text:
People get sick and die next to me - my karma?
If people i care about get sick a lot and die a lot  -  is it part of my karma to experience this ?  is there a name for this type of karma ?  anything that can be added on this subject will be appreciated
Now my grandfather is in the hospital  - so its his bad karma to be there -  but is it also part of my karma cause i suffer from him being there   (and yes i dont have to suffer from it and can use it as even a good thing but its not my question)

Your grandfather in the hospital is not because of bad karma. It is because of the aging & decaying of the physical body. The Blessed One declared:

All that is dear & beloved there must be change, separation & severance. Of that which is born, come into being, compounded & subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not come to dissolution!'
Mindful and clearly comprehending, reflect in this way: 'Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?'
Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Buddhism states, even when there is death, the good karma a person has done will bring good results & the bad karma person has done will bring bad results. Therefore, when your grandfather is in hospital, you should think about the good karma your grandfather did in his life. To quote:

These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, in hell.
But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
destinations, in the heavenly world.
Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror

If your grandfather dies, you must think about his good karma and you must make merits & dedications for him. The scriptures state:

In five ways, a child should minister to his parents:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall make offerings in honor of my departed relatives.
Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline

In conclusion, the only bad karma that is occurring is your not having right view in the mind about the Dhamma. Even if your grandfather in hospital causes you grief & sadness, as a Buddhist, you must also have Dhamma in your mind, as the Buddha taught, as follows:

There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
1. 'All are subject to aging. Have I gone beyond [am I peace with] aging?
2. 'All are subject to illness. Have I gone beyond illness?'
3. 'All are subject to death. Have I gone beyond death?'
4. I will eventually be separated from all that is dear and appealing to me.'
5. 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for ill, to that I will be the heir.'
Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation
Click here for Alternate translation.

I read the last sutta before probably more than once but its the First time i see this part "[am I peace with] "   ...  very interesting   -  so that part makes it mean if im at peace with it happening to others - right ?
i mean on top of part 4   -  even 1 2 3  is talking about being in peace with it happening to others ?

Thank you. I did liberally modify the text to include "all". Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation is: "A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to old age; I am not exempt from old age.’:. This means a person continue to reflect upon aging until they are at peace with the reality of aging & death, even if that aging & death brings grief because of love. When I lived in the monastery, we used to chant: "I am subject to aging; have I gone beyond aging?". The word "going beyond" means not being upset or confused by aging. Kind regards

Karma is only understood by the Buddha fully since it is a very complex topic. But having said this the Karma you do generally affects oneself, but there are instances when this is not the case (E.g. Tsunami during period of King Kelanitissa affected the whole country though it was the King who committed the karma). But again for Karma to take effect the environment needs to fall in place. Say you have a Karma to part with loved ones. Then it might affect people around you but cannot be definite on this.
Also there might be other Niyama Dhamma which might have effects. It could be pure randomness or coincidence. Not everything happen with Karma
Also following might be helpful to understand Karma more:

Karma by Piya Tan
Group Karma? by Piya Tan
Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta
Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta
The Workings of Kamma by Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw
pañcavidha niyama - Wikipedia, wisdomlib
THE NIYAMA-DIPANI: The Manual of Cosmic Order by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw

Hi  -  changed the title  back i think its more accurate  - though you  said an entire new thing which is intersting to me and connected
--- i didnt mean to ask if my karma affects them in a bad way but can the fact that people close to me get bad karma next to me  part of my karma
cause obviusly its not nice to have bad stuff happen to people you care about  -  but its their karma

Say you are in a Buss and have Karma for and accident. Your Karma may result in collateral damage, but they will not inherit your Karma. People in the wrong place at the wrong time may be effected. In their perspective it is not a Karmic result. But end of the day this is speculation as it is only a Buddha who understand it fully. On our part the simple saying "what you saw is what you reape" or "what goes arround comes arround" is enough - so good and refrain from the bad.

maybe i should have wrote the spesific reason im asking this  -  the latest perseon who is close to me who suffers now is my grandfather who is in the hospital  ---  so  its  his karma to be there   ....  but im suffering as well cause hes there and other family also suffer  ( of course i dont have to suffer from it and i can use it as a good thing etc etc - but thats not my qeustion)

so my question is  - can the fact my grandfather is in the hospital be my bad karma  ?

This is part and parcel of Samsara. There could be a chance it is Karmic but mostly due to the nature of existence. With old age sickness comes and loved ones have to suffer. This is Dhamma Niyama. Not Kamma Niyama.

Yes but there are levels of suffering - you can die fast or slow  -    and  also  i had  two other grandpernts who died very far from me  so it wasnt as hard as a grandfather who is sick next to me  -
Can the fact that his close to me and sick be part of my bad karma ?

No. I don't think so. I think it is Dhamma Niyama. See Niyama - Wikipedia and THE NIYAMA-DIPANI: The Manual of Cosmic Order by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw stating in page 77

Just to be clear  :  im not saying my bad karma has caused him to be sick (triggering his karma)    -   what i mean is that because i have bad karma  i  experience him being sick next to me

Cause if a a person sees bad sights - smells - voices    it is bad karma  of his to experience this bad things  ....  so why cant it be the case here ?

It is just a fact of life. Everyone gets sick. When loved ones do get sick people close to them despair. From what I gather this is nothing to do with Karma. Everyone ages, gets sick and dies. For people next to them this has nothing to do with Karma. This does not rule out Karma but in my thinking highly unlikely. Only a Buddha can say for sure.

Sorry to hear that... I hope you've got pass of it now.
It seems you may be under temporary emotional stress that prompt you at this immediate moment think in this way. Experience is experience, Karma is Karma, when you equate and sum up as "my Karma to experience" it doesn't help to see things in the objective perspective. Care and lost of the cared is the element for Samsaric journey when the 12 Nidana(s) fementated and play out the drama we called world & life.
However, people associated the closer meant they shared stronger the Karmic deposits, they likely were interacting more vigorously with each other in the past so stronger hate/love forces were accumulated, comparatively. The way for the drama to play out the Karmic force could be very unexpected. On the other hand, kinships share DNA that is the expression of Karma (my insight, genome is the expression of Karma). In this sense, members within the kinship could share similar heath coditions. Last, people do have "energy" vibrations that may be good or bad to the recipients, fortune telling is not completely superstitions just because these fortune-tellers don't earn the PhD of Chemistry or Biology they don't use the accredited jargons the scientists used. So some people may affect others. In the Sutras there were many accounts describing how people were gladden and rejoicing merely hearing few words or simple blessing from the Buddha - his "energy" field can be seen by nake eyes as the glow emitting from him.

Having loved ones or pleasurable company is Vipaka(results) of good Karma. The departing of loved ones or withering away of pleasant experiences come under the first noble truth. You getting sad about it is the Vipaka(result) of bad mental Karma of clinging to loved ones or pleasant experiences.


text:
Meditation and family life
I started meditating regularly four years ago, about an hour daily. Then, three years ago, my son was born, and since then it's been really difficult for me to be constant with my practice. It's hard for me to make time to meditate. Only during the night I find some time to be alone, but I'm so tired...
Do you have any advice on how to rebuild my practice amidst family life?

What kind of meditation practice are you currently undertaking?

Vipassana as taught bt S. N. Goenka, though most of the time I just do anapanasati.

Be mindful of everything you do. That is meditation. Distractions are meditation objects. Not showstoppers. Showstoppers are mostly your strong wrong views like God, soul or nihilism.

