saintly as a self enlightened being. that makes 1,000. laity 100,000... my presentation is fuzzy but yeah...

hmmm  here is a free book. it has about 40+ sutta of a stream enterer (none-contradict each other whatsoever.  We buddhists want to know if we have achieved this level of dharma.
Buddha allowed us to proclaim ourselves so and here is the tool.
http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf
I remember a sutta from pali cannon where this rich merchant invited buddha to receive meal at his mansion in a week.  later a king or prince desperately wanted buddha to come eat at his place on the same day (i dont recall why).  Buddha said he couldnt change the reservation without consent from this merchant because he invited him first.  So buddha sent ven Moggallana to this merchant to see what he would think about moving the reservation to a week later.  the marchant would agree if ven Moggallana  could confirm 4 (or maybe 5) things  1) would he still be alive ?  answer was yes.  2) would buddha still be alive? yes. 3) would he still have his wealth? yes.  4) would he still have the unshakable confidence in buddha?  ven Moggallana did not answer the last question citing that this was something the merchant had the ability to answer that himself.   finally he agreed to move the reservation to a week later.   Point is, a confidence in buddha, dharma, sangha is one characteristic of a stream enterer.  And Buddha was explicit that only him and yourself can make such a claim.
How common is it?  Buddha said in one sutta, plenty. not 10, 100, 1000+ as long as 8 fold path is practiced, world is not going to be absent of an arayan (those who is a stream enterer or higher. perfectly good word ruined by Nazi).  also compare to another sutta, he compared dust on his finger tips to the entire earth as reference to numbers of Arayans compare to all other beings (seen and unseen) so the ratio would be large!
read the book and ask yourself.  only you can proclaim yourself ..

oh of course i didn't mean it about individuals !! metta :)

except my friend hahaha : !!! :

ha ha  .. another characteristic of stream enterer i found not in that book.  stream enterers never use words as spear or knife to attack or harm others no matter how angry he gets. my personal opinion, plenty of sotapanna out there.  if we are facing in the right direction, and start taking that first step, we will reach our destination one day (hopefully shorter than 7 lives time).  I am a thevarada buddhist .  i dont know much about mahayana teaching at all :-(  i assume 4 noble truths and 8 fold paths are common accross the board?

every tradition i think uses them, but in different ways !

As long as there are people who practice the 4 foundation of mindfullness there will be a people who have attainment some stage of sainthood.
There are only a few who have achieved it is because the practice has reduced. Many call them selves Buddhist but do not practice the 4 foundation of mindfullness.
So you have to practice it in the right way then success will follow. But again in bussy modern times the time and temperament to devote a lot of time to practice is lacking.


text:
Time in Buddhism
I read a couple of books on time, yet they all seemed somewhat incomplete, as if it was something simply tagged onto the rebirth / enlightenment doctrine.
How important is time in Buddhism, not simple "impermanence" but how impermanence is housed. Or is there nothing to time beyond impermanence?
I saw on philosophy stackexchange, something about this, but I'm getting quite a bad reputation there... Do "people" experience time? Is an experience of time actual time?
Because I think that if so, that's where the biases and make believe of comtemporary science, collapses !!
Thank you so much :)

This is 3 questions with a question mark, implied that people are "people", science is biased and make believe and you're not using the word time in the colloquial sense. Maybe you could narrow your question and define your use of the word time? Also Buddhism isn't physics, it's not about working out time and space, it is interested in experience, e.g. should we focus our attention on the present vs the non-present. I think the Buddha could care less about what time really was (the 4th dimension?)

ok i think you read a lot into my question that wasn't there e.g. "buddhism isn't physics" but thanks for commenting

You might be interested in this answer. Though apparently about Karma, it is heavily involved with ideas about the perception of time and the nature and longevity of the perceiver. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5288/is-it-me-or-someone-else-paying-karma-for-my-sins

There are two Pali words that seem relevant to this question:

Kalika meaning "related to time"
Akalika meaning "not related to time"

There's a definition of the words here in this 'glossology': Akalika --
Timelessness, A synonym for Arahantship, An attribute of the Dhamma
It suggests two meanings for kalika:

Two events can be said to kalika when they are successive, and do not happen at the same time: for example, the in-breath and the out-breath
Also (etymologically) the track of scat left by an animal (one week old, two days old, one day old, etc.)

There's some question about what akalika means (because akalika is supposed to be an attribute of Dharma).
Some suggest it means timeless:

This practice is said to be akaliko — timeless. The Buddha's teachings are timeless.

Later in the same paragraph he clarifies that by "timeless" he means "always" (i.e. continuously and not just continually):

The fact that there are no developments in our practice is because we have times. The Buddha says, "timeless." We say there are times. Our times are more than many. Time for this, time for that, times for walking, times for sitting, times for sleeping, times for eating, times for talking — there are lots of them. Our life turns into nothing but times. So now let's try practicing in a way that it becomes timeless. The truth will then appear in our minds — each and every one of us.

A different suggestion is that akalika might mean "true in all three times (past, present and future)".
A final suggestion is that it means "immediately"; or even better, that it means "without delay".

hi ChrisW, i wondered if you felt that everything in time is kalika, that akalika is not conditioned? for me this would v important, implying that the conditioned has no absolute end - no end that exists independent of its cognition.