You said that you meditated for about an hour daily. Now that you are busy, why not ten minutes per day of formal meditation?
If there is no time for formal meditation, you can still be mindful all the time:

Other people say they don't have the chance to meditate because they're too busy. Sometimes schoolteachers come to see me. They say they have many responsibilities so there's no time to meditate. I ask them, 'When you're teaching do you have time to breathe?’ They answer, 'Yes.' 'So how can you have time to breathe if the work is so hectic and confusing? Here you are far from Dhamma.'
Actually this practice is just about the mind and its feelings. It's not something that you have to run after or struggle for. Breathing continues while working. Nature takes care of the natural processes – all we have to do is try to be aware. Just to keep trying, going inwards to see clearly. Meditation is like this.
If we have that presence of mind then whatever work we do will be the very tool which enables us to know right and wrong continually. There's plenty of time to meditate; we just don't fully understand the practice, that's all. While sleeping we breathe, while eating we breathe, don't we? Why don't we have time to meditate? Wherever we are we breathe. If we think like this then our life has as much value as our breath; wherever we are we have time.

—Ajahn Chah, "The Peace Beyond"

Thank you. Ten minutes a day of formal meditation sounds great but isn't that very little time? As for being mindful of my breathing, I'll keep it in mind.

Try to mediate 2 session of 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening / night. Also you can try shorter session but perhaps adding up to about 2+ hours a day.
If the session is too short you will not get result. It is like rubbing 2 fire wood sticks. To get fire you have to rub them enough to ignite. If you practice too short sessions and not seeing the benefit of meditation soon enough might perhaps may lead you to give up.
If they are too long it might interfere with your day to day activities and you might give up meditation as it becomes a burden.
Also if the session are too far apart then the results from the previous session may wear off and you might be starting the session from a lower progress point. Again you might not see much benefit as progress might seam slow if the sessions are far apart.
You just have to balance these concerns and make a decision.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhist perspective how humans can communicate with spirits?
I have seen lot of paranormal activities videos about scientists who have done lot of research in spirit communication and are successful in doing so. Can this be done or possible? What are the ways this can be achieved according to Buddhism?

Yes this can be done if you develop abhiññā. It will be through ceto-pariya-ñāṇa. In order to do this you have to develop at least the 4th Jhana.
Also there are more recent documented instances where this has been done in Venerable Ãcariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera's biography. The general training that was followed recorded in Patipadā Venerable Ãcariya Mun’s Path of Practice. (Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta Thera was a teacher of Ajahn Chah)
Also refer:

p369, CH. XII THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS, The Path of Purification, 4td Ed., Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans.)
p206, The Path Of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) of Arahant Upatissa Translated from the Chinese by Rev. N. R. M. Ehara, Soma Thera, Kheminda Thera
Ways of Attaining Dhyana by Piya Tan
Miracles by Piya Tan

Also be warned that only a few a successful in developing supernormal powers and this can become a hindrance, hence you are better of working towards liberation.

Like animals, petas, gods, angels and so on?

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


text:
Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it
Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it?
There is an issue I'm aware of that you shouldn't say stuff you won't be able to do  - I mean sometimes you can but that its better not to promise stuff you probably will fail doing (I don't want to give examples but it is a thing in Buddhism I hope some will know what I'm talking about)
So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("I use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc...")   when he knows he probably isn't going to keep it? What about when he thinks there's a tiny chance he will?  What about most likely will keep it?

So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("i use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc ...") when he knows he probably isnt going to keep it ?

As a lay person: Probably not..
As a monastic: Definitely not!
Reflecting on Alms food belongs to the The Four Requisites, namely:

"Properly considering almsfood, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

As explained in the footnotes/commentary - then a monk should make use of offerings properly and not do anything with them which will make the donors faith decline.

What about when he thinks theres a tiny chance he will ?

If his intentions are wholesome, then yes of course.
Even a small amount of wholesome intention, serves to strengthen the Adhiṭṭhāna (resolution) pāramī.

What about most likley will keep it ?

Yes of course.
Actions that reduce distance to Nibbana should be undertaken.

When one tries not to break ones promise, and to live life according to the well-being of others, this is a high concept of moral. Those concepts are not part of Buddhism directly, but they are derived from the inner Philosophy of mind and world. While they are certainly part of the discourses of Buddhist traditions, it should be important to notice that in Buddhism there is no doctrine -- this is if one looks at Buddhism as philosophy (close to the Pali Canon or the Theravada tradition).
What is Buddhist moral according to Buddhist philosophy then?
In Buddhist philosophy, the whole worldly phenomenon as it is experienced in any moment is dukkha, 'pain' or 'suffering', or tanha, 'thirst', 'volition', 'craving'. Overcoming this whole phenomenon is the 'extinction of thirst', or tanhakkhaya, it means one is able to see 'truth', nirvana.
'Mental activity' means 'conditioning', or samkhara, and reproduces dukkha. 'Volitional action' according to Buddhist philosophy is called kamma (not to be with the Western term or the karma in the Vedas). All things that are either kusala, akusala, 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' are reproducing, they are leading to 'rebirth', samsara, meaning they will lead the mind to more conditioned states.
To come back to your question: Doing something willingly wrong, like lying, can usually be considered more strongly unwholesome. But this is not to say that doing the opposite will save one from suffering. Wanting to do good is just another mental formation.
Loosely speaking, the margin between good and bad is thin, like with most things in the world. Our organisms need salt, but eating several spoons will damage the body severely.
The closer you get to see truth, the more precise you come to describe the world as it is experienced. But for all the different states that we are in, there is a solution to come to a less conditioned state. The Fourth Noble Truth is the Noble Eightfold Path, consisting of a variety of trainings. Mainly those trainings aim at producing 'ethical conduct', 'mental discipline', and 'wisdom', sila, samadhi and panna.
This Buddhist path deals with the Right Speech, samma vaca, it is the 3rd category of the Noble Eightfold Path. (The 4th is Right Action, samma kammanta and might be related to this question also.) Speech should be useful, one can also remain silent rather than engaging in wrong speech.
As I see it, the declaration or phrase used to receive food is more of a gesture. It is a nice act, it can help to implement good habits, it acts as a little reminder. This reminder is karma in the sense of the Vedas or Hindu sense: It is a mere action. The point is that according to Buddhism the mere speech is not kamma, it is just sound. What matters more is mental volition.
The mismatch of the words and the (assumed) behavior of the person receiving the food is neither morally right nor wrong. If the mismatch helps the receiver be actually more careful in his ethical conduct one day, but it also might not do this -- the receiver also doesn't know what will come. But what is considered morally right, is the individual's effort towards a solution.

The reflection before eating is not a promise or saying something you will do. This is to gradually bend your mind and build strong resolve so you do not eat for enjoyment or other reason but to fulfil your meditation and practice and to maintain life.
If you willing do not intend to keep it it might be counterproductive in building this intention. But if you reflect and it does not go as reflected it is OK. You should strengthen you resolve next time. This might take some practice to do this to start with. A point will come when you can keep your resolve. If you're not resolve it at just recite it then this is self deception and should be avoided.
Also monks do give a morsel of food to animals before partaking meals. Perhaps you can add this to your practice also even if you are a layperson.
Even if you are layperson it is good to make a strong resolution about food and if it breaks make a stronger resolution. If you are a Novice make use of this period so you can fulfil the Vinaya after higher ordination. If you are a Monk with higher ordination make amends as prescribed in the Vinaya. Also not if you willfully break Vinaya as a higher ordinated monk this is bad Karma. You should not have self deception and you should try your best to keep it as a monk.

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


text:
Is dhammakaya a synonym of 'real nature of things'?
Is it correct to say that dhammakaya (the sum of all Buddha's teachings) is a synonym of 'the real nature of reality'?

The word "dhammakaya" is used in (or used by) more than one school of Buddhism, e.g. Theravada and Mahayana.

Related question: Can we consider 'tathagatagarbha' and 'dhammakaya' as synonyms?

More like "the teachings/body of knowledge on the real nature of reality" if referring to the Theravada definition.

I would say no, not a synonym, but related. The Dharmakaya (in Sanskrit) is the Truth Body of Buddha. I believe it has the most significance in Mahayana Buddhism where it refers to the purified very subtle body which has the nature of bliss and is mixed inseparably with emptiness.
The real nature of reality is that phenomena lack, or are empty of, true, independent existence.

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


text:
Looking for a Buddhist story about trust
I heard a Buddhist story about trust some time ago and am trying to locate it.
The story goes, there are some men travelling (I think) to a temple or monastery and on the way they get swindled and lose all their belongings to a con (or something, somehow are tricked)
When they get to the temple or monastery they are asked what they have learned.  The first man says 'not to trust anyone' and is not admitted.  The 2nd (or 3rd) man says that he has learned to be careful who he trusts and so is allowed entry.
Does this sound familiar?  Does anyone know of a Buddhist tale that is similar to this?
Thanks!

Hello Bella Pines. Would you happen to have additional information on this?

I remember that they had lots of belongings with them.  I remember that the moral was about being careful who you trust and that the person who learned not to trust anyone was not allowed entry to something (temple or monastery) but that's about all I can recall.

Thank you. Trying to locate it. Do you remember where you heard the story? From a Dhamma talk, temple, friend, book?

It was at school but like over 20 years ago.  I remember that it stuck in my mind and wanted to use it to talk to my children about strangers.  When they were young, "don't talk to strangers" worked.  But now they are older, there have been several occasions when they have had to talk to strangers .  So it's a good anecdote.  I just can't remember many of the details.  Our teacher was a buddhist and used to tell us many stories like this.

Been trying to locate it again yday without luck. The pali canon is too vast to find it, for me that is. I hope you will find out about it someday. May I ask if your teacher is still alive or working at the school? If so, you could try to make contact.

It's a zen or Chinese story, I guess. I remember the same story from, Kunfu (1972) tv show.

If you search using keywords “Jataka tales” you may find the story. G’luck

The Pali Canon has some good ones on the "Trust, but verify" theme, like the "Four Great References" in DN 16, the Gotami Sutta, or the famous Kalama Sutta of AN 3.65

The Story of King Pasenadi of Kosala
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (204) of this Dhammapada, with reference to King Pasenadi of Kosala.
One day, King Pasenadi of Kosala went to the Jetavana monastery after having his full morning meal. It was said that the king had eaten one quarter basket (about half a bushel) of rice with meat curry on that day; so while listening to the Buddha's discourse he felt very sleepy and was nodding most of the time. Seeing him nodding, the Buddha advised him to take a little less rice everyday and to decrease the amount on a sliding scale to the minimum of one-sixteenth part of the original amount he was taking. The king did as he was told and found that by eating less he became thin, but he felt very much lighter and enjoyed much better health. When he told the Buddha about this, the Buddha said to him, "O king! Health is a great boon; contentment is a great wealth; a close and trusted friend is the best relative; Nibbana is the greatest bliss."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 204: Health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth, a trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the greatest bliss.

the only Buddhist story I know of trust.

Isn't this a story about health rather than trust?

On the matter of trust in giving, there is the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅga Sutta:

“When an ethical person with trusting heart
  gives a proper gift to unethical persons,
  trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
  that offering is purified by the giver.
When an unethical and untrusting person,
  gives an improper gift to ethical persons,
  not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
  that offering is purified by the receivers.
When an unethical and untrusting person,
  gives an improper gift to ethical persons,
  not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
  I declare that gift is not very fruitful.
When an ethical person with trusting heart
  gives a proper gift to ethical persons,
  trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
  I declare that gift is abundantly fruitful.
But when the passionless gives to the passionless
  a proper gift with trusting heart,
  trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
  that’s truly the best of material gifts.”

I remember a very similar story in an episode of the TV series “Kung Fu” with David Carradine. 2 boys were robbed taking some goods to town: one of them was Kwai Chang Caine. One boy gave the response you quoted, whereas Caine said “Always be aware Master” and was allowed to remain in The monastery. It is possible the writers borrowed the story.

I have heard a similar story. But it's not exactly a Buddhist story. There is a book called 'Pancha Tanthra'. It has many stories like this. There are also youtube videos on these stories as cartoons. Try googling 'Pancha tantra stories about trust'. You will find many resources.

As another answer already said, it features in an episode of the old Kung Fu TV series -- see Season 1, episode 7, The Tide -- one of the footnotes says:

When the young Caine and another student are robbed, the other student learns not to trust strangers and is dismissed from the temple. Shaolin are required to trust: the TAO TE CHING [F] says in both chapters #17 and #23, "He who does not trust enough, will not be trusted."

I don't know about the quote from the Tao Te Ching -- I looked in a couple of translations and didn't see the cited quote in chapters 17 or 23.
In one translation I looked at, it does say in Chapter 49 ...

The saint trusts those who are trustworthy.
  He also trusts those who are not trustworthy.
  This is the true virtue of trust.

... but the Tao Te Ching isn't Buddhism, presumably.
Apparently Shaolin is Buddhist -- contrasted I thought with Wudang, which was or is Taoist -- but, I don't know, maybe Shaolin has Taoist influences too -- I doubt we can trust the Kung Fu TV series to be really accurate, culturally.

An old 'psychology proverb says: As the rouge thinks (about others), that's how he is (actually acts himself).. "phenomenas are presided by heart/thought..."

Perhaps you are referring to what is called "psychological projection"?

In that far, when Nyom wishes to think in science terms, it's good to tust the reasoning against why not giving trust in advanced, because for the vicicca-character there is no possibility to ever success. What is uprooted in oneself is no more feared.

There was a "double negative" in what you wrote -- i.e., "it's good to trust the reasoning against why not giving trust" -- which might be the opposite of what you meant. So let me check I understood -- I think that what you intended to write was, "Buddhism (perhaps unlike Taoism) warns us that we shouldn't trust people who are untrustworthy. If we are (or if we consider ourselves to be) trustworthy ourselves, then we might be (wrongly) tempted to trust others in advance -- because we don't fear untrustworthiness in ourselves, we (wrongly) "project" that trustworthiness onto others".

But Vicikiccha is about "doubt", isn't it -- e.g. it's used in the context of "trust in the dhamma" -- perhaps you meant something else (i.e. about whether people are "trusting" not about whether they are "trustworthy").

Somehow in the sense "poison can not penetrate a hand without wound", or "hans in luck, might be easier here. Others will get confusing., Nyom Chris. It was more about the "we" in you conclusion instead of reason why one mets.

Sadhu for steady correction and reasking, btw.


text:
What specific emotion would best describe dukkah?
One of my key problems studying Buddhism has been definitions. My definition often doesn't have the same span as that of the typical Buddhist - but I am usually successful in coming to similar conclusions. I try to focus on some generalities of the word in question and get an emotional feel.
Which brings me to the problem with dukkah. I am not sure what word(s) properly conveys (in english) the emotion sought to be elicited by the concept of dukkah. And the terms we HAVE come to use in its' description to date are rather, uh, dukkah.
I see it as frustration. You keep trying to satisfy a permanent hunger with an impermanent response. But I am told that is also not a complete comparison.
For example ... seething in anger borne from frustration is a different type of anger than that coming from a reaction to an insult. Or is it? Was it a generalized word they flippantly threw around? Or did it intend to evoke a specific type of emotional response?

I think this question may have been asked and answered already (at least, as well as it can be). See the questions about 'dukkha', perhaps this one in particular: What is the meaning of suffering?