The reason that you don't see a lot of dialogue about time is that it is a difficult subject to get right at the best of times, and not really necessary to liberation. It might be considered nothing more than a cosmological inquiry, something to be avoided in favor of practice. However...
All that which is compounded, conditioned, dependently arisen and empty is impermanent, temporary, an apparition, ephemeral, gone already, in fact never here at all. Time is empty, it is conditioned, compounded, ultimately unreal. It cannot be truly grasped. Nagarjuna tackles time in chapter 19 of his Mulamadyamakakarika, aka the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
He begins with a demonstration that it is absurd to postulate the true existence of an actual past, present and future, asserting that these things exist in name only, as concepts only. The arguments he makes here are complicated, rely on previous chapters of his book, and concern causality, interdependence and the nature of how things arise, and the full argument is beyond the scope of a comment thread. Essentially, however, an existence with a true past, future, and present moment that actually exist is seen as a mere concept, and is therefore unreal. Common sense time is unreal. This realized wisdom has the effect of releasing us from the anxiety of the pressing urgency of time.
Since time as past, present, and future is ultimately unreal, we move on to time as a fleeting flow vs time as something that can exist in "a singular moment" of time. This is also demonstrated to be lacking of true existence. Continuously fleeting time cannot be grasped, and if a moment of time is singled out, it ceases to "be" time. Time is ungraspable. This realized wisdom has the effect of releasing us from grasping and clinging at time.
Finally, he argues against a self-existing time, showing time as being compounded. In his study on the Mulamadyamakakarika Jay Garfield concludes that

Nagarjuna points out that with no entities to be temporally related,
  there is no time. That is, the only mode of existence that time has is
  as a set of relations among empirical phenomena. Apart from
  those phenomena and those relations, there is no time. But that
  means that, given the lack of inherent existence of phenomena,
  there can be no inherent existence of time. Time is thus merely a
  dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right, and
  certainly not the inherently existent vessel of existence it might
  appear to be.

Emphasis added was mine, as it pertains directly to your question. The effect of this realized wisdom is to release us from the erroneous notion of an absolute, true existence of time, this eases grasping at true existence. It shows us that time is relational, is tied to space and objects, and that since no true objects have absolute existence, neither does time. It is just another phenomena in flux.
A study of this chapter can be found here, with an emphasis that what Nagarjuna denies is absolute time, or an independently existing time.
Nagarjuna, a founder of Middle Way, Mahayana philosophy, shows us that the only way to consider time is as empty, relative time that is dependent on other phenomena to exist at all, and, like all other phenomena, is always in flux. It conventionally is a co-dependently arisen phenomena, and therefore ultimately is unreal, that is to say cannot be truly found when looked for. This is how time is actually experienced. Unreal, ungraspable, empty.
Finally, impermanence is not, in any way, a thing that is housed. It is a characteristic of all phenomena. To say that it is housed is erroneous, the apparent objects that are marked by impermanence are not even seen as having self-existence, so no true object at the end of the day outside of the concept of one. So there is, ultimately, no object to hold the characteristic, only the perception of non-permanence.

Time is relative, has no absolute existence and is dependent on space and objects, is precisely what is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which was experimentally proven in 1919.

M'm, quantum Buddha!!

a pretty good answer. i was more interested in philosophy than what can be "truly found when looked for" but i'm sure it'll be useful for someone :)

Not sure what you're looking for, this is pretty much the extent ot the philosophical exploration of time in BUddhist thought, AFAIK. Buddhism does not concern itself with mere mental meanderings, it looks to realty to discover the true nature of a thing, in this case time.


text:
The difference between a great man and an enlightening being
Hope that my question is pertinent here :) ?
Can anyone here help me think about the difference between the two :) ?

An enlightened being is a great man.
A great man is not always an enlightened being.


text:
What is suchness (esp in Tendai or Soto)
In this thread I asked about active and passive suffering.
But I'm not quite sure what I mean.
It may help to know what suchenss is? I know it translates to "as it is"... so is that impermanence? Or something more subtle ?
Thanks!

of course how it is now isn't how it will always be. so how can you find an immutable suchness? or is the principle of suchness always changing ?

As far as I can tell so far, this is a common mahayana theme about something that is ineffable, something impossible to put to words. What is the world? It is what it is, which isn't helpful, so you have to understand it though directly felt wisdom. But I'm not a Tendai expert.

Suchness means there is no construing. Kalaka Sutta may be useful to know the meaning of "such":
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html

What does Suchness mean when we say "as it is"?
It comes from the fact that whatever we see, is due to the eye perceiving an object and the mind creating an image of the object. If the eye is defective, say colour blind, then the appearance of the object in the mind is different from that for a normal eye.
Even though if we have normal eyes, the object we see is still created by the mind. So what difference is it from what we sometimes see in dreams?
We can only perceived that which is created by the mind and not really know the essence of the objects out there in the world - "as it is" or suchness is the name given to these objects which are inexpressible. Images, sounds, texture, scents and tastes are all we know through the mind.
Moreover dogs perceive the world differently from us so do other beings.
That's my understanding from the Theravada tradition.


text:
How irony and sarcasm are seen in Buddhism?
How irony and sarcasm are seen in Buddhism? For example, are they considered wrong speech in all ocasions?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,,

For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness — all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there's enough irony in the state of the world that we don't need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote,

Harsh speech is speech uttered in anger, intended to cause the hearer pain. Such speech can assume different forms, of which we might mention three. One is abusive speech: scolding, reviling, or reproving another angrily with bitter words. A second is insult: hurting another by ascribing to him some offensive quality which detracts from his dignity. A third is sarcasm: speaking to someone in a way which ostensibly lauds him, but with such a tone or twist of phrasing that the ironic intent becomes clear and causes pain.