I hope that clarified a bit. There is a difference in what I am asking.

There's a statement here (I'm guessing by Bhikkhu Bodhi) that it has no single best translation:

No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.

Its saying "in a given context" implies to me that the word is applicable to multiple contexts, in which multiple different emotions are manifest.
Some of these emotions include grief (when loved ones dies), fear (of losing what you value), anger, denial, and so on.
Since you're asking about emotion, perhaps consider the so-called "afflictive emotions": a.k.a. the Kleshas. Different schools have slightly different ways to enumerate the Kleshas. I note that the "grief" and "fear" that I mentioned aren't listed but "attachment" is. I think that shows your question is difficult to answer i.e. what one person sees as grief another person sees as (or names it to be) attachment.
The quote above says that dukkha is "deeper and subtler" than any definition you can think of. For what it's worth the shallowest definition I can think of (the highest-level, most single-meaninged definition) is that it's the opposite of sukha. I think that's inaccurate though, to the extent that a lay person would see sukha as a or the worthwhile goal, whereas nirvana is the ideal for a monk.
The four noble truths associated it with tanha, so perhaps the single-emotion you're looking for is "unsatisfied desire" or even "unsatisfiable desire", or just "dissatisfaction".
So "multiple contexts", or perhaps even all contexts: it's canonically associated with all saṅkhārās.

The meaning of Dukkha is  difficult to understand.
It has a gross meaning and a more subtle meaning.
Any pain and suffering is considered Dukkha in a gross level.
Any six sense contact is considered Dukkha in a subtle level.

Dukkha as the 1st Noble Truth:

And what, avuso, is the noble truth that is suffering?
(1) Birth is suffering,
(2) decay is suffering,
[*] disease is suffering,
(3) death is suffering;
(4) to be associated with the unpleasant is suffering;
(5) to be separated from the pleasant is suffering;
(6) not getting what one wants is suffering,
(7) sorrow, lamentation, physical pain, mental pain, and despair are suffering
(8) - in short, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.
(1) And what, avuso, is birth?
Being born, becoming, descending [into a womb], [arising,] generating, manifesting of the
  aggregates, obtaining the sense-bases of various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.
—This, avuso, is called birth.
(2) And what, avuso, is decay?
Ageing, decaying, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkled skin, the dwindling away of one’s years, the
  weakness of the sense-faculties, in various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.
—This, avuso, is called decay.
(3) And what, avuso, is death?
Falling away, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, death, dying, one’s time being up
  [completion of one’s time], breaking up of the aggregates, discarding of the body, [uprooting of the
  life-faculty,]30 in various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.
—This, avuso, is called death.
(4a) And what, avuso, is sorrow?
One’s being touched [affected] by one thing or other of a painful nature, by any kind of misfortune,
  sorrow, grief, distress, inner grief, inner woe, here and there.
—This, avuso, is called sorrow.
(4b) And what, avuso, is lamentation?
One’s being affected by one thing or other of a painful nature, by any kind of misfortune, crying,
  weeping, wailing, lamenting, bewailing, lamentation.
—This, avuso, is called lamentation.
(4c) And what, avuso, is physical pain?
Whatever painful bodily feeling, unpleasant bodily feeling, painful or unpleasant feeling arising
  from bodily contact.
—This, avuso, is called physical pain.
(4d) And what, avuso, is mental pain [displeasure]?
Whatever painful mental feeling, unpleasant mental feeling, painful or unpleasant feeling arising
  from mental contact.35
—This, avuso, is called mental pain [displeasure].
(4e) And what, avuso, is despair?
One’s being affected by one thing or other of a painful nature, stress, distress, despair, desperation.
—This, avuso, is called despair.
(5) And what, avuso, is association with the unpleasant?
Here, whoever has undesired, disliked, unpleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch or mindobjects,
  or encountering, meeting, associating with, mixing with those who wish one ill, harm, discomfort,
  insecurity.
—This, avuso, is called association with the unpleasant.
(6) And what, avuso, is separation from the pleasant?
Here, whoever has desirable, likeable, pleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch or mindobjects,
  or encountering, meeting, associating with, mixing with those who wish one well, good,
  comfort, security: mother or father or brother or sister or friends or colleagues or blood-relations, and
  is then deprived of such concourse, intercourse, connection, union.
—This, avuso, is called separation from the pleasant.
(7) And what, avuso, is not getting what one wants?
(i) In beings subject to birth, avuso, this wish arises:
  ‘O that we were not subject to birth, that we might not come to be born!’
  But this cannot be won by wishing—that is not getting what one wants.
(ii) In beings subject to decay [ageing], avuso, this wish arises:
  ‘O that we were not subject to decay, that we might not come to decay!’
  But this cannot be won by wishing—that is not getting what one wants.
(iii) In beings subject to disease, avuso, this wish arises:
  ‘O that we were not subject to disease, that we might not come to fall sick!’
  But this cannot be won by wishing—that is not getting what one wants.
(iv) In beings subject to death, avuso, this wish arises:
  ‘O that we were not subject to death, that we might not come to die!’
  But this cannot be won by wishing—that is not getting what one wants.
(v) In beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, anguish and despair, this wish arises:
  ‘O that we were not subject to sorrow, despair, lamentation, pain, anguish, despair!’
  But this cannot be won by wishing—that is not getting what one wants.
(8) And what, avuso, are, the five aggregates of clinging in brief?
  They are as follows:
the aggregate of clinging that is form,
the aggregate of clinging that is feeling,
the aggregate of clinging that is perception,
the aggregate of clinging that is formations,
the aggregate of clinging that is consciousness.
These are, in short, the five aggregates of clinging that are suffering.
This, avuso, is called the noble truth that is suffering.

Sacca Vibhanga Sutta
Also the whole sphere of what is cognised, know or felt is suffering since when present changes it is suffering, painful is suffering on its own and neutral feeling is suffering also as ignorance is present and one is in a continual state of existence with opens up to possibility of unpleasant experiences.

What does one know [cognize]
  with that consciousness?
One knows, "It is pleasant."
One knows. "It is painful."
One knows, "It is neutral."

On account of any experiance from the 6 sense door it results in metal element of pleasure, pain or neutral feeling or emotion.

On seeing a ____ with the ****,
one investigates the _____ that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the _____ that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the _____ that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

“Now, ayya,
regarding pleasant feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?
regarding painful feeling, what is painful, what is pleasant?
regarding neutral feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?
―Avuso Visākha,
pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is
  knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

NB: Highlighted emotional or mental elements.

Mongol General: What is good in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

I would think all mental experience is an emotion some which you cannot even name.

'Dukkha' means 'difficult to bear'; 'hard to endure'.
It is any emotion that is 'difficult to bear', such as sorrow, grief, pain, fear, frustration, confusion, terror, jealously, anger, lust, unhappiness, worry, etc.

so not specific to futility? because I see it used much more generally but it seems like futility to me.

The word 'dukkha' in the noble truths and in the three characteristics has a different meaning. In the four noble truths its means 'suffering'. In the three characteristics it means the inability of an impermanent thing to bring lasting happiness, therefore 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'futility'. Regards


text:
How can I become less affected by politics?
since I started my buddhist practice some five years ago, I have made great advancements. I think I've become much more accepting and loving towards others. I used to be cynical and arrogant and I suppose I've since reached a point where I can claim to be free of both. All in all I am quite happy with my life nowadays. I feel no hatred anymore and have become tolerant towards more or less everybody and every aspect of life.
There is one exception however that is really nagging on me: I am an avid follower of politics and can get stirred up by political events, decisions or politicians themselves that are opposed to my own political convictions. Sometimes it is enough for me to see a certain politician to become filled with - I don't know if you might call it hatred - but at least a feeling of great antipathy, even disgust. I know that the person behind the political façade might very well be likable and live a normal life with her or his own needs and worries, personal shortcomings and qualities, just like anybody else.
I am not even talking about today's great "evildoers" like Kim Jong-un  or even less contested politicians like Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán. It's mostly politicians on a national or even regional level that are able to cause those bad feelings in me.
My wish is on the one hand to see and accept those people as being regular living beings like you and me that need to be loved and understood just like everybody else. Something that I nowadays don't find hard to see in virtually everybody else, even (bad) criminals. In some ways I even find it easier to feel compassion for somebody like Kim Jong-un than for some of Germany's or France's politicians, i.e. the countries that I feel most closely connected to. To be quite frank, I don't have the slightest idea why I find this so hard to achieve.
On the other hand I would like to be less affected by political issues in general. I know that it might not be the wisest stance to take, but I sometimes think I wouldn't mind losing interest in the local and international political scene altogether because I have the impression that I can't distance myself from it and that it is in some way poisoning my thoughts.
Has anybody else on here made similar experiences or has got some advice on how I can "fix" this strange condition? I already practise metta meditation and it does have a very positive effect on me, like I described above. It just does not seem to achieve much in this regard.
Thanks!

In your question you state: "I used to be cynical and arrogant and I suppose I've since reached a point where I can claim to be free of both." Yet you immediately follow with an exception. Perhaps you might spend time in meditation and self examination to determine whether your claim is valid & true. This is tough to do but necessary to avoid fooling ourselves as to our attainment. Personal experience speaking here. Best.

Thanks for your comment! I think/hope I am free of both and not fooling myself there. Yet, my attitude towards politics has nothing to do I think with arrogance. You might argue that thoroughly detesting a political point of view implies putting oneself above other who adhere to that view. Tending towards a socialist viewpoint, I still think that I do not view myself as being somehow, intrinsically better than anybody else. Does this make sense? In fact I've got a number of colleagues who are quite openly capitalist and I get along with them well enough. I think this is due to the fact...

... that I am working with them on a daily basis and have got to know them well enough to see that they are ordinary people who do not wish others any harm and have feelings and desires of their own. I think what it comes down to is that I see them as regular living beings. Something that seems to be in some way inhibited when I watch or listen to politicians by the barrier of the medium that transmits their message (i.e. the newspaper, the radio or the TV channel). The human being seems to get lost on the way and the only thing that remains is the seemingly hateful message.

This is an easy one. Stop looking at the media so much. The media is not reality. It's a small negatively skewed snippet of it. There is so much more to life than the perpetual negativity we see in the media.
It's only in recent times that the media has become way more invasive.
We now have 24/7 news cycles and people walk around addicted to and staring at devises all day. All that negativity is going into your mind and colouring your world view. It pretty much works the same way as porn. People are addicted to the dopamine/adrenaline hit they get when something in the media fires them up.
The politicians thrive on dividing people. Refuse to play into their game. Stop watcing it just for a few days and notice how much calmer you feel.   It's good to stay informed about important world issues but that but does not mean habitually checking the media every 5 minutes or even everyday. If Kim Jung is about to launch another missile what can I do about it?? Nothing!! So why do I need to know about it? So I can go on Facebook and rant? I don't need to know. It's pointless. Far better to use your energy in effecting real change where you can.
You will need to break the habit. It's the only way. If you continue to look at that stuff on a daily basis it will continue to colour your mind in that divisive angry way that only politics can do.  Let go of it. You don't need it.

Thank you, Arturia! I've accepted your answer as the "correct" one for providing the most practical and concise advice.

Still, Dhammadhatu's answer is very valuable for providing me with insight into where I possibly need to further my understanding in the Dhamma and my own concept of my Buddhist believes.
Thank you, also, Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, for pointing out to me that I tend to think in categories of good and bad, which I know are "unhealthful" to my spiritual advanced; a fact that I have lost sight of!

You're welcome  Wishing you success. All the best

It's now a bit more than a week that I've been following your advice and I think I feel better. Thank you! I radically cut down on political/economical/societal news and substituted my main channels of information (Nouvel Observateur, Libération, Spiegel, taz) with magazines covering topics that I am also interested in and that I have, strangely, not read in ages, e.g. the National Geographic or its German/European somehow-equivalent GEO. I live in Hamburg where the G20 summit took place last Friday/Saturday which has been a tough test for me, but I think I mastered it surprisingly well! :-)

BTW: A strategy that has worked well for me: Reading up on the personal backgrounds of politicians, top managers and the like. I did this with Wolfgang Schäuble, a politician I particularly disliked. I learned about his origins - Offenburg - not far from Stuttgart where I have spent most of my life. Living in Hamburg now I am often plagued by homesickness and the sole fact that he is a "southerner" living far from his home, like me, somehow makes him appear more "real" as a person to me. Also the assassination attempt he suffered in 1990 from which he nearly died that left him paraplectic...

... and that confined him to the wheelchair was able to stir up some compassion in me. I have known that before, of course, but I didn't know that he and the doctors fought for his life for many days and that he suffers from complications up to this day. Maybe I am even going to read his biography.

As a Buddhist, to be engaged in mainstream politics is very difficult because we cannot know the real truth of politics, unless we are absolutely certain.
For example, I have heard some of the most famous Western Theravada monks & the Dalai Lamai speak about 9/11 as though Islam really did it & provide ideas that justify war.
Since there was no real evidence Islam did 9/11 & since the American wars after 9/11 were unrelated to the alleged (Saudi Arabian Wahhabi) terrorists, how can a Buddhist speak truthfully in any way that supports war & killing with a unknown & unproven view?
Similarly, these same Western Theravada monks recently were supporting presidential candidates who were engaged in wars & murder because they believed some other policies of these candidates were better than the other.
Therefore, we have Buddhist monks & nuns encouraging their supporters to vote for political parties that engage in unjustified wars & killings.
It follows, unless you are truly certain who you support politically will not engage in any harm, how can you, as a Buddhist, support mainstream politics?
How can you get passionate about opposing Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán when the alternative is really no better, from a Dhammic point of view. Basically all of the major politicians, when examined closely, are violating the Buddhist moral precepts.
For example, the only Australian politician I listen to (occasionally) was originally an intelligence officer 'whistle blower' about the weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq War. Naturally, he was proven to be right. I recently phoned his office about the Syrian gas attack &, as a result, he was the only Australian politician to make an honest & moral statement about it, namely, there was no evidence that is was a deliberate chemical attack.
What I am saying here is if you get involved in truly moral politics, you will have very little support & feel quite powerless. When you realize how powerless you are to affect real change, the 'passion' diminishes greatly. Although you may occasionally try to do something, you realise there is little you can do to affect real change when the majority of people are still supporting the major political parties.

Buddhism explains six realms of existence: (i) human; (ii) benevolent godly (deva); (iii) violent godly (asura); (iv) animal; (v) ghost; & (vi) hell.
Most politicians & rulers throughout history have been violent gods (asuras), which is why they resort to military violence to achieve their ends.
In other words, in my opinion, they are not regular human beings like you and me. Their disposition is inherently evil, psychopathic & animalistic.
The Buddha described this non-human animalistic behaviour as follows:

Here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak.
SN 56.47

In this respect, the Buddha taught to view evil as evil, for what it really is, in a way that leads to disenchantment & dispassion towards the world:

'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse.
'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 2.12

Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.
Nirayavagga

While we can try, the Buddha did not really place great hope in the world. Instead, he taught the world is evolving following Dependent Origination, i.e., evolving with ignorance & craving.
If we examine the history of the world, for thousands of years, it is just war after war. When there is a particularly vicious & destructive war, such as WW2, the people take a rest from war. But then soon enough, they start again. Has there really been any change?
The USA has spent $5 trillion on a war on terror. However, there is more terrorism today than there was when this war began. Yet how many people question this war & what it is really about?
According to the scriptures, the Buddha taught the majority of the people in the world are spiritually blind. If you have this right view, you will give up politics because you will realise you cannot really change anything politically (apart from yourself).