Buddha's criticism of a monk who broke his celibate vows is as follows:
"Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina." -- etc etc etc.
Is this not harsh speech? Speech uttered in anger? Intended to cause the hearer pain? Is this not abusive speech, reviling, insulting, hurting, etc?

@KrishnarajRao I asked a similar question, which was given this answer.

@ChrisW - If that link is the answer, then it is highly metaphorical, lengthy, roundabout, and beyond my limited ability to understand. A more direct answer would be of some use.

@KrishnarajRao IMO Yuttadhammo may have implied that the Buddha is dispassionate (he wrote that "The closest he gets to actual disturbance" is "Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected"); and that the canon shows the Buddha is willing to be disparaging of people's actions sometimes (e.g. "so vile and evil-living a person as you"). The right speech doctrine implies you can say things which aren't "endearing and agreeable to others", provided they're true, beneficial, and said at the proper time.

The Abhaya Sutta is specifically a follow-on to what the Buddha said to Devadatta.

The list of what to consider before speaking that I read was: is it true, kind and helpful, and is it needed now? A lot of silly or sarcastic remarks would fail simply on being unnecessary, but there is a more important side to that criterion.

@nocomprende "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Reference)

Yes, a wise person can rightly utter words that no one else may. Typically it is for one's Guru to do this, but just as any adult may discipline a child, any wise person should say what is necessary. The standard of 'kindness' could thus vary, but people who are not enlightened should err on the side of carefulness.

Buddhism differs from Islam or Christianity is that you are not expected to believe in anything just in blind faith, but with common sense. That also includes questioning validity and authenticity of some of the sutras and passages, and lengthy discourses within schools themselves. There is simply no way that all of it in its entirety (in both Theravada and Mahayana) was uttered by Buddha and that is what constitutes wisdom.

The Buddha himself was quite sarcastic, ironic and funny, as all wise people tend to be. Of course he knew what to say, and when to say it.

Can you give an example of something the Buddha said that's meant to be understood as sarcasm?

@ChrisW I've heard that there is humour in the Pali Canon before but I can't give examples so I've asked the question explicitly http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8093/157. Maybe not sarcasm but humour certainly

I came across a sutta before but I can't find it now, where the Buddha replies to a monk something like, "ah.. now the student has become smarter than the teacher" which could be considered sarcastic. The monk asked a question like if there is no self then who experiences the results of karma or something like that.

Buddha himself his speech was full of irony and sarcasm, its all over the pages I have read in the Chinese Classical Sutras. I can recall easily some from my memory:
When criticizing those who practiced the Dharma wrongly but wishing for attainment, he said they were wishing making rice by cooking the sands (煮沙成飯), Surangama Sutra. It was directed to those who didn't conquer sexual desire but wanting any fruition of the practice.
When criticizing another wrong practice, he said using human fece crafting an artwork of sandalwood hoping it gave out the fragrance of sandalwood (人糞刻旃檀形).
Criticizing the Brahmin's Self notion, he said it was like a worm by accident eating out a piece of wood forming pattern looked like a letter, they thought the worm knew language!《大般湼槃經》.
I very much agree with Ven. Thanissaro as quoted by above ChrisW. When someone is full of wisdom his speech is an art of speech of the highest form.


text:
Shamata and vipassana - loss of willpower
I've been meditating (somewhat regularly) about one or two years back. Mainly shamata, and vipassana lately. Today I feel that my willpower is considerably lower than before.
I mean, I used to be very interested in a variety things (such as music theory, matial arts, computer programming paradigms, algorithms, and so on). And lately I'm not feeling interested in them so much as I did before. Some years ago I used to think about them, study them and practice them.
Lately I'm not engaged in any of these activities, besides what relates to my job. Sometimes I think about getting involved with one or another of them, but soon I feel unwilling to get exposed to unsatisfying activities, I feel there is no sense to make effort on impermanent matters.
When I started meditating I thought I wouldn't lose "my interests", and now I feel somewhat lost by this lack of enthusiasm. It doesn't feel bad at all, I'm just a bit unsure about letting my secular skills and interest fade away. I'm not sure it is ok if this unwillingness deepens.
Do you think it is OK? Is it expected in the Buddhist path? Do you think I should let it happen?
Or do you think there is something missing in my practice? Do you think something must be done about it?
I'm asking for an advice, so I'll allow myself to be partial to choose an answer.

i don't know, could be zen sickness, could be a psychological problem, i don't know...