174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
171. Come! Behold this world, which is like a decorated royal chariot. Here fools flounder, but the wise have no attachment to it.
170. One who looks upon the world as a bubble and a mirage, him the King of Death sees not.
58. Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
Dhammapada

Thank you, Dhammadhatu, this is a very valuable answer! I found myself more than once tending to support political actions of a party or faction that reflected my general views even though those actions could be considered highly immoral. Disenchantment is probably a very potent remedy for political fervour.

Thank you. I think as Buddhists we can live a certain way of life and if others can follow this way of life, the world, if possible, can become gradually better. Today, in Australia, everything is changing fast in a bad direction and it takes time for people to wake up, if they can. For example, I used to work for the government, which was a very good job for many years, until recently. I left my job two years ago & now do some work from home. Kind regards

As long as you keep analysing a situation as good, bad or neutral and react to them, suffering will arise. So stop reacting and being emotionally attached to these categorizations. Ultimately, one's sphere of control is limited. If you can do something, do it, or else just leave it alone. Getting emotionally attached and creating suffering for oneself does not help you or even put things right. If things are not right, at least make sure you are not hurt.

Taking the precept of not "speaking of what is not true" coupled with "abstainging from entertainmaint shows" serious, next to the basic precept.
Once one does not give attention to not benefical things every kind of hindrence dies.
By abstaining from TV, radio, News papers, useless books, and from talks about it, its fast done.
Like all it starts with good association.
After some month one knows and normaly has no more desire in idly talk. Stay especially away from "Buddhists" either lay or monks, who are only a little involved in such, not to speak of active in such. Totally not aware, how much ever they talk and teach.
If asking, my person would not even know who is president or was the last maybe 12 years in the country he was born, not to speak of others politicans near and far.
If liking to know more and in detail, feel free in an non-political area.
(Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or any other worldly gain.)

Try watching a documentary about the Illuminati, "The American Dream" cartoon on Youtube for instance.
It will disillusion you from the left-right paradigm which is designed to make us combat each other rather than the establishment itself.
Politics literally means the study of the people.
As such, doing something truly good through politics is what a bodhisattva would do.
On the other hand, most of our minds are too clouded to make a change in the right place and time.
It would be good to go to a protest, help fund an actually anti-establishment politician (like Ron Paul)... but it gets tricky. Trump claimed to be anti-establishment but here he is completely bought out.
After you learn more about the system at its core, including fractional reserve banking... you will see how it is doomed for failure and maybe make preparations.
To be forcibly un-involved from politics is to hide under a rock--but definitely do not get mired in the details.

How was Trump bought out? Who told you that? Are you seeing what the establishment is up to now? I'm open minded to the possibility.  Trump certainly isn't perfect but he does have a good side. I used to dislike Trump a lot until I noticed the media really did appear to be propaganda. I mean Rudssia gate??? I guess the establishment is just going to get away with that.

@Lowbrow Trump is bought out because he was still for endless $ printing and wars. He actually increased bombings and a retinue of things. However, he did point out the deepstate's influence and the fake news enterprise. That beings said, he might have been a double agent/playing he "bad cop" role.

What sutta has this teaching? I'm a distracted little monkey.


text:
Attachment and the three poisons
Is there any dependence between these? My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara (the first of the 12 links of dependent origination). Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition. But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?

You could read the poem Greed and Aggression by Sharon Olds

Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition.
More particularly:

And what, bhikshus, is ignorance (avijjā)?

Not knowing suffering,
not knowing the arising of suffering,
not knowing the ending of suffering,
not
  knowing the path leading to the ending of suffering.

This is called ignorance.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta
My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara
Ignorance sets the ball rolling. Ignorance is one prace you can break Dependent Origination by understanding the 4 Noble Truths at the experiential level. Hence it is one condition for the samsaric existence.
Other place DO can be broken is but not letting craving arise which results from your reaction to sensations due to contact.
Is there any dependence between these?

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

Pahāna Sutta
But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?
Attachment or it's flavours are necessary conditions for greed. Anger is a form of grief hence you can include anger also.

From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?
From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. For one who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?
From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?
From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?
From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?

Dhammapada - Piyavagga

Difficult question to answer about greed & anger, which probably require attachment & thinking because they are more complex defilements.
It is probably easier to consider more subtle & primal defilements, such as lust & aversion/irritation.
It is easy to discern how quickly lust, for example, arises when seeing a sexy object.
Lust & irritation (dislike) definitely arise prior to attachment, according to the Pali suttas.

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the
  body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as
  it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom
  wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged
  as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether
  pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in
  that feeling, welcomes it and remains holding to it. As he does so,
  delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his
  clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition,
  birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.
MN 38

Is it correct to say that attachment is the reification of phenomena as truely existing and independent?

probably not ... attachment is START OF the reification of phenomena as truely existing and independent. reification concludes at "birth" ("jati"), where the idea of  "a being" ("satta") is fully reified. Attachment is probably the initial grasping of the object and the 1st arising of the self-concept.


text:
Practical advice on not eating after noon
My question is mainly to monks and nuns in this group, but I welcome answers from others as well.
If one were to give up eating solid food after the midday, as instructed by the Buddha to his Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, what practical advice would you give such a person in order to avoid getting gastritis and stomach ulcers?

This advice seems relevant (by a gastroenterologist and published in Canada's largest newspaper):

Fasting tips for those with gastritis and peptic ulcer

From what I think, stomach juices from if you keep thing about food or feel hungry.
Whenever hunger arises if you are equanimous then and do not have this lead to thoughts about food and food craving then your stomach will become inactive and also hunger will subside. You can use the sensation of hunger as an object of insight meditation. This is how I whether it you when I am in retreats.
Also when you are occupied there is tendency you feel hunger less. In such situation if thoughts about food does not arise I guess your body will not react by producing stomach juices.
Also one purpose of not eating after noon is to make time and also make practicing meditation easier. So if you are in mediation for most of the day you do not tend to get these issues. You do not burn much calories to get hungry. You would not be thinking about food. You would also had a lite diet.
Hunger is a flavor of aversion which you should try to avoid arising.

One needs to chance his/her life and simply tries. To give certain advice that makes general sense for many in facing problems is not possible, and if wished to talk in personal, one may free to ask in way of talk, public or in areas where only practicing exchange personal things if wished, here given.
It's how ever not a problem to keep parts or all eight precepts permanent for lay people.
Note also that there have been not given any advices or rules in detail to lay person by the Buddha, since such a practice actually can only be explained who do and there have been many, not so today.
So any commentaries are prepared from certain monk rules and do not really match the precept but are counteracts of problem in regard of tendencies in the Sangha at this time.
You may also talk to Upasaka Akila about feedback, who did such merits for a week successful some weeks ago, in way of respectul talk.
[Next time, you do good to generally approach Monks and Nuns proper]
(Note: This is a Gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other worldly gain.)

I think you're worrying too much.  Not eating for 16 hours is really not that big a deal.  During times of scarcity, our forebears would go days between meals!  If you are looking for some practical advice, my inclination is to steer you towards the intermittent fasting community.  There are tons of people practicing this kind of diet albeit for health rather than spiritual concerns.  You are much more likely to find practical advice through that avenue than via the Buddhist community.

Eat alkaline foods during your period of eating.
Drink aloe vera and cooling things to cool your ulcers.
Take anti-acid formation tablets (if you must).
Keep yourself busy or in calm-abiding / loving-kindness meditation. Don't worry or think about your base desires for food and sex.
Try fasting for days at a time instead. This may condition you.

if Lord Buddha gave such instruction than it means that one who has susceptibility or predisposition to a medical condition that would lead one unable to fulfill the instruction should not undertake it or alter it with the aid of a physician.


text:
How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana?
Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?
Or simply, is their any time intervals in which meditator experiences all the jhanas one by one?

"Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html

If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?

It depends on the person. But this this amount of practice I would presume you might not be able to get Jhana. You might perhaps get the 1st Jhana, since based on initial and sustained application to which there is metal activity (active action), but beyond this is will be difficult, as there is not metal activity or there is nothing you are doing (passive / inaction). Even 1st Jhana would be very difficult. Once a monk told me that reaching the 1st Jhana is possible if you practice about 10 to 12 hours a day for about 15 days. And perhaps going beyond this you might have to endure similar practice for years.

15 days seems like overkill.  If you have a dedicated practice outside of retreat, arriving at the 1st jhana after a couple of days to a week of 10+ hours a day isn't out of the question.

How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana?v
Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?

One cannot put a time perspective on such practices.
Just practice diligently, systematically and with great effort.
Undertake the (samatha) meditation practice for the sake of the practice itself - not for gaining anything. The minute one is thinking about achieving and gaining something, one has fallen into the hindrances.. As a result of that, one has moved away from the primary object of meditation and thus are not cultivating concentration.
Its a good idea to regularly clarify and affirm ones intentions for practicing - especially with Jhana meditation, that is very important. Its easy to become attached to the pleasant sensations this type of meditation practice can result in.
One should ask oneself why one takes on this practice. A wholesome intention is essential. Wholesome intentions for engaging in Samatha meditation could be:

Collecting the scattered mind (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)
Deepening serenity
Purification of the mind stream
Cultivating a high level of concentration (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)

Entering jhana states will  be significantly  hindered by the will to do so. It is natural process brought on by right efford, right intention and right understanding during the meditation. Achievements in former lives and karma produced in the current plays an important role in whether or not jhana's can be achieved and in which period of time.
W. van den Boogaard

There is no short answer to your question. The outcome depends on your dispositions or personality traits.
The sutras explain the difficulties to enter the dhyana realm in terms of five hindrances. The faster you manage to deal with these (very practical!) obstacles, the faster you will progress. Daily meditation time and progress may be correlated, but some people may never overcome a certain hindrance.
A few additional factors may affect your speed of progress:

Your capacity to concentrate on a single object: Computer programmers or chess players may score higher on this than marketing types :-)
Your capability to stay awake: Many meditators start to doze away once they manage to lock onto some object and the first cozy feelings start to appear.
Your curiosity/openness/fearlessness: Every dhyana transition requires entering uncharted territory, which may give rise to different kinds of fears. "Buddhism is not for the faint-hearted."
Your capability to "let go": You will have to let go the pleaseant feelings of 1st, 2nd and 3rd dhyana in order to advance. You also have to let go of the sense of self and many other features...
Your "conditions": You won't be able to sit below a tree cross-legged by yourself. Make sure you live in a quite place and act ethically to avoid shame, guilt, remorse and other intensive emotions that will instantly kill your concentration.

And then there is the opinion (couldn't find a reference) that in order to get to the arupa dhyanas you have to get to terms with your impermanent existence, so you would require some progress with the six element meditation or similar insight practices.


text:
How do you have a relationship
Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens? And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke. I was in a relationship for 15 years and never thought it would end but it did and 6 months later I still feel so sad. I don't want to ever get involved intimately with another person ever again because I don't ever want to go through that pain again. Yes this may be aversion to pain but why put yourself through that if you can avoid it? Sure there will be more pain from other things but the pain of separation from a loved one feels worse than a death. It actually feels like I could die.

Nyom Arturia,
Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:

The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.
The other case is the sub-question:

And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.

Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.
So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit?
That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:

Iti 54
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."
Centered,
mindful,
alert,
the Awakened One's
disciple
discerns searches,
how searches come into play,
where they cease,
& the path to their ending.
With the ending of searches, a monk
free of want
is totally unbound.

Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.
At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.
Mudita
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial purpose or other worldily gains)

the Buddha actually called this painful feeling "death" ('marana') although most Buddhists believe the Buddha was referring to physical death

Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, becoming comes to be; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as
  condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief
  and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38

15 years is a long time, in which the other person became part of your psyche. This becoming is called "becoming" ('bhava'). The dual psyche is called "birth" ('jati'). Now that dual birth psyche has died & it takes time for the psyche to restore itself to singularness.
As for relationships, Buddhism provides guidance however, in the conditioned realm, nothing is certain:

https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.55
https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.53
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Part2_3.htm#13

Buddhist Impermanence is best understood in the context of the Three Marks of Existence: Annica (impermanence), Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), Anatta (non-self).
Trying to understand it on its own will lead to more suffering like you are going through.
Anatta is close to Śūnyatā (emptiness) - though context can give it slightly different meanings if we are pedantic.
By empty or non-self we mean anything you can name (have a sign for) is made up of things that are not it. A flower is made up entirely of non-flower elements such as sun and soil and seed. When the elements of the universe are arranged in a certain way we say a flower has manifested but if we look deeply it is difficult to say when it truly started and when it stopped. The conditions were always present. The flower continues as our joy at having held it and as the compost nourishing other flowers. There is no little flower soul that is snuffed out.
Looking at impermanence from the perspective of non-self the flower is impermanent in that it never had a separate self and never really ceased to exist. We just had a sign for it for a while.
So when you say things are "undergoing the process of destruction" that may be a wrong view. Things are in constant transformation. No separate thing is ever created or can be destroyed.
A little girl said to my teacher (Thich Nhat Hanh) that she liked impermanence because without it she could never grow up. But impermanence means she will grow old and die. Looking deeply we can have joy for her whole life even when we know it will end in death.
It is the same for your relationship. You are part of its continuation. You are walking, sitting and breathing as its continuation. By taking care of your current suffering you can transform it into something beautiful. You do this by seeing that your suffering is impermanent and empty (entirely made up of non-suffering elements i.e. made of the joy of your relationship). It may take time.
The way I look at the three marks is that embracing non-self & impermanence leads to nirvana whilst any desire to deny them leads to suffering. It is not impermanence that causes suffering but our denial of it. (see The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings by Thich Nhat Hanh)
If we can really see impermanence and non-self then every moment is not only precious but includes the entire cosmos - which is pretty special.

Everything that has a start will eventually have an end. Even in relationships. Even relationships that last a lifetime come to and end with death. If one is attached to such relationship this also is unsatisfactory when it ends.
Also you are not entirely in control of a relationship. Hence what one is not in control leads to unsatisfactoriness.
As for lay people it the lay code of morality is the 5 Precepts. Though any relationships is not entirely satisfactory as long as this is not sexual misconduct it is OK, keeping in mind this also will not be entirely satisfactory and more the attachment more it will hurt when it ends.
Also you can build temporary understanding Brahmavihara hence lessen the unsatisfactoriness.
To get over unsatisfactoriness completely you have to look beyond relationships and aim for Nirvana.

Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens?