Write an answer about zen sickness. It is probably ok if you write more than one single line or paragraph.

i don't know much about it

Related questions: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2287/strange-feelings-after-meditation-and-mindfullness-practice and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1999/overwhelming-states-of-being-reached-through-meditation

I can relate to your question. I too come from a software background and have had a similar set of experiences.
Even though we have had similar experiences, the underlying cause could be different. I'll share with you why I think I have had these experiences; perhaps some of my thoughts/insights might be useful to you.
You mention being interested in a variety of things: music, martial arts, software, etc. According to me all of these things -- even when they are interesting --  take a slice of your mental space. They take up space in the memory as well as the mind's computing cycles.
Software development, among all these activities is a bit different, in that it is the most stressful. Most programmers start of with a lot of passion and try to keep track of several things in their field. This is a very commendable attitude, but the rate at which stuff changes has become absolutely insane in the last few years. So IMO, regardless of passion, you are developing stress under the surface, just by having to keep up with so much. I think many of us have a silent inner fear of becoming out of touch with current knowledge. This stress works on the brain silently, till a point where something's got to break. This is not just my opinion - I have read several blog posts by developers who feel the same way.
A reason why sometimes we try to do a variety of things is because we have an achievement oriented mindset. Such a mindset unfortunately always comes with an underlying stress of not having achieved enough, and it pushes a person to achieve more, to do more. Maybe such a person cannot feel comfortable until they have spent themselves totally in trying to do things. If that is true, then fatigue and stress is bound to accumulate in the mind - and show it's impact at some point.
Now let's come to your spiritual practice. A very nice (but sometimes undesirable from a worldly perspective) effect of meditation is, that it makes you start calling out those things that are stressing you without adding any value to your life. Sure, meditation brings authentic joy, but the path to authentic joy for some/many people is through the process of calling out those things that are sapping on the spirit.
Once you start calling out things that have become part of your daily routing, suddenly everything might feel meaningless. There sets in a form of exhaustion and detachment from everything.
I am not saying this is a healthy state, but it may be part of the landscape. Even though joy and energy are some of the factors of enlightenment, not everyone experiences them right away. Very often growth happens through a tunnel of hopelessness.
This moment is perfect the way it is - just breathe -- A Zen Saying
Does this saying feel liberating to you? If it does and if you feel that you have an achievement mindset, then tempering it with a certain calm acceptance of the present might help.
Try doing fewer things and don't feel compelled to fill your day with something or the other. See if that helps. Give yourself the luxury of feeling happy even when you are not doing tasks that are in some way adding to your knowledge, etc.
I would like to respectfully disagree with the fact that joy, energy and calmness are factors which develop once someone starts meditating. Sure, they will and should develop, but nobody can say when. Different people come to meditation at different points in their life and with different backgrounds. They are certainly going to have different experiences.
IMO and with a disclaimer that it comes purely from my subjective experiences, I don't think there is anything wrong in the way you feel. Examine why you are feeling listless. Could it be that you have been over extending yourself from several years. Are you feeling tired from having to do so many things? It's possible that this is a phase, or it's possible it might be a time to introspect and find out if you are leading the kind of life that is authentic to you.
There are many mediators whose journey involves dark and difficult periods. I think it's important to be honest with yourself and also maintain a sense of humor.
I'll say, honor your journey and examine your reactions. I am sure your own self examination will show you the right way.
Great question - and an important one. Thanks for asking.

"... are (you) feeling tired to having to do so many things?" No, nowadays I do much less things than I used to do two or three years ago. Maybe I'm concerned with losing my secular skills in the sense that I'm becoming less productive. I think I will post another question about productivity, but you can improve your answer in this point if you wish.

Oh, I didn't mean to fix te spelling, but instead, to replace your open question with something related to my comment above. Well, you decide.

Just a word on the very specific "keeping up with things" angle in software development, which applies to me as well. I came to peace with it by "standing ready". I don't try to keep up with things that are not directly related to my work. Instead I keep my mind trained and open, and am able to relax in the knowledge that I will be able to catch up with whatever a changing work environment might demand in short time, building on the general experience gathered over time. Not sure how this would relate to Buddhism specifically, but it allowed me to "let go" of that particular worry.

@DevSolar "letting go" of the particular worry is an important point. For me the constant internal pressure of feeling that I have to keep up with all that's happening resulted in a lot of stress and eventual disillusionment with software development in general. It was a lot like what happens when the hard disk thrashes :) I like your idea of standing ready and making peace. Do you follow any disciplined/deliberate way of 'being ready' or is it random reading/experimenting with things that catch your eye?

@Parag: Nothing formalized. I refuse to settle for "good enough" (and becoming close-minded and falling behind). I always do a bit more than just what's required, learning new ways and new things wherever I get the opportunity as my work touches on a subject. "Keep learning", but focussed on what I can or could apply to my current work. Trying to "be good" at what I am currently doing and at learning, instead of learning trying to be good at everything. Ready to start over with something else entirely if necessary. I'm 42 with 15 years in the business, and it has worked well so far.

@Parag: The other thing is private projects. I wanted to play a certain RPG, but it was never fully translated to German. So I did it myself, over the course of four years -- and in the process, learned LaTeX and became proficient at using the Vim editor. When there was talk that we might re-write the C++ code base I was working on, I was thinking on setting up a build system "done right", and how nice it would be to give it to others as well, so I did the learning and testing in my spare time and uploaded the framework as open source. That kind of suff -- if it's worth doing, do it right.