Well done, you have realised intellectually that things are impermanent but you are still attached. Intellectual knowledge doesn't end attachment (but it can help). To end attachment we need real knowledge, with real knowledge you will instinctively know that things are impermanent.
I think you have switched from attachment to having a relationship to attachment to not having a relationship. Whether you have or don't have a relationship is not the point, the point is how we think when do/don't have a relationship.
While you are in a relationship there is some pleasure from love. You can experience this pleasure with wisdom and work towards your relationship with wisdom. Doing it with wisdom means that you know that it is impermanent so you can do it without attachment.
Don't forget that you can be attached to single life too and that also causes dukkha. You think that if you're single you can control your relationship status and make yourself constantly single, but this is also impermanent and can't be controlled so it is a source of dukkha.
Edit:
Real knowledge is quite like an instinct, it is effortless. With intellectual knowledge we have to remember what we learned and then use thinking apply that to the situation, it's slow and takes a lot of effort.
For example, if you know intellectually that things are impermanent then if you drop a glass and it breaks your initial reaction will be "Damn I liked that glass, now I've lost it", you are suffering at this point but then you remember "Everything changes, the glass had to break so I never could control it". This thinking might reassure you and calm you down. If you have real knowledge of impermanence like an enlightened person then before the glass breaks you are not viewing the glass as something which inherently exists, it's a temporary phenomena. When the glass breaks it has no effect on you because you never thought of the glass as being not-broken.

So how do I get so called "real knowledge"? and what exactly is it? Because I've been meditating for more than half a decade daily and the knowledge doesn't appear to be coming.

@Arturia I can only give you a broad answer- the eightfold path brings knowledge. I hope you see little pieces of knowledge appearing in your daily life after 5 years. I'd suggest you go to a teacher and ask them about your specific situation.

But can you explain what you mean by real knowledge? What is the difference between real knowledge and intellectual understanding because I hear this a lot in the Buddhist world but it's not very clear

@Arturia I've edited to explain the idea of real knowledge

Ok I hear what you're saying but then I'm human and when I lose something or someone I love surely sadness and grief are natural?   Are you saying that with real knowledge I will not feel the pain of separation?  This seems cold and inhuman to me.  Or are you saying that I will still feel the pain but I will somehow be detached from it?  I dont really understand. How do you be detached when losing someone close for example?

@Arturia As humans it is natural for us to cause ourselves dukkha, Buddhism helps us to overcome our dukkha. From experience I can say that when you have knowledge of impermanence the feelings of love and care arise and I can feel their positivity, at the same time I don't see them as something which are constant, when they go away it was not a loss because I never thought they could last forever. This is a Buddhist version of "enjoy it while it lasts", just because we know it will change doesn't mean we can't enjoy it now.

I did know this intellectually but when it actually happened it was like my heart was being ripped out.  I want to know how I can have this real knowledge so that I do not ever get myself in such a situation again.

@Arturia I cannot tell you a single method to achieve real knowledge, that is the whole of the Buddhist path. Keep practicing, find the approach which works for you. Support your meditation with non-meditative practice like following the precepts

@Arturia here is an example of real knowledge that I had to carry around for years before I got it: a Sufi master, when asked what is the essence of Sufism, said, "The feeling of joy when sudden disappointment comes."

For a start or for context, this topic says something about how to choose a partner: Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
You're asking two questions: why have a relationship, and how?
I'm not sure that "why" is the best question. It seems to me that there are people around, you have relationships (historical, geographic, social, economic) with them, and the question is what relationship to have and how, rather than why. Maybe it's worth considering "why" (i.e. your intent) but only in the context of also considering "what". There are also bits in the Pali canon which say that it's better to have no relationship than a bad one.
Buddhism has things to say about (it seems to recommend) admirable friendship, though that may not fit your question. It's worth mentioning that lay people may be expected to have several "relationships" of different types, e.g. explained in the sutta about the six directions: Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31).
Lastly you mentioned that you "never thought it would end". For a start my experience is that there's both less time and more time than you expect: "less time" in that it's already finished when you think it's continuing, and "more time" in that something remains present after you expected it would be over.
More importantly though, "thinking it would end" might actually be a helpful or a beneficial thought, and "not thinking it would end" detrimental to a relationship. For example, from the Dhammapada:

Verse 6: People, other than the wise, do not realize, "We in this world must all die," (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels). The wise realize it and thereby their quarrels cease.

Or another translation:

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

I think that when you know you're dying, for example, or when you know your partner is dying, you may become better: more generous, for example, better at making peace perhaps. So although "never thinking it would end" does sound romantic, sometimes it can be more unwise than it is admirable.

"Every hello is goodbye."


text:
Is there any ritual or ceremony for House-Warming?
I'm thinking house-warming for our new house so Is there any ritual or ceremony for house-warming in Buddhism and how do they perform? In which sutta it is discoursed?

Generally, we invite Sangha for a meal.
After the meal, they chant some blessings.
In Sri Lanka, we have overnight Pirith chanting in the new house.

Can you explain more? I've to request a monk for house-warming but I want to know rituals and source.

It depends on the monk. There is no Sutta to support this. In Sri Lanka, it is just the culture. You get some idea from the following YouTube video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8POyDHfKzU

Yes, I also got about Sri Lanka regarding house-warming as you said. Even it is cultural thing to perform I'd want it here in India and may wherever we live. So I've to ask monk in first place. Thanks a lot.


text:
Is their any reference in buddhism about time travell and parallel universe travell?
As i've seen in hindhism their are lot of written things in hindu scriptures that a person or gods used to travel in different universes and time. But is their any mention of such powers in buddhism also? Where it is mentioned that a meditator has traveled time and to different worlds?
Is this possible to do this two things physically or its just mentally possible?

One Sutta which such reference occur is Rohitassa Sutta.

Rohitassa’s astral journey
Once in the past, venerable sir, I was a seer named Rohitassa Bhoja,putta [son of Bhoja], possessed
  of spiritual power, able to travel through the sky [space].  My speed was such, venerable sir, that I
  could move just as fast as an archer with a strong bow,
  trained, skillful, well-practised, experienced,
  could easily shoot past the shadow of a palmyra tree with a light arrow.
My stride was such, venerable sir, that it spanned the eastern ocean and the western ocean.
  Then, venerable sir, the wish arose in me, ‘I will reach the end of the world by going.’
Possessing such speed and such a stride, and having a lifespan of a hundred years, without pausing
  except to eat, drink, take meals and snacks, to void and pee, to sleep and dispel tiredness. Yet I died
  along the way without reaching the end of the world.
It is wonderful, venerable sir! It is amazing, venerable sir! How well this was stated by the
  Blessed One: ‘As to that end of the world, friend, where one is not born, does not age, does not die, does
  not pass away, does not arise—it cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say.’”

Moral story of this is that space travel is not a way to find a way out of unsatisfactoriness and you would be dead before you real such goal through space exploration.
Also such references are found in the Abhidhamma. More on this see this answer and others.

is this only possible through conciousness or the person can do it physically also?

I think both physically and through consciousness. Also related: abhiññā and [iddhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9Addhi}


text:
Need help understanding the meaning of this
I am reading A Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas
In the book we were going over wise considration and how it will help you eliminate the hindrances. But i am having trouble understand what this is referring to. Any help would be appreciated.

In the commentaries the Buddha’s miscellaneous suggestions on the elimination of the
  hindrances are organized into a systematic exposition of six measures conducive to the
  vanquishing of each hindrance. Sensual desire is to be abandoned by:
Taking up the sensuously inauspicious subject of meditation; application for
  the development of the jhāna on the sensuously inauspicious subject of
  meditation; the guarded state of the controlling faculties of sense; moderation
  in food; the sympathy and support of good men in the endeavour; stimulating
  talk that helps the accomplishment of the object in view

What are they referring to i don't understand the wording?

Refer to: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:
1. Learning how to meditate on impure objects;
2. Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure;
3. Guarding the sense doors;
4. Moderation in eating;
5. Noble friendship;
6. Suitable conversation.
— Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta

So is that passage just relating to this?