The answer has the sentence: "I think many of us have a silent inner fear ..." It is very important to realize that you can not analyze away or reason with an unreasoning (unconsious) fear-base in your mind. The only way I know is to face it relentlessly. Just take good care of yourself meanwhile. An unreasoning fear will destroy you if not handled properly.

@nocomprende Agreed, fear must be faced relentlessly. I have experienced the damage it can do. Although I am uncertain what can be done besides accepting the fear and meditating.

You lose interest because your MINDFUL. Mindfulness acts like a barrier or a filter. It creates distance. Your not as engaged to the five senses and it's objects as you use to be, therefore your not lost or absorbed in it.When we are mindlessly absorbed in something we are at the mercy of our greed, hate and delusions .In other words your no longer acting subconsciously. So when your conscious you kind of realise you don't have to engage in certain activities.
For example I use to like watching tv. But ever since I have been practicing being  mindful through out the day I find it almost "senseless" to sit in front of a box. Especially when you are mindful through out the show.?? It's almost like mindfulness filters our activities to what's useful and what's not. Kind of how Arahants live.

The 7 enlightenment factors:

Mindfulness (sati)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)
Joy or rapture (pīti)
Relaxation or tranquility (passaddhi)
Concentration (samādhi)
Equanimity (upekkha)

There is a reason the teachings list things to develop and be aware of (eightfold path, enlightenment factors, jhana factors, five hindrances, etc). Any one of them underdeveloped may lead us astray.
One thing is to lose interest towards random things. Other is to lose interest, enthusiasm and energy in general. The first is not a problem in itself. The second is a problem, which can probably develop into depression.
A person who loses interests in "mundande" things, but has strong interest and enthusiasm in buddhism often finds himself/herself considering the monastic life.
A person who, in general, is not enthusiastic, is not interested, has no willpower, might find trouble when trying to do anything at all.

I'm just a bit unsure about letting my secular skills and interest fade away. I'm not sure it is ok if this unwillingness deepens.

While some interests become very uninteresting to keep around, others are good to develop, like anything (from projects to careers) related to helping people.
Skills are tricky though, if that's what pays rent and food. It might be wise to keep those able to perform, at least, while they are needed to keep you alive.

Some people experiencing Nondual Awareness feel this way for a while. Then they "lose interest in" the path entirely, and immerse in daily life! Often their memory is somewhat impaired, as they don't care about usual things to remember. Also have trouble deciding on dinner, etc, because life is just So Beautiful! So, it could be worse. Have to be interested in something.

This answer from Ven. Yuttadhammo answers your question well.
It's a very long answer. Let me quote a part of it. Quote:

I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence,
  this new state of mind became a hindrance.

This as well is a judgement, probably indicative of aversion. Even though a state may be objectively "bad", disliking just aggravates the condition. This should understood as it is ("disliking, disliking").

Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain
  that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living)
  was struggling to focus.

Sometimes struggling to focus on worldly things simply means you are unable to care about what has no intrinsic benefit; you may have to in that case force yourself to stop practicing in order to carry out the worldly duties as you see fit. In this case, though, it sounds like you probably have too much concentration and not enough effort. If the mind is unwieldy, inflexible, it will have trouble keeping up with reality and thus interacting with daily life. Insight meditation that focuses on mundane reality should help. If you truly are distracted (in the sense of the mind flitting to many different objects at once), then it probably has less to do with the meditation practice and more to do with your reactions to it that have led to anxiety, etc.

Do you have a Tibetan, Sanskrit, Chinese or a proper name for "Insight meditation"?

Vipassana

OK literally off the top of my head.
Zen sickness is a thing. Hakuin is said to have experienced it. It's meant to be brought about by intense meditation that is in some sense gone about incorrectly - though really all errors are just something to learn from, so I wouldn't think about it in those terms. You could perhaps work through (these) problems by discussing it with a teacher, or even an actual psychologist.
So, the "symptoms" (I use this both in the buddhist and psychological sense) of zen sickness include IIRC: excessive pain and uninterest in life.
FWIW I kinda experience stuff like that ^^ but it's not really "zen sickness" because I don't regularly practice, just think and read.
Hope that you find your spark, anyway.

Some traditions use the analogy of "not fully cooked yet."

I have the same problem, loss of interest in work, friends, activities..
I think we need Metta meditation.
And it is mentioned frequent in the Suttas, beside insight and tranquility meditation.
I tend to overlook it but I think it is just what I need to balance out this aversion with ordinary things.
Ayya Khema has some nice recordings with instructions on metta meditation and jhanas also.
May we overcome this and advance joyously on the path.

No worldly activity is entirely satisfying or entirely pleasurable. You seam to be realising that and directing your energy and prioritizing what matters like earnings your livelihood. I.e. you are loosing the will to chase after pleasure and thrills as you have realized that this is not entirely satisfactory.
This is very normal I would think.


text:
The experience of silence
Is there anything out there in the zen tradition about whether "silence" (do I mean this metaphorically) is to be embraced in meditation?

Well, there's the Flower Sermon isn't there?

looking for more contemporary stuff, but thanks anyway :)

If you are coming at this from a Zen perspective, I wouldn't use the word "silence" so much as "emptiness" or mu-shin.  And I wouldn't say that the word "embraced" quite gets at what you need to be doing.  Emptiness is embraced, but there is also an element of investigation.  One should become both "one with" mu-shin while looking deeply into it.
I think it's important to understand, however, that this sort of investigation is not a preliminary practice.  The mind has to be quieted and the concentration developed to a certain extent before one has an experience of that emptiness.  Once it is beheld, it should then be stabilized.  This can be done through various techniques - most famously the mu koan.  If you are beginning your meditation practice, you are better off just watching the breath.  This will help lay a foundation for later investigation.

hm ok i'm just starting out with zazen so...

Then count those breaths!  :-)

yep yep ... :)  !


text:
How can Buddhist believe in Re-Incarnation, when they do not believe in soul?
Part 1:
I was studying some of the Buddha's teaching, when I encountered this notion that Buddhism does not recognize 'Atman' or soul. Buddha did not believe in notion of 'Self'; He did not believe that there was any permanent/in-destructible component in Humans. If there is no permanent/common part between the birth cycles, How can Re-incarnation be justified/proven?
edit:
Part 2 :
If Buddhism does not believe in "Self", How can there be Nirvana for one?

hello BBY. personally and it's bizarre / unusual etc. but: i believe that we are "reborn" without awareness of our new lives. that we literally DO experience the the effects but we don't know that we are: that forgetting past lives means not really manifesting in them...

This is one of the most common questions asked about Buddhism, and has been answered: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26/if-there-is-no-soul-how-can-there-be-rebirth

Your part 2 is unclear. It reads as: "Since nothing persists from one life to the next, the current life is not the first (such a logical jump would need to be explained). Does this prove that Nirvana exists?"

I meant, "Can existence of Nirvana be proved or at-least logically contemplated?"

Part 1:
The answer comes from Milindapanha 3.5.5. This means that rebirth without transmigration of the soul from one place to another, takes place like a transfer of "information".

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn?" "Yes, your majesty, one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn." "How, venerable Nagasena, is it that
  one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
  "Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
  it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
  other lamp?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your
  majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "Give me
  another analogy." "Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy
  learning some verse from a teacher?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Your
  majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?" "Certainly
  not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not
  transmigrate and one is reborn."

Here's another quote by Ven. Narada Mahathera about the transfer of "information" using the analogy of radio waves picked up by a radio set:

Rebirth takes place immediately, irrespective of the place of birth,
  just as an electromagnetic wave, projected into space, is immediately
  reproduced in a receiving radio set. Rebirth of the mental flux is
  also instantaneous and leaves no room whatever for any intermediate
  state (antarabhava). Pure Buddhism does not support the belief that a
  spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary state
  until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."

I summarized in another answer (based on the Theravada tradition) that:

Every person's habitual thoughts and actions (karma) shapes his
  "inclination of awareness", that becomes the last state of mind at
  death, and this is the "information" that gets transferred without
  carrier, the way flame is transferred from candle to candle, or radio
  waves are transferred from one radio to another.

Part 2:
The question is not clear to me. With Nirvana, one ceases to appear in a new life again in the future.

+1 even if i don't like that flame analogy, think it's maybe outdated !!

"Every person's habitual thoughts and actions (karma) shapes his "inclination of awareness", that becomes the last state of mind at death, and this is the "information" that gets transferred without carrier, the way flame is transferred from candle to candle, or radio waves are transferred from one radio to another." - How is this information transferred ? And why do we need Death for this information to get transmitted if it is Karma that produces this information?

There is a difference between re-incarnation and re-birth.  The Dhamma-Vinaya teaches rebirth based upon paticcasamuppada [dependent arising]. The usual religious epistemology has humans having a body, mind (conscious), and spirit (soul).  The Gotama Buddha was pragmatic in his logis  and the Dhamma-Vinaya is empirical.  Since the existence of a soul or an inherent Self can not be evinced, we are left with the pragmatic solution of dependent arising as taught by the Enlightened One.  Since the body becomes decrepit and dies what we are left with is consciousness that becomes attached to the next re-birth.  It is a consciousness devoid of the last personality but still encumbered with some of the past ignorance/dispositions (and occasionally some memory of past lives).
Nibbana is not a place; like the mythical heaven of religions.  Nibbana is the release, the freedom from samsara; the cycle of re-births.  Everyone and anyone can attain nibbana.  Once the dispositions that are the result of greed, hatred and etc. are dissipated.  This is actually a much deeper topic to discuss than can be done here.

so because rebirth is dependent originated it isn't reincarnation. because the tag is philosophy: can you maybe expound on that a little more :) ?

"It is a consciousness devoid of the last personality but still encumbered with some of the past ignorance/dispositions (and occasionally some memory of past lives)." - So there is some sort of transfer between births ? Is this explicit transfer(like some radiation) or is it just passive transfer ( karmic conditions during your death, creating a seed for the next birth )?

Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation, the view is rebirth.
Try this. According to the TV show Madmen, there is a Japanese saying that says that a man is whatever room he is standing in. So in a business office, he IS a businessman, at home, he is a husband and a father, at a bar, he is a drunk, etc.
Now a man can walk from room to room, showing a continuity from "life" to "life". Clearly there is some sort of continuity, but when the man was in the business office, he was not the drunk, and vise versa, so we have no true business man, no true drunk. Just the appearance of them.
Rebirth says the man really is whatever room that he is standing in, and as that man he is as real as that room, and this is possible precisely because there is no true, central core man behind the causes and conditions that give rise to the specific appearance of the business man. If there were a non-empty self, it would not be subject to causality, and would not, therefore be capable of taking on an appearance, or having interactions. The appearance of a self is all there ever is, and it is precisely the clinging and grasping onto the basic notion of a true self at all that perpetuates rebirth from room to room.
To understand rebirth a bit more clearly, we can realize that at no point did we ever stop being a child, and start being an adult, but looking back, it is clear that one is different from the other. In terms of lives, we cannot say when one definitively ends and another begins, we can merely say that we can point to the apparent beginning and end based off of certain inferential and ultimately arbitrary definitions. There is never a clear moment when one room ends and another begins, never a clear moment when the businessman starts, and the businessman stops. We just "draw a line".
To go a bit further, because we cannot assert a true beginning, there is no way to assert a true lifetime to reincarnate into, there is merely the codependent origination of apparent phenomena. The whole thing is nothing but the perpetuated arising of empty phenomena due to causes and conditions giving rise to other causes and conditions, but nothing ever truly breaks over into actual true existence. We seem to perceive this, but that is just a relativistic assumption.
TL;DR - Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation or true separate lifetimes, so there is no problem, there is merely the perpetuation of the causes and conditions that give rise to apparent, yet ultimately empty phenomena.


text:
The will, and rebirth
This question made me want to explain my belief / theory of rebirth.
Does anyone ever at all even somewhat suggest that when we are "reborn" we do not inhabit the new birth in the sense of controlling or willing its actions. That (in a way UNLIKE being "reborn" into our future selves before death) people can only ever be responsible for e.g. their enlightenment - in this life?
Or is there not such a profound difference between life now (- and just now) opposed to life after death ?

sort of: a new life arises but it becomes [bhava] it isn't formed [sankhara]  ???

Hard to tell what question is being asked here. This feels a lot like, "Here is my opinion, do you agree?"

@Anthony hey sorry, you're pretty much right... sorry Anthony

I'm not sure how other people attempted to answer this question. I cannot understand it. Could you rephrase in simpler language?

Not according to U Dhammaratana's commentary on the Visuddhimaga... There it is said:

It could be said that they [kamma-bhava and sankhara] are two
  different ways of sayin the same thing

Kamma-bhava is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara is kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".
I think I see no way round this, besides questioning Buddhaghosa or the accuracy of the commentary. Unless sankhara is empty in a different way to kamma-bhava :/

Isn't emptiness a Mahayana doctrine? If I understand correctly, Buddhaghosa lived and wrote entirely in a Theravada context.

When 'jati' ('birth') occurs via Dependent Origination, the 'will' (intention -cetana) is a contributory condition but not 'control'. That the (ignorant) 'will' generates 'birth' is due to 'ignorance' (avicca) therefore, when ignorance is functioning, 'control' cannot exist.
Therefore, it is correct to suggest that when there is 'birth' ('jati') or 'new birth', there is no sense of controlling actions. People can only ever be responsible for their enlightenment because their unwholesome actions are always controlled & created by ignorance (rather than by their 'self').
This is why enlightenment generates metta, equinimity & forgiveness.


text:
The alayavijnana and emptiness
I asked a question about rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning. According to the doctrine of the Nidanas, I answered my question saying that:

Kamma-bhava [bhava being the 10th nidana] is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara [2nd nidana] is
  kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".

Could it be said then that, given the fact of emptiness, kamma-bhava is empty but sankhara can only be said to be selfless OR empty?
Then it seems to me that we would have "rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning", because what generates the next birth is selfless AND empty - and so is less substantial than volition...
Is that right? Is it possible according to the Buddha?
Putting my philosophy hat on, it seems weird to say that karma is real but not our experiences. But perhaps the intuition reads that: phenomena cannot be pinned down into belonging to this or that - only that "I" experience them.
Does this make any sense, I'm not sure it does?

What do you mean when you say "Suppose that our volitional processes are real, that the alayavijnana is the ultimate, whereas our "mental states" are fictions."? I don't quite understand the question here.

ok sorry, i'll TRY to make more sense shortly :/

Being empty is to be lacking inherent existence, which is to be lacking in fixed self, which is to be lacking in self. So a thing cannot be empty, and have a self, because being empty is to ultimately have no self, and all objects and phenomena are empty. It is not an either/or scenario, it can never be an either or scenario.
It is like asking if a canvass can be either paintless or blank. It is really a meaningless question, because it is just two ways of pointing at the same truth. It is meaningless to assert that paintless is either less or more substantial than blank. Is the son of a barren woman less substantial than the horns of a rabbit?
The karma is only as real and impactual as the blind attachment, and therefore assumptive delusion of self and true existence or true existential status. These volitional formations can be transcended in practice by developing equanimity, awareness, and insight

The Dhamma teaches that kamma reaches fruition; in this life; in the next life; or in some future life.  I would add that kamma has also reached fruition in previous lives as well.  The dissolution of kamma pertains to when one has reached nibbana and has tathagata (as a verb).  Kamma is therefore not inevitable.  Rebirth is not a reward or a punishment but a process of our maturation in the knowledge of becoming.  Kamma is neither good or bad.  Kamma is either right-minded, neutral or convoluted.  The cause of kamma (action) is our dispositions and our grasping.  With right-mindedness, we can appease our dispositions and end our grasping. All things are empty and therefore already lack inherent existence.  Just like your son of a barren woman, where is your canvas and paint?
What is reborn is a consciousness disposed to grasping for something. We often hear of the the dying exclaiming things like, "Why is this happening to me or, "This cannot be happening to me!?"  Or, "I'm not done yet with what I want to do, I want to live!" These are the thoughts of convoluted logic.
The positive side of samsara has not emphasized.  It is the opportunity to realize nibbana (freedom) by the dissolution of our dispositions and our kammic grasping. If there was only one life in which one could attain nibbana, very, very few would succeed.  This is the teaching of the Enlightened One, the science of the dhamma-vinaya.  I hope this helps you.


text:
Does karma force things to happen?
I know karma matures with the right conditions but does it ever force things to happen with the certainty that it will happen?
Like for example can earning a specific karma say that it's going to force an effect, like when somebody does something good that means they'll become a private buddha in the future. Does it sort of "force" or push things in the direction of the karma to happen or is it still just waiting for the right conditions.

Nirvana or extinction I don't think cuts off karma, but samsara. Someone correct me...

perhaps if you give a few examples, we can give better answers.

You might find this interesting: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/2.html (Hyakujo's Fox)

It doesn't force things to happen because karma by definition has no self which can force anything.
Karma doesn't really exist as some punishing entity (like a Western God), which is what the word "force" implies in your question.
In Buddhism and Hinduism, the chain of causation that binds beings to the Wheel of Birth and the natural conditions that stem from it, creates a torrent of karma all of which must be satisfied in life after life until samadhi/bodhi can be achieved.
"Conditions" can be anything by the way. A condition can be being in a certain situation, seeing a certain characteristic of a person (e.g. maleness, femaleness), or even "having a body". Oftentimes I believe that karma has an effect that is beyond time, simultaneously immediate, near, and far..

When a seed of certain kind is exposed to certain conditions, it grows. Karma works more like this than some deterministically absolute force.
There is never any sort of absolute with this, as we can, for instance, learn to deal with our volitional formations (our sankharas) in ways other than being subject to their conditional fruition, one such effective method is vipassana.
In essence, because we can develop non-attachment and wisdom, no. It is more correct, in my understanding, to say that karma merely encourages certain activities, or acts as an urge that sometimes is perceived as an unstoppable or confounding force depending on our level of attachment.
Becoming a Buddha is more of a transcendence of karmic determinism, rather than being a "thing" brought about by karmic eventuality.

It's just that sometimes the Buddha says that because someone earned such and such karma it will lead to such and such eventual result in a future life, or at least that's what I got from some of the dhamma.

Sure, this is to say that certain causes produce certain effects, and this is true from a conventional standpoint. But from the other shore, no. Ultimately there is no determinism that is absolute. It is a question of attachment.

There's also the story of one girl who did something nice to the Buddha then immediately afterward got married to a king. My question is wether karma has a strong attractive force that leads things to happen in a certain manner.

It is the story of Queen Mallika http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel292.html#mallika.

Sure, a relativistic strong attractive force is legitimate, as far as I understand things, but not an absolute determinant.

According to the Acintita Sutta, the precise working out of the result of karma is not to be conjectured about, otherwise it will bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

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


text:
How to Develop Insight - Samathayanika
If I practice tranquility meditation how would I go about developing insight.How does a samathayanika realise Nibbanna.

So in other words, are you asking "How is insight developed in tranquility-based traditions?"

Yes that's right.

As per the Visuddhimagga:

Herein, “purification of view” is the correct seeing of mentality-materiality.
One who wants to accomplish this, if, firstly, his vehicle is serenity, should
  emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhāna, except the base consisting of
  neither perception nor non-perception, and he should discern, according to
  characteristic, function, etc., the jhāna factors consisting of applied thought,
  etc., and the states associated with them, [that is, feeling, perception, and so on].
When he has done so, all that should be defined as “mentality” (nāma) in the
  sense of bending (namana) because of its bending on to the object.
Then, just as a man, by following a snake that he has seen in his house, finds
  its abode, so too this meditator scrutinizes that mentality, he seeks to find out
  what its occurrence is supported by and he sees that it is supported [588] by the
  matter of the heart. After that, he discerns as materiality the primary elements,
  which are the heart’s support, and the remaining, derived kinds of materiality
  that have the elements as their support. He defines all that as “materiality” (rūpa) because it is “molested” (ruppana) [by cold, etc.]. After that he defines in brief as “mentality-materiality” (nāma-rūpa) the mentality that has the characteristic of “bending” and the materiality that has the characteristic of “being molested.”
Path of Purification, XVIII 2-4

Basically, it entails using the jhana factors and their physical support as a basis for insight - seeing them as impermanent, suffering, and non-self to the point of realizing the four noble truths